Religion/Spirituality Theism Discussion (Abrahamic Religions, Religious Philosophy, etc.)

[Fervid]

I just bought this book. Seems somewhat relevant to the discussion going on in here.

 

[Jesus Shuttlesworth]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy#Criticism

You can't even use your own words? These clearly aren't your thoughts. Simply something someone told you that you believe.

But look at your style as a whole. It's no surprise that I don't take you seriously anyway.

 

[noon]

You see a watch. You examine all of its intricacies. The multiple gears in synchronized action. You study its parts and understand the function of each movement.

So is this a fallacy if you then give credit to the watchmaker?

How does you understanding how the watch works discredit its maker?

Yes. That's a watch. A watch is not the universe. I have no reason to assume a maker of the universe. Hence the leap.

 

[noon]

Again I don't get your point. I have no issue with a Catholic priest and his achievements. He worked it out rather than read it in a book.

 

[noon]

You can't even use your own words? These clearly aren't your thoughts. Simply something someone told you that you believe.

I'm pretty sure you're not the author of the watchmaker analogy. I've seen it ad nauseum.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Again I don't get your point.

John Lennox is Professor of Mathematics in the University of Oxford, Fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science, and Pastoral Advisor at Green Templeton College, Oxford. He is also an adjunct Lecturer at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University and at the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics and is a Senior Fellow of the Trinity Forum. In addition, he teaches for the Oxford Strategic Leadership Programme at the Executive Education Centre, Said Business School, Oxford University.

 

[noon]

Good. Now show me the evidence.

Edit:
Then explain the difference between faith and blind faith.

Then show me where I have avoided intelligent discussion.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Then show me where I have avoided intelligent discussion.

....right here.......

Religion is still at odds with science.

This is false. I've just been showing you why.

Now show me the evidence.

You need to talk to him about that. In the meantime......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdus_Salam
​

Salam's major and notable achievements include the Pati–Salam model, magnetic photon, vector meson, Grand Unified Theory, work on supersymmetry and, most importantly, electroweak theory, for which he was awarded the most prestigious award in Physics – the Nobel Prize. Salam made a major contribution in quantum field theory and advancement of Mathematics at Imperial College London. With his student, Riazuddin, Salam made important contributions to the modern theory on neutrinos, neutron stars and black holes, as well as the work on modernising the quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. As a teacher and science promoter, Salam is remembered as a founder and scientific father ofmathematical and theoretical physics in Pakistan during his term as the chief scientific advisor to the president. Salam heavily contributed to the rise of Pakistani physics to the Physics community in the world. Even until his death, Salam continued to contribute to physics and tirelessly advocated for the development of science in Third-World countries.

Salam was a devout Muslim and a member of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community who saw his religion as fundamental part of his scientific work. He once wrote:

"The Holy Quran enjoins us to reflect on the verities of Allah's created laws of nature; however, that our generation has been privileged to glimpse a part of His design is a bounty and a grace for which I render thanks with a humble heart."

 

[Jesus Shuttlesworth]

I'm pretty sure you're not the author of the watchmaker analogy. I've seen it ad nauseum.

Actually, I've never heard it before. That's not even the way I was using it.

My point is how does understanding how something works discredit its maker? Not necessarily that a watch has a maker so the universe must as well. 2 different points.

 

[the cac mamba]

If I call your arguments do you think I literally mean your argument has gained a bunch of unhealthy weight and become ill with some disease? ?

 

[noon]

Actually, I've never heard it before. That's not even the way I was using it.

My point is how does understanding how something works discredit its maker? Not necessarily that a watch has a maker so the universe must as well. 2 different points.

It doesn't discredit a maker. You've assumed a maker in the first place. You're making a leap to a god.

It does however discredit the books that make the various claims about the universe.

 

[Jesus Shuttlesworth]

It doesn't discredit a maker. You've assumed a maker in the first place. You're making a leap to a god.

It does however discredit the books that make the various claims about the universe.

And you're making a leap to a lack of a creator, which is far less logical IMO.

Your position is anti-science, as life doesn't appear from nothing.

Your entire "blind faith" argument is so off base it makes me not even want to waste my time on you. There is no "leap", only understanding. Understanding you clearly lack. It's like a joke and you don't get it. Doesn't mean the joke's not funny, just means you don't get it. Meanwhile, we're all laughing because we understand.

 

[noon]

....right here.......​

​

Er yes, answering your points made and asking you questions is avoiding intelligent discussion.

You need to talk to him about that. In the meantime......

​

​

Convenient.

Again, showing me religious types that work within science and mathematics doesn't mean that religion and science aren't at odds.

 

[noon]

And you're making a leap to a lack of a creator, which is far less logical IMO.

Your position is anti-science, as life doesn't appear from nothing.

Your entire "blind faith" argument is so off base it makes me not even want to waste my time on you. There is no "leap", only understanding. Understanding you clearly lack. It's like a joke and you don't get it. Doesn't mean the joke's not funny, just means you don't get it. Meanwhile, we're all laughing because we understand.

A leap of faith by not making any assumptions and rejecting amazing claims of superbeings.

And when did I say life appears from nothing? I didn't make a blind faith argument. I asked what the difference is between faith and blind faith. I also said you're making a leap into assuming a creator of the universe.

You have the same view as me about thousands of other gods. You reject them and you don't believe the claims of their believers.

You're right. I don't get your joke.

 

[Jesus Shuttlesworth]

A leap of faith by not making any assumptions and rejecting amazing claims of superbeings.

And when did I say life appears from nothing? I didn't make a blind faith argument. I asked what the difference is between faith and blind faith. I also said you're making a leap into assuming a creator of the universe.

You have the same view as me about thousands of other gods. You reject them and you don't believe the claims of their believers.

You're right. I don't get your joke.

It's obvious you don't understand when you bring up "other gods".

What "other gods"? Who else is claiming dominion of the universe? Who else is given credit for the creation of all?

That's a cliched argument often used by atheists who don't understand God at all. There is only one God. What are these "thousands of other gods" responsible for?

It's clear you don't understand.



But just so I can further understand your lack of understanding... can you explain to me the origins of life in your opinion? If it wasn't God and it wasn't nothing, then what was it?