-->
@Outplayz
The very idea of adding to infinity is nonsensical.
Why Young Christians are Leaving the Church
Posts
Total:
563
-->
@Mopac
That was a joke... I'm a dream within a dream. There are implications if a dream never shutoff.The very idea of adding to infinity is nonsensical.
-->
@Outplayz
To you this conversation must be a big joke. The fact that it is not a joke to me must be very funny to you.
-->
@Mopac
It's not really funny per se... it just fits into my belief (this reality is what it is) and it's happening. Can you define heaven?To you this conversation must be a big joke. The fact that it is not a joke to me must be very funny to you.
-->
@Outplayz
Jesus Christ is heaven.
-->
@Mopac
Jesus Christ is heaven.
So, someone else is your heaven... cool. What does that mean?
-->
@Outplayz
Who do you say Jesus Christ is?
-->
@ludofl3x
"The question was what do I believe and why, how is that relevant?"
Relevant to what?
What would you consider evidence?"Something compelling that can be verified independently." (for both)
Like what? What would you consider compelling?
"Such a character could have been involved in literally anything."
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
"Evolution is science, this is philosophy."
I doubt very seriously that you take such a staunch position on inter-referencing topics from different educational departments. Like, you can't mention swimming in a philosophy class because that's P.E.
I think what you're getting at is something similar to someone suggesting biblical scripture shouldn't be referred to in a comparative religion course, because biblical scripture is theology.
In other words, how dare anyone mention that sacred word "evolution" in just a mere philosophy class!
-->
@RoderickSpode
Relevant to what?
How is if my parents are CULTURAL CHRISTIANS or BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIANS relevant to what I believe and why? You asked "What do I believe and why."
Like what? What would you consider compelling?
You're the teacher, present the evidence and let's figure out if it's compelling.
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
And I'm not sure what YOU'RE getting at. The question you asked was "could a theoretical creator of the universe have theoretically kickstarted evolution." As you have not detailed any property besides "can create at least one universe", it is literally impossible to find something that this unlimited, unnamed, and wholly theoretical character COULD NOT DO. I don't have enough information to answer it any other way.
I think what you're getting at is something similar to someone suggesting biblical scripture shouldn't be referred to in a comparative religion course, because biblical scripture is theology.In other words, how dare anyone mention that sacred word "evolution" in just a mere philosophy class!
What I'm getting at is very simple: you don't sign up for philosophy class to learn about how to calculate the square root of something, or how to swim, so it would be logical to ask why those topics would come up in philosophy. I don't really care whose legends and lore you discuss in comparative religions classes, I'm not sure why you italicize theology as you do (I don't see what you're separating that from). Actually my question is more "how is evolution, which is recognized as scientific fact, related to philosophy?" You're the one who brought it up, and I'm asking why. You're getting all upset. Just tell me why we're talking about evolution in philosophy and I'll have a better idea or a different answer.
-->
@ludofl3x
If you can't think of anything in the intelligent design proposition that doesn't make sense, or in Christianity, then I'm going to accuse you of having a closed mind. Explain a loving god providing children with cancer.
Then you'll probably just have to settle for that accusation (which is fine by me) because I can't even make out what you're asking here.
Maybe we should just start with the idea of 'intelligent' design. Because no organisms on earth look like anything a fist year engineering student would 'design.' Bee wings for example.
How would a first year engineering student design bee wings?
-->
@RoderickSpode
Then probably just have to settle for that accusation (which is fine by me) because I can't even make out what you're asking here.
I'm asking you how to make sense of a benevolent and loving god inventing cancer that kills children, as the two things do not match. But you're better off leaving it, you're right, because I bet your answer is something like "that's man's fault," which then does not account for your god knowing without question that man would bring childhood cancer into the world and still let it happen. It's one of many things in Christian doctrine that don't make sense, we can do that all day, it'd get boring. Every one of them comes down to "God's only good and love and wisdom! All the bad things are because of the fall!" WHICH GOD DESIGNED guys. Please read the book :).
How would a first year engineering student design bee wings?
