How Stupid Do U Have To Be To Believe In God?

[crowTrobot 2]

to say that CS Lewis was flawed in his thinking and philosophy is to say that Enstein was just a scientist

so you're saying lewis' contribution to philosophy is the equal of einstein's to science????? find me ONE non-christian philosophy professer that considers lewis a great thinker (remotely close to the level of insightfulness einstein had in physics) and maybe i'll stop laughing. truth is most consider lewis' ideas simplistic, subjective, and easily refuted, and only christians or people who don't understand philosophy consider his contribution to philosophy all that meaningful.anyway it's a moot point because you can't prove anything AT ALL about reality using philosophy. at least with science you can find clear-cut evidence for what reality is likely to be, and do something useful with it. philosophy on the other hand comparatively useless.

[MDXS 0]

so you're saying lewis' contribution to philosophy is the equal of einstien's to science?????

Heh...the way he wrote it says that Lewis wasn't just flawed, but really horribly flawed. I'm sure Matt meant the opposite. Everytime he posts, you have to adjust it for what he meant to say.

[Braveheart91 0]

Okay.1. You are correct the Big bang theory in no way address the period before the "Bang", but you can draw logical conclusions from the data.2. Really? The most recent information has shown that the laws of cause and effect are unclear (not inapplicable) in the area of quantum mechanics,3. If the bodies of the universe were placed elsewhere, it would/could create a gravitational imbalance, leading to the slowing of the universe's expansion eventually resulting in critical density being reached and thus, the Big Crush4. First I must correct you in your assumption that Logical conclusions (Logic being a branch of Philosophy) are not proofs, the bedrock of any theorem is logic, if it is not logical it is not true. So if one sees in the universe design and functionIt can be inferred that there is purpose.5. Really, I haven't seen anyone yet refute Michael Behe's work on the topic, pass it along I would love to see it.6. So time + matter + chance has led to you relying Elsie (in part) for life and Elsie relying on the foliage of the fields. For an unintelligent random force, that chance sure puts things in a handy order.7. Again Logic is a science; the conclusions derived there from are essentially scientific theory, for the purpose see above8. If there is no transcendent absolute moral law, then there is no such thing as right and wrong. If there is no such thing, we should have no concept of right and wrong. Actually it you reread, I noted that the portion of my post on Moral was directly taken from Lewis, so thanks for restating it for me.9. Okay so you explain distinctly different separate cultures having nearly identical vaules, values that run counterintuitive to self-interest. Values of charity, humility, and agape (loving those who are "unlovable") do not coincide with self-interest. So the argument is not flawed.As for the argument for Christianity falling apart, No, far brighter men than you or I have attempted to dethrone Christ from his Kingdom. You see a strange dichotomy time and again. The most vicious critics, as I was once, if they truly attempt to disprove Christianity often find themselves becoming Christians, not because they desired to, but the weight of the evidence eventually left them with a difficult choice. Do I maintain what I have held to be true (and still desire to be true) and do I face up to the truth I did not want to find? I think men/women passionate enough about truth to investigate faith at all, especially to debunk it, are usually the ones with enough intellectual honesty to acquiesce to uncomfortable truth. Again my two cents, not revolutionary or profound, but not condescending or baseless either.

[crowTrobot 2]

Okay.1. You are correct the Big bang theory in no way address the period before the "Bang", but you can draw logical conclusions from the data.2. Really? The most recent information has shown that the laws of cause and effect are unclear (not inapplicable) in the area of quantum mechanics,3. If the bodies of the universe were placed elsewhere, it would/could create a gravitational imbalance, leading to the slowing of the universe's expansion eventually resulting in critical density being reached and thus, the Big Crush4. First I must correct you in your assumption that Logical conclusions (Logic being a branch of Philosophy) are not proofs, the bedrock of any theorem is logic, if it is not logical it is not true. So if one sees in the universe design and functionIt can be inferred that there is purpose.5. Really, I haven't seen anyone yet refute Michael Behe's work on the topic, pass it along I would love to see it.6. So time + matter + chance has led to you relying Elsie (in part) for life and Elsie relying on the foliage of the fields. For an unintelligent random force, that chance sure puts things in a handy order.7. Again Logic is a science; the conclusions derived there from are essentially scientific theory, for the purpose see above8. If there is no transcendent absolute moral law, then there is no such thing as right and wrong. If there is no such thing, we should have no concept of right and wrong. Actually it you reread, I noted that the portion of my post on Moral was directly taken from Lewis, so thanks for restating it for me.9. Okay so you explain distinctly different separate cultures having nearly identical vaules, values that run counterintuitive to self-interest. Values of charity, humility, and agape (loving those who are "unlovable") do not coincide with self-interest. So the argument is not flawed.

