New huge 'Victory Christian Fellowship' centre being completed in Firhouse, Dublin

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

5. I would teach that other people teach different things, but ultimately that there is a strong case for the Judeo-Christian God, and I probably would bring any child I had to church to experience it for themselves.

Why even bother? The case doesn't need to be strong when they're told that if they don't believe they'll burn for eternity.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

1. I don't believe the arguments are strong for God being any form of a delusion.

2. I'd need statistics.

3. Yes, I would teach that other people follow different religions.

4. Obviously.

5. I would teach that other people teach different things, but ultimately that there is a strong case for the Judeo-Christian God, and I probably would bring any child I had to church to experience it for themselves.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090716/survey-one-third-of-scientists-believe-in-god/index.html

Hint: 2/3 is a majority.

philologos

kiffer wrote: »

So anyway back on topic... This new church... It has it's own recording studio... Maybe studiorat could get a job there and spy for us...
Then we'd know more about what's going on.

You could find some fortitude and go in for a Sunday service when it is open

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Why even bother? The case doesn't need to be strong when they're told that if they don't believe they'll burn for eternity.

Why bother teaching someone a fulfilling path to live in life? Well I would want that for anyone I cared for. I also would want my child to believe in the truth about our existence.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090716/survey-one-third-of-scientists-believe-in-god/index.html

Hint: 2/3 is a majority.

Newsflash, scientists aren't the only academics.

kiffer

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Ok, but I am talking in ideals.

Of course but the human system can never be expected to approach the ideal . We lack unlimited resources and sometimes fail on the compassion front... A hypothetical God does not have these problems. He has no resource short fall and only needs to have people in sub optimal conditions if he wants to... He has a choice, he can have them tortured for ever as some Christians believe... or he can just let them die and not suffer for ever as other Christians believe... Or put them through the system again via reincarnation (if he wanted to) or just out right 'fix' them, either via time in purgatory or just by willing it... Sadly I think the bible is going to come down on the eternal burning flaming hell side...

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

Newsflash, scientists aren't the only academics.

No, but they are the only ones who can ever hope to acheive something close to objective consensus on questions raised, because of that god-bustin' little matter called evidence.

All other fields of academia are flakey, subjective and circular arenas. Interesting and useful, but can never hope to fully answer the questions they vainly attempt to.

Given this, is it not surprising that fewer natural scientists believe in god/s than other academics? Is this a mere coincidence?

philologos

Science is great for answering scientific questions, just like philosophy is great for answering philosophical questions. Each field has it's own area of expertise. I don't find a need to put science on a pedestal above every other field of academia. That's where I differ.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

Science is great for answering scientific questions, just like philosophy is great for answering philosophical questions. Each field has it's own area of expertise. I don't find a need to put science on a pedestal above every other field of academia. That's where I differ.

Which of the two fields, science and philosophy, provides us with knowledge for bettering the human condition? Besides I was of the impression that science uses philosophy to ask questions.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Which of the two fields, science and philosophy, provides us with knowledge for bettering the human condition? Besides I was of the impression that science uses philosophy to ask questions.

It depends on what you are asking about the human condition:
Biology can tell us a lot about the structure of the human body, and psychology can tell us a lot about the human mind.
Philosophy can also inform us about what makes us who we are (identity), what promotes culture, morality and ethics, and human purpose. Science generally can't answer these questions.

I tend to be quite philosophically minded I think, I think science is interesting to a certain extent too. All these fields have their uses. I don't see any reason why I should put one academic above another, they have clearly pursued knowledge to a high degree irrespective of what it is in.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

It depends on what you are asking about the human condition:
Biology can tell us a lot about the structure of the human body, and psychology can tell us a lot about the human mind.
Philosophy can also inform us about what makes us who we are (identity), what promotes culture, morality and ethics, and human purpose. Science generally can't answer these questions...

I couldn't disagree more and what you say there is very indicative of why you have the theological position you do.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

Science is great for answering scientific questions, just like philosophy is great for answering philosophical questions. Each field has it's own area of expertise. I don't find a need to put science on a pedestal above every other field of academia. That's where I differ.

Right. But science is answering the questions that led people to make up the god myth. Where did life come from? Where did the earth come from? The sun? The solar system? The galaxy? The universe?

