Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neruz]

Neruz & Siquo: I don't understand why you two are still arguing. You're not getting anywhere at all.

I'm bored, this is one of many ways to waste time.

[Jackrabbit]

And you wonder why this thread gets reported.

[Neruz]

To be fair; my last post was a legit question.

[dreiche2]

Fair enough. 

I also agree that we shouldn't bother Toady too much with reporting people if not really necessary. He's got better things to do, right? 

[Greatoliver]

Why, exactly, should our mental capacity be a hindrance?

Or, to look at it a different way; what makes you think that there is something which we cannot eventually understand?

Shush you.

Concerning the first: It hinders us as it limits what we can understand/imagine/believe etc., our inability to understand all, suprisingly, means that some things are outside of our range of understanding.  What I am proposing is that God is something that we cannot understand: we can try to apply "logic" and other such things, or deductively prove He exists (lol Descartes) but these are all based upon mechanisms that we understand, and so could be false when viewed from a higher level.

For example, the idea of Causation.  Hume claimed this was wrong and as such, he could be right as the idea of causation is imposed on the world by our minds, i.e. it may not exist outside of them.  This illustrates an idea that someone of lesser capacity may believe is true yet we can see, from a higher level, that it is not.

Logic or deductive reasoning may be the same.  If God exists on a higher level, then we can never fully understand Him as we are limited by our own capacities.  True, what He "is" could be translated, but this only gives us half the picture.  For instance, the Problem of Evil is of a similar idea; it is meant to show God is self-contradictory, yet it assumes God is on the same "level" as humans.

Thus, it is a hindrance as we cannot understand God or His existance fully. Whether this actually matters, I don't know.

And to the second question, go away.  I can't see outside of my box, but I could concieve of something.  God is one example, and the other is infinity.  To unpack the second, I can only understand what infinity isn't; try to imagine infinity and you can't, one can only concieve of it.

As a retort: Can you think of something you can't think of?

[dreiche2]

Logic or deductive reasoning may be the same.  If God exists on a higher level, then we can never fully understand Him as we are limited by our own capacities. 

Well, wouldn't that mean that we should stop bothering with trying to discuss god?

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

[Siquo]

Also, "God did it", but Genesis doesn't specify how he did it.

Uhm yes it does?

God said "let there be light" and there was light. There's no real "How did he do it" manual in there, such as: "God wiggled some physical constants and found a nice combination that allowed for photons to exist and have awesome properties."

The order in which stuff was created according to Genesis is surprisingly overlapping with that of the current scientific theories,

Beg your pardon??

Heaven and earth, then water, then the animals, then man. That sounds pretty much the same as the one from science.

Neruz & Siquo: I don't understand why you two are still arguing. You're not getting anywhere at all.

We quit already.

[Siquo]

Well, wouldn't that mean that we should stop bothering with trying to discuss god?

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

True:
If one can only speak in logic or deductive reasoning, then yes, one cannot speak of God, and yes, one'd better be silent.

[Neruz]

But Greatoliver; what makes you so sure that that either the limits of our mental capacity are fixed, or that the Universe is greater than our ability to understand it?

Why should this be the case? Especially since we know that evolution happens, it's entirely reasonable to suggest that even if our mental limits are too small now to truely understand the Universe, they may very well grow to encompass it in the future.


The problem with stating that God is beyond Logic is that not only is it self-defeating (because you now cannot trust anything he says, ever, that includes the Bible) but it's 'cheating' so to speak. You erect a technically impenetrable wall that can never be overcome. It's not actually solving the problem, it's taking a third option and skiving off from the problem.

[dreiche2]

True:
If one can only speak in logic or deductive reasoning, then yes, one cannot speak of God, and yes, one'd better be silent.

So if god isn't approachable with reasoning, what makes you think he's approachable with anything else?

It seems like you're the one here who's not accepting the limited capacity of the human mind...

[Neruz]

True:
If one can only speak in logic or deductive reasoning, then yes, one cannot speak of God, and yes, one'd better be silent.

So if god isn't approachable with reasoning, what makes you think he's approachable with anything else?

It seems like you're the one here who's not accepting the limited capacity of the human mind...

If God does not follow reason, there's no point in paying any attention to him, because there's no way for you to ever know if you're doing the right thing or the wrong thing.

Basically we're back to 'irrelevant' again.

[dreiche2]

... and we're back.

God said "let there be light" and there was light. There's no real "How did he do it" manual in there, such as: "God wiggled some physical constants and found a nice combination that allowed for photons to exist and have awesome properties."

It's still specific enough to be utter nonsense.

Heaven and earth, then water, then the animals, then man. That sounds pretty much the same as the one from science.

Not exactly deep scientific insights. Unfortunately, that's not even the order given.

Here's the story. Everyone go ahead and read it. Done? Let's see:

* The world (universe??) being initially filled with water? Check.
* Heaven and earth being created by pushing water apart? Check.
* Day and night being created two days earlier than the sun (!) and the moon? Check.
* Sun, moon, and the stars (click it!) being created on day four, after plants? Check.
* Birds being made before land creatures? Check.
* All creatures being made according to their fixed, a priori defined "kind"? Check.
* Everything happening in six days? Check.

Yup, sounds eerily close to what science says to me.

[Siquo]

Reason is not the end-all-catch-all of the human mind. Thank God for that, or the world would be a boring place.

Oww you nitpicker. Compare it to most other creationist stories, and the knowledge at that time. It's still pretty close.

However, there's another way to read it:

He created Matter.
Then he created Light.
Then he created the "firmament", or the cosmos, splitting the universe in two: the physical one and the beyond.
The waters under the firmament gather: Water on earth is probably from comets.
Then he creates plants, and after that the sun and stars which I admit is total bull. Unless we find evidence of primal life-forms in the universe that's older than the oldest stars, but that's kinda far-fetched
Then he first creates life in the water (!!), and the birds. Birds is weird, but they are descendent from the dinosaurs, and older than the mammals.
Then come the beasts, and then comes the cattle (again, in itself true).
Then comes man (after cattle? questionable, but okay, there were wild cows before man).
And then he goes to rest for a day.

If you take "days" to the amount of time that the universe took to form according to science, he's still resting now

[Il Palazzo]

I suppose, if you're going to credit genesis' story with accuracy, you need to bow head before Babylonian gods, as the creation story is a direct rip off from their cosmogony.

[dreiche2]

Oww you nitpicker. Compare it to most other creationist stories, and the knowledge at that time. It's still pretty close.

I'll leave that comparison to you, because you're the one making the claim.

Seriously, an eight year old without any knowledge about science whatsoever could have come up with that story.

However, there's another way to read it:

You can probably read the same stuff into a cookbook if you want.

"First, take eggs" (eggs = metaphor for origin of life -> SCIENCE!!)...