1. what data? if you're referring to general relativity or QM, neither provides any data about what was "before" the big bang. there are many theories, but we have no evidence indicating what happened at the big bang or understanding of what caused it, or if was even "caused". 2. yes, our human concepts of linear, time-directional cause and effect don't hold up in QM. basic stuff.3. not true. placement of mass/gravity doesn't matter to whether the universe as a whole collapses or not - it only matters to whether space *locally* collapses or not (in the form of black holes). total AMOUNT of mass/energy in the universe is what matters to universal collapse - although even the amount is probably moot anyway since current evidence is that a force is causing the expansion rate to increase, almost certainly meaning there won't be a collapse.4. if you base your philosophical reasoning for the universe or life appearing designed on scientific misconceptions and data that doesn't exist like you just did, it doesn't tend to hold up very well.5. there's a list of his critics in wikipedia and elsewhere.6. wrong. what you perceive as order and interdependency among life forms is due to natural selection, which is NOT random - it is species evolving to meet the requirements of their specific environment, not randomly matching it out of nowhere. 7. see 48. again, right and wrong are just labels for evolved awareness of common sense for what is beneficial either for society or the individual (depending on how they are applied). there is nothing transcendent about that.9. the moral standard that you are referring to that coincides among differing cultures is just the result of empathy, which there is no reason not to consider an evolved beneficial trait since it clearly exists at different levels in the animal kingdom. what you are calling "morality" likely *preceded* culture in homo-sapiens, so it's not surprising it shows up in different ones.

As for the argument for Christianity falling apart, No, far brighter men than you or I have attempted to dethrone Christ from his Kingdom. You see a strange dichotomy time and again. The most vicious critics, as I was once, if they truly attempt to disprove Christianity often find themselves becoming Christians, not because they desired to, but the weight of the evidence eventually left them with a difficult choice.

i could list dozens of famous philosophers and scientists who were raised in christian cultures, studied the evidence for christianity, and became atheists or agnostics. your point?

Do I maintain what I have held to be true (and still desire to be true) and do I face up to the truth I did not want to find? I think men/women passionate enough about truth to investigate faith at all, especially to debunk it, are usually the ones with enough intellectual honesty to acquiesce to uncomfortable truth.

that makes no sense. please explain how you "investigate" faith.

[the shank 0]

and the answer is- pretty damn stupid

[Flack_attack 0]

Morality is a byproduct of natural selection, according to evolutionary psychology, just as are emotions and virtually everything else about us. However, I belive that God created the universe and "planned" if you will, natural selection to make us humans. As for the Big Bang, whatever science proves I will agree with, but I think God set it into motion.

[mcsoupman 0]

Morality is a byproduct of natural selection, according to evolutionary psychology, just as are emotions and virtually everything else about us. However, I belive that God created the universe and "planned" if you will, natural selection to make us humans. As for the Big Bang, whatever science proves I will agree with, but I think God set it into motion.

Morality then becomes a point on a moving target. Whatever the feel good thought of the day is, is what is right. With no moral bearing why should any form of empathy be a maintained standard. Couldn't killing just be another form of Natural Selection? If that is the force that drives the evolutionary machine why stop it? If only the STRONG survive, why not continue the process in hopes of strenthening the human race over the long run. Our decedents would benefit from a stronger, faster, and hopefully smarter pool of genes. Wouldn't we all be better for it?If we have an innate desire for self preservation why would mitigating that be "good?" Which is it guys? Is Evolution the law and so must be promoted or is there some other "good" that we must follow? Ease of cohabital existance is a week argument for morality.

[crowTrobot 2]

Morality then becomes a point on a moving target. Whatever the feel good thought of the day is, is what is right. With no moral bearing why should any form of empathy be a maintained standard. Couldn't killing just be another form of Natural Selection? If that is the force that drives the evolutionary machine why stop it? If only the STRONG survive, why not continue the process in hopes of strenthening the human race over the long run. Our decedents would benefit from a stronger, faster, and hopefully smarter pool of genes. Wouldn't we all be better for it?If we have an innate desire for self preservation why would mitigating that be "good?" Which is it guys? Is Evolution the law and so must be promoted or is there some other "good" that we must follow? Ease of cohabital existance is a week argument for morality.

dude stop copying other material without citing where it came from. bad form.anyway evolution of morality is *social* evolution - it's about what benefits society first, not the individual. in which case maintaining diversity is almost certainly *better* for self preservation of society than killing people for the sake of a homogeneity of stronger individuals.also empathy, which precludes killing, seems to be a highly beneficial evolved social trait.

[mcsoupman 0]

dude stop copying other material without citing where it came from. bad form.anyway evolution of morality is *social* evolution - it's about what benefits society first, not the individual. in which case maintaining diversity is almost certainly *better* for self preservation of society than killing people for the sake of a homogeneity of stronger individuals.also empathy, which precludes killing, seems to be a highly beneficial evolved social trait.

