It All Comes Down to Faith

[themadhair]

Response: No

Then why did you use the term ‘creator’ with respect to a snowflake when the processes that create a snowflake are natural and lacking consciousness?

I know the answer to the above question. You were equivocating on the word ‘creator’. When you talk about the universe having a ‘creator’ you are referring to a conscious being, but a cause need not be a ‘creator’ in the way you are using that term. Up to this point you have been attempting to avoid that very important and relevant distinction.

 

[Fatihah]

[QUOTE:themadhair]Then why did you use the term ‘creator’ with respect to a snowflake when the processes that create a snowflake are natural and lacking consciousness?

Response: Because it's still a creator.

Quote: themadhair
I know the answer to the above question. You were equivocating on the word ‘creator’. When you talk about the universe having a ‘creator’ you are referring to a conscious being, but a cause need not be a ‘creator’ in the way you are using that term. Up to this point you have been attempting to avoid that very important and relevant distinction.

Response: It is you who is equivocating. I understand your point and you understand mine. The unfortunate part is that you want to move the conversation to what the term "creator" means instead of dealing with the point. Call it whatever you like. Call it "ungabuoogy" for all I care. You rather say the term "cause" instead of "creator", be my guess. The point is that in order for something to exist, it has to be created. Whether it is a "cause" or "affect" or "evolvement" from something else, it is still a creation from something or someone and in the case of the universe and life itself, it is logical to say the same.

 

[themadhair]

You rather say the term "cause" instead of "creator", be my guess.

I will do so.

The point is that in order for something to exist, it has to be created.

I missed the part where you established this. You asserted it, but never established it.

Whether it is a "cause" or "affect" or "evolvement" from something else, it is still a creation from something or someone and in the case of the universe and life itself, it is logical to say the same.

Why did you insert ‘someone’? Is it because you are trying to equivocate the word ‘creator’ with your god? That you are doing the thing I have been accusing you of? Never seen that coming. It must be coincidence that I linked to the following thread repeatedly:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/81193-argument-contingency-world.html

 

[Fatihah]

[QUOTE:themadhair]I will do so.


I missed the part where you established this. You asserted it, but never established it.

Response: And yet I'm equivocating.

Quote: themadhair
Why did you insert ‘someone’? Is it because you are trying to equivocate the word ‘creator’ with your god? That you are doing the thing I have been accusing you of?

Response: Because that's the definition of the word.

 

[themadhair]

Response: Because that's the definition of the word.

So who is the someone who creates snowflakes? Or was this simply a shameless attempt at equivocation on your part?

 

[Fatihah]

So who is the someone who creates snowflakes? Or was this simply a shameless attempt at equivocation on your part?

Response: The post said "something" or someone.

 

[themadhair]

Response: The post said "something" or someone.

Am I mistaken for assuming that your intention is to use the ‘someone’ connotation to insert god as creator when it comes to the universe?

 

[Fatihah]

[QUOTE:themadhair]Am I mistaken for assuming that your intention is to use the ‘someone’ connotation to insert god as creator when it comes to the universe?[/QUOTE]

Response: Allah(God) is the creator of the universe.

 

[themadhair]

Response: Allah(God) is the creator of the universe.

So you are equivocating on the word ‘creator’.

To say it was a telegraphed fallacy is doing you a kindness. How many times did I link to this thread????:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/81193-argument-contingency-world.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/81193-argument-contingency-world.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/81193-argument-contingency-world.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/81193-argument-contingency-world.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/81193-argument-contingency-world.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/81193-argument-contingency-world.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/81193-argument-contingency-world.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/81193-argument-contingency-world.html

 

[Fatihah]

So you are equivocating on the word ‘creator’.

To say it was a telegraphed fallacy is doing you a kindness. How many times did I link to this thread????:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/81193-argument-contingency-world.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/81193-argument-contingency-world.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/81193-argument-contingency-world.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/81193-argument-contingency-world.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/81193-argument-contingency-world.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/81193-argument-contingency-world.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/81193-argument-contingency-world.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/81193-argument-contingency-world.html

Response: You should know. They're your links.

 

[Falvlun]

Who's on first? What's on second?

 

[sojourner]

There's nothing wrong with constructing an understanding of the world from a particular perspective of theology, as long as that constructed understanding creates space for meaning and does not cloud other issues, as in the debate over creationism. God-as-Creator is a theological understanding of -- not the processes of how the universe came to be as it is, but of the meaning that universe has for us. when that understanding of theological meaning begins to encroach upon the very process, then we have a problem.

But to say that the scientific process is the be-all-end-all is to cut short the human capacity for meaning.

Theology -- faith -- is one way that human beings construct meaning for themselves out of their experience of life. Our concept of God arises out of that construction. We hold to God, not because we have empirical evidence, but because we garner meaning out of such a faith. That meaning deepens our awareness of ourselves, each other and the world. In that sense, meaning is evidentiary.

