However, with ID you have to accept that the end form is human, a pre-chosen, pre-conceived, planned result. That is where ID runs into problems, and turns into a circular argument as well.
Is Suffering Part of God's Plan?
- Thread starter PetesSweets86
- Start date
However, with ID you have to accept that the end form is human, a pre-chosen, pre-conceived, planned result. That is where ID runs into problems, and turns into a circular argument as well.
That's a straw man argument because nowhere is it said that the creation has to be perfect.
Without that assertion your response is misdirected at best.
But it fits in with your black and white view of things and way of debate.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
How is it being a hypocrite to point out that YOUR beliefs invalidate your argument. You just said you cannot cherry pick what you want to believe out of the bible in the other thread.
You really suck at being Christian.....
no, I take that back, you are great at Christianity..... Molest any little boys or incite hate crimes lately?Things American Politicians Will Never Say
Doug Mataconis | Tuesday, June 29, 2010
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/things-american-politicians-will-never-say/
Doug Mataconis | Tuesday, June 29, 2010 4 Comments
The new Prime Minister of Australia says she will not fake her religious belief for the sake of getting votes:
Julia Gillard
conceded today that she is not a “religious person” and declared she would not “pretend” to be for the sake of votes.
The Prime Minister appeared caught by surprise this morning during a radio blitz to lift her profile when asked how she would court the Christian vote and whether she believed in God.
“I’m not a religious person,” Ms Gillard told ABC radio.
“I was brought up in the Baptist Church but during my adult life I’ve, you know, found a different path. I’m of course a great respecter of religious beliefs, but they’re not my beliefs.”
“I am not going to pretend a faith I don’t feel. And for people of faith the greatest compliment I could pay to them is to respect their genuinely held beliefs and not to engage in some pretence about mine. I think it’s not the right thing.”
Ms Gillard said she “never thought it was the right thing for me to go through religious rituals for the sake of appearance. I am what I am. And people will judge that”.
“For, you know, people of faith what I would say to them is I grew up in a Christian Church, a Christian background, a Baptist Church, I won prizes for catechism for being able to remember Bible verses. I am steeped in that tradition but I’ve made decisions in my adult life about my own views.”
I would submit that, outside of perhaps a peculiarly secular Congressional District, you will never hear an American politician say something like this, and that the practice of faking religious belief, or at least adherence, is not at all that uncommon among American politicians.The Prime Minister appeared caught by surprise this morning during a radio blitz to lift her profile when asked how she would court the Christian vote and whether she believed in God.
“I’m not a religious person,” Ms Gillard told ABC radio.
“I was brought up in the Baptist Church but during my adult life I’ve, you know, found a different path. I’m of course a great respecter of religious beliefs, but they’re not my beliefs.”
“I am not going to pretend a faith I don’t feel. And for people of faith the greatest compliment I could pay to them is to respect their genuinely held beliefs and not to engage in some pretence about mine. I think it’s not the right thing.”
Ms Gillard said she “never thought it was the right thing for me to go through religious rituals for the sake of appearance. I am what I am. And people will judge that”.
“For, you know, people of faith what I would say to them is I grew up in a Christian Church, a Christian background, a Baptist Church, I won prizes for catechism for being able to remember Bible verses. I am steeped in that tradition but I’ve made decisions in my adult life about my own views.”
No, it is assumed. That assumption can be logically inferred by the fact that the argument is irrelevant and pointless unless that is assumed.
It might help for you to understand the rationale behind the talking points you spout. When you criticize me for understanding your arguments better then you do, you tend to stick your foot in your mouth.
So you are back to cheap excuses to dismiss whatever I say...
not so much as you think.
Here is what I said:
This big difference in Atheist and Theist views is that Atheists assume materialism yet they won't confront that fact.
What is snarky about that?You really don't seem interested in understanding the claim so much as dismissing it. If that is the case, why should I waste any time attempting to explain it to you?
No, it is assumed. That assumption can be logically inferred by the fact that the argument is irrelevant and pointless unless that is assumed.
It might help to understand the rationale behind the talking points you spout.
So you are back to cheap excuses to dismiss whatever I say...
Yes but nothing is perfect and perfection is in the eye of the beholder.
