Theism

[Cirdan]

If you did, for example, examine the question of whether stars could be considered a very slow life form, then you might think about new questions to investigate, such as how new stars are frmed, are new stars influenced in any way by their "parents" etc. I find such concepts quite useful.

Analogies are often useful and just as often taken beyond relevance.

It's only fairly tangible if you happen to be near a large mass. Not to mention we lack a quantum theory of gravity, and there are some interesting alternate theories such as radient pressure and inertial conservation that, while they are flawed, provide a framework for some very interesting questions that illuminate shortcomings in our current theories.

So the theories you use as examples as "postulated" that were so wonderful yet misunderstood (even though they had no relevance to ID) are tangible but now you find them flawed. Do you actually believe what you are writing or is it just a matter of how fast you can shovel it and how high you can pile it?

That's why, if you noticed, I said ID is a metaphysical postulation. However, the assertion that evolution is a means of calculating a result, is not. It can be proven, or disproven.

how convenient...

But discussing ID isn't an empirical discussion. The capability to prove or disprove design doesn't exist, and likely may neve exist.

again...

That however doesn't mean that you can't take a question formulated from a view of design, such as the possibility of a working evolutionary calculating device, and submit it to empirical tests.

or not.

Who said I wasn't intersted? Because I don't want to participate in useless blatherings about genesis based pseudo science predicated on perfection of forms? I'm surprised you want to discuss such a concept, since it's fairly stale, and has been beaten to death in numerous places. However I hve no objection to discussing the concept of design as it relates to process and function. Just save the anthropomorphic ammo for another person. For that matter though, if you are going to discuss process and function, why limit yourself to purely biological examples?

Well, if you are going to postulate that stars are "slow" organisms then it is completely relevant. If you are going to "postulate" ID then it is relevant. Who is blathering about genesis? I used an example of flawed metaphysical postulation versus empirical hypothesis because you tries to compare ID with gravity and tectonics. Apples and oranges was the point, but I guess you missed it. I think you must mean anthropocentric sine it not in the form of a human, but centered on human experience.

Yes, in other words, if evolution is a function observed in replicating processes, then once could expect it to be observed (to differing degrees) in all replicating processes. Why limit yourself to biological examples if you are going to talk ID, especially since it's a metaphysical concept. We ourselves are already designing artificial life matrixes, and for that matter, creating new life forms. It's built into the "rules" of the matrix.

Now when you start asking questions like why it's built into the matrix, then you are dealing with metaphysics. But answers dealing with the capabilities of evolutionary functions in different processes, i.e. what they can be used for, are empirical.

Crystalline forms of inorganic substances display the basic properties of form, replication, consistent response to environmental variations. Built into the rules of the matrix? Now that is anthropomorphizing. We haven't created new life forms, but merely tinkered a bit with existing structure. Rules are easy to make as we have seen. Exceptions are a bit more difficult. Why a crystal "twins" a reason may be discovered. When it or if it will approaches the infinite in parameters.

Can anything exist without properties? Doubtful. That matter obeys certain rules under some known circumstance may or may not fit a "matrix". At some point the matrix breaks down and a new matrix takes over. Some levels of existence are beyond human capacity to observe. Does that imply design? Only if we (now it's appropriate) anthropomorphize the behavior of matter, gravity, space, and time.

Asking "how" versus asking "why" is the difference between science and philosophy. Both are valid questions within the disciplines. They are not the same question. How the universe functions will not tell us why the universe functions. Whatever advances in science are made, they are made to the ends of understanding the "how". A philosophy can be based on science as a means of understanding existence. Adding the concept of intent into the equation pushes the discussion into the unknown and only begs to have more "ornamentation" of the designer's intent. At that point the discussion of theism is a disconnect with the starting point of scientific understanding.

I believe I quite clearly stated the profound implications for the human psyche if such a metaphysical assertation were somehow proven to be true.

Not clearly. But even so, how profound would it be to discover that things are just as they are for one reason versus another? I suspect not very since it is unlikely that any secret hidden message is going to appear to inform us as to what we should be doing differently. And since our little "dirt ball" is infinitely insignificant in the scope of the universe, the profundity of any actions or beliefs on our part are irrelevant in the sum of all things. The human psyche is not, as yet, a common collective. Once again, god(s) become the invention of man, anthropomorphizing what is not understood. In the end it paints itself into a corner where doubt can be cast in the darkness.