They'd likely start with successful wing designs and emulate them. Not scrap all of that and design wings that need to work way harder than, say, a condor's wings. There's just not very much intelligent design demonstrated in intelligent design. Another example: 4 in 5 people will eventually have some sort of back problem. If you designed something with an 80% failure rate, it's a poor design. I'm up for an ID topic if we can think of a good way to discuss it that isn't both of us going "nuh uh!" to the other one.
-->
@ludofl3x
Belief isn't a requirement for cultural Christianity. Richard Dawkins for instance acknowledges that he's a cultural Christian (cultural Anglican).How is if my parents are CULTURAL CHRISTIANS or BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIANS relevant to what I believe and why? You asked "What do I believe and why."
You're the teacher, present the evidence and let's figure out if it's compelling.
That's not the objective of an intelligent design instructor.
I'm not sure what you're getting at.And I'm not sure what YOU'RE getting at. The question you asked was "could a theoretical creator of the universe have theoretically kickstarted evolution." As you have not detailed any property besides "can create at least one universe", it is literally impossible to find something that this unlimited, unnamed, and wholly theoretical character COULD NOT DO. I don't have enough information to answer it any other way.
Inevitably there would be various answers to the question. The one's that get followed up on would probably be from those who responded with
What I'm getting at is very simple: you don't sign up for philosophy class to learn about how to calculate the square root of something, or how to swim, so it would be logical to ask why those topics would come up in philosophy. I don't really care whose legends and lore you discuss in comparative religions classes, I'm not sure why you italicize theology as you do (I don't see what you're separating that from). Actually my question is more "how is evolution, which is recognized as scientific fact, related to philosophy?" You're the one who brought it up, and I'm asking why. You're getting all upset. Just tell me why we're talking about evolution in philosophy and I'll have a better idea or a different answer.
I italicize a lot of things. I'm sure I've italicized evolution at some point.
I'm sorry, but since I don't see any reason to defend using the term evolution (there it goes again) in a philosophy class. Unless you can refer me to
some educational rule that would prohibit it, or a very good reason on your part alone, it's a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not going to go around the revolving door of evolution is science, therefore an ID course should only use the term in a science class.....but ID isn't
science so it can't be mentioned there either.
-->
@RoderickSpode
That's not the objective of an intelligent design instructor.
Cool, because according to you, intelligent design doesn't belong in science class, it somehow shouldn't be limited to comparative religions courses, so you think it belongs in philosophy class (post 121, 163), which it now seems you might be rethinking. That's the premise I was working under: you're a philosophy instructor (who apparently has a good understanding of string theory, quantum physics and biology) and I'm the philosophy student. I didn't realize you were playing an intelligent design instructor. What IS the objective of the intelligent design instructor? And we still have a more central question now that you've moved this intelligent design discussion from being a component in a philosophy class, or a unit in a comparative religions course, to its own class entirely: what is the EDUCATIONAL VALUE in "because it's designed to do that"? How do you differentiate design versus non-design?
Inevitably there would be various answers to the question.
Agree, but you seem to say you wouldn't want to follow up on this answer. Why? It is a legitimate response to your question.
I'm not going to go around the revolving door of evolution is science, therefore an ID course should only use the term in a science class.....but ID isn'tscience so it can't be mentioned there either.
Okay, so we're in intelligent design class, got it now, not a general philosophy class. In that case I will amend my answer about the creator with his yellow shirt that says creator on it: "Yes, it's possible that it started evolution. It's also possible that there isn't a creator, though, right? And then, wouldn't that creator have created everything, rendering it impossible to distinguish between what's designed and what isn't?"
Maybe we're wasting space here and this is a different topic. I'm actually more interested in your OSAS take. Here's my question from earlier in the thread.
Now imagine how a believer who wasted their whole seeking and engaging in pleasure might feel when having to face the savior who just so happens to be the creator of the universe?Did he believe in Jesus? Then he's in, right? At least under OSAS, I guess it depends denominationally. I like this game, though. I have one for you. Imagine the Native American who'd never heard of Jesus, but lived his life righteously. He did charity with other tribes. He told the truth all the time. He loved his fellow man. He helped those in need. A European missionary finds him during colonization, and tells him about Jesus. This Native American says "No, that doesn't sound right to me, thanks, but no thanks." He lives a long, prosperous life and passes away having heard of Jesus and denied the truth of the tale. How do you think he feels when faced with this person of whom he's never heard, the creator of the universe, says "Off to the lake of fire with you, sir"? For there is no way to heaven except through Jesus, right?