Even the matter in space eventually reconstitutes itself.
And you do tend to jump to the all or nothing argument frequently.
Do you not realize that you just negated your argument in post #9 with that line?
That is the problem when you simply focus on making excuses to justify your position and dismiss opposing ones; you contradict yourself. Your excuses are rooted in different and conflicting talking points which you clearly don't understand.
You only embarrass yourself when the person with the opposing view understands the rationale behind the argument you are making better then you do.
I don't see how saying that nothing is perfect because that is a subjective opinion contradicts my ironic sarcastic criticism of Intelligent Design.
It seems like the lumpen Texas republicans you called stupid in another post would make good examples of ironic ID promoters.
The human being is a miraculous mysterious thing but life is still very fragile and capricious.
That is because you are simply regurgitating Athiest talking points you have accepted without first critically examining; hence your ignorance of the rationale behind those talking points.
Look up "argument from imperfection" or argument from evil".
Here is a little explanation of the argument from perfection:
The argument from imperfection is one form of argument from evil. The argument from evil is the argument that the existence of evil in the world is strong, and perhaps even conclusive, evidence that God does not exist. The argument from imperfection is the form of the argument from evil that concentrates specifically on the imperfection of the world, taking the fact that the world could have been better as proof that it was not created by God.
The first task for an advocate of the argument from imperfection is to establish that if God created the world then the world would be perfect. This at least appears to follow from God’s perfection.
The goodness of a creator is proportional to the goodness of that which he creates. A carpenter who makes a fragile table with uneven legs is a bad carpenter. A carpenter who makes a strong and beautiful table is better.
As God is a perfect Creator, then, so God’s creation must also be perfect. If God created this world, it seems, then this must be the best of all possible worlds.
Against this line of thought, objectors argue that there is no best possible world, that every possible world could be improved in some respect, and so that the idea that a perfect Creator would necessarily create a perfect world is false.
The second task for an advocate of the argument from imperfection is to establish that the world is not perfect. This claim, of course, is highly plausible; there are many ways in which it might be thought that the world might have been better. The world might, for example, have contained fewer wars, or fewer unpleasant diseases, or fewer destructive volcanic eruptions. The world, the advocate of the argument from imperfection will maintain, contains multiple defects, each of which establishes at least the imperfection of its Creator, and probably the non-existence of God.
If it is accepted both that if God existed then the world would be perfect, and that the world is not perfect, then it must also be accepted that God does not exist. The argument from imperfection can therefore be summarized as follows:
The Argument from Imperfection
(1) If God exists then he is omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent.
(2) If God were omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent then the world would not contain imperfections.
(3) The world contains imperfections.
Therefore:
(4) It is not the case that God exists.
Your argument in post #9 is premised on the notion that "creation has to be perfect", even if you are ignorant of that fact.The first task for an advocate of the argument from imperfection is to establish that if God created the world then the world would be perfect. This at least appears to follow from God’s perfection.
The goodness of a creator is proportional to the goodness of that which he creates. A carpenter who makes a fragile table with uneven legs is a bad carpenter. A carpenter who makes a strong and beautiful table is better.
As God is a perfect Creator, then, so God’s creation must also be perfect. If God created this world, it seems, then this must be the best of all possible worlds.
Against this line of thought, objectors argue that there is no best possible world, that every possible world could be improved in some respect, and so that the idea that a perfect Creator would necessarily create a perfect world is false.
The second task for an advocate of the argument from imperfection is to establish that the world is not perfect. This claim, of course, is highly plausible; there are many ways in which it might be thought that the world might have been better. The world might, for example, have contained fewer wars, or fewer unpleasant diseases, or fewer destructive volcanic eruptions. The world, the advocate of the argument from imperfection will maintain, contains multiple defects, each of which establishes at least the imperfection of its Creator, and probably the non-existence of God.
If it is accepted both that if God existed then the world would be perfect, and that the world is not perfect, then it must also be accepted that God does not exist. The argument from imperfection can therefore be summarized as follows:
The Argument from Imperfection
(1) If God exists then he is omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent.
(2) If God were omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent then the world would not contain imperfections.
(3) The world contains imperfections.
Therefore:
(4) It is not the case that God exists.
