faith is a useful tool

[darkendless]

I have to disagree.

God is based on a mythology, which is based on an experience that is common to humanity.

Anything is a hindrance when its taken to an extreme, and that can include scientific concepts.

Hmmm... i duno, the mythology and experiences are too sparatic and unconvincingly incoherent to be credible.

Science betters itself when problems and discrepancies occur. There's always rational outcomes. Religion just gets more and more defensive. I guess i just dislike religions way of dealing with God and not the general concept of God itself.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Hmmm... i duno, the mythology and experiences are too sparatic and unconvincingly incoherent to be credible.

Science betters itself when problems and discrepancies occur. There's always rational outcomes. Religion just gets more and more defensive. I guess i just dislike religions way of dealing with God and not the general concept of God itself.

I think that religion does evolve and progress with science, though. It's just slower because it's the individual that must adjust.

The individual religious outlook does change in the same way as science, for the individual who is willing to think about it. The problem arises when religious groups confuse the tools with the jobs they are best suited for.

 

[Copernicus]

I think that religion does evolve and progress with science, though. It's just slower because it's the individual that must adjust.

I agree. The phenomenon is called God of the Gaps.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I agree. The phenomenon is called God of the Gaps.

Well, for some, yes. But that's a limited view of the spiritual progression.

Belief in a God can go beyond simply fitting It into the gaps of human knowledge. Instead, it can act as a dynamic metaphor for the human condition within that knowledge.

Rather than God as the "cause" of the Big Bang, one may see themselves as an intricate part of the universal process of change, and decide that they are co-creators of a conscious universe.

 

[Copernicus]

Belief in a God can go beyond simply fitting It into the gaps of human knowledge. Instead, it can act as a dynamic metaphor for the human condition within that knowledge.

To the extent that your statement makes any sense at all, it appears to be false. But I am not saying that it appears to be false.

Rather than God as the "cause" of the Big Bang, one may see themselves as an intricate part of the universal process of change, and decide that they are co-creators of a conscious universe.

One may see himself or herself as a co-creator of the universe, but that would require a healthy dose of chutspah.

 

[emiliano]

emiliano, I will repeat what I wrote before, since you must have missed part of it:

You are attacking a position no one is actually holding. Science doesn't actually prove or disprove anything. It only gives the most likely explanation based upon the data available, obtained through a rather rigorous process. As more data is accumulated, positions are reevaluated. Because the process of data acquistion is never done, science really can not say anything is 100% without-a-doubt true.

Furthermore, science doesn't deal with the existence or non-existence of God. It can't, as there is no quantifiable, objective evidence.

It can, however, research the physical world and its properties.

Now, I agree with you: In itself, an old Earth paradigm does not destroy Christianity. Evolution does not destroy Christianity.

However, since Christians have incoorporated certain beliefs into their theology, such as a young Earth or fully created humans, the recent discoveries of science may begin to undermine the faith of believers. (ie, If my pastor was wrong about claim A, perhaps he is also wrong about claim B)..

Falvlun.
Let go, now at least we are getting into some common understanding. You wrote: emiliano, I will repeat what I wrote before, since you must have missed part of it:
You are attacking a position no one is actually holding.
Am I? This is what Darkenless wrote “Science does not disprove God, only the foundations God is built around. The creation of earth, the creation of man, the creation of everything is under fire because comprehensive evidence exists to disprove it. What do you make of that. Am I attacking a position that nobody hold? I remind you that Copernicus has nominated him and you to debate his position with me.
Here is another by Darkenless “God would have us believe the world is 40,000 years old” and “God would have us believe we were created and did not evolve” and the real beauty “Science can pretty much bury the bible here” I opted for answering you because you make more sense, and that was my mistake, never the less I am not attacking a position that nobody is making as you can see, I should have responded to his post separately as you understand that science and religion are two different areas of knowledge, sorry!:sorry1:

Science doesn't actually prove or disprove anything. It only gives the most likely explanation based upon the data available, obtained through a rather rigorous process. As more data is accumulated, positions are reevaluated.

I just want to make one point in this, so does theology and is called interpretations that are based upon the data available, obtained through a rather rigorous process involving linguistic knowledge of ancient languages, , history, archaeology, hermeneutics, and finally revelations and the tool of excellence is faith a gift from God.