Is there a way to heaven for the Native American that does not include his acknowledging Jesus as the savior? Can you keep the penitent pedophile out of heaven if he knows Jesus?
-->
@ludofl3x
The subject of intelligent design, and thus the designer makes no suggestions of morality. Is your argument that if there is a creator of any kind, including deistic, or even extra-terrestrial, it would be evil by default since it allows childhood cancer? If the teacher tells you he is not claiming any identification of who the creator/designer is, then you proceed to ask him how a loving god would allow for childhood cancer, and then refer to Christian doctrine, don't you see a potential problem there?I'm asking you how to make sense of a benevolent and loving god inventing cancer that kills children, as the two things do not match. But you're better off leaving it, you're right, because I bet your answer is something like "that's man's fault," which then does not account for your god knowing without question that man would bring childhood cancer into the world and still let it happen. It's one of many things in Christian doctrine that don't make sense, we can do that all day, it'd get boring. Every one of them comes down to "God's only good and love and wisdom! All the bad things are because of the fall!" WHICH GOD DESIGNED guys. Please read the book :).
And yes, I know why you brought up children with cancer. It's the same reason why if I made an off-the-cuff remark about Hitler that had nothing to do with his beliefs, you would most definitely, absolutely, refer to his Catholicism. I don't think you could possibly help it.
"If you can't think of anything in the intelligent design proposition that doesn't make sense, or in Christianity, then I'm going to accuse you of having a closed mind. Explain a loving god providing children with cancer.
Here you seem to realize you're off topic (in regards to ID), so you smoothly refer back to ID (as if I didn't know). Referring to child cancer was inevitable. It wasn't that it's relevant to the topic, it's just that you haven't found any recent avenues to inject Bible God is evil proclamations, so you were left with having to force one in. I think your palms may get sweaty when you haven't met that fix of yours.
-->
@ludofl3x
I've never seen anyone develop successful bee wings. But to answer the question about alleged poor designs, it doesn't really matter in that we all die. What good would perfect design be if we all die? Perfection would imply immortality. So the real question would be why aren't we immortal?They'd likely start with successful wing designs and emulate them. Not scrap all of that and design wings that need to work way harder than, say, a condor's wings. There's just not very much intelligent design demonstrated in intelligent design. Another example: 4 in 5 people will eventually have some sort of back problem. If you designed something with an 80% failure rate, it's a poor design. I'm up for an ID topic if we can think of a good way to discuss it that isn't both of us going "nuh uh!" to the other one.
Do you include mortality as poor design?
-->
@RoderickSpode
And yes, I know why you brought up children with cancer.
I brought it up simply because it doesn't make sense in any intelligent design: what is it DESIGNED TO DO? It's not a moral question necessarily. You said you can't think of anything in Christianity that doesn't make sense, THAT brings in the moral component of the inquiry. If you don't want to talk about it in terms of CHristianity, no problem, but you still have an intelligent design question to answer. Is childhood cancer "intelligently designed" as all viruses and bacteria must be? If so, then what is the aim of this design?
The reason the AIM of the design is important is because that is our current standard for designed-vs-occurrence: we can figure out what the designer wanted us to do with whatever it was that's designed, what purpose it serves, and how well it serves that purpose. A soccer goal, for example: it's simple, it's designed to mark out an area where the ball is supposed to end up, and it has netting on it to stop the ball from going too far into the stands as well as confirm the ball did indeed pass through the goal mouth. It's reasonable to assume this structure is DESIGNED because we can tell what it's for. We don't happen upon a bunch of perfectly rectangular netted structures meeting these dimensions on a field somewhere occuring naturally, right? By your logic, childhood cancer is designed. Much like the soccer goal, what can we conclude childhood cancer designed to do? Why?
