[Gothos]

Cold Iron, on 23 March 2010 - 10:00 PM, said:

It's a stretch even saying the big bang happened, the question of what was before it is not even syntactically correct, it's like asking what is below the centre of the earth or what's beyond space or what happens to you after death.

Well, you've made a sizable stretch yourself just before that. A humongous one at that:

Cold Iron, on 23 March 2010 - 10:00 PM, said:

There are some places you just can't take science.

I honestly don't believe an educated man such as yourself would be caught saying something like this. Progress is already bringing us gravity wave detectors in the "near" future (I mean the better ones that will operate in space, there are several on the ground already but they're not very sensitive). And that's less than 200 years after people thought X-Ray is pretty damn futuristic. It might not be happening right before our eyes and it might not get shoved down our throats every day in the news, but scientific progress is going in pretty exciting directions, and I wouldn't say we're even nearing it's peak. Completely eliminating the god of the gaps may take some time, but it's, as I see it, a possibility. You can't say it won't ever happen, just as I can't say it's a sure thing to ever happen.

This post has been edited by Gothos: 24 March 2010 - 01:02 PM

[stone monkey]

I do find the God of the Gaps to be a somewhat confounding argument; it says that God did everything we can't understand. The problem being that as we understand more and more, God seems to be responsible for less and less. The idea of an omniscient, all-powerful deity would appear to me like a bit of a waste of time if this being's actions are so bound about with limits (which are always moving and always getting narrower) that it might as well not have done anything (i.e. God didn't do that, stellar nuclear synthesis or planetary accretion or evolution or thermodynamics or whatever, did it)

There are plenty of places we can't take science at the moment, but if history teaches us anything it shows that science manages to get into places like these anyway, whether it's wanted or not. The gaps that provide wiggle room for the God of the Gaps are just going to get smaller and smaller as time goes on.

It would seem far more practical and, dare I say it, pragmatic for believers to admit that what they have is faith in an unprovable, undetectable being and move on from there. Simply ascribing currently unexplained phenomena to it seems like sophistry to me.

[Darkwatch]

It's finally happened.

This thread has become so massive that it has collapsed in on itself and restarted!

A recursive singularity!

[Gem Windcaster]

DW, it's like we're flies and this thread is a nightlight!

Cold Iron, on 11 March 2010 - 11:31 PM, said:

The reason evolution is not compatible with creation and the reason Gem refuses to accept the evidence (not her "open mind") is that instead of embracing Darwin's work and claiming he was divinely inspired, the major churches were silent at the time of the publication of The Origin of Species. This allowed any pundit with an agenda to fart rubbish for a hundred years and we're still living with the controversy. A smart pope would canonise him.

Evolution is compatible with creation, I've never meant to say otherwise. I've said the evidence is not enough to accept the theory as anything other than belief, but that has nothing to do with compatibility. And my views and myself has nothing whatsoever to do with the pope or any 'major churches'.

I actually find it funny how much you have managed to not get what I have been saying. It's the eternal curse of this thread it seems.

Cold Iron, on 11 March 2010 - 11:31 PM, said:

Also cf, I actually like your term "emotional evidence" despite of - or perhaps because of - it's apparent contradiction. We actually do make our minds up based on emotions, or gut-feeling if you will. The difference between two people who disagree on an issue such as this is their education and learned method for assigning meaning. One person might get a good feeling about a conclusion that is well supported by empirical evidence, another might get a good feeling about a conclusion that is well supported by their sense of purpose or righteousness. The first assigns more meaning to their ability to quantify reality, the second to qualify reality. To the first something is real if they can measure it's physical attributes, to the second it is real if they can judge it's moral standing. The only time there's a problem is when these two people want to argue. Rightness depends on how you judge what is right, so these people will never agree.

You know, the way 'empirical evidence' is thrown around, like it's some kind of proof in itself, is hilarious. Just saying.

Don't worry though, I won't start over again, but I will have to respond when my supposed views are mentioned, and misrepresented at that.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 24 March 2010 - 02:40 PM

[blanketman2.0]

Gem Windcaster, on 24 March 2010 - 02:39 PM, said:

Evolution is compatible with creation

only if creation is the big bang which was developed by a priest but the rest is pure science

[Cold Iron]

Just to clarify, my case for belief in the god of the gaps in not built on the gaps themselves, but the rational and justifiable reasons for a belief in a higher authority. The belief in an ever present judgmental witness to our actions is a tangible weapon in the battle of willpower. Our ability to self-regulate and resist immediate gratification is extremely important, and god can be a powerful ally in this.

