Forums | MacLife

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Yes, some people have died handling snakes, and I'm sure that the faithful have rationalized such occurences with either "the Lord has called him to heaven" or "he was sinful and did not really believe." It really is a no-lose situation for believers.

The faith part makes sense, but the fact is people do die from it no matter what they do to prevent it by milking the snakes or whatever.

But if the snake is evil, or the personification of evil than god would be working through evil to bring home the faithful. Still makes no sense.

God works through the devil ?

I know he works in mysterious ways but working through the devil to call up the faithful makes no sense at all. Unless of course everyone who died was a non-believer.

This goes back to the inability to prove the existence or non-existence of god. It's very convenient for making things up as you go along to suit your particular needs, and to not contradict the the belief. That "didn't really have faith" excuse is a cop-out because it can be used argue anything that contradicts the belief or is evidence against it.

Christians are especially good at having an answer for every little thing that seems to contradict their beliefs. Rarely do I ever see a christian simply say "I don't know"......

mo' ron wrote:

I'm sure you realize this, but people have been aptly doubting and questioning religion since it began (whenever that was) too.

Comparisons to the toothfairy/santa/whatever aren't done to demonstrate historical precedence or to suggest that humans in general haven't studied religions enough, they're done to show a dissonance between burdens of proof and society.

Average Joe Christian believes in God for the same reason kids believe in Santa. Because society tells them to, and it gives them comfort. If average Joe Christian were to actually compare the particulars of what they are suppose to believe to what they actually do believe, and what the Bible says they should believe, then they would either have to become like ResEdit, or acknowledge that the belief in a Religion-based deity is not consistent with reality (or willingly forsake the theologic aspects to keep the social aspects, which is what most people seem to do).

First, I think the dissonance and burden of proof claim you make to really be stretching it. Most people dont put any of their beliefs up against some "burden of proof" as if there is some standard everyone is required to march through to justify their feelings and beliefs. Seriously- if waht you claim were true then everytime someone says they "love" or refer to their "self" or "bad feelings" etc, they would have to bone up on all the neuroscience that calls all those things out into shaky groundings at best. Not to mention "free will." All the comparison does is to highlight a contemporary framing of the current debate between science and religion- it doesnt really address reality at all, its just the way people talk about reality.

Second, when you make claims about what people must or must not believe, then you need to provide solid reasons and evidence: what exactly "must" christians believe which you think the Bible says, and why? What exactly are the reasons they must make some acknowledgment about religion/deity incompatible w/ reality and why? I mean, are you sure that is the ONLY kinds of interpretations or readings between both reality and the Bible that can be made? If so, you ought to expound a bit- thats quite a claim and I'm willing to bet I can find a different likely interpretation contradicting your own.

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Really, the God-in-the-gaps argument?

Science by its very nature leads to more questions. There will be places where an answer will appear to be unknowable by current knowledge such as the cause of the Big Bang. People right now are working on the problem of what happened before the Big Bang (as meaningless that question might be considering that time itself seems to be a phenomenon coming out of the Big Bang, but there may be a meta-time which may give it meaning). Perhaps there will be some breakthrough in the future that will make the Big Bang an understandable event. Saying "I don't know" is not a failure of science--it's a challenge to it.

If and when the reasons for the Big Bang become knowable, such answers will surely bring on more questions. A new set of gaps will be created by the additional knowledge, and you will merely move the goalposts further on into that gap.

You're right: a God-of-the-gaps argument seems weak. But that depends on what your concept of what God is "supposed" to be doing in order to be a "God." You are the one narrowing the definition of what that could entail, not anyone else.

Example: I may think an iPhone is really neato, cool stuff. Just because you demonstrate how the whole thig works and how its marketing has affected interest in that technology, it doesnt mean that after that I still cant be impressed and think its the bees knees.

Just because something people hold as "miraculous" is taken and broken down and explained bit by bit, doesnt mean its still not miraculous that reality turned out taht way in the first place. Explaining a material cause does not run rough shod over how we interpret the meaning of reality unless you have some preconcieved reason why it shouldnt which is also not dictated by the evidence itself.

Back when I was a kid a quarter was real money.

It seems that some people are simply willing to accept emotional responses as evidence. The really curious thing about that is that they would never accept anything else that way.

Last edited by user (2007-09-11 10:11 am)

Me too, but my Dad had a real rough time during the Depression so he was tight with the money.

StaticAge wrote:

[snip]

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Really, the God-in-the-gaps argument?

Science by its very nature leads to more questions. There will be places where an answer will appear to be unknowable by current knowledge such as the cause of the Big Bang. People right now are working on the problem of what happened before the Big Bang (as meaningless that question might be considering that time itself seems to be a phenomenon coming out of the Big Bang, but there may be a meta-time which may give it meaning). Perhaps there will be some breakthrough in the future that will make the Big Bang an understandable event. Saying "I don't know" is not a failure of science--it's a challenge to it.

If and when the reasons for the Big Bang become knowable, such answers will surely bring on more questions. A new set of gaps will be created by the additional knowledge, and you will merely move the goalposts further on into that gap.

You're right: a God-of-the-gaps argument seems weak. But that depends on what your concept of what God is "supposed" to be doing in order to be a "God." You are the one narrowing the definition of what that could entail, not anyone else.

Example: I may think an iPhone is really neato, cool stuff. Just because you demonstrate how the whole thig works and how its marketing has affected interest in that technology, it doesnt mean that after that I still cant be impressed and think its the bees knees.

Just because something people hold as "miraculous" is taken and broken down and explained bit by bit, doesnt mean its still not miraculous that reality turned out taht way in the first place. Explaining a material cause does not run rough shod over how we interpret the meaning of reality unless you have some preconcieved reason why it shouldnt which is also not dictated by the evidence itself.

I'm sorry, but why are you blaming ME for bringing up this argument?

The God-in-the-gaps argument is not just weak but ultimately nonsensical. It argues that if anything is unknown then God can exist there, and it is dependent on moving the goal posts once something becomes known--an act which has been done ever since the world was flat. In essense it is a restatement of the belivever's challenge to the non-believer to prove that there is no God: there would have to be a complete understanding of everything (probably an unattainable condition--"Are you SURE you have checked all of the Antares system, even the star's core?") to "prove" that God does not exist.

Metacell wrote:

God is under my bed waiting to eat me.

Silly Metacell--that's not God, that's Cthulhu!

Metacell wrote:

What?!!! Thats not God whispering in the darkness?

Well, I guess it depends. What is He/She/It saying?

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Metacell wrote:

God is under my bed waiting to eat me.

Silly Metacell

--that's not God,

that's Cthulhu!

Yeah, that's Cthulhu.

Your in deep kimshee now Metacell.

Tallgeese wrote:

Yes. It is one thing to say that god does not exist. It's also one thing to say that I have no reason to believe in Jesus more than Mohammed or Krishna or Zoroaster. Those are valid starting points for arguments.

The tooth fairy thing is just condescending insults.

so the flying spaghetti monster is still a go, then.

got it.