Furthermore, science doesn't deal with the existence or non-existence of God. It can't, as there is no quantifiable, objective evidence.

Well there it is, you understand it, I already apologise for putting you in the same bag that I put Darken, you got it. God is a spirit, it belong to the spiritual realm that is an area of knowledge that science does not deal with.:yes:
It can, however, research the physical world and its properties.

Now, I agree with you: In itself, an old Earth paradigm does not destroy Christianity. Evolution does not destroy Christianity.
However, since Christians have incoorporated certain beliefs into their theology, such as a young Earth or fully created humans, the recent discoveries of science may begin to undermine the faith of believers. (ie, If my pastor was wrong about claim A, perhaps he is also wrong about claim B).

This problem was resolved long time ago by the Doctors of the Church Augustine and Aquinas, God exist outside time and is not subjected to time, thus the Bible’s account of the creation does not have time in the way that humans have time and are subjected to it.

 

[darkendless]

This problem was resolved long time ago by the Doctors of the Church Augustine and Aquinas, God exist outside time and is not subjected to time, thus the Bible’s account of the creation does not have time in the way that humans have time and are subjected to it.

I know you hate debating with me Emiliano so i will instead ask a question.

Since what i assume Falvun is talking about it biblical, and not actually about God himself, how can the church remove the timeframe? Are you saying that the biblical interpretation of the creation of the earth is not subject to a time period eg. 40,000 years is not stated in the bible? As in people who believe the earth is young pulled it out of thin air?

 

[emiliano]

So, God gives faith to those he chooses. You did not answer my other questions. How are those of us without faith ever supposed to come to God, since faith seems to be a necessary trait of believers?

Well I am sure that you are not going to like the answer to that, because of the sins of humanity (from the beginning) we are all reprobated, because we are all sinners, we remind sinners till the day that God has mercy on us and gives us the gift of faith so as to believe God, if He does not give you the give you stay in that state reprobate/separate from God.

Augustine and Aquinas were philosophers, certainly. However, they were not working from a blank slate: To them, God existed. There was no question

Exactly they did not work from a clean slate. They had the gift, faith is the tool to enquire into spiritual matters. It is the way that God assist those that He has mercy on.

 

[emiliano]

I know you hate debating with me Emiliano so i will instead ask a question.

Since what i assume Falvun is talking about it biblical, and not actually about God himself, how can the church remove the timeframe? Are you saying that the biblical interpretation of the creation of the earth is not subject to a time period eg. 40,000 years is not stated in the bible? As in people who believe the earth is young pulled it out of thin air?

God is not subject to time, God exist outside of time, you are a complicated individual, ambivalent in most issues, the times that genesis addresses begins before the creation of the sun and the moon, that is how humans measure time, you were having a bob each way on the discussion and I though that you and him were in the same wave and I was wrong in assuming this to be the case. Old earth doctrine accept that the time of the beginning cannot be said like our.

 

[darkendless]

God is not subject to time, God exist outside of time, you are a complicated individual, ambivalent in most issues, the times that genesis addresses begins before the creation of the sun and the moon, that is how humans measure time, you were having a bob each way on the discussion and I though that you and him were in the same wave and I was wrong in assuming this to be the case. Old earth doctrine accept that the time of the beginning cannot be said like our.

Ok, so given we have enough evidence to support whatever conclusion is reached, would that mean religion (for the most part) would not have a problem with a scientific age of the earth. I ask this because i've had many debates with Christians over geological time scales and i get told a lot that it is impossible that the earth is older than 40,000 years. Given what you have stated though it makes sense and thus the bible does not interfere with evidence that may prove contrary.

 

[emiliano]

Ok, so given we have enough evidence to support whatever conclusion is reached, would that mean religion (for the most part) would not have a problem with a scientific age of the earth. I ask this because i've had many debates with Christians over geological time scales and i get told a lot that it is impossible that the earth is older than 40,000 years. Given what you have stated though it makes sense and thus the bible does not interfere with evidence that may prove contrary.

A good book to read is Augustine’s City of God, there is an online version of it, also there is the Suma of Aquinas, but this one is a bit heavy on the reading, I read bits and pieces when I can.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

To the extent that your statement makes any sense at all, it appears to be false. But I am not saying that it appears to be false.