The doctrine that god created us is, as I said, an effective way to establish his authority. With the development and propagation of the written word a powerful tool for establishing social networks was found and inevitably in our zeal we wrote down things about god that are verifiably false. There is no reason to believe that god caused anything that could at some future time be explained by science - indeed the god of the gaps is a straw man for this very reason. I used the terminology purely because the question of what created the universe is one of those places that science can't take us - not through any fault or failing of science but purely due to the nature of the question. The universe does not strictly have a start, it's not a question with a real answer because there is no t=0 only lim t->0. To follow this line of reasoning is a failure to perceive the point of the question - we want to know what created us for the reason of establishing our purpose. Brane theory will not help with this, not directly in any case.

@Gem, that you refuse to engage with the evidence belies your claims, you may not have argued that they are incompatible, but there is no other explanation for your standpoint.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

It will be science. When we've got the kinks worked out, and we've got the computing power to show it goes this way.

[Gem Windcaster]

Cold Iron, on 25 March 2010 - 06:10 AM, said:

@Gem, that you refuse to engage with the evidence belies your claims, you may not have argued that they are incompatible, but there is no other explanation for your standpoint.

Seriously, you can't go and tell me what my views are for me, especially when I have specifically said NO I do NOT think they are incompatible. Again: I do NOT believe they are incompatible. And there is another explanation, but you'd rather insult me and bully me than to see it. Preferably you would label me as an idiot so you don't have to take me seriously. Hey, even SM or AS don't do that to me. Even if they would feel like hit me over the head, and maybe scream at me, they don't tell me what I think when I specifically said what I do think. And I do not 'refuse to engage with the evidence', that is just ridiculous. I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you refer to my knowledge gaps, and point out that it doesn't mean I don't 'refuse to engage', on the contrary. And that I've said I would rest my case until a later time when I have covered those gaps. But won't give you that, CI. You come in here and try a cheap shot, with your usual bully technique, and hope that people will praise you for it/just take it. Well I won't take any of it. You can go shove your so called intellectual considerations up your considerably darker place.

[Gem Windcaster]

blanketman2.0, on 25 March 2010 - 03:57 AM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 24 March 2010 - 02:39 PM, said:

Evolution is compatible with creation

only if creation is the big bang which was developed by a priest but the rest is pure science

LOL. No dude, its all compatible. And in more than one way, too, depending which compatibility theory you would adhere to, so to speak.
And I thought you guys didn't want the big bang theory and the theory of evolution to be confused with each other?

[Cause]

Cold Iron, on 25 March 2010 - 06:10 AM, said:

Just to clarify, my case for belief in the god of the gaps in not built on the gaps themselves, but the rational and justifiable reasons for a belief in a higher authority. The belief in an ever present judgmental witness to our actions is a tangible weapon in the battle of willpower. Our ability to self-regulate and resist immediate gratification is extremely important, and god can be a powerful ally in this.

The doctrine that god created us is, as I said, an effective way to establish his authority. With the development and propagation of the written word a powerful tool for establishing social networks was found and inevitably in our zeal we wrote down things about god that are verifiably false. There is no reason to believe that god caused anything that could at some future time be explained by science - indeed the god of the gaps is a straw man for this very reason. I used the terminology purely because the question of what created the universe is one of those places that science can't take us - not through any fault or failing of science but purely due to the nature of the question. The universe does not strictly have a start, it's not a question with a real answer because there is no t=0 only lim t->0. To follow this line of reasoning is a failure to perceive the point of the question - we want to know what created us for the reason of establishing our purpose. Brane theory will not help with this, not directly in any case.

@Gem, that you refuse to engage with the evidence belies your claims, you may not have argued that they are incompatible, but there is no other explanation for your standpoint.

Your argument is for why their should be a god, not that their is one.

[Cold Iron]

Good point. As Gem will happily tell you, to believe anything you need to be predisposed to the belief. Whatever your path to god, be it indoctrination, cultural influence, some strong trauma causing fear and despair, some moment of clarity revealing beauty and truth, you're not going to believe anything without some cause to believe, especially something abstract and intangible. I've had arguments with people who will tell me that what I'm talking about isn't god, that I'm redefining the term to suit myself. I can only deny this and encourage anybody to come to their own conclusions about what they think god is, and what they think their holy scripture is describing. The parable of the drowning man waiting for god to save him comes to mind - while you sit there waiting for god to prove himself, for those who are predisposed to believe, the evidence is clear and apparent.