Your God used to be a very prominent figure, as were most gods back in the old days? It's funny as human knowledge advances, god/s have been slowly vanishing from the physical world. Once they were up in the mountains, then we found nothing there. Suddenly they scurried away up into the clouds, that took us a long time to work out, but suddenly that was disproved. Then gods took off into the stars, but for all our telescopes and probes, not one trace of a god was found. So now gods live in their extraphysical world, conveniently out of the reach of our instruments. Yet, we continue to edge close to an explanation for the origin of our universe. What if we crack that one, Jakkass? Where will gods scurry off to then?

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote: »

1. I don't believe the arguments are strong for God being any form of a delusion.

No theologian has rebutted the problem of evil. Would you point that out?

2. I'd need statistics.

How about 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do no believe in a personal God?

5. I would teach that other people teach different things, but ultimately that there is a strong case for the Judeo-Christian God, and I probably would bring any child I had to church to experience it for themselves.

You didn't answer the question.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more and what you say there is very indicative of why you have the theological position you do.

I disagree with you that science somehow trumps all other forms of academia. Fields have their uses, and fields have their limitations. I think all pursuit of knowledge is noble.

As for the theological position I have, it's more a philosophical viewpoint in respect to how I view knowledge and academics. I don't feel the need to put the sciences up on a pedestal above everything else. Rather I consider science as a useful field of inquiry amongst many.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Right. But science is answering the questions that led people to make up the god myth. Where did life come from? Where did the earth come from? The sun? The solar system? The galaxy? The universe?

I'd have to presume that Judeo-Christianity was made up, which is a leap.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Your God used to be a very prominent figure, as were most gods back in the old days?

I still regard God as a prominent figure.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

It's funny as human knowledge advances, god/s have been slowly vanishing from the physical world. Once they were up in the mountains, then we found nothing there. Suddenly they scurried away up into the clouds, that took us a long time to work out, but suddenly that was disproved. Then gods took off into the stars, but for all our telescopes and probes, not one trace of a god was found.

I am a monotheist so I will be considering the existence of a singular God. Continuing on, what are you basing this on?

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So now gods live in their extraphysical world, conveniently out of the reach of our instruments. Yet, we continue to edge close to an explanation for the origin of our universe. What if we crack that one, Jakkass? Where will gods scurry off to then?

It makes sense that if God created the universe, God couldn't be a part of that creation. It doesn't make logical sense to me. It also doesn't make logical sense to me that the Creator could create the Creator, or that the Creation could create the Creator.

As for God scurrying off, you would need to make a clearer case.

Are we edging close to an explanation for the origin of our universe? I'm not as confident on that as you are clearly.

Goduznt Xzst

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Which of the two fields, science and philosophy, provides us with knowledge for bettering the human condition? Besides I was of the impression that science uses philosophy to ask questions.

reminds me of this

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No theologian has rebutted the problem of evil. Would you point that out?

You obviously haven't read any theodicies at all. I'd advise you to get a good textbook on the Philosophy of Religion, Brian Davies is good. Philosophy of Religion - A guide and anthology is a good start, it's quite expensive though, his Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion keeps it concise but you'll miss out on part of the debate without consulting a more comprehensive book.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

How about 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do no believe in a personal God?

The figures seem to be conflicting with eachother here. Francis Collins cites 40% as believing in God in his The Language of God. Anyhow, as I've said, scientists aren't the only academics and it's highly disingenuous to put that across. On further elaboration I've seen more and more Christians studying sciences at the university I attend. A few of them are completing phD's, so I am remarking on whether or not such figures give an entirely accurate view of science.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You didn't answer the question.

I would accept that there is a possibility that I am mistaken, but based on the indications for God's existence, it would be unlikely. That's what I would explain concerning my opinion. I would make clear that other people believe different things, as I said in the other points.

Goduznt Xznt: I might be studying philosophy, but I am also studying computer science :pac:

kiffer

Jakkass wrote: »

You could find some fortitude and go in for a Sunday service when it is open

Tongue in cheek...
J: "You don't have the Guts to go to Mass!"
K: "Yes I do! Yes I do! Look I'm proving you wrong... Oh wow this is great, all hail Jesus!"
J: "Mwahaha, my peer pressure plan worked"...
Didn't work when people tried that for alcohol, won't work for this now.