Sorry, let me rephrase.

God isn't just something used to fill in the gaps of human knowledge. Some use it that way (out of a way of maintaining a belief they feel they need, and they may), but for many believers God is more than an object, It is an experience of existing in a conscious world.

The universe is, of course, conscious, unless we are somehow separate from it.

One may see himself or herself as a co-creator of the universe, but that would require a healthy dose of chutspah.

How can we not be? I know I've made some changes in the world. I know you have too (because by simply reading your posts, new neural connections are made, and I react, creating new connections for others, not to mention all the space our words are taking up and the energy used in response...etc., etc.)

The concept of co-creation requires only a basic understanding of a person's relationship with everything else.

God is a metaphor for that.

 

[challupa]

Sorry, let me rephrase.

God isn't just something used to fill in the gaps of human knowledge. Some use it that way (out of a way of maintaining a belief they feel they need, and they may), but for many believers God is more than an object, It is an experience of existing in a conscious world.

The universe is, of course, conscious, unless we are somehow separate from it.



How can we not be? I know I've made some changes in the world. I know you have too (because by simply reading your posts, new neural connections are made, and I react, creating new connections for others, not to mention all the space our words are taking up and the energy used in response...etc., etc.)

The concept of co-creation requires only a basic understanding of a person's relationship with everything else.

God is a metaphor for that.

I really do agree that we do create our experience.

 

[Copernicus]

God isn't just something used to fill in the gaps of human knowledge. Some use it that way (out of a way of maintaining a belief they feel they need, and they may), but for many believers God is more than an object, It is an experience of existing in a conscious world.

I am aware that there are many views on the nature of God, but it seems to me that you are saying little more than that God is a projection of humans onto nature--a figment of the human imagination. If that is your intention, then I can agree with it. If you are trying to say something more, you aren't making sense to me.

The universe is, of course, conscious, unless we are somehow separate from it.

Nonsense. There is no reason to believe that the universe is conscious. We know that our consciousness is contingent on the functioning of our brains. Why should we believe that the universe itself has consciousness and thoughts in the same sense that we do?

How can we not be? I know I've made some changes in the world. I know you have too (because by simply reading your posts, new neural connections are made, and I react, creating new connections for others, not to mention all the space our words are taking up and the energy used in response...etc., etc.)

I think that you are equivocating on the word "creator". God is said to have created the universe "out of nothing". We shape things within that universe to suit our needs, but that does not make us "co-creators" of the universe in the same sense.

The concept of co-creation requires only a basic understanding of a person's relationship with everything else.

God is a metaphor for that.

Metaphors can be very useful in explaining new concepts and ideas. I do not see how your metaphor explains anything at all.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I am aware that there are many views on the nature of God, but it seems to me that you are saying little more than that God is a projection of humans onto nature--a figment of the human imagination. If that is your intention, then I can agree with it. If you are trying to say something more, you aren't making sense to me.

Actually, that's pretty close to my own view of God, though I would not have used the phrase "little more." Figments of imagination can be especially useful, particularly in mythology.

Nonsense. There is no reason to believe that the universe is conscious. We know that our consciousness is contingent on the functioning of our brains. Why should we believe that the universe itself has consciousness and thoughts in the same sense that we do?

Are our brains not the Universe? By separating our brains from the universe how are we not perpetuating the idea of a consciousness separate from the material world?

Rather, I would say that since we are a part of the universe, and our consciousness is a process of it.

I think that you are equivocating on the word "creator". God is said to have created the universe "out of nothing". We shape things within that universe to suit our needs, but that does not make us "co-creators" of the universe in the same sense.

I am using "create" in a very common, basic form: to arrange something new. It may not be in the traditional usage of a "creator god" concept (though it is in some mythology), but rather that of everyday creation that is just as wondrous and awe-inspiring.

A potter will form something useful and wondrous from rearranging the structure of clay.

This is change. Dynamic. Creative. We all do it quite naturally.

Metaphors can be very useful in explaining new concepts and ideas. I do not see how your metaphor explains anything at all.

Metaphors can also be poetic, and meaningful in a personal sense. And in that way they are artfully, or culturally beautiful.

