Jump to content

Religion And Intelligence


Recommended Posts

I think I've brought this up before concerning creation. Since God is, by definition, all-powerful and all-knowing, what's the point of creation? He knows he can do it and everything that will follow and it's not like he would have a sense of accomplishment from doing it, so that leaves us where? I cannot imagine an ominpotent, omniscient being having any reason to do anything.I think Balloony had an answer for this, but I don't remember it.
See here I disagree. If you know how incredibly awesome having a little earth with people on it is going to be, why wouldn't you make one?Like, just knowing that I can make an excellent cake does nothing to dampen my motivation for making one.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The Bible tells us about God, who He is, and what His plan for us is.And it uses language we can understand, you could even make the argument that it dumbs it down for us.After all, it's not like we can honestly imagine what it is like to be outside of time and space. Or to have the ability to create anything with a single word. Motivations aren't equal between a dog and a human, why do we think ours and God's should be relate-able, therefore to try to quantify God's intentions from our perspectives doesn't have a chance of being accurate.And when the Bible grants God human characteristics, it's more for us to have a picture of God, not for us to pigeonhole God.The Bible says no man can even look upon God, yet we want to say that we can judge God by using words like petty or vengeful and pretend that we are able to comprehend the majesty of the Creator of the Universe?Once you grant the notion that God exist, you leave out any ability to judge any of His actions of His choices.

Link to post
Share on other sites
99% of athletes thank God for giving them the ability to perform or whatever, not for winning the game for them. The 'Why-don't-you-blame-Jesus-when-you-lose-fallacy' is mildly humorous but is actually not a fallacy at all, as I just explained. Remember how the Saints' kicker pointed to the sky after he missed a field goal (I think he was on the Saints)? And it wasn't an accusatory point towards the sky like 'Dammit Jesus, that one's on you.' He apparently thanks God after every kick, just for blessing him with ability and health and whatever else.
99% huh? thats a nice stat you just pulled out of your ass. albert pujols is my favorite player. he points to the sky after his homeruns. he doesnt point after striking out. in fact, i've never seen that, from anyone.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Or in Hippy-speak;Dude, like, if you had some good weed and like some dude was all "Let's smoke it now" and you were all "Dude' then he would be like trying to bogart your weed.So then if that dude then tried to like say you didn't have any weed, you would be like "Dude" and everyone would be you know, like, "Whatever dude".So like, don't be "Whatever" man.
Heh.
Maybe it's just that God, like the rest of the country, doesn't care enough about hockey to even get involved?
Also, heh.
And when the Bible grants God human characteristics, it's more for us to have a picture of God, not for us to pigeonhole God.
So the bible is all truth, nothing metaphorical or embelished to make certain points...except for the anthropomorphized picture of God himself, the driving force behing all existance. Riiiiight.
Once you grant the notion that God exist, you leave out any ability to judge any of His actions of His choices.
True. If you grant the notion of your version of god. Which most of us don't. Which is why there seems to be confusion.
Link to post
Share on other sites

What about when God himself attributes human flaws to himself?