I don't get why you get your panties all in a wad and jump right to where god is evil (as opposed to not real, which is what I think). I was responding to how you can't think of anything that doesn't make sense either in Christianity (counter: loving god creates childhood cancer doesn't make sense, does not have anything to do with evil) or ID (counter: bee wings do not make sense from a pure design perspective). You're getting all worked up and putting someone else's arguments on me, man, that's not right.
-->
@RoderickSpode
I've never seen anyone develop successful bee wings.
Except bees, with all evidence pointing to natural selection, because they work. What makes you think bee wings are designed, if you've never seen anyone develop successful bee wings? Clearly you think something developed them, they weren't formed by billions of generations of short-lived insects and trillions of combinations of DNA pairings through sexual reproduction. Why do you think they were designed, and designed so strangely out of sync with so many OTHER winged creatures?
What good would perfect design be if we all die? Perfection would imply immortality. So the real question would be why aren't we immortal?
So this creator intentionally designed something to fail at an 80% rate (human backs) because...well why? Why would perfection imply immortality? What if we're designed to die? This is the essential problem with trying to teach anything out of intelligent design: all answers can be stunted by "it's designed this way."
Do you include mortality as poor design?
I don't have any reason to believe we're designed, so I don't consider mortality a flaw. Nothing gold can stay, you might have heard that one. The more I think about it, I think mortality is why being human is so awe-inspiring. It's a feature, not a bug.
Don't let atheists pull kids with cancer into anything. They don't care if theist kids die of cancer. Or any other ailment.
Poly, do you ever ask yourself why you're at a website like this? I know I've asked before. I take it you have a passion for spitting childish epithets and basically sticking your ass in a thread to fart into it, but it's difficult to understand what sort of enjoyment you get out of not interacting in any meaningful way. I mean who DOESN'T enjoy calling faceless strangers on the internet lying bigot cunts all the time, and avoiding any intellectual engagement on every possible topic so as to protect our own perceptions of the world around us, but do you think it'll ever get old?
For you, I mean. For me your act got old after like two posts. Which is a shame, because your perspective (the "all gods are real" part, not the "everyone is a bigot cunt liar fuckface" part) is pretty unique, I think you'd have some stuff to say about how it helps you make sense of the life you're living.
Eat a rotten dick.
Never change, Poly.
Fuck you.
-->
@Mopac
Who do you say Jesus Christ is?
What does "heaven is jesus" mean? The rest doesn't matter. I have many ways i can define Jesus. One way is love. So... heaven is love? But again that is moot bc i would then ask what does that mean. I can define my heaven... i want to know if you can define yours so i can consider it.
-->
@Outplayz
The Truth.
-->
@Outplayz
There are three types of believers.
Slaves who believe out of fear of punishment.
Mercenaries who believe out of hope reward.
And the sons and daughters who believe because of who God is.
-->
@Mopac
There are three types of believers.
Or, there are people that accept they are flawed and that it's okay. But anyways, i still don't know what you mean. If you need to put your trust in another that's fine. If you would rather not know what heaven is, that's fine. If you'd rather not define how you define the truth in regards to the heaven it will give you... fine. But don't think for one second i have to be like you. I'd rather put my trust in that i know how to define my heaven. I will continue to be who i am and i am okay with that even if it hurts being flawed. It's really simple. I'm more worried about every other heaven, not mine.
-->
@Outplayz
You put your trust in yourself, which is complete and utter foolishness and pride. Your heaven is a delusion brought about by your folly.
-->
@Mopac
Your heaven is a delusion brought about by your folly.
Until you can define what heaven is... i can't take you seriously. We've gone through two of my grievances with Christianity. I've told you it's not in my nature to trust flawed man and that i accept my existence as who i am. Everything you are saying is for me to basically stop being who i am bc you know better... that's truly laughable. Delusions brought about by folly huh...
-->
@Outplayz
Pride of self quite naturally brings forth the fruit of arbitrariness.
-->
@Mopac
You know they post your stuff on another web site and make fun of you and you let them by engaging. Stupid fuck tard.