Logically, agnosticism is the most rational position

[leibowde84]

The Onion of Understanding

More specifically, not understanding The Onion of Understanding

Can you explain what you mean by this?

 

[leibowde84]

You make some very good points. Ok here's something to think about.

If I have a house of bricks in the woods, it is very possible that after some years and storms, that house may be damaged and become a pile of bricks right? That sounds very reasonable wouldn't you say?

But say I have a pile of bricks in the woods and we have storms and bad weather, after many years upon my return, will those bricks have become a house? That doesn't sound very likely does it?

So the less likely event is that man, like the bricks on the ground, just became a house (man) without any builder. It is very unlikely that without a builder a house could have built itself from the elements and organised itself into such an intelligent and complex being.

Only a Builder, we say, God, could have possibly achieved this.

But this has been shown incorrect through evolution by natural selection. Over billions of years life has evolved and has gotten more complicated and diverse. And, even dismissing evolution, which is pretty ludicrous with the plethora of supporting evidence and logic behind it, isn't this just an argument from ignorance or God of the gaps argument. IOW, If we can't explain where man came from it must be a creator God?

 

[loverofhumanity]

But this has been shown incorrect through evolution by natural selection. Over billions of years life has evolved and has gotten more complicated and diverse. And, even dismissing evolution, which is pretty ludicrous with the plethora of supporting evidence and logic behind it, isn't this just an argument from ignorance or God of the gaps argument. IOW, If we can't explain where man came from it must be a creator God?

We can't explain man. So we have the choice of a logical conclusion that a superior intelligence created man or it was just a stroke of luck.

 

[leibowde84]

We can't explain man. So we have the choice of a logical conclusion that a superior intelligence created man or it was just a stroke of luck.

That is an argument from ignorance though.

1. Evolution explains man's origin.
2. Even if you don't buy into the ToE, the choice you mandate is not necessary. It isn't either dumb luck or God. That is an argument from ignorance (logical fallacy). The actual logical answer is that we simply don't know. It is a logical fallacy to claim that just because we aren't aware of an explanation there must only be two options; God or dumb luck.

 

[McBell]

Can you explain what you mean by this?

The proposal is that there are several levels (layers) of understanding for any given subject.
When you get someone who has a deeper level of understanding attempting to explain something from that deeper level of understanding to someone with a much shallower level of understanding what can happen is the one with the shallow understanding gets frustrated and bulks.

Like when you are trying to explain algebra to someone who is just learning to add/subtract single digit numbers.....

 

[leibowde84]

The proposal is that there are several levels (layers) of understanding for any given subject.
When you get someone who has a deeper level of understanding attempting to explain something from that deeper level of understanding to someone with a much shallower level of understanding what can happen is the one with the shallow understanding gets frustrated and bulks.

Like when you are trying to explain algebra to someone who is just learning to add/subtract single digit numbers.....

Thanks for explaining. But, how do you think it applies to our debate here?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wrong again!

Considering I have a Doctor of Theology degree, I am quite sure what theism means.

If you really do have a Doctor of Theology, then you ought to know better.

However, since you seem to be confused, allow me to school you on the term...

Theism [THe, izem - noun]: belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

The term "deism" came about during the Age of Enlightenment, but the belief itself is MUCH older than theism with all of the fluff that encompasses it.

The belief in God came first (deism).
The fluff that built on top of the concept came later (theism).


Your definition is like saying that wooden furniture came before trees.

Deism is the belief in a non-interventionist god. Please show me evidence of belief in a non-interventionist god that pre-dates belief in interventionist gods.

 

[Neo Deist]

If you really do have a Doctor of Theology, then you ought to know better.


Deism is the belief in a non-interventionist god. Please show me evidence of belief in a non-interventionist god that pre-dates belief in interventionist gods.

Just as soon as a time machine is invented and we can go back that far, I will put that on my to do list...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just as soon as a time machine is invented and we can go back that far, I will put that on my to do list...

So you don't have anything to back up your bizarre claim? Good to know.

 

[Neo Deist]

So you don't have anything to back up your bizarre claim? Good to know.

Please show me evidence of the belief in an interventionist god that predates the belief in a non-interventionist god, that does not come from written language (which is only ~5,000 years old, yet humans go back WAAAY before that).

Exactly, you can't.

While you are at it, show me what love looks like. I don't mean an act of love, I mean LOVE...is it red, green, polka dotted? Cold? Hot? Young? Old? You can't, because it is something that is understood, not physical.

 

[loverofhumanity]

That is an argument from ignorance though.

1. Evolution explains man's origin.
2. Even if you don't buy into the ToE, the choice you mandate is not necessary. It isn't either dumb luck or God. That is an argument from ignorance (logical fallacy). The actual logical answer is that we simply don't know. It is a logical fallacy to claim that just because we aren't aware of an explanation there must only be two options; God or dumb luck.