*Whack* Wiffmeister

I find it more commonly used in the broader sense, since there is a specific term for what you are refering to, monotheism. Why use the broader term, theism, to refer to something, when there is a specific term, monotheism?

So in your interpretation a theologian should change title to either monotheologian, polytheologian, or possibly deiologian? Where do you find it more commonly used in the general sense? Certainly not in the minds of billions of humans for with the term and the concept was invented. You may feel free to invent a form of theism that doesn't fall into the categories of monotheism, polytheism, or deism if you wish.

I always talk like a pompus smartass.

Cynically pedantic, but pompous? Never

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan

Analogies are often useful and just as often taken beyond relevance.

Analogy? An analogy is a form of logical inference or an instance of it, based on the assumption that if two things are known to be alike in some respects, then they must be alike in other respects.

Of course it can be taken too far. However I don't see where that's happened.

So the theories you use as examples as "postulated" that were so wonderful yet misunderstood (even though they had no relevance to ID) are tangible but now you find them flawed. Do you actually believe what you are writing or is it just a matter of how fast you can shovel it and how high you can pile it?

What part of finding a flawed theory interesting because it sheds light on shortcomings in current theory do you find difficult to comprehend?

Yes my shovel is bigger than yours, but in this particular case you've misinterpreted the point.

how convenient...

Yes isn't it. I find it also convienient that the converse of such a statement is also a metaphysical postulation, namely that evolution is not directed or by design. You can argue all you like about the fact that it is a "reasonable assumption" and be technically correct, and still miss the point.

Well, if you are going to postulate that stars are "slow" organisms then it is completely relevant. If you are going to "postulate" ID then it is relevant.

Sorry, but we don't know enough about the history of star formation to postulate a method for "parent" stars to influence succesive generations at this point. You don't seem to like speculation...

Who is blathering about genesis? I used an example of flawed metaphysical postulation versus empirical hypothesis because you tries to compare ID with gravity and tectonics. Apples and oranges was the point, but I guess you missed it.

Err, no, I got the point, but I think you missed the point that I was refusing to be identified as a proponanrt of ID as it is currently popularized, with perfection of specific forms.

As for a flawed metaphysical postulation, I have yet to see you prove that.

As for comparing apples and oranges, I think you are getting the idea that I'm comparing ID with plate tectonics or singularities, when it's not so. I was comparing these once out of favor theories with the idea that evolution is a method of calculation. Which is not a metaphysical assertion.

I think you must mean anthropocentric sine it not in the form of a human, but centered on human experience.

No, I meant anthropomorphic, since most populist proponants of ID seem to assert that humankind is the "end product" of the process. My assertion is that this is likely untrue, since the process is still ongoing, and is not a localized phenomena. Unless you're objecting to something that I lost track of.

Crystalline forms of inorganic substances display the basic properties of form, replication, consistent response to environmental variations.

Crystals do not "replicate" however. They are formed under specific conditions caused by external factors which thay have no participation in. (Stars on the other hand, are formed by collection of mass/density and gravity, which stars so happen to have some participation in, and so presumably can effect succesive genrations)

Built into the rules of the matrix? Now that is anthropomorphizing.

Asking "how" versus asking "why" is the difference between science and philosophy. Both are valid questions within the disciplines. They are not the same question. How the universe functions will not tell us why the universe functions. Whatever advances in science are made, they are made to the ends of understanding the "how". A philosophy can be based on science as a means of understanding existence. Adding the concept of intent into the equation pushes the discussion into the unknown and only begs to have more "ornamentation" of the designer's intent. At that point the discussion of theism is a disconnect with the starting point of scientific understanding.

Well finally something to agree with. Yes, there are limitations to the questions that science can answer. However, just because someone adds the question of intent into philosopy, it doesn't preclude science from answering empirically verifiable questions derived from such a viewpoint. I think that's been the point I've been trying to make.

Not clearly. But even so, how profound would it be to discover that things are just as they are for one reason versus another? I suspect not very since it is unlikely that any secret hidden message is going to appear to inform us as to what we should be doing differently. And since our little "dirt ball" is infinitely insignificant in the scope of the universe, the profundity of any actions or beliefs on our part are irrelevant in the sum of all things. The human psyche is not, as yet, a common collective.

I would argue differently. Once the subject becomes "aware" of the "experiment", the course of the experiment is subject to change with relative rapidity. But that is perhaps an argument best saved for another post.

Once again, god(s) become the invention of man, anthropomorphizing what is not understood. In the end it paints itself into a corner where doubt can be cast in the darkness.