I am flattered that you think I copied something. Rational process of thought doesn't have to be copied, that was off the top of my head. Amazing that even a lowly evolved mind like mine can provide common sense arguments.I freely admint to my ignorance. Enlighten me. Are we at an evolutionary plateu? Have we reached such a state of perfection that our goal is to maintain and create balance? That feels contrary to whole premise of our very existence then. If balance was our evolutionary goal, why not stop at a much earlier phase? Empathy huh? It is a highly beneficial social trait. What is to say that this thought could not change? You are approaching a slippery slope you know. You better grab some holds somewhere. Euthenasia (sp), abortion, genocide are all contrary to empathy. Why do we have such conflict of conscience?

[crowTrobot 2]

I freely admint to my ignorance. Enlighten me. Are we at an evolutionary plateu?

genotypically humans are firmly plateaued, yes. however since functional human societies are fairly young it's a pretty safe assumption that social evolution is just getting started.

If balance was our evolutionary goal, why not stop at a much earlier phase?

evolution doesn't have goals. you are imposing the (theistic) concept of purpose where it doesn't apply.

Empathy huh? It is a highly beneficial social trait. What is to say that this thought could not change?

nobody said anything couldn't change. evolution, social or otherwise, is just a mechanical response to current conditions. it doesn't factor in what future conditions might be.

You are approaching a slippery slope you know. You better grab some holds somewhere. Euthenasia (sp), abortion, genocide are all contrary to empathy. Why do we have such conflict of conscience?

euthanasia is the result of empathy, not contrary to it lol. abortion may be also, depending on your personal philosophy. historically murder/genocide have almost always been the results of aberrant behavior in an individual. obviously if most humans were inherently murderous we wouldn't have survived long as a species (as previously stated empathetic behavior is not unique to humans and likely evolved in the animal kingdom long before we did).

[brvheart 1,752]

dude stop copying other material without citing where it came from. bad form.

I am flattered that you think I copied something. Rational process of thought doesn't have to be copied, that was off the top of my head.

Owned?check.

[crowTrobot 2]

Owned?check.

no. he previously copied word for word something i recognized from the answersingenesis site and tried to pass it off as his own words. this time since he misspelled a word or two i assume he's just paraphrasing, which is fine, but he's obviously copping phrases from creationist material.anyway i don't really care about that. it just shows in those posts he's not really thinking on his own, which is sad.

[mcsoupman 0]

genotypically humans are firmly plateaued, yes. however since functional human societies are fairly young it's a pretty safe assumption that social evolution is just getting started.evolution doesn't have goals. you are imposing the (theistic) concept of purpose where it doesn't apply. nobody said anything couldn't change. evolution, social or otherwise, is just a mechanical response to current conditions. it doesn't factor in what future conditions might be.euthanasia is the result of empathy, not contrary to it lol. abortion may be also, depending on your personal philosophy. historically murder/genocide have almost always been the results of aberrant behavior in an individual. obviously if most humans were inherently murderous we wouldn't have survived long as a species (as previously stated empathetic behavior is not unique to humans and likely evolved in the animal kingdom long before we did).

Crow, thank you. This is the sort of dialoge I have been waiting for. You actually made statements without betraying your personal distain for creationsts. Bravo.Goals in regards to evolution are not theistic. You are confused with purpose. I believe in a purpose yes, but I was talking about goals. The strong survive is a goal and/or by product of natural selection. When a positive mutation occurs, the goal of that mutated being is to preserve itself. That therefore then becomes the goal of species because of the positive adaptation, whether it is recognized or not.Wow, if social conditions can change and therefore social values you have just validated that there is no justification for preservation of human life outside of ones contribution to society. That is a BIG step. I commend you for your bravery even if I think it misguided.Empathy is not limited to humans fine. You are wrong, genocide is not limited to an individual. It has been instituted and adopted by the powerful of a society. Have you heard of the stories of Rwanda? To the evolutionist, why should this cause concern? Is there value for human life? If so why? Euthenasia is not a result of empathy. If it is, then why not kill all physically deformed, or disabled people to remove their hardships? Where do you draw that line? Who provides value to humanity and who does not?

[mcsoupman 0]

no. he previously copied word for word something i recognized from the answersingenesis site and tried to pass it off as his own words. this time since he misspelled a word or two i assume he's just paraphrasing, which is fine, but he's obviously copping phrases from creationist material.anyway i don't really care about that. it just shows in those posts he's not really thinking on his own, which is sad.

never passed as my own. If you recall, I posted the link for the ONE article I included. Prior to that one article I failed to acknowledge I had always inlcuded the persons name. I freely admit that I am influenced by creation apologists. Aren't we all influenced by others. You are obviously influence my evolutionist thinkers and scientist. Are you thinking on your own? Which is it?