But even practically useful, how could evaluating the concept of God as a historical, sociological, or psychological influence not be worthy? Are we to just drop this historically significant concept and not gain anything from it?

 

[Copernicus]

Are our brains not the Universe? By separating our brains from the universe how are we not perpetuating the idea of a consciousness separate from the material world?

Our brains are only a small part of the universe. Consciousness exists in the realm of the mind, not the material, but the mind is dependent on the material universe for its existence. We should not confuse subjective experience with that which causes it. We need consciousness in order for our bodies to survive. Consciousness is something that has evolved in animals with brains. It is a mistake to jump from that observation to the conclusion that the universe is somehow conscious in the same sense.

Rather, I would say that since we are a part of the universe, and our consciousness is a process of it.

Yes. More precisely, an effect of a tiny piece of the universe.

I am using "create" in a very common, basic form: to arrange something new. It may not be in the traditional usage of a "creator god" concept (though it is in some mythology), but rather that of everyday creation that is just as wondrous and awe-inspiring.

I was just pointing out that there are different senses of "create", and the one we typically associate with God is not the same as the one you were using. I have nothing against wonder and awe. We have all experienced it, and it can be a very positive experience. It can also be what we experience under the influence of drugs. So that which causes wonder and awe is not necessarily something profound.

A potter will form something useful and wondrous from rearranging the structure of clay.

Perhaps, but the potter often loses that feeling after manufacturing a large quantity of those pots. The idea that the order we see in the universe was somehow manufactured in the same way is, I think, a very serious misunderstanding of how order comes about in nature.

Metaphors can also be poetic, and meaningful in a personal sense. And in that way they are artfully, or culturally beautiful.

But even practically useful, how could evaluating the concept of God as a historical, sociological, or psychological influence not be worthy? Are we to just drop this historically significant concept and not gain anything from it?

Metaphors can be beautiful in the way you describe them, but it doesn't follow that all metaphors are wonderful or useful. A metaphor is a complex web of associations that tends to break down inevitably, as do all analogies.

Rather than to go further with this, I would like to recommend one of my favorite films: Louis Malle's My Dinner with Andre. It is a well-known film, so you may already be familiar with it. The entire film consists of a dinner conversation between two people, but it reflects something of the kind of conversation we are having here. Only the conversation in the film is much more enjoyable. The idea of the film sounds boring. A bit like watching paint dry. The film itself is quite profound for what it has to say about the nature of reality and two very different perspectives on it.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Rather than to go further with this, I would like to recommend one of my favorite films: Louis Malle's My Dinner with Andre. It is a well-known film, so you may already be familiar with it. The entire film consists of a dinner conversation between two people, but it reflects something of the kind of conversation we are having here. Only the conversation in the film is much more enjoyable. The idea of the film sounds boring. A bit like watching paint dry. The film itself is quite profound for what it has to say about the nature of reality and two very different perspectives on it.

Actually, I'm kind of enjoying this and would be willing to take it up in a one-on-one debate in order to not derail the thread. And I'll check out the film sometime. I've been meaning to also watch Andy Kaufman's My Breakfast with Blassie.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Yup my bias.
'
Belief in God is based on nothing but superstition and is a hinderance to the human race.

Disbelief in God is based on arrogance and the inability to see past your nose, philosophically speaking. It's the one thing that has caused the moral decay of our society.

Prove me wrong Bias Boy.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I agree. The phenomenon is called God of the Gaps.

Which is just as flawed as "Science of the Gaps". But then you have to have an OPEN mind to see that Science has nothing to say about God and God has nothing to say about science.

 

[Copernicus]

Which is just as flawed as "Science of the Gaps". But then you have to have an OPEN mind to see that Science has nothing to say about God and God has nothing to say about science.

Here is the short description of God of the Gaps from Wikipedia:

The God of the gaps refers to a view of God deriving from a theistic position in which anything that can be explained by human knowledge is not in the domain of God, so the role of God is therefore confined to the 'gaps' in scientific explanations of nature.

There is no "Science of the Gaps" position, since science only offers explanations of testable phenomena. Science can examine claims of miracles. Many such claims have been debunked. Others are unverifiable, because there is no verifiable evidence that they ever took place, e.g. the resurrection of Jesus. Nobody claims that science proves Jesus was never resurrected.