|
|
Re: God's Defense Strategy
[Re: AlbertoT]
#105105
01/28/07 13:58
01/28/07 13:58
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Lol, what if God says Jesus is not his son? OT: Quote:
Why did Jesus Christ sacrifice his life on the cross , then?
I know you didn't mean to discuss, but it's not like anything has changed for humanity after Jesus died. The claim is something did change for our afterlife. Anybody can 'sacrify' and make claims about something we will never witness one way or the other.
It's like playing those prediction games, if it comes true, did you really predicted or was it luck or simple chance? Example: someone says; "You are never going to throw that banana into the bucket, you will throw it over to the left side." Assume it happens that way. Did saying that line influence the outcome of the action? Remember that you can't repeat this multiple times to check if it's chance, since we only die once. Like I've said so many times, what's the point of believing in something you can't ever know?
Quote:
Unless there were some evidence to the claims.
Like what?
Quote:
From the start you've portrayed Him as not-sovereign, as weak and pathetic. I wouldn't believe in your god either.
This is an interesting line, because that's exactly how I think most religious people seem to think. If it doesn't fit, change the ideas to make fit.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: God's Defense Strategy
[Re: PHeMoX]
#105106
01/28/07 19:00
01/28/07 19:00
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Like I've said so many times, what's the point of believing in something you can't ever know?
Unless there were some evidence to the claims.
Anyway, this court case is headed for a big snooze. We see that God isn't really to blame for any of these deaths because He hasn't had any influence on His creation since He created it. Its really those wacky fundies who have been attributing those deaths to Him, giving Him a bad name.
From the start you've portrayed Him as not-sovereign, as weak and pathetic. I wouldn't believe in your god either.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 01/28/07 19:04.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: God's Defense Strategy
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#105107
01/31/07 16:58
01/31/07 16:58
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
We see that God isn't really to blame for any of these deaths because He hasn't had any influence on His creation since He created it. Its really those wacky fundies who have been attributing those deaths to Him, giving Him a bad name.
I am not so sure. What would God himself have to say about this?
After he's settled in the witness box, the prosecutor approaches him with a devilish grin. He puts his big evidence bible right in front of God, demanding him to swear on this book to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth.
With some disapproval, God stares at the bible. The prosecutor has marked every page where God has killed or tortured someone with a red tab. The bible is bristling with bundles of red tabs from all sides.
Slowly, God reaches out to touch the bible, apparently not noticing the frantic signals from the defense table. The court room holds its breath. Will God really fall for this easy trap? In the very last moment, his lawyer jumps across the room and snatches the bible away. "My client refuses to swear on that book! He insists on this one!" He gets a book from his evidence stack.
The book the lawyer has chosen does not look very old and impressive. In fact it seems to just have been bought from a book store. Even a 'NY Times bestseller' sticker can be seen on the cover. The people in the court room franticly try to catch a glimpse on the title. It is... oh my gosh!! All gasp in shock. It is Richard Dawkins "The Blind Watchmaker"!
|
|
|
Re: God's Defense Strategy
[Re: jcl]
#105108
02/01/07 04:42
02/01/07 04:42
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
The thing is, as smart of a scientist as Dawkins is, He might as well be legally mentally retarded when it comes to religion. He actually endorsed whywontgodhealamputees, not to mention Sam Harris' LtaCN.
I am interested in seeing what Dawkins' book has to do with the topic at hand.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: God's Defense Strategy
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#105109
02/01/07 11:35
02/01/07 11:35
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
About the book (wikipedia): Quote:
near the end of the book Dawkins uses this to argue against the existence of God: "a deity capable of engineering all the organised complexity in the world, either instantaneously or by guiding evolution, . . . must already have been vastly complex in the first place . . ." He calls this "postulating organised complexity without offering an explanation."
In its preface, Dawkins states that he wrote the book "to persuade the reader, not just that the Darwinian world-view happens to be true, but that it is the only known theory that could, in principle, solve the mystery of our existence."
That's why it's relevant.
It's a nice book by the way, I'm only halfway through, but I can recommend it to anyone already. His ideas about evolution are very interesting.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: God's Defense Strategy
[Re: PHeMoX]
#105110
02/01/07 22:20
02/01/07 22:20
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
So God is going to swear on a book that posulates the impossibility of His existence?
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: God's Defense Strategy
[Re: jcl]
#105112
02/02/07 23:59
02/02/07 23:59
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Then either Dawkins has posited a non-sequitor, or the wikipedia article was misleading. Quote:
near the end of the book Dawkins uses this to argue against the existence of God: "a deity capable of engineering all the organised complexity in the world, either instantaneously or by guiding evolution, . . . must already have been vastly complex in the first place . . ."
Just because God must be "complex", according to Dawkins, doesn't mean that God had/has nothing to do with humanity. I haven't read the book, but it seems that this is more of an argument against God's existence.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
|