 

[MoonWater]

There's nothing wrong with constructing an understanding of the world from a particular perspective of theology, as long as that constructed understanding creates space for meaning and does not cloud other issues, as in the debate over creationism. God-as-Creator is a theological understanding of -- not the processes of how the universe came to be as it is, but of the meaning that universe has for us. when that understanding of theological meaning begins to encroach upon the very process, then we have a problem.

But to say that the scientific process is the be-all-end-all is to cut short the human capacity for meaning.

Theology -- faith -- is one way that human beings construct meaning for themselves out of their experience of life. Our concept of God arises out of that construction. We hold to God, not because we have empirical evidence, but because we garner meaning out of such a faith. That meaning deepens our awareness of ourselves, each other and the world. In that sense, meaning is evidentiary.

Very well said sojourner. Now if only the system would let me frubal you for that.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"Theology -- faith -- is one way that human beings construct meaning for themselves out of their experience of life. Our concept of God arises out of that construction. We hold to God, not because we have empirical evidence, but because we garner meaning out of such a faith. That meaning deepens our awareness of ourselves, each other and the world. In that sense, meaning is evidentiary."

Once again we have the admission. You believe this stuff cause it makes you feel better. You have no hard evidence and don't NEED any.

Just believe son, just believe. God'll take care'a the rest.

Deliberate and quite conscious self-delusion.

 

[sojourner]

Deliberate and quite conscious self-delusion.

No, rather, "deliberate and quite conscious self-understanding."

Which:

Just believe son, just believe. God'll take care'a the rest.

is not an example of.

 

[Riverwolf]

"Theology -- faith -- is one way that human beings construct meaning for themselves out of their experience of life. Our concept of God arises out of that construction. We hold to God, not because we have empirical evidence, but because we garner meaning out of such a faith. That meaning deepens our awareness of ourselves, each other and the world. In that sense, meaning is evidentiary."

Once again we have the admission. You believe this stuff cause it makes you feel better. You have no hard evidence and don't NEED any.

Just believe son, just believe. God'll take care'a the rest.

Deliberate and quite conscious self-delusion.

Let me translate, since you clearly don't understand:

Religion is not about what's going on externally; it's about what's going on within ourselves. It's about finding purpose, not one that we're given from birth, but find as we got through life.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Let me translate, since you clearly don't understand:

Religion is not about what's going on externally; it's about what's going on within ourselves. It's about finding purpose, not one that we're given from birth, but find as we got through life.

Really? Now this is news.:shout Perhaps you should start such a religion since the ones now extant don't ignore "what's going on externally" - at all. Ever.

Or perhaps Ann Coulter, James Dobson, OBL, Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson escaped your attention.

Oh, wait. I got it now!

They ain't believers in a "real" religion.:sarcastic

(But isn't what Ann said about YOUR religion?)

 

[Quagmire]

Really? Now this is news.:shout Perhaps you should start such a religion since the ones now extant don't ignore "what's going on externally" - at all. Ever.

Or perhaps Ann Coulter, James Dobson, OBL, Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson escaped your attention.

Oh, wait. I got it now!

They ain't believers in a "real" religion.:sarcastic

(But isn't what Ann said about YOUR religion?)

And of course, what's true about some religious people and some religions is automatically true of all religious people and all religions.

Cool! I guess we can all go home now.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

And of course, what's true about some religious people and some religions is automatically true of all religious people and all religions.

Cool! I guess we can all go home now.

Drive safe!

 

[Riverwolf]

Really? Now this is news.:shout Perhaps you should start such a religion since the ones now extant don't ignore "what's going on externally" - at all. Ever.

You are well aware that I have my own Spiritual Path. But I have no intention of starting a cult based on it, though it has been a tempting thought occasionally.

Or perhaps Ann Coulter, James Dobson, OBL, Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson escaped your attention.

Indeed. I've heard of Pat Robertson, but I've never heard of the others. I don't let famous religious people influence how I view religion, just like I don't let stars(famous people who star in movies but can't act) influence how I view acting and films.

Oh, wait. I got it now!

They ain't believers in a "real" religion.:sarcastic

(But isn't what Ann said about YOUR religion?)

WRONG!! (Too lazy to get the Lex Luthor picture right now. Next time. ^_^)

They do have a religion. It may be flawed, it may be childish, BUT IT'S STILL A VALID RELIGION! It just needs to grow. (Thing is, as the saying goes, growing old is mandatory, but growing up is optional. ) But, for them, it may still lead to God.

It's just they're under the incorrect impression that their path is the ONLY one that leads to God, and this comes from viewing humanity based on yourself. This is very easy to do, and I often fall into this trap myself. I still have to force myself to remember that people have different values and morals than I do, and I have to accept that because of that, my Spiritual Path may not be good for them.