[quote]Legionary wrote:
You have to love how he talks of metaphysics this epistemology that but he can’t even begin to fathom the concept of not using the scriptures to “provide evidence” for his positions. He is an example of how revealed religions can often vandalize the mind of even an intelligent man.
And how did come to know yours, deist?[/quote]
Did I claim to “know” anything? Its nothing extraordinary on my part just the utilization of reason. I came to the personal conclusion that belief in God could only be rational based not on “revealed” religious texts, but the order and complexity found in nature (the Universe) coupled with our rational experiences of nature. So in layman terms I guess you could say that I’m an Agnostic Theist. But to most I’m just Hell-bound I suppose.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
Did I claim to “know” anything? Its nothing extraordinary on my part just the utilization of reason. I came to the personal conclusion that belief in God could only be rational based not on “revealed” religious texts, but the order and complexity found in nature (the Universe) coupled with our rational experiences of nature. So in layman terms I guess you could say that I’m an Agnostic Theist. But to most I’m just Hell-bound I suppose.[/quote]
It’s implied. You know of a creator, and know what it wouldn’t do. You know that a creator wouldn’t have deposited faith in a revealed religion. You know despite not being this creator. You know that because you can’t fathom why a god would reveal himself through one of the world’s religions, that this creator, obligated to meet your expectations apparently, would not do so. You’re not agnostic. Mocking followers of revealed faiths demonstrates as much. You’ve taken stances.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
I came to the personal conclusion that belief in God could only be rational based not on “revealed” religious texts, but the order and complexity found in nature (the Universe) coupled with our rational experiences of nature. [/quote]
And I wouldn’t be too smug with a young earth creationist, when you claim to have found god’s fingerprints in the complexity of nature.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:<<< Another truly interesting post. >>>[/quote]Whatever else happens here Dr.Matt? The Lord is definitely using you to teach me a lesson about my own elusive concision. I mean that sincerely and please believe me, as no insult either. Fletch and Cortes will thank you for it. Let me ask you this. Are you submitting that raw abstract intellectual numbers, sitting in the mind, unapplied to material objects are nothing? (man I wish we could do this in person.)
[/quote]
I am saying that numbers are a way of classifying and organizing objects in an orderly way and even went so far as to show how that is done and provided an example of some of the elementary axioms that we use to define numbers as well as the most basic of operations we perform on systems of numbers, although I neglected to talk about functions, which are on a whole other level.
Just saying a number by itself, like one, does not represent an object in the real world, but if you assign some kind of unit to that number, like rock, now you have the value one rock, which is easy to understand, and if one doesn’t it is not hard to teach. After all, we demonstrate what one of an object is to toddlers and they pick up the concept just fine. After that is done, the axioms I have posted and others can be used to describe operations that can be performed on the object in question. You can use the axioms that I laid out earlier to understand what is meant by “one rock” and if you have studied arithmetic operations like addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division you know how and when you can perform those operations on the concept of “one rock” and what will occur if you do. The great thing about numbers, though, is that all the operations we perform on them all follow the same basic axioms like the handful that I have laid out earlier and anytime numbers and operations are properly applied to real world situations (this discipline is called mathematical modeling) these axioms hold true. This is why we do not need to come up with a new system of numbers and counting for every single thing. We use the same system for counting rocks as we do for counting sheep, we just have to specify what you are applying the concept of numbers to. This is why mathematical theorems and axioms and definitions are vague, it is because it is up to whoever is using them to describe what he is using it on and to show that it is a valid model of a real world situation.
It’s implied. You know of a creator, and know what it wouldn’t do. You know that a creator wouldn’t have deposited faith in a revealed religion. You know despite not being this creator. You know that because you can’t fathom why a god would reveal himself through one of the world’s religions, that this creator, obligated to meet your expectations apparently, would not do so. You’re not agnostic. Mocking followers of revealed faiths demonstrates as much. You’ve taken stances.
[/quote]
Implied? You are delusional. You either are intentionally distorting my words or your reading comprehension is shit.
There is a monumental difference between claiming to have knowledge of God and personal beliefs formulated from reason and the observation of Nature that leads someone to believe that God may/probably exists. Your religion claims to have knowledge, evidence in the Bible and sacred tradition. I do not. Freethinking philosophies, which Deism falls under, do not have any established dogma. So how can you presume to know my beliefs or motivations? You obviously don’t even understand what agnosticism is or the characteristics it can take on if you’re going to utter such garbage.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
I came to the personal conclusion that belief in God could only be rational based not on “revealed” religious texts, but the order and complexity found in nature (the Universe) coupled with our rational experiences of nature. [/quote]
And I wouldn’t be too smug with a young earth creationist, when you claim to have found god’s fingerprints in the complexity of nature. [/quote]
Oh really? I forgot where I said “Evolution=Undeniable evidence of an intelligent designer other than the god of the bible” Probably because once again you are attributing false claims to me.
