photon9 wrote:
The best part is the bit on the watchmakers father and why it would be more succinct to assume the universe itself is eternal. If Christians could only grasp that simple concept we wouldn't even have these discussions.
The Bible's a pretty simple concept, but christians are the last ones to get it.
VHT DEATH SQUAD
Used2BMarkoh wrote:
photon9 wrote:
The best part is the bit on the watchmakers father and why it would be more succinct to assume the universe itself is eternal. If Christians could only grasp that simple concept we wouldn't even have these discussions.No, photon, it's a ridiculous and childish objection. Any self respecting person would immediately surf off of any page that brought that one up.
If you find a watch in a field, somebody made it. Somebody designed it. Period, end of story. You know this as well as I do. The designer's father has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The simple fact - a tautology, for Pete's sake - is that design is evidence of a designer.
That's the thing - becoming a god-hater seems to make a person immune to logic. For that reason alone I could never take the path you have.
read the fucking web page, cowardly creationist
Used2BMarkoh wrote:
chuckgp wrote:
Used2BMarkoh wrote:
photon9 wrote:
The best part is the bit on the watchmakers father and why it would be more succinct to assume the universe itself is eternal. If Christians could only grasp that simple concept we wouldn't even have these discussions.No, photon, it's a ridiculous and childish objection. Any self respecting person would immediately surf off of any page that brought that one up.
If you find a watch in a field, somebody made it. Somebody designed it. Period, end of story. You know this as well as I do. The designer's father has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The simple fact - a tautology, for Pete's sake - is that design is evidence of a designer.
That's the thing - becoming a god-hater seems to make a person immune to logic. For that reason alone I could never take the path you have.
read the fucking web page, cowardly creationist
Obviously I did, if I'm responding to it.
Maybe this will help: We know that the gears in a watch were designed and manufactured. Why? Because we know how such materials appear in nature. So we know they were made by a press, or hand ground, or molded, or some means like that. So, does that mean the watch designer must also have been made by a mold?
What we know are the equations for the physical world, and that's all we know. Stubbornly insisting that the non-physical must be the same as the physical is, well, for the word of the day, peeweehermanish.
oh, DO tell me more about this 'non-physical' that you mention?
Used2BMarkoh wrote:
Zig al-din wrote:Maybe the problem is the idea of a transcendent god. If it were me, I'd just say that everything science and materialist philosophies describe is actually god, immanent in the material world. In fact,,,that's pretty much where I sit with it. (Obviously, for me, it's not Yahweh with all the attendant mythology, but you see my point...)
I'd say, if it ain't transcendent, it ain't god. You're just saying there is no god, in my opinion. That's just an opinion on language, not on reality.
idiot dumbass, if its transcendent, its not any thing.
don't discuss things you have no experience with.
a warm jesus-near experience that weaned addiction is not valid.
we wants a ghost story
Used2BMarkoh wrote:
Zig al-din wrote:Maybe the problem is the idea of a transcendent god. If it were me, I'd just say that everything science and materialist philosophies describe is actually god, immanent in the material world. In fact,,,that's pretty much where I sit with it. (Obviously, for me, it's not Yahweh with all the attendant mythology, but you see my point...)
I'd say, if it ain't transcendent, it ain't god. You're just saying there is no god, in my opinion. That's just an opinion on language, not on reality.
Another issue I have with the Judeo-Christian conception. You have this anthropomorphic watchmaker idea, which seems a little too simple. But obviously, the problem is that if God isn't transcendent, then there is no clear dividing line between him (always 'him') and Creation, or between 'him' and us. 
Zig al-din wrote:
Used2BMarkoh wrote:
Zig al-din wrote:Maybe the problem is the idea of a transcendent god. If it were me, I'd just say that everything science and materialist philosophies describe is actually god, immanent in the material world. In fact,,,that's pretty much where I sit with it. (Obviously, for me, it's not Yahweh with all the attendant mythology, but you see my point...)
I'd say, if it ain't transcendent, it ain't god. You're just saying there is no god, in my opinion. That's just an opinion on language, not on reality.
Another issue I have with the Judeo-Christian conception. You have this anthropomorphic watchmaker idea, which seems a little too simple. But obviously, the problem is that if God isn't transcendent, then there is no clear dividing line between him (always 'him') and Creation, or between 'him' and us.
Aren't you just saying you reject the idea of a transcendent God because it's a difficult concept? I would expect a transcendent anything to be, well, transcendent.
To put it another way: Is there really any logical reason to expect our brains to comprehend all reality? Just looking at our temporal and physical size, I think the most likely thing is that we know very little, that most of reality is transcendent. So it seems obvious that our desire to have a comprehensible reality is just a coping mechanism, an emotional preference, not objective truth.
onelife wrote:
Used2BMarkoh wrote:No, photon, it's a ridiculous and childish objection. Any self respecting person would immediately surf off of any page that brought that one up.
I'm getting the impression that you don't want to learn.
Heh, many here have tried to talk me into shutting up and submitting to indoctrination. So far, no luck, I'm afraid.
Help Desk