for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Link to post
Share on other sites
The Bible tells us about God, who He is, and what His plan for us is.And it uses language we can understand, you could even make the argument that it dumbs it down for us.
Language we can understand? Please, tell me, how do we understand the definition of omnipotence?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh yeah, we agree on that point, I was jumping off from that to make the point that religion is an unfalsifiable theory.
not disagreeing with you but i wouldn't use the word religion. the bare hypothesis of an undetectable god would be unfalsifiable, but human religionsare falsifiable for other reasons.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Regarding the 'God can do anything' discussion - the reason it sometimes strikes me as odd is because Christians often do anthropomorphize God in very specific ways
yup. atheists tend to parse christian claims about god in human terms because christians specifically hypothesize a human-like god.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Once you grant the notion that God exist, you leave out any ability to judge any of His actions of His choices.
true but irrelevant. obviously non-believers grant nothing. when a non-believer judges god's actions/choices they are actuallyjudging the truth of human claims about god, not god himself.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So the bible is all truth, nothing metaphorical or embelished to make certain points...except for the anthropomorphized picture of God himself, the driving force behing all existance. Riiiiight.
When I say I saw the sun rise, am I trying to fool you with a belief that the sun revolves around the earth?When God says he protects us under His wings, does that mean God has wings like a chicken?And when a Being from outside of time/space who created all known matter and laws wants to give someone like me a set of directions for my life, should he include detailed explanations of neutrino's and their ability to start a fusion reaction by passing through the 20 feet of steel decking on an aircraft carrier.
True. If you grant the notion of your version of god. Which most of us don't. Which is why there seems to be confusion.
As I said, you God is too small.Misunderstanding the concept of what God means isn't a viable argument for why you think He doesn't exist.In fact changing the meaning of the word God to nothing more than a make believe superman shows the intellectual dishonesty of your side's arguments as a whole.From now on I will change the meaning of the word evolution to mean the purposeful change of life for the sole purpose of creating a fire engine that thinks. Now you see why the whole notion of an ape becoming a man is stupid? This will not bring about Thomas, so there is no justifiable reason to assume that it would happen.
Link to post
Share on other sites
What about when God himself attributes human flaws to himself?
First you claim a flaw when maybe this isn't one. Second the notion that God is punishing the children is discounted in other verses, so what dos this mean then?That when a person lives a life of sin, their actions can have consequences for future generations.Take a man who gets rich by cheating people, their kids get to live a life of wealth without effort, and with their poor example of ethics from their dad, they often times are equally lacking in morals.So don't live in a way that is an affront to God, because you will probably hurt more than just yourself.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Language we can understand? Please, tell me, how do we understand the definition of omnipotence?
You take the term infinity and add creative powers?
Link to post
Share on other sites
true but irrelevant. obviously non-believers grant nothing. when a non-believer judges god's actions/choices they are actuallyjudging the truth of human claims about god, not god himself.
Not true but relevant.You are purposefully changing the definition of the word God in order to continue with your irrational beliefs.You pretend that you are judging a make believe story so you can puff your chest and pretend your line of thinking has merit.It doesn't.You are so clearly approaching the entire argument that you know there is no God, therefore you are not judging God, well you have already lost the argument and you don't even understand why.
Link to post
Share on other sites
99% of athletes thank God for giving them the ability to perform or whatever, not for winning the game for them. The 'Why-don't-you-blame-Jesus-when-you-lose-fallacy' is mildly humorous but is actually not a fallacy at all, as I just explained. Remember how the Saints' kicker pointed to the sky after he missed a field goal (I think he was on the Saints)? And it wasn't an accusatory point towards the sky like 'Dammit Jesus, that one's on you.' He apparently thanks God after every kick, just for blessing him with ability and health and whatever else. Regarding the 'God can do anything' discussion - the reason it sometimes strikes me as odd is because Christians often do anthropomorphize God in very specific ways, giving Him human emotions like anger and describing him as a very distinct, humanistic entity. If He is so all-knowing and all-powerful and all-encompassing, why is He plagued by the same emotional frailties that us, His children are?
If you wrote 99% but meant to write 1%, then we agree.That 1% includes Kurt Warner and Garrett Hartley and that's about it from my experience.The next time a super bowl loser walks off the field and tells the press 'God just decided it was not our day'......you let me know.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If you wrote 99% but meant to write 1%, then we agree.That 1% includes Kurt Warner and Garrett Hartley and that's about it from my experience.The next time a super bowl loser walks off the field and tells the press 'God just decided it was not our day'......you let me know.
I think Tim is right.Maybe not about the immediate reaction after losing a game, but an over all opinion of their faith he nailed it.Fellowship of Christian Athletes has a lot of conferences where some of the biggest names in sports speak at all the time.This is the central theme, it's not a big deal to be a winner or loser on the field, but it is a huge deal to be a person who loves God.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Tim is right.Maybe not about the immediate reaction after losing a game, but an over all opinion of their faith he nailed it.Fellowship of Christian Athletes has a lot of conferences where some of the biggest names in sports speak at all the time.This is the central theme, it's not a big deal to be a winner or loser on the field, but it is a huge deal to be a person who loves God.
Athletes are giant phonies (on the level of Hollywood actors/actresses) so no I don't agree. But I am sure there are plenty who are very serious about their faith.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Athletes are giant phonies (on the level of Hollywood actors/actresses) so no I don't agree. But I am sure there are plenty who are very serious about their faith.
I would not want to place a bet on my position because you are probably pretty close to this over all.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Not true but relevant.You are purposefully changing the definition of the word God in order to continue with your irrational beliefs.You pretend that you are judging a make believe story so you can puff your chest and pretend your line of thinking has merit.It doesn't.You are so clearly approaching the entire argument that you know there is no God, therefore you are not judging God, well you have already lost the argument and you don't even understand why.
boring diversionary rhetoric. all i said was non-believers in these arguments aren't granting the notion that god exists.
Link to post
Share on other sites
boring diversionary rhetoric. all i said was non-believers in these arguments aren't granting the notion that god exists.
Then sit this out.If you can't allow for the argument then your counter argument is wasted space
Link to post
Share on other sites
Then sit this out.If you can't allow for the argument then your counter argument is wasted space
this is about whether there is any logical reason to think christian claims about god are compelling,not about god's motives. it started when someone indirectly questioned the truth of the christian tenet ofsalvation based on belief because higher intelligence apparently equates to less chance of belief.in effect this is questioning the truth of the bible - not judging god."we can't understand god's motives" is not evidence the bible is true.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...