The farthest I would go is “Everything that man can observe in Science indicates that life on Earth almost certainly formed through the process of Evolution, so if God does exist, it stands to reason that evolution was almost certainly the mechanism of creation put into motion by an intelligent designer.”
Sorry I can’t help but to ridicule you. You spit on the life’s work of individuals who are infinitely more intelligent than yourself. In favor of bronze age mythology no less. Hell, even that’s not an excuse for your willful ignorance.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
I came to the personal conclusion that belief in God could only be rational based not on “revealed” religious texts, but the order and complexity found in nature (the Universe) coupled with our rational experiences of nature. [/quote]
And I wouldn’t be too smug with a young earth creationist, when you claim to have found god’s fingerprints in the complexity of nature. [/quote]
Oh really? I forgot where I said “Evolution=Undeniable evidence of an intelligent designer other than the god of the bible” Probably because once again you are attributing false claims to me.
The farthest I would go is “Everything that man can observe in Science indicates that life on Earth almost certainly formed through the process of Evolution, so if God does exist, it stands to reason that evolution was almost certainly the mechanism of creation put into motion by an intelligent designer.”
Sorry I can’t help but to ridicule you. You spit on the life’s work of individuals who are infinitely more intelligent than yourself. In favor of bronze age mythology no less. Hell, even that’s not an excuse for your willful ignorance.[/quote]
Evolution has been proven to occur. By looking at being with very short lifespans, such as Lenski did at Michigan State, we can almost see it happening.
Implied? You are delusional. You either are intentionally distorting my words or your reading comprehension is shit.[/quote]
I would suggest actually reading your own responses. You have done nothing but mock revealed religion. Which implies you have knowledge that a creator couldn’t possibly have deposited some kernel of revelation within a religion. Your proper stance would be agnostic towards religious faiths. You aren’t, though.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
I came to the personal conclusion that belief in God could only be rational based not on “revealed” religious texts, but the order and complexity found in nature (the Universe) coupled with our rational experiences of nature. [/quote]
And I wouldn’t be too smug with a young earth creationist, when you claim to have found god’s fingerprints in the complexity of nature. [/quote]
Oh really? I forgot where I said “Evolution=Undeniable evidence of an intelligent designer other than the god of the bible” Probably because once again you are attributing false claims to me.
[/quote]
No, you did say the complexity of nature gave you ‘rational’ basis for a belief in a creator. If you want to align yourself with empiricists, so you can make fun of the superstitious, you might want to drop your deism. I don’t know how you’ve convinced yourself that you’re any less ‘silly’ as a ‘deist’ than a young earther, but you really aren’t.
[quote] You:
Its nothing extraordinary on my part just the utilization of reason. I came to the personal conclusion that belief in God could only be rational based not on “revealed” religious texts, but the order and complexity found in nature (the Universe) coupled with our rational experiences of nature.[/quote]
And having referred to yourself multiple times as a deist, I assume ‘complexity’ is your rational basis for holding a deist view. That’s ‘bronze-age’ superstition.
Sorry I can’t help but to ridicule you. You spit on the life’s work of individuals who are infinitely more intelligent than yourself. In favor of bronze age mythology no less. Hell, even that’s not an excuse for your willful ignorance.[/quote]
Oh, and I’m fine with macro evolution, by the way. Thanks for asking.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sloth be handin’ out some bitch-slappin’.[/quote]
The taunting and bullying, from multiple individuals, is too much. Argue all you want that your recognition of evolution (especially macro) makes you better aligned with the consensus of scientific thought. Great, and? One things for damn sure, it hasn’t made better human beings out of some of you. Like a pack of heckling hyenas.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sloth be handin’ out some bitch-slappin’.[/quote]
The taunting and bullying, from multiple individuals, is too much. Argue all you want that your recognition of evolution (especially macro) makes you better aligned with the consensus of scientific thought. Great, and? One things for damn sure, it hasn’t made better human beings out of some of you. Like a pack of heckling hyenas.[/quote]
The desperation of the whole ‘naaaa naaa naaa Im right , you’re wrong and I’m so clever’ brigade
is tiresome in the extreme, I have to agree. Like a bad high school tv show.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sloth be handin’ out some bitch-slappin’.[/quote]
The taunting and bullying, from multiple individuals, is too much. Argue all you want that your recognition of evolution (especially macro) makes you better aligned with the consensus of scientific thought. Great, and? One things for damn sure, it hasn’t made better human beings out of some of you. Like a pack of heckling hyenas.[/quote]
“It hasn’t made better human beings out of you.” Well said. I haven’t been reading this thread carefully so I don’t know how well it applies in this case, but I’ve seen it happen.