Here's a few points I'd like to add to the discussion. You cannot use reason to discuss things such as perfection, we have no idea or notion of what perfection is. We have not experienced it. Ideal and perfect are two different things. You can say the ''ideal'' world is one where everything runs smoothly with no suffering, but you cannot say that it is a perfect world. The world we live in may be perfect, or it may be not. We are subjects and have no knowledge of entire universe, its causes, its motivations, etc. Therefore saying such things as ''evil'' denotes imperfection, we cannot be certain.
Now we have the faith discussion. Taking an Atheists standpoint, or a Theist standpoint, both requires a leap of faith. Anything past that requires an additional leap of faith. Adding a dogma to a theist standpoint requires two leaps of faith. Adding a scientific explanation to an atheist standpoint requires two leaps of faith.
ex.
1.I believe in a God and the Bible is correct. Two jumps.
2.I don't believe in a God and the Big Bang Theory is correct. Two Jumps.
Causation is a huge issue for atheists, as well as theists.
This is why I'm strongly agnostic. We just flat out don't grasp the universe like we think we do. We may understand the present and try to use reason to explain it, but each is flawed in its own way. I think arguing from such certainty from whatever angle we choose is asinine. You are absolutely free to believe in whatever you want to believe in, just don't assert it as truth.
Now we have the faith discussion. Taking an Atheists standpoint, or a Theist standpoint, both requires a leap of faith. Anything past that requires an additional leap of faith. Adding a dogma to a theist standpoint requires two leaps of faith. Adding a scientific explanation to an atheist standpoint requires two leaps of faith.
ex.
1.I believe in a God and the Bible is correct. Two jumps.
2.I don't believe in a God and the Big Bang Theory is correct. Two Jumps.
Causation is a huge issue for atheists, as well as theists.
This is why I'm strongly agnostic. We just flat out don't grasp the universe like we think we do. We may understand the present and try to use reason to explain it, but each is flawed in its own way. I think arguing from such certainty from whatever angle we choose is asinine. You are absolutely free to believe in whatever you want to believe in, just don't assert it as truth.
Good points, KD00LS. Agnosticism is the only purely logical position. Anything else requires a leap of faith.
Not sure I would agree on where those leaps of faith are, but that is a minor thing at this point.
Not sure I would agree on where those leaps of faith are, but that is a minor thing at this point.
It's up for debate. Fire away. The way I see it, the premises of the two sides require another leap of faith. You have to believe the premise to believe the argument.
Atheism assumes materialism. From that, all other assumptions (generally) fall logically into place; including the rejection of a Deity.
Theism does not assume materialism and assumes a Deity. From that basic assumption comes the rejection of materialism. Other leaps of faith may be necessary depending on the religion and the denomination.
In my view, Athiesm's leap of faith is in assuming materialism and Theism's leap of faith is in assuming a Diety. Everything else is ultimately derived from that.
In my opinion, a Deist or materialist faith both attempt to account for existence of the world. Either side has an account of why things exist. Theists believe that God(s) created the world, and the next leap would explain how/why it was created. Atheists believe that the nature of the universe allowed for the world, and science attempts to explain how/why. Essentially, the theory behind any point of view is the second leap of faith.
It would go something like this.
A is true (or believed), because B.
In this argument, you must assume that B is true as well, or it falls apart.
Theism is true, because Christianity (etc.) explains it.
Athiesm(materialism) is true, because a scientific theory explains it.
I might be explaining it in reverse, or assuming it in reverse, either or. I think the theory acts as a substrate or foundation to build upon another theory/belief.
It would go something like this.
A is true (or believed), because B.
In this argument, you must assume that B is true as well, or it falls apart.
Theism is true, because Christianity (etc.) explains it.
Athiesm(materialism) is true, because a scientific theory explains it.
I might be explaining it in reverse, or assuming it in reverse, either or. I think the theory acts as a substrate or foundation to build upon another theory/belief.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Cute. Funny how you, the mighty internet warrior, think you know me. Do you really believe what you just said or are you desperately scrambling for insults and couldn't come up with anything clever?How is it being a hypocrite to point out that YOUR beliefs invalidate your argument. You just said you cannot cherry pick what you want to believe out of the bible in the other thread.
