Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MadMordigan · 04-08-2002, 01:14 PM

Fine, so when your child craps his pants just remember: it's your fault for having him. And if he ever disobeys you, which you know at some point he will, just remember: it's your fault for having a child even though you knew it would disobey.

EXACTLY!

And are you saying it is possible for matter to appear out of nowhere now, or that it was possible before there was a universe of matter and energy? So is the law: "matter is neither created nor destroyed" now defunct?

That law is incomplete, and to the best of my knowledge has not been revised to describe both the observable quantum fluctuations and the relativalistic model which predicts so much of the rest of the observable phenomenae in our universe.

Wierd shit that we can't yet explain is not very good evidence of boogeymen. Unless booigeymen run away whenever we shine a light on them.

luvluv · 04-08-2002, 01:18 PM

MadMorrigan:

"Fine, so when your child craps his pants just remember: it's your fault for having him. And if he ever disobeys you, which you know at some point he will, just remember: it's your fault for having a child even though you knew it would disobey.

EXACTLY!"

So then are you morally corrupt for attempting to potty-train your child? Shouldn't you let him sit around in his own feces, since you knew he would crap on himself?

MadMordigan · 04-08-2002, 01:28 PM

So then are you morally corrupt for attempting to potty-train your child?

No. You would be morally corrupt for hiding from such a child.

luvluv · 04-08-2002, 02:10 PM

MadMorrigan, the "potty training" line of questioning came from Khavalion's contention that we cannot be God's creation because we are not what he wants us to be.

The potty training analogy was not raised to answer the "Why is God hiding" question.

Khavalion seemed to believe it is unlikely for God to have created us because we are not what he desired us to be, and if he knew we were not what he desired us to be, he should have made us differently. He was, in effect, arguing that God made us with flaws because he intended us to have flaws. I argued that knowledge that flaws will exist, or more specifically, that humans would fail, does not mean that God designed humans for the purpose of failing, and I used the potty-training analogy to explain why foreknowledge does not always equal intent.

MadMordigan · 04-08-2002, 02:22 PM

I argued that knowledge that flaws will exist, or more specifically, that humans would fail, does not mean that God designed humans for the purpose of failing, and I used the potty-training analogy to explain why foreknowledge does not always equal intent.

Humans don't know how to make babies that don't shit themselves. (yet) Presumably, god does, and also had the power to do so. Or maybe you worship a mamby pamby god that can make us breathe air instinctively, but can't make us use a toilet instinctively.

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: MadMordigan ]

daemon · 04-08-2002, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
Fine, but if something were able to create free willed, intelligent beings, and if he created the medium in which they exist, i.e. the universe, then he must not have INITIALLY lived in that medium which he created. Therefore if God exists and if He created the universe his principle existence must be somewhere else, so the fact that we do not find him here is not suprising. That is my argument, is that not clear?

It wasn't clear; it is certainly moreso for having stated what your position was, rather than using analogies.

Of course, this completely fails to address David Gould's arguments. His argument was not that a creator must exist within its creation, but that belief in such a creator is unwarranted unless said creator can be detected.

David Ortgiesen · 04-09-2002, 06:40 AM

If architecture can be shown to exist, does it not then follow that there is an architect?

Eudaimonist · 04-09-2002, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Ortgiesen:
If architecture can be shown to exist, does it not then follow that there is an architect?

This only begs the question. You'd have to show convincing evidence that something was built by an architect, and this might require providing evidence for the existence of the architect, if the architect is presumed to be non-human.

David Ortgiesen · 04-09-2002, 08:12 AM

Let me make it simpler. The name/title we use is irrelevant. If a well-ordered universe exists, was created and is still evolving, could that not point to a still active creator? Gravity existed in any matter with mass before the apple fell on Newton's head, yet before that time no serious thought was given to it. There are many physical phenomina which we take for granted today, which only 2 or 3 centuries ago were considered miracles or 'acts of God' (which I contend, in the broadest sense, they are). My point is that simply because we are not yet sophisticated enough to prove the existence of a supreme being does not prove that one does not exist.
For the record, I am not a Christian or a member of any other religious cult. I simply believe that there exists an intellectual force or being which is, as yet, incomprehensible to us.

Philosoft · 04-09-2002, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Ortgiesen:
Let me make it simpler. The name/title we use is irrelevant. If a well-ordered universe exists, was created and is still evolving, could that not point to a still active creator?