I can only go by my own search and investigation and I have found concrete proof for myself there is definitely a God but I respect others don't see it that way. That's their right.

 

[McBell]

Thanks for explaining. But, how do you think it applies to our debate here?

He is unable or unwilling to go deeper in understanding because he has a cookie cutter reply for the outer layer.
He is stuck on the word laws.
His understanding does not go deep enough for him to see that laws are just descriptors.
He may even think that they are laws like for speeding or jay walking.

 

[leibowde84]

I can only go by my own search and investigation and I have found concrete proof for myself there is definitely a God but I respect others don't see it that way. That's their right.

I would like to continue this discussion, but you have removed it from logical discourse with this reply. You already stated that you have concrete proof for God's existence. I am trying to get to what that concrete proof is. Thus far you have merely presented logically fallacious arguments based on the God of the Gaps; using a current lack of scientific explanation (even though the ToE seems to provide one) as evidence for God's existence.

 

[leibowde84]

I can only go by my own search and investigation and I have found concrete proof for myself there is definitely a God but I respect others don't see it that way. That's their right.

Can you respond to this?

1. Evolution explains man's origin.
2. Even if you don't buy into the ToE, the choice you mandate is not necessary. It isn't either dumb luck or God. That is an argument from ignorance (logical fallacy). The actual logical answer is that we simply don't know. It is a logical fallacy to claim that just because we aren't aware of an explanation there must only be two options; God or dumb luck.

 

[leibowde84]

He is unable or unwilling to go deeper in understanding because he has a cookie cutter reply for the outer layer.
He is stuck on the word laws.
His understanding does not go deep enough for him to see that laws are just descriptors.
He may even think that they are laws like for speeding or jay walking.

I thought we were going to actually have a lively discussion, but with his last reply I am now convinced that you are correct.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Can you respond to this?

1. Evolution explains man's origin.
2. Even if you don't buy into the ToE, the choice you mandate is not necessary. It isn't either dumb luck or God. That is an argument from ignorance (logical fallacy). The actual logical answer is that we simply don't know. It is a logical fallacy to claim that just because we aren't aware of an explanation there must only be two options; God or dumb luck.

Yes sure.

On evolution we believe man was always a distinct species not evolved from any other species. And that no one has the ability to create a human being not even nature. We believe that man is a Divine Creation not just a result of the combination of elements as we cannot create a human being simply by combining elements with all our science.

There is one other option - to consult Divine Guidance on the topic from a Manifestation of God.

There is so much information in the Baha'i Writings on this subject it is too extensive to post here but is available to all to research.

Some Answered Questions goes deeply into the creation of man, the universe, about the existence of God and other deep subjects that baffle people.

It is another option rather than just saying we don't know.

 

[Neo Deist]

Deism is the belief in a non-interventionist god. Please show me evidence of belief in a non-interventionist god that pre-dates belief in interventionist gods.

Besides, you have moved the goal posts. You have gone from theism vs deism (which came first) to specifics about an interventionist deity vs a non-interventionist. The belief in God came first (deism) and the trappings of all that God does or does not do came later (theism). It's only when you lost the argument that you tried to throw a curve ball and change the game. That is why I used the analogy of which came first, a tree or wooden furniture. Your position supports the wooden furniture theory.

Ciao!

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Yes sure.

On evolution we believe man was always a distinct species not evolved from any other species. And that no one has the ability to create a human being not even nature. We believe that man is a Divine Creation not just a result of the combination of elements as we cannot create a human being simply by combining elements with all our science.

There is one other option - to consult Divine Guidance on the topic from a Manifestation of God.

There is so much information in the Baha'i Writings on this subject it is too extensive to post here but is available to all to research.

Some Answered Questions goes deeply into the creation of man, the universe, about the existence of God and other deep subjects that baffle people.

It is another option rather than just saying we don't know.

Its funny you know. You probably mean the best and all that, no ill will that is, but with that said I find humanocentric opinions like yours to be bigoted and hateful in their own way.

Man, the 'magical special' being, among an ocean of similar life that to you, is worth less.

I would, based on abundance and overpopulation alone, value the life of one Siberian tiger over the entire population of any given american state, or comparable population.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Its funny you know. You probably mean the best and all that, no ill will that is, but with that said I find humanocentric opinions like yours to be bigoted and hateful in their own way.

Man, the 'magical special' being, among an ocean of similar life that to you, is worth less.

I would, based on abundance and overpopulation alone, value the life of one Siberian tiger over the entire population of any given american state, or comparable population.

All life is precious. None is worthless. Our whole aim is the betterment of the world through pure and goodly deeds and the happiness of its peoples.

 

[Sand Dancer]

My understanding is that those are just different languages describing the One Reality - God. Allow me to explain it this way. There is only one sun in the sky. Whether you call it the sun of Monday or Wednesday or Friday, it is still the same one sun irrespective of what we call it. So whether we call Him Allah or Yahweh or Jehovah it is all the same.

That's cool.