yguy

Yes.

Man being created in God's image - i.e., a free will agent - doesn't have the Bible as its ultimate source. Children are created in the image of the parents, and we are His children, so it's not much of a stretch.

As for whether He actually parted the Red Sea and all that stuff, that is belief.

If that means do I believe He created everything, yes. Whether it happened a few thousand years ago or a few billion I don't know.

I'm sure that man is not the end product of evolution, without regard to whether such a phenomenon exists.

yguy

Who do you think you're kidding?

Shadowy Man

Well, he certainly made it look like it was billions of years ago!

Jesse

yguy:
I'm sure He is personal, since we are created in His image.

Jesse:
But are you sure of that in the same way you're sure that 1+1=2?

yguy:
Yes.

Jesse:
I thought that although you were absolutely sure God exists, it was only your belief that it was the God of the Bible rather than, say, the Hindu God.

yguy:
Man being created in God's image - i.e., a free will agent - doesn't have the Bible as its ultimate source. Children are created in the image of the parents, and we are His children, so it's not much of a stretch.

For me reasoning-by-analogy and saying something is "not much of a stretch" could not possibly be a basis for the kind of absolute, 100% certainty (as opposed to, say, 99.9999999999999999%) that I have about 1+1=2 being true. It's also "not much of a stretch" to say that, by analogy, since other people act like me they probably have conscious experiences similar to mine, but I can't rule out as logically impossible the idea that all other people are actually unconscious robots or something. I can't be totally sure of that the way I am of 1+1=2, just like I can't be totally sure that the earth is round or that I'm not really a butterfly having a dream of being a man.

To say you have absolute a priori certainty about something is quite a large claim to make--it goes way beyond just saying that, for all practical purposes, you know that something must be true.

Jesse:
If not, what do you mean by "created in His image", exactly? And if so, are you absolutely sure that the theory of evolution by random mutation and natural selection is incorrect, or just relatively sure?

yguy:
I'm sure that man is not the end product of evolution, without regard to whether such a phenomenon exists.

So you're as sure of that as you are that 1+1=2? You're more sure of that than you are that the earth is round, or that all the other people you interact with aren't really aardvarks wearing human suits?

Tenspace

Not kidding. Serious. I said, "With Respect", because I do have respect for the way you post your thoughts. It's rare to read a believer's post, and find lucid, well-thought arguments. Why waste time responding to someone who can't spell their way out of a wet paper bag?

I also voice respect because you are a fellow human and deserve such. Yeah, I was pretty harsh in the original post, but I am being honest. Not tactful, but more flowing with the mood created by reading the stream of this thread, which was leading more and more to the age-old, "God exists, I believe, end of story."

How can one argue for the existence of God before arguing for the infallibility of the Bible? There, in a sentence, is my point.

Now, what about quantum physics and God? Anyone care to dig a little deeper?

Always amenable,

Tenspace

yguy

The reasoning is not the basis. Insight is - the analogy only attests to it.

Logical possibilities are irrelevant. It is logically possible that I don't exist, but it is not [i]actually]/i] possible.

I am sure that I'm not a butterfly dreaming of being a man.

Yes.

yguy

I do it all the time. There is no way to know that everything in the Bible is inspired by God, and that other literature is not. I believe the Bible to be mostly true, but Bible literalism is a fraud.

Kimpatsu

Evidence for this god, please.

Tenspace

So what you are saying is that God has human DNA, right? And, how does being created in an image equal free will? I don't see the connection.

What do you mean by this? That each believer is open to interpret whether to believe or not believe sections of the Bible? What basis is used to determine if a story is Word, parable, or fable?

But what about the order of creation? Do you believe in the sequence of events as spelled out in Genesis I?

Do you consider man to be an end product of gravity? That gravity exists so we have something to hold the universe together (and our feet on the Earth) simply for man's benefit? There is no "end product" to evolution. Populations simply evolve.

Evolution does not exist for the benefit of man. It is just man's explanation for apparent complexity, whether of biota, star systems, or a really cool rock you found when you were six.


Tenspace

Jesse

Jesse:
It's also "not much of a stretch" to say that, by analogy, since other people act like me they probably have conscious experiences similar to mine, but I can't rule out as logically impossible the idea that all other people are actually unconscious robots or something.

yguy:
Logical possibilities are irrelevant. It is logically possible that I don't exist, but it is not actually possible.

For me it's logically possible that you don't exist since I don't know whether you have an independent consciousness (you could just be a character in my dream), but assuming you are consciously contemplating this question, it is not logically possible for you. "I think, therefore I am"--a nonexistent being could not possibly be conscious of anything.

Jesse:
I can't be totally sure of that the way I am of 1+1=2, just like I can't be totally sure that the earth is round or that I'm not really a butterfly having a dream of being a man.

yguy:
I am sure that I'm not a butterfly dreaming of being a man.

Even a sentient butterfly, perhaps one created "in God's image?"

yguy:
I'm sure that man is not the end product of evolution, without regard to whether such a phenomenon exists.

Jesse:
So you're as sure of that as you are that 1+1=2? You're more sure of that than you are that the earth is round, or that all the other people you interact with aren't really aardvarks wearing human suits?

yguy:
Yes.

Well, how about this--would it be possible that God designed the universe in such a way that all material systems are conscious to some extent (panpsychism), and all have some limited degree of free will (perhaps accounting for apparent quantum randomness) and some limited access to the "platonic truths" which in your view stem from God's mind, like the truth that murder is wrong or that 1+1=2? Perhaps God could also set up the rules of this universe so that He knew in advance that the process of brain complexification due to evolution by RM&NS would lead to organisms with higher and higher levels of consciousness and therefore better and better access to these truths. In this way one could simultaneously believe that we are made "in His image" but also that we evolved through RM&NS.

Presumably you would think this scenario is pretty unlikely, but do you also think it is "impossible" in the sense that 1+1=3 is impossible? If so, why?