Do you think/believe that your body was designed/created?

[Godobeyer]

It makes me laugh because I couldn't believe you were really arguing it. I didn't criticise the belief, I used it as an example to demonstrate why that point is ridiculous.

Not only Jews believed in a flat Earth! It seems plausible that the majority of people alive 3000 years ago believed the Earth was flat. If a democracy always wins, that means the Earth was flat 3000 years ago!

Obviously that is nonsense. So the same goes for you saying the majority are creationists has any effect on whether the idea is true.

But how suppose the people knows that earth was not flat before 3000 years ago ?

Does Hindus or Atheists knew that earth was round before 3000 years ago ?

Anyway I just find it ridiculous to repeat what others said "same exemple" .

You know that I was discussing present statics beliefs.

 

[Kirran]

But how suppose the people knows that earth was not flat before 3000 years ago ?

Does Hindus or Atheists knew that earth was round before 3000 years ago ?

Anyway I just find it ridiculous to repeat what others said "same exemple" .

You know that I was discussing present statics beliefs.

It doesn't matter if they were able to know, it doesn't matter who knew it, that isn't relevant to the point that a majority of people believed it, but it still wasn't true. It's an illustration of the point.

 

[Godobeyer]

It doesn't matter if they were able to know, it doesn't matter who knew it, that isn't relevant to the point that a majority of people believed it, but it still wasn't true. It's an illustration of the point.

It's was bull**** repeated illustration .

 

[Kirran]

It's was bull**** repeated illustration .

I wouldn't have repeated it if you'd got the point the first time.

 

[Shad]

Believe me, with all due respect, I'm having the exact same thoughts about you, my friend. The only difference is that what I say is something I share with others (at least by default), not that I try to impose it as the truth. It's okay. Cheer up

If someone is using a logic to create an argument there are certain parameters and principles then pointing out errors in either is a fact. This is logic not empiricism

 

[Godobeyer]

I wouldn't have repeated it if you'd got the point the first time.

You repeated what Mestemia said , I don't think it's was coincidence ! it's was in same page before your post !

#846Mestemia, Sunday at 11:58 AM

Shad specifically said the watchmaker argument has been refuted.

Most of the world used to believe the world was flat.
That tomatoes were poisonous
if a horse hair was left in a barrel of water outside it would turn into a worm.

"most of world believes" is not evidence.

 

[illykitty]

Earthquakes, volcanoes, meteors were once considered evidence of 'bad design' until we understood their critical roles in supporting life. There will always be mysteries we don't understand, shadows where the light of science has not yet shone, where we can point and say 'bad design!'

a.k.a atheism of the gaps..

Just because something has an explanation and use does not mean it is well made. There are many human body parts that have a use but could be improved upon. Yes all of these natural phenomena have a use but again, if a designer can improve or create something better that serves the same function, then the original design is not as good as it could be.

This is what I mean by bad design. If people assert that there is an all powerful being that can make anything possible, then perhaps it is fair to critique this so-called god's designs as being poor, to point out that either that being is not all powerful or that it is made up. It would be a paradox for a perfect being to create something that is poorly made and flawed.

And on the last sentence, we have no idea whether or not we will understand everything. Maybe yes, maybe no. Either way it's no reason to jump to the "god" conclusion.

 

[Kirran]

You repeated what Mestemia said , I don't think it's was coincidence ! it's was in same page before your post !

#846Mestemia, Sunday at 11:58 AM

Cool, yeah, it's a solid example.

 

[Godobeyer]

Cool, yeah, it's a solid example.

Don't you feel shame that you deviate my origin point about majority to post that exemple ?

It's would be solid exemple if you tell us how Hindus and atheists were believe in earth before 3000 years ago, flat or round.

 

[Kirran]

Don't you feel shame that you deviate my origin point about majority to post that exemple ?

It's would be solid exemple if you tell us how Hindus and atheists were believe in earth before 3000 years ago, flat or round.

Shame? I responded directly to a point you made about creationism, illustrating my point with an example. The fact that you have harangued me for days over not understanding the example was not something I intended.

Flat, I reckon. Although there were no Hindus 3000 years ago in the modern sense of the term, in that they wouldn't have identified as Hindu, this being a product of Islamic conquest. As for atheists, I'm not sure there were many around at the time. Certainly the theist-atheist dichotomy had not yet emerged in public thinking.

 

[metis]

Just because something has an explanation and use does not mean it is well made. There are many human body parts that have a use but could be improved upon....

To go along with what you're saying, I have posted about four times in just the last week a question for creationists, and that is if they believe God planned each and every one of us, how can they explain miscarriages and children borne with serious birth defects? For some reason I don't get an answer back.

I am not saying that there is/are no God(s), just that if there is one or more then there has to be a very different picture drawn than what we conventionally tend to see with most theists, much like what Spinoza and Einstein proposed.

 

[Kirran]

To go along with what you're saying, I have posted about four times in just the last week a question for creationists, and that is if they believe God planned each and every one of us, how can they explain miscarriages and children borne with serious birth defects? For some reason I don't get an answer back.

I am not saying that there is/are no God(s), just that if there is one or more then there has to be a very different picture drawn than what we conventionally tend to see with most theists, much like what Spinoza and Einstein proposed.

Ooh, ooh, what about Hindu views of God? Are we still OK?