Was it ever any different? Why the disdain for anthropomorphization? It is one of humanities' most powerful pattern finding tools. The ability to "place ourselves" into another situation allows us to seek for patterns on a different level. Once the patterns are recognized then the objective investigation can begin, and the puzzle can be peiced together.

I would even argue that doing so changes humanity to a degree. So that our concept of who we are also grows. It's a cycle. Our concept of "god" changes. We investigate. We understand (eventually). We change. Our concept of "god" changes. etc. Currently science is the doctrine, and "nature" or "happenstance order" (which is chaos in disguise) is the "god". Will it always be so? I can't wait to see, if I get the chance.

So in your interpretation a theologian should change title to either monotheologian, polytheologian, or possibly deiologian?

Actually, yes. Theological studies in an academic setting aren't limited to monotheism.

Where do you find it more commonly used in the general sense?

Acadamia. OK- so it's not the same reality. *shrug* But then, the other reality must be where all those other people live.

Certainly not in the minds of billions of humans for with the term and the concept was invented.

What? the billions of humans for which what was invented? Big Macs? Mass marketing? How many of these billions of humans do you know who walk around discussing "theology"? If they did, I would certainly expect them to know the different types of theologies. They might discuss "religion", but then that's a tad different.

You may feel free to invent a form of theism that doesn't fall into the categories of monotheism, polytheism, or deism if you wish.

Lets see... we've got an example of one (involved), one (uninvolved), and many... mm- what does that leave... Oh I know- None. Must be why it's called atheism. Oh darn, it's already been invented

According to that view, any time I feel like making up a new type of deity I'll be inventing a new form og theism. Lets try the gnostic deity, who's power derives from knowledge, has set up the universe according to certain arcane principles, as a puzzle, for the participants to solve. He doesn't work through revelation, but he does give hints. We can call it Gnostheism.

Sure we can sub-divide and specify all day long, and still be talking about theism. We can even argue about whether deism is a form of monotheism, or a seperate category on the same level of heirarchy, or a category through exception.

But that still doesn't illustrate to me WHY there's an objection to discussing deism (or polytheism, or ontotheism, or even gnostheism) in a thread entitled theism.

I can understand if you want to say, well everyone should just understand we were talking about judeo-christian monotheism. After all it makes it much easier to marshall arguments, and such. But I've found it's usually easier, and more utilitarian, to be more specific up front if I want to limit such a discussion.

I suppose an analogy to illustrate my confusion would be a thread entitled "internal combustion engines" and then someone wonders why there's an objection to discussing Wankel Rotaries, because someone's telling them that they obviously meant only Ford and Chevrolet products.

Cynically pedantic, but pompous? Never [/B]

Oh well heavens. That's a relief. after all I wouldn't want to be accused of being narrow and tiresomely focused on acadamics, especially its trivial aspects, or even worse, boring.

[Wayfarer]

It's my experience that calling yourself pedantic isn't the best thing to do in an argument. ]: )

[Cirdan]

I think we've agreed and disagreed on enough that it's pointless to go on. If we do continue we maybe should not try to discuss 7 or eight points on each post.

Wayfarer, I was wondering when you'd happen along.

BH, did you have a good birthday?

I'm off to dinner and then a swim. If anything strikes me as relevant AND interesting, I'll get back to you.

[Wayfarer]

Oh, I've been paying attention to this thread since I got back, and I have all confidence that Old Blackie is up to dealing with you heathen tarks. ]: )

I just don't have the time to reply to even a fraction of the things that have been brought up, and frankly it wouldn't be worth it if I did.

And after all, as Clive Staples once wrote "The hardest thing to get people today to realize is that you're preaching christianity simply because you happen to think it's true."

[Cirdan]

I wish I had something better to do. I was supposed to have surgery yesterday, but it was postponed. Now, I'm on hold until the end of August. At least I get a little more pool time, but I turned down a contract because I was supposed to be out of commission.

Your Staples quote is true. Preaching fits nicely into Skinnerian behavioral reinforcement. It is inconsistently successful so as to make the behavioral pattern better imprinted.

The hardest thing to get a preacher realize is that you have heard it all before.

[Andúril]

39. ARGUMENT FROM POST-DEATH EXPERIENCE

(1) Person X died an atheist.
(2) He now realizes his mistake.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

Lookit.

[Wayfarer]

Originally posted by Cirdan
The hardest thing to get a preacher realize is that you have heard it all before.