But seriously...
I've been to many services over the years... Though in the last few they've tended to be limited to funerals, weddings, months minds, that sort of thing. Doesn't take much fortitude... Staying awake at some of the longer dryer services is a bit of a challenge... But I do imagine that such a hip forward looking church wouldn't be so dry... Singing, dancing, rejoycing in the pews... Frankly I'll base my views on the information they put out... I've no objection to them building a church... My main objection is the getting kids to recruit other kids... I still don't think you'd be happy with that either if roles were reversed here and they were scientologists or that silly Atheist Camp that came up before.

The point of sending a spy is that they can get in and see whats happening behind the glitz... The change sorting machines rattling away in the back room of the temple... The affairs which noone talks about... Like a soap opera... Fly on the wall type stuff...

Have you ever been to a non-christian religious event, service, celebration or ritual? Not suggesting that you should... Or that you wouldn't be confident enough in your Faith to withstand the... A screw it. It's just idle curiosity now. Feel free to ignore.

I also would want my child to believe in the truth about our existence.

That's what every one wants Jakkass.

Newsflash, scientists aren't the only academics.

Only ones that count! Mwahahaha

Also in fairness the appeal to majority isn't right when people point out that most people believe in at least some sort of god. And it's not right when it's used the other way round either.

Rational arguments are preferable ... One rational point beats all/many irrational ones... Then the other problem is of course your starting position and assumptions...

What do you do if the person you are talking to is not just starting from different assumptions but also seems to be making irrational arguments with in the bounds of those assumptions... I think I'm starting to free wheel now... Waffling Text after this point deleted... Sleep... Need sleep...

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree with you that science somehow trumps all other forms of academia. Fields have their uses, and fields have their limitations. I think all pursuit of knowledge is noble.

As for the theological position I have, it's more a philosophical viewpoint in respect to how I view knowledge and academics. I don't feel the need to put the sciences up on a pedestal above everything else. Rather I consider science as a useful field of inquiry amongst many.



I'd have to presume that Judeo-Christianity was made up, which is a leap.



I still regard God as a prominent figure.



I am a monotheist so I will be considering the existence of a singular God. Continuing on, what are you basing this on?



It makes sense that if God created the universe, God couldn't be a part of that creation. It doesn't make logical sense to me. It also doesn't make logical sense to me that the Creator could create the Creator, or that the Creation could create the Creator.

As for God scurrying off, you would need to make a clearer case.

Are we edging close to an explanation for the origin of our universe? I'm not as confident on that as you are clearly.

In summary, you expect me to keep pitching to your stubborn POV. As far as I am concerned, all of the god/s that humanity has ever created are all equally moronic and invalid. Deal with it.

Secondly, we know more about the universes origin than we did last year, five years ago, fifty years ago, one hundred years ago, etc, etc. Only a complete ignoramous would fail to see this.

philologos

Flamed Diving wrote: »

In summary, you expect me to keep pitching to your stubborn POV. As far as I am concerned, all of the god/s that humanity has ever created are all equally moronic and invalid. Deal with it.

Can't you see the irony in your post? I don't think it is stubborn to open someones mind up to the possibility that I don't make the same assumptions that you do. I don't automatically assume that God is made up, nor do I feel it is helpful to do so if we are going to be getting into a proper discussion. How does that make me stubborn exactly?

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Secondly, we know more about the universes origin than we did last year, five years ago, fifty years ago, one hundred years ago, etc, etc. Only a complete ignoramous would fail to see this.

I'm quite aware that we know more, what isn't so evident is that we are "edging close" to finding an explanation for the universe. I don't believe this is the case. Throwing in ad hominems reflects badly on you rather than me.

Dades

Careful now, FD.

Dave!

Jakkass wrote: »

Goduznt Xznt: I might be studying philosophy, but I am also studying computer science :pac:

Sure that's barely even a science -- I should know, having studied it also

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Why bother teaching someone a fulfilling path to live in life? Well I would want that for anyone I cared for. I also would want my child to believe in the truth about our existence.

No I said why bother telling them how convincing it is when you're also telling them they'll be punished for eternity if they don't accept it. Seems redundant to me

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

Can't you see the irony in your post? I don't think it is stubborn to open someones mind up to the possibility that I don't make the same assumptions that you do. I don't automatically assume that God is made up, nor do I feel it is helpful to do so if we are going to be getting into a proper discussion. How does that make me stubborn exactly?

No, I was just giving all god/s an equal weighting, which is only fair. You could at least meet me halfway.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm quite aware that we know more, what isn't so evident is that we are "edging close" to finding an explanation for the universe. I don't believe this is the case. Throwing in ad hominems reflects badly on you rather than me.