 

[metis]

Ooh, ooh, what about Hindu views of God? Are we still OK?

Well, I'm not sure you're OK , but I do believe that the most common approach in Hinduism makes more sense ("We are That"). Plus you can always revive the non-theistic schools if push comes to shove.

 

[Kirran]

Well, I'm not sure you're OK , but I do believe that the most common approach in Hinduism makes more sense ("We are That"). Plus you can always revive the non-theistic schools if push comes to shove.

True, although remember we do tend to go in for God's will and a relationship with God in a big way at a 'proximal level' - sure the unity of all being is the absolute truth, but there's still a relatively true world we live in and deal with.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Back to post , you will figure out that they talk it's about Bible scientific error "earth is flat".

My point is which more believers of "creation/Creator" or disbelievers. ,full stop.

But truth has nothing to do with numbers. We don't get to vote on facts. Whoever comes up with the most evidence wins, not numbers of believers.

Yes most of world population believe in creation and Creator, include you.

exception are exist in everything, but not effective in general rate.

I think I'm starting to see where you're going. However, yes, it may seem hypocritical to say that numbers don't equal Truth about creation when a lot of people believe in a creator or creators. However, when dealing with EVIDENCE, it's akin to saying that the earth is flat or the moon is made of cheese. If we HAVE facts that contradict what the majority believes, then it sucks to be the majority because the majority is wrong. The only way belief in gods get a kind of pass is due to the fact none of us can agree on what one is or what powers one has, so it's more of a thought experiment if nothing else. When one claims something about something that can be verified, however, we need to stand up for the facts, not numbers.

I understand that you are believe in creation and Creator, but critizise other religion's point."Judaims and Christianity",to please the others, because of dishonesty was ON.

To be honest, and this is coming from someone in the Abrahamic traditions ... I'd trust the cyclical dharmic folks more if I were assessing accuracy in understanding. I mean, there's a reason the wisest of all kings in Israel, Solomon, still had to outsource to civilizations who were better at math ...

Yeah, I google it I find it's caused by rats.

And unlike in that time period, we now have antibiotics which can usually clear that stuff right up.

We can see the miners dig the ore, the smelters take the ore to create a refined material and haulers that transport the material to a market center all of which the watchmaker never does themselves.

Yeah, and they still can't make a rock.

Because top religions of world taught creation/Creator view, so majority are pro-creationism.

I can still believe in the Abrahamic God and realize life has marched on in terms of understanding how the planet came to be.

It's known rats bacteria was caused black death disease.

You don't need the rats, though.

But how suppose the people knows that earth was not flat before 3000 years ago ?

Most of the ancients figured it out with math.

 

[metis]

True, although remember we do tend to go in for God's will and a relationship with God in a big way at a 'proximal level' - sure the unity of all being is the absolute truth, but there's still a relatively true world we live in and deal with.

I fully agree that we should deal with the real world as the real world and not formulate purely imaginary entities, and my position on God is expressed on my signature statement found at the bottom of this post. Pretty hard to argue with, right?

 

[Smart_Guy]

Well, I appreciate your fairness and respect for other people beliefs. I wish I could do that. Alas, I can only respect people, not necessarily their beliefs. And I expect they return the courtesy. For sure, I cannot possibly be offended for what i believe, since I can make a difference between the two. After all, I try to do my best to address beliefs and not the person. Science and knowledge would collapse if we confused the two.

In other words, if something looks nonsense to me, then I do not feel any moral reason not to call it nonsense, especially if I can show that it is, indeed, nonsense.

And the watchman natural theology argument is nonsense, since it negates its premise. As it can be easily seen.

Ciao

- viole

Part of respecting people is knowing how to react to their beliefs. No need to respect a belief, but disrespecting a belief includes disrespecting its people. A belief is a way of life too, not just an agreement/acceptance of something. There is a difference between not respecting and disrespecting. The former does not necessarily show a reaction, while the latter does. In this life, people are countable for what they do, not what they do not do.

You say you wish to be so... you can, if you want. It is not really that difficult.

But anyway, where does this watch+forest thingy fit in our discussion?

 

[Sonofason]

My body is such a superb specimen of perfected manliness that I have long harbored no doubt at all that I must have been designed --- and surely designed by a remarkably competent and gifted designer. But I've always thought the designer was someone from a Hollywood special effects department. After all, what other kind of organization could possibly create the stunning and magnificent work of art that is me?

It seems to me that your question is a very important question to answer if you really want to get to the bottom of why you are so magnificent and stunning. I would advise not hastily grasping to a hasty conclusion, nor brushing off the question. It's a question I think you really really need to answer.

 

[Smart_Guy]

If someone is using a logic to create an argument there are certain parameters and principles then pointing out errors in either is a fact. This is logic not empiricism

And who defines what logic is, or rather what stuff are what defined to be logic? Logic is an understanding, it is not concrete to be presented as a material does, at least in the subject at hand. When it comes to thinking and believing, there is no Logic (capital L), but logic. Any group of people could come with "a" logic and claim it is Logic in this field.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Do you think or believe that your body was designed-created?

I believe from the point of Logic, every thing was caused to exist because every thing that exists could not have caused itself to exist. Therefore, something that preceded it caused it to exist. Do you believe the universe could have caused itself to exist?