[crowTrobot 2]

I freely admit that I am influenced by creation apologists. Aren't we all influenced by others.

NOeveryone here including you is intelligent and capable enough of taking a completely objective approach to the evidence, IF we want to. you self-admittedly have no desire to be objective about empirical evidence for evolution/old earth, so i'm not sure why you even bother wasting time thinking about it.

[crowTrobot 2]

Goals in regards to evolution are not theistic. You are confused with purpose. I believe in a purpose yes, but I was talking about goals.

you asked about purpose (in a different thread i guess). anyway goal isn't the term you're looking for either, since it implies cognizance of possible future outcomes.

The strong survive is a goal and/or by product of natural selection.

goals and byproducts are completely different things.

When a positive mutation occurs, the goal of that mutated being is to preserve itself. That therefore then becomes the goal of species because of the positive adaptation, whether it is recognized or not.

in that sense the inherent goal of EVERY being is to preserve itself (and its legacy). those of a species with positive mutations just have an adaptive advantage over those without them, and are more likely to pass on their genes (including the mutations) than those without.

Wow, if social conditions can change and therefore social values you have just validated that there is no justification for preservation of human life outside of ones contribution to society. That is a BIG step. I commend you for your bravery even if I think it misguided.

social morality is a huge justification for preserving human life. doesn't matter whether it evolved or is god-given - same either way.

You are wrong, genocide is not limited to an individual. It has been instituted and adopted by the powerful of a society.

ok, individual or individuals in power. it's still an irrelevant aberrancy - the vast majority of humans are not inherently genocidal.

Euthenasia is not a result of empathy. If it is, then why not kill all physically deformed, or disabled people to remove their hardships?

that would be genocide, not euthanasia. euthanasia implies the subject is undergoing continuous physical suffering with no hope of recovery. most disabled or deformed people don't qualify lol.

[avsfan 0]

sorry to interrupt but this begs the counter question of, "How smart do you have to be to know you are fairly stupid?"

[TenaciousMe 0]

i mean really...im not THAT smart but this is like, the most obvious thing in the world to me

I'm impressed by your arrogance. I don't care if you believe in God or not, you're NOT the only person with opinions.After you take one class of astronomy and see how little and insignificant you are. You then look for an explanation for all that existence, God.The universe is completely ridiculous. Every time I ever find myself doubting astronomy blows my mind.

[Guest twin7589]

Cha Ching ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

[crowTrobot 2]

After you take one class of astronomy and see how little and insignificant you are.

yes humans have always invoked god to appease feelings of insignificance. if we were more secure as a species (as we will be eventually in the future) the concept of god wouldn't exist at all except in fringe cults.

You then look for an explanation for all that existence, God.

if the universe requires an explanation then why doesn't god require one? certianly he would have to be more complex than his creation, wouldn't he? who made god?conversely if god does NOT require an explanation - he just "is", then why can't the exact same thing be said about the universe? invoking god to explain existence is just an intellectual cop-out. god is just an unnecessary complication, cut deep by occam's razor.

[TenaciousMe 0]

yes humans have always invoked god to appease feelings of insignificance. if we were more secure as a species (as we will be eventually in the future) the concept of god wouldn't exist at all except in fringe cults.if the universe requires an explanation then why doesn't god require one? certianly he would have to be more complex than his creation, wouldn't he? who made god?conversely if god does NOT require an explanation - he just "is", then why can't the exact same thing be said about the universe? invoking god to explain existence is just an intellectual cop-out. god is just an unnecessary complication, cut deep by occam's razor.

God is Alpha and Omega.The universe is not.That is why God does not require an explanation and was not created; but exists, and the universe does require theories on creation.

[crowTrobot 2]

and the universe does require theories on creation.

there is no possible objective reasoning that allows god to be infinite/unbounded that doesn't allow the universe to be also. god is unnecessary, and saying the universe requires creation is just making a baseless simple-minded assumption.

[Flack_attack 0]

there is no possible objective reasoning that allows god to be infinite/unbounded that doesn't allow the universe to be also. god is unnecessary, and saying the universe requires creation is just making a baseless simple-minded assumption.

Isn't it impossible for our universe to never have a begining because matter decays (over billions of years)? I read an article by some scientists from Michigan about how the universe will end and (many many years in the future); elements will be degraded to single protons, which will then decay.Not really making an assertion, just raising a question..

[crowTrobot 2]

Isn't it impossible for our universe to never have a begining because matter decays (over billions of years)?

our universe may not be all there is. there may be infinite universes continually spawning (maybe from each other) with matter forming from bursts of energy and then decaying. it may be a never-ending process. there are several apparently workable theories where this could be the case and there is no true "beginning".

[Guest twin7589]

DUMB