No, I said "continue to edge close to an explanation". This is very obviously the case, compare what we know now to a century ago, we are obviously closer now. Each year, we edge closer and closer. Whether we will reach it another thing, which is why I said "What if we crack that one".

The term ignorant seems to be really misunderstood on boards.ie

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Science is great for answering scientific questions, just like philosophy is great for answering philosophical questions. Each field has it's own area of expertise. I don't find a need to put science on a pedestal above every other field of academia. That's where I differ.

Philosophy doesn't answer questions. People put forward their opinions and some other people agree. That doesn't mean they're right. To give a correct answer one needs to be able to test the answer for validity and that's where science comes in.

kiffer

Jakkass wrote: »

You obviously haven't read any theodicies at all. I'd advise you to get a good textbook on the Philosophy of Religion, Brian Davies is good. Philosophy of Religion - A guide and anthology is a good start, it's quite expensive though, his Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion keeps it concise but you'll miss out on part of the debate without consulting a more comprehensive book.

Care to sum up in a few bullet points?
The gist of it like... Otherwise all these arguments might as well be yeah well you haven't read xyz... Back and forth... Which isn't really a discussion of opinion... Wait no. Don't. It's miles off topic.

Goduznt Xznt: I might be studying philosophy, but I am also studying computer science :pac:

Much of philosopy is, to be horribly blunt, absolute ****. I'm sure you've come across some real gems yourself... Much of it is great though... Sadly we often need to sift through a lot of dross...
Science Snob: Computer Science... What like computational physics or chemistry? HarHarHarSnort... Release the Dogs...

The work men have stopped angel grinding out side the window so I can take a nap before I go mad.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm quite aware that we know more, what isn't so evident is that we are "edging close" to finding an explanation for the universe. I don't believe this is the case.

So you acknowledge that we're increasing our knowledge but not that we're getting closer to explaining the universe

How does one get closer to an explanation other than by increasing one's knowledge?

Goduznt Xzst

Jakkass wrote: »

Goduznt Xznt: I might be studying philosophy, but I am also studying computer science :pac:

... it's a pity there's no Religious camps that claim computer science goes against their faithfully held beliefs, otherwise you might also of been able to learn perspective.

Húrin

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

... it's a pity there's no Religious camps that claim computer science goes against their faithfully held beliefs, otherwise you might also of been able to learn perspective.

There are, even Christian ones - the Amish Mennonites for instance. I imagine that many fundamentalist Muslim groups oppose it too. Jakkass isn't obliged to agree with them though.

TwoShedsJackson

I'd have to presume that Judeo-Christianity was made up, which is a leap.

It really isn't.

philologos

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No, I was just giving all god/s an equal weighting, which is only fair. You could at least meet me halfway.

I can meet you half way and admit there is a possibility that I am wrong. I don't believe I am, and I don't feel it is likely that I am wrong, but there is a possibility because of the absence of absolute proof.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No, I said "continue to edge close to an explanation". This is very obviously the case, compare what we know now to a century ago, we are obviously closer now. Each year, we edge closer and closer. Whether we will reach it another thing, which is why I said "What if we crack that one".

Then I can only apologise to you. I mistook your post. Of course we are edging closer, but I don't feel this edging closer as being in any way a threat to my beliefs. Infact, I'm about as intrigued as the rest of you in relation to scientific advancement.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

... it's a pity there's no Religious camps that claim computer science goes against their faithfully held beliefs, otherwise you might also of been able to learn perspective.

God bless their souls if there are any . Just because certain religious groups will disagree with me doesn't mean that it is in any way a blight on my own practice.

kiffer: I'd agree with you, albeit in subtler terms. However, there are some real gems in human understanding in there too.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd have to presume that Judeo-Christianity was made up, which is a leap.

You've leaped over all the other thousands of Gods that have been claimed to exist. What's one more?

Húrin

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That makes no sense.

I mean to say that if you think that there is a creator of the universe, and you find him morally repulsive, then it is only reasonable to conclude that your moral instinct is wrong. This is because the creator was the author of morality and you are just getting it wrong.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think he's talking about Pascal's wager

Not consciously. My point assumes that he who is repulsed by God believes in God in the first place.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Me too. Is it even morality if you're only doing it to avoid consequences for yourself? I'd call that self-preservation.

I would expect that atheists should assert that morality comes from the desire for self-preservation. Theists should assert that morality comes from some deeper metaphysical source.