so many hints that it was non-divinely run
where are the hints for it?
because we can expelling them? tell me would a "smart" race not make rules and make it where they dont have to "run the universe but let it run it self base on laws and rules?
or do you think this for another reason?
the bible says proof for God is in creation, I believe that to include the laws, you dont have to, thats fine, just know the bible dose meeting God "leaving" hints, and even says most would deny it
Ah, the hard (to understand?) questions, eh? (Yes, I know it's your spill-chucker making the malapropisms/etc, that's why I'm fighting to understand, and actually replying.)
The 'hints' (perhaps not the right way of putting it) are that everything we see is explainable by non-divine intervention. Or maybe that should be "divine non-intervention". YKWIM.
Including that if I hold a Bible in my hand (which I can't, at the moment, but I've got one at home somewhere... NT, at least) I can analyse it and find that it's pretty much the same kind of construct as my Goedel Escher Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, or my copy of the I Robot compilation, or my Science Of Discworld III: Darwin's Watch, or my set of Red/Green/Blue Mars trilogy books from Kim Stanley Robinson, or the 19th Century chemistry textbook I have[1], or Orwell's Animal Farm, or Flatland (a modern reprint, I'm afraid) by Edwin Abbot Abbot, or the Perl Cookbook, or (if I still had it) Hunter S. Thompson's book Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. In all these cases, I can find a mundane reason for their having been printed, possibly track down some of their editors/authors/contributors (or at least make a decent effort to identify them, and some may no longer be living).
And those authors and contributors could, I'm sure, tell me how they came up with what they wrote. Some of those people would say "It's just stories", some "It's allegory", others "It's a manual for life", yet others just "It's a manual". Some may be a mix, and doubtless other descriptive words would come into it. But at some point the words for
each of these materialised out of the ether (possibly from the mouths of others, but ultimately the materialisations of the oral words came from nowhere), with no more and no less reason for any of these books to have been divinely inspired than any of the others.
Similarly, when I cast my eyes upon a landscape, a spot of starlight, the form of a horse/beetle/human or a rainbow I can dig deeply and find that some fairly standard things that caused these to things to be as they were, and no reason to believe there's been any intervention (unless you believe in a continually intervening deity who does things like keeping the planets following Kepler's 'laws' for no reason).
I'm pretty much forced to conclude that we have a non-interventionist deity, if any. We're on auto-pilot. Wound up and let to run. The tapestry of lfe is governed only by the interaction of its threads, with no weaver planning its layout. This is
my conclusion and YMMV. (In fact, for
you, I know it does.)
So my "hints" are the total and utter lack of any hints to the contrary. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. But it's certainly a rather conspicuous absence of evidence.
because we can expelling them?
Because we can explain them, is that? Hope so. Basically: Yes.
tell me would a "smart" race not make rules and make it where they dont have to "run the universe but let it run it self base on laws and rules?
Certainly. ToadyOne does not come round to each of our homes/places-of-work and use a debug feature to make the world we are generating (by his grace) pop up the next ambush, siege, forgotten beast, caravan, migrant wave, birth or other world happening...
Hence why I allow that a God Of Logic (or any other, whether they took that title as their own or not) might have created a Fire-And-Forget universe. The point of Creation is
always an interesting philosophical point (at some point you have to address what caused the Cause, whether that be the Big Bang or "And Then There Was Light", which might actually be considered very similar by many people), but I'm speaking about everything
since then. Including the creation of life itself (quite a lot further down the road, comparatively). So whether deity or Sufficiently Advanced Hyper-aliens, you seem to have the gist of my idea there, yes, if I understand you correctly. I assume you don't object to this, either.
the bible says proof for God is in creation, I believe that to include the laws, you dont have to, thats fine, just know the bible dose meeting God "leaving" hints, and even says most would deny it
"The Bible says..." Indeed. But forgive me if I consider (say) the character of Joshua to have the same credence as the character called A. Square[2]. They both have some very interesting points to make about worldviews. I can apply the views of both of these characters to my life, and both have experiences that I never will (as would Biggles or Rincewind or Alice Liddell or Wendy Darling or Tom Sawyer or Dan Dare or John Rourke or Doctor John H. Watson M.D,), whether or not I believe that these experiences are possible.
So if you are saying that the Bible is the missing 'hint', then you're not adding anything. I could point you at the Quran[3] which gives hints that you don't accept, or at the Torah, or the Book of Mormon or... well, at some point you're going to say that these works (
despite each and every one of them being advertised as being "The word of God") is either no longer relevant (perhaps superseded) or is not and has never been "True". And you have to appreciate that there are people out here in the real world who would put the Bible into that category. (Or any given
version[4] of the Bible, what with different modern texts having taken different translational routes, but that's just more grist to the mill and doesn't matter much when you're gluten intolerant already.)
Aliens? I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
[1] Which doesn't even contain a Periodic Table in it (just a list of "known elements"), because Mendeleev's table hadn't been popularised enough yet.
[2] The "A" is for Albert, according to Ian Stewart in "Flatterland", and or his
own fictional descendent of Mr Square, Victoria Line.
[3] Or however we spell that, these days. It always
used to be either "Koran" or "Q'ran", I think, when I was a lot younger and learning about these things. With the apostrophe in the latter optional, but probably as a sop to not having a 'bare' letter Q.
[4] At least the Torah and Quran are at least normally read in their original (or at least longest-term and culturally universal) languages, without translation errors. And I know that the Torah at least (possibly also the Quran) has a "When you copy this text, you must copy this
exactly!" instruction contained within its meme, which I find a fascinating 'reinforcement' clause.
Author
Topic: Atheism/Religion Discussion (Read 184835 times)