You really suck at being Christian.....
I must have guessed right about your kids - here you are lashing out. It is typical for the godless to attack Christians for alleged hypocrisy - that's all heathens like you have left, since you have no moral foundation of your own.If you can't discuss anything in a civil manner, then I suggest you find someone else to talk to. You'll end up ripping off your own arm and throwing it at somebody in a fit of rage. :lol:
Not quite sure I full understand what you are saying here.
You seem to be saying that (for a Theist) you have the first leap of in assuming that God(s) exists. The next leap would be in how that God or gods created the world.
Or are you saying that it is first assumed that God created the world therefore God exists?
Which one is accurate?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Maybe, maybe not...we'll see...but they don't like Harry Reid either - why else would his son Rory be OMITTING his last name from his own campaign?
So, your prediction is that Harry Reid will win re-election?
You have to believe the evidence first before you can believe the conclusion. So, putting it in a simple matter because my head it throbbing- You must believe that this is hydrogen and this is oxygen before you can believe it is water (disregard any deeper meaning beyond that).
But I believed it was water before I knew what hydrogen and oxygen were; when I was a kid.
I don't see accepting the explanation as a leap of faith in and of itself. I think that may be what you are doing (not sure though). If I am wrong, I apologize.
To run with the Athiest position, here is where I see the leap of faith:
1) Assume materialism (leap of faith)
2) A deity would have to transcend the physical (material) world and metaphysical world.
3) since materialism is true, no metaphysical world can exist.
THEREFORE
4) There can be no deity
Now, where do you see a second leap of faith? I assume you see the rationale differently, I am just unclear how you see it and where the extra leap(s) of faith come in.
Oh my gosh no - Reid could be found with an underage latino male prostitute in Tucson... Or Angle could be found to have been a John Bircher Scientologist who is taking money from the KKK...
Actually - I'll bet on that second one
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
Cute. Funny how you, the mighty internet warrior, think you know me. Do you really believe what you just said or are you desperately scrambling for insults and couldn't come up with anything clever?
If you can't discuss anything in a civil manner, then I suggest you find someone else to talk to. You'll end up ripping off your own arm and throwing it at somebody in a fit of rage. :lol:
Pot, meet kettle.
These enraged responses of yours, while in one light are amusing, are really stupid. If you wish to continue your baseless accusations, I ask that you offer some proof to ANY of your claims you have made about me. If you feel I am insulting you, aside from in my last post, then please point this out. Whatever is suggesting to you from my responses that I am angry, please do point it out.
The only thing I can figure from your responses is that you are trying to accuse me of being angry and use these personal attacks and cheap shots against me to get me angry to justify your previous posts.
I am going to ask you very nicely and civilly. Please stop the personal attacks. They are in no way justified. I would assume that for all your religious preaching, you would not be CONSTANTLY stooping to this level. The only thing I have gotten from your responses is that your faith is apparently not worth enough to you to defend on its merits, instead you defend it by making petty personal attacks against someone who has not even suggested that your faith is misplaced even, just that it is not a fit for everyone.
If you cannot comply, I will meet any future posts by you in kind. I had attempted to respond to your ravings civilly and giving you the benefit of the doubt. I have even tried real hard not to directly insult your beliefs, despite my own personal opinions about the subject. If you want to play internet tough guy, go do it with someone else.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
Faith aside.... Proving you came back from the afterlife seems like an INCREDIBLY difficult proposition to me.
It just sounds to me like you are making a very heavy handed and broad claim that really doesn't seem justifiable to me. I wasn't attempting to dismiss it, I just wanted to know your reasoning for saying that.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
I doubt you're capable of being civil, but I guess we'll see, won't we? Same goes for you - no more insults and you can knock off the condescension as well.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Things American Politicians Will Never Say
Doug Mataconis | Tuesday, June 29, 2010
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/things-american-politicians-will-never-say/
Doug Mataconis | Tuesday, June 29, 2010 4 Comments
The new Prime Minister of Australia says she will not fake her religious belief for the sake of getting votes:
Julia Gillardconceded today that she is not a “religious person” and declared she would not “pretend” to be for the sake of votes.
At least she's honest about it unlike Obama.