"'People need to be reminded more often than they need to he instructed."

[afro-elf]

anduril thanks for link

when i get time later I'll comb throught it.

[afro-elf]

One of the links had a list of quick and dirty theist refutations


I'm sorta burnt out from arguing with believers. Just looking for my little core refutations for the basic " how can you not believe" people

I've got some stuff I'm been compling so I can keep it short and sweet

[Wayfarer]

If you think you can, then out with it!

Here's my argument. Christianity makes the most sense. It fits the most facts, and it requires the least mental gymnastics.

[Andúril]

The hardest thing to get a priest to realize is that you are not that way inclined.

[Wayfarer]

That was funny, once I realized what you were suggesting.

English is your primary language, isn't it? Or are you spending to much time with Aelf?

[Andúril]

What, pray tell, am I suggesting?

English is pretty much my only language...
...although when upset I do spout some Ethenopian...

[Wayfarer]

Oh, nothing.

It's not that you make bad use of english... but that you were somewhat unclear. I had to think for a moment before realizing what you meant, and I would have phrased it differently.

No matter.

[HOBBIT]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
If you think you can, then out with it!

Here's my argument. Christianity makes the most sense. It fits the most facts, and it requires the least mental gymnastics.

rofl. Oh yes, makes most sense. Can you support that statement? If that is your main arguement, that is the weakest arguement concerning this topic that I have ever seen.


Virgin birth, Some guy that may or may not have existed is supposed to be my savior and if he did exist hes been dead for thousands of years, guy rises out of his grave, whats up with that "holy ghost"? etc, etc :rolls eyes: Oh yes, most factual. MY BUTT!


If you really want to get technical, it is less "factual" and makes the lease "sense" than Judiasm. Jews use only the Torah, which is Christianity's First testament. It is comprised of some pretty unbelievable stuff. Makes sense? not really. But it does make more sense than Christianity and its pretty obvious for one reason. The absence of the New Testament. There is no Jesus in the Torah. There are even more less unbelievable things in that new testament than in the old one. In no way am I saying that Judiasm is a better religion, I'm not. What I'm saying is 2 books of silly fables is less believable than 1 silly book of fables - but both are rediculous.

Religion is based on faith, not fact. Wayfarer, you have zip to back up anything you say. There IS NO WAY to prove the existance of god or the truth of anything in the Bible.

And no religions make sense. What you made was a statement made without any thought. Have you studied any other religions or systems of belief extensively or at all?? No, and neither have I really. And I don't mean hearing or learning a little bit about other religions and customs. I mean knowing as much about yours as you do about another, and you do not. Have you studied Islam. Why is Christianity more believable than that?? huh? Why is it more believable than Judiasm? Religions aren't meant to make sense. They were made by people who were afraid - who wanted to explain nature and what happened. They were made to control ignorant people. Like how the Christian Church ruled over in Europe. Killing people with new ideas (ie: the world is round) and that did not believe in their religion. Finally people are waking up, they are actually using their brains, questioning things. You should never take things such as this as fact. You should doubt, analyze. Make your own decisions.

Oh well.

[Rána Eressëa]

Wayfarer & HOBBIT: you two did both of those same statements in the Anti-Theist thread. This is proof that some arguments just cannot be fought, and religion is one of them. From this day forward, I am no longer going to explain my beliefs or lack thereof because no one is going to take them into consideration. They will always fight back with pseudo-questions like "How can you not believe with [insert miracle here]?"

Religion is not only the fears of humans, but also the fables of the most brilliant political men who once lived: those who knew that the best way to control a person was to threaten them with an all-mighty figure in control of their soul for all eternity, in order to keep them from doing certain things. Hell is the prison in the believer's mind, and they didn't want to be caged in it - they wanted the beautiful and exquisite Heaven full of eternal bliss with God. So they believed, because being good gave them a reward - and we all know how people will do anything for a reward.

We are born with one thing that separates us from all other animals: analytical and reasoning thought. And yet, that power is rendered from the masses because of religion: the mastermind of control above all other schemes. How? Simple - it teaches us how we are to think.

[HOBBIT]

exactly. Wayfarer is not going to listen, he just keeps repeating his arguements. I doubt he even read my posts in the other topics. I actually am listening to his "arugements" and responded why they are false. No one in this topic will change their minds, so there is no point.

[Rána Eressëa]

I think you're better off just closing this thread, too, HOBBIT. It's just the same statements made in continuum.

[HOBBIT]

I agree, topic closed.