I’ve sometimes fallen into the category of “condescending and mean non-believer” myself. I try pretty hard not to nowadays.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sloth be handin’ out some bitch-slappin’.[/quote]
The taunting and bullying, from multiple individuals, is too much. Argue all you want that your recognition of evolution (especially macro) makes you better aligned with the consensus of scientific thought. Great, and? One things for damn sure, it hasn’t made better human beings out of some of you. Like a pack of heckling hyenas.[/quote]
“It hasn’t made better human beings out of you.” Well said. I haven’t been reading this thread carefully so I don’t know how well it applies in this case, but I’ve seen it happen.
I’ve sometimes fallen into the category of “condescending and mean non-believer” myself. I try pretty hard not to nowadays.[/quote]
We all falter, including me. Definitely me. But this thread is starting to get outright ugly, with a particular individual being targeted for ridicule.
I understand frustration. I’m certainly not always as charitable and neighborly as I should be. But this–I don’t know, public tarring and feathering–is grotesque.
Edit: You’ve always seemed fair enough to me, by the way. /shrug
Well Sloth, I’m genuinely touched. You too Orion. I have to say though. These guys are not botherin me. What IS botherin me is that Dr.Matt has taken the time to engage in a substantive exchange with me and I have not thus far been able to pry my way between him and this first floor he lives on so as to be able to turn his mind to the foundation that’s holding it up.
Dr.Matt your well hardened thought, spawned from and coupled with the type of education you have, present to me a unique challenge as far as presentation is concerned. I repeat sir that I take the responsibility for this. I appreciate your patience and ask that you bear with me. You are so used to thinking the way you do (as well you should be given what you do) that I am at a loss for the moment for how to proceed.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
I came to the personal conclusion that belief in God could only be rational based not on “revealed” religious texts, but the order and complexity found in nature (the Universe) coupled with our rational experiences of nature. [/quote]
And I wouldn’t be too smug with a young earth creationist, when you claim to have found god’s fingerprints in the complexity of nature. [/quote]
Oh really? I forgot where I said “Evolution=Undeniable evidence of an intelligent designer other than the god of the bible” Probably because once again you are attributing false claims to me.
The farthest I would go is “Everything that man can observe in Science indicates that life on Earth almost certainly formed through the process of Evolution, so if God does exist, it stands to reason that evolution was almost certainly the mechanism of creation put into motion by an intelligent designer.”
Sorry I can’t help but to ridicule you. You spit on the life’s work of individuals who are infinitely more intelligent than yourself. In favor of bronze age mythology no less. Hell, even that’s not an excuse for your willful ignorance.[/quote]
Evolution has been proven to occur. By looking at being with very short lifespans, such as Lenski did at Michigan State, we can almost see it happening.
I already pointed out that e-coli evolving into e-coli can’t be used as proof that all life forms share a common ancestor. It is beyond irresponsible to extrapolate those observations to try and provide some proof for the grand theory of evolution.
I find it very interesting that none of the evolution apologists here have bothered to respond either?
[quote]Legionary wrote:
I came to the personal conclusion that belief in God could only be rational based not on “revealed” religious texts, but the order and complexity found in nature (the Universe) coupled with our rational experiences of nature. [/quote]
And I wouldn’t be too smug with a young earth creationist, when you claim to have found god’s fingerprints in the complexity of nature. [/quote]
Oh really? I forgot where I said “Evolution=Undeniable evidence of an intelligent designer other than the god of the bible” Probably because once again you are attributing false claims to me.
The farthest I would go is “Everything that man can observe in Science indicates that life on Earth almost certainly formed through the process of Evolution, so if God does exist, it stands to reason that evolution was almost certainly the mechanism of creation put into motion by an intelligent designer.”
Sorry I can’t help but to ridicule you. You spit on the life’s work of individuals who are infinitely more intelligent than yourself. In favor of bronze age mythology no less. Hell, even that’s not an excuse for your willful ignorance.[/quote]
Evolution has been proven to occur. By looking at being with very short lifespans, such as Lenski did at Michigan State, we can almost see it happening.
I already pointed out that e-coli evolving into e-coli can’t be used as proof that all life forms share a common ancestor. It is beyond irresponsible to extrapolate those observations to try and provide some proof for the grand theory of evolution.
I find it very interesting that none of the evolution apologists here have bothered to respond either?
[/quote]