We can make no judgement about the perceived orderliness of the universe unless we have another universe with which to compare it. Any assertion that the universe has perceived orderliness is completely arbitrary.

Quote:

Gravity existed in any matter with mass before the apple fell on Newton's head, yet before that time no serious thought was given to it. There are many physical phenomina which we take for granted today, which only 2 or 3 centuries ago were considered miracles or 'acts of God' (which I contend, in the broadest sense, they are). My point is that simply because we are not yet sophisticated enough to prove the existence of a supreme being does not prove that one does not exist.

That's why we concern ourselves only with the creator concepts that are asserted to exist. Trying to determine the likelihood of the existence of something for which we have no concept, or cannot have a concept, is an exercise in futility, not to mention logically meaningless.

Quote:

For the record, I am not a Christian or a member of any other religious cult. I simply believe that there exists an intellectual force or being which is, as yet, incomprehensible to us.

I assume with full realization that this belief is entirely ad hoc?

04-08-2002, 02:22 PM	#45
MadMordigan Beloved Deceased Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 2,704	I argued that knowledge that flaws will exist, or more specifically, that humans would fail, does not mean that God designed humans for the purpose of failing, and I used the potty-training analogy to explain why foreknowledge does not always equal intent. Humans don't know how to make babies that don't shit themselves. (yet) Presumably, god does, and also had the power to do so. Or maybe you worship a mamby pamby god that can make us breathe air instinctively, but can't make us use a toilet instinctively. [ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: MadMordigan ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-08-2002, 01:14 PM	#41
MadMordigan Beloved Deceased Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 2,704	Fine, so when your child craps his pants just remember: it's your fault for having him. And if he ever disobeys you, which you know at some point he will, just remember: it's your fault for having a child even though you knew it would disobey. EXACTLY! And are you saying it is possible for matter to appear out of nowhere now, or that it was possible before there was a universe of matter and energy? So is the law: "matter is neither created nor destroyed" now defunct? That law is incomplete, and to the best of my knowledge has not been revised to describe both the observable quantum fluctuations and the relativalistic model which predicts so much of the rest of the observable phenomenae in our universe. Wierd shit that we can't yet explain is not very good evidence of boogeymen. Unless booigeymen run away whenever we shine a light on them.

04-08-2002, 01:18 PM	#42
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	MadMorrigan: "Fine, so when your child craps his pants just remember: it's your fault for having him. And if he ever disobeys you, which you know at some point he will, just remember: it's your fault for having a child even though you knew it would disobey. EXACTLY!" So then are you morally corrupt for attempting to potty-train your child? Shouldn't you let him sit around in his own feces, since you knew he would crap on himself?

04-08-2002, 01:28 PM	#43
MadMordigan Beloved Deceased Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 2,704	So then are you morally corrupt for attempting to potty-train your child? No. You would be morally corrupt for hiding from such a child.

04-08-2002, 02:10 PM	#44
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	MadMorrigan, the "potty training" line of questioning came from Khavalion's contention that we cannot be God's creation because we are not what he wants us to be. The potty training analogy was not raised to answer the "Why is God hiding" question. Khavalion seemed to believe it is unlikely for God to have created us because we are not what he desired us to be, and if he knew we were not what he desired us to be, he should have made us differently. He was, in effect, arguing that God made us with flaws because he intended us to have flaws. I argued that knowledge that flaws will exist, or more specifically, that humans would fail, does not mean that God designed humans for the purpose of failing, and I used the potty-training analogy to explain why foreknowledge does not always equal intent.

04-09-2002, 06:40 AM	#47
David Ortgiesen Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Huntsville, Al Posts: 5	If architecture can be shown to exist, does it not then follow that there is an architect?

04-09-2002, 08:12 AM	#49
David Ortgiesen Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Huntsville, Al Posts: 5	Let me make it simpler. The name/title we use is irrelevant. If a well-ordered universe exists, was created and is still evolving, could that not point to a still active creator? Gravity existed in any matter with mass before the apple fell on Newton's head, yet before that time no serious thought was given to it. There are many physical phenomina which we take for granted today, which only 2 or 3 centuries ago were considered miracles or 'acts of God' (which I contend, in the broadest sense, they are). My point is that simply because we are not yet sophisticated enough to prove the existence of a supreme being does not prove that one does not exist. For the record, I am not a Christian or a member of any other religious cult. I simply believe that there exists an intellectual force or being which is, as yet, incomprehensible to us.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.