Gem when did I label you an idiot? I'm telling you what you believe because your claims lack consistency. To deny evolution from a scientific standpoint, you need to be stronger in science. A lot stronger. That you lack the necessary science to support your claims can only lead people to draw the logical conclusion. I'm sorry if it feels like I am judging or misrepresenting you. I will happily support your religious beliefs, or discuss spiritual nuances with you. In faith there is no right and wrong, but in science when you're wrong, you're just wrong.

[Grief]

Thread closed. It will be re-opened at some later time.

[Grief]

Thread re-opened.
Keep the discussion civil. This is not the place for personal attacks.

[Cold Iron]

Was that me or was something deleted?

[Use Of Weapons]

IMO, all that could be said on the topic has been said. We are reduced to repeating ourselves, chewing over old arguments like mouthfuls of stale vomit. Best to lock it again.

[Grief]

Cold Iron, on 29 March 2010 - 03:51 AM, said:

Was that me or was something deleted?

Stuff was deleted.

On the point about the thread being locked, I feel that it's unneccessary. If there's nothing to discuss, the thread should just die naturally. So, I don't see a point in locking it, and people may bring up new points. If it deteriorates, this will be re-considered, but for now I reckon it's ok.

[Cold Iron]

I'm personally interested in whether Cause or others have a good argument against the postulation that the god of every holy scripture is an abstract concept and emotional image, not a supernatural being in the sci-fi sense. How many times have you heard the phrase "god is love" or "god is in all of us"?

The god that is often compared to the flying spaghetti monster is a straw-man that is built up precisely because it's easy to pull down. Those of you predisposed to listening to atheists will come to this sort of false understanding of god from the lips of people like the four horsemen (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens) and argue against this straw-man god that does not reflect a close examination of scripture.

What I find interesting is why someone would want to so vehemently argue against something they've not made an effort to understand or appreciate? This obviously applies to both god and evolution - just to bring it back on topic.

This post has been edited by Cold Iron: 29 March 2010 - 09:47 PM

[Use Of Weapons]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a (silly) reaction to the naive view of God as a white-bearded man sitting on clouds. Fighting fire with fire, you might say. It is emphatically not a counter to more sophisticated views of God.

IMO, resorting to platitudes like 'God is love' is pointless sophistry. What does it even mean? If you subscribe to that view, do you now worship love? What does your belief do when confronted with the chemical underpinnings of love? With neuroscience's emerging ability to evoke feelings of intense love, fervour, and even religious feeling? Does that mean love is science? Is the relationship commutative? Is science God?

Thus, do arguments of that nature just lead us round in circles.

[Gothos]

The metamorphosis of the idea of god from the supernatural being to a concept is just the postulate of the God of the Gaps shrinking just as the gaps are shrinking. It's just a way of trying to rationalize an irrational belief.
Religions like christianity depict God as precisely a supernatural, onipotent being. The founders of these religions most likely actually thought of it in the sci-fi sense indeed. That now attempts are made to shift away from that superstition, to me it's deviating from the religion in the process. If your view of God cannot compromise with what your ancient religion says, create a new one instead of demorphing the old one.

Also, God is in all of us? Kindly go away, don't go putting your God in me.

[Cause]

Cold Iron, on 29 March 2010 - 09:46 PM, said:

I'm personally interested in whether Cause or others have a good argument against the postulation that the god of every holy scripture is an abstract concept and emotional image, not a supernatural being in the sci-fi sense. How many times have you heard the phrase "god is love" or "god is in all of us"?

The god that is often compared to the flying spaghetti monster is a straw-man that is built up precisely because it's easy to pull down. Those of you predisposed to listening to atheists will come to this sort of false understanding of god from the lips of people like the four horsemen (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens) and argue against this straw-man god that does not reflect a close examination of scripture.

What I find interesting is why someone would want to so vehemently argue against something they've not made an effort to understand or appreciate? This obviously applies to both god and evolution - just to bring it back on topic.

Since Im mentioned by name I feel I must respond but first Id like to hear if you have a good argument for the postulation that the god of every holy scripture is an abstract concept and emotional image, not a supernatural being in the sci-fi sense.


Also as Gothos has pointed out is their any point in arguing either way, since its obvious the majority of gods worshipers do indeed think of him as an omnipotent sci fi super being