Why isn't DNA and Human Consciousness Enough For Some Christians?

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Only by you as a Christian... Mr Muhammed, Mr. Patel, and Mr. Soo might all define God differently


[/ QUOTE ]

I think Judaism and Islam mostly agree on this point. Could be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
That still doesn't matter. Just because the 3 major faiths on this planet have a similar concept of God does not mean that He cannot be completely dissimilar from that description.

You continually harp on science "disproving" God. Well, as many have told you, it certainly doesn't. What science does tell us is that the current Earthly concepts of God are ridiculously improbable. Not to mention that a God that routinely intervenes in worldly affairs makes the results of the most tested hypothesis in human history completely unreliable (contrary to what we have observed).

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

From the standpoint of human reason alone some kind of deism would be sufficient - the unmoved mover, etc. And God would be necessary in that sense. But again I direct your attention to the statement "Evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist". I read this to mean not even a deistic god is required. I read it to mean that evolution proves the non-existence of an Absolute, Personal, interactive God. If it doesn't mean that, what does it mean?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think it means that it gives you an alternative rather than actually proving or disproving anything. If you believe in evolution, all that would really need to be explained is a first cause. What is intellectually satisfying is that you can understand how we got all life on Earth from the first cell.

Basically, science shows us that the creation stories in the Bible are probably not an accurate reflection of how life began on Earth. So it gives you some other mechanism to believe in. Instead of having to believe A, you can now rationally function believing in B instead. This doesn't mean either A or B are proven or disproven.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Only by you as a Christian... Mr Muhammed, Mr. Patel, and Mr. Soo might all define God differently


[/ QUOTE ]

I think Judaism and Islam mostly agree on this point. Could be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
That still doesn't matter. Just because the 3 major faiths on this planet have a similar concept of God does not mean that He cannot be completely dissimilar from that description.

You continually harp on science "disproving" God. Well, as many have told you, it certainly doesn't. What science does tell us is that the current Earthly concepts of God are ridiculously improbable. Not to mention that a God that routinely intervenes in worldly affairs makes the results of the most tested hypothesis in human history completely unreliable (contrary to what we have observed).

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder what you mean by major! Are you another one of those propagandists that claims their religion is about love and truth when it is contradicted bothy in its supposedly holy writings, and in what is being seen and experience in being alive with some sentience?

Non-religious are the third largest group,and Hinduism and other religions which have nothing in common with your view of an effectively tyrannical god come well before Judaism.

I guess you believe that repeating things often enough will convince everyone else. I love this, obviously, either lying or ignorant attitude, of so many christians, it is so obvious once you scrap the veneer.

As far as disproving your "benevolent" god, it only requires to look around you, or even read your bible with an open-mind, and you will see that however strange Hinduism is, at least its concept of gods reflects the every day experience as some are benevolent and some not.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

science shows us that the creation stories in the Bible are probably not an accurate reflection of how life began on Earth.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible isn't a science text book and doesn't offer a "mechanism" for orgins, just that first cause you say yet needs explanation.

The problem with the quote is saying evolution is satisfying to an atheist - why specify atheist unless you mean to say evolution is relevant to your supernatural beliefs? If common ancestor evolution is true it will be just as satisfying to a theist, just as are heliocentrism and gravity. Even YECs would eventually see the beauty of God's plan and the might of His power displayed in the mechanism of evolution. As I stated in an earlier thread, Darwin's greatest promoter in America was a Calvinist.

When the quote specifies atheist it is drawing attention to the lack of God emphasizing that God isn't necessary. Are Newton's laws intellectually satisfiying to an atheist specifically? If the Bible said that God keeps people from flying off the earth, Dawkins would probably say yes.

[David Sklansky]

"Even YECs would eventually see the beauty of God's plan and the might of His power displayed in the mechanism of evolution."

Glad we finally got back to my original question.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

The problem with the quote is saying evolution is satisfying to an atheist - why specify atheist unless you mean to say evolution is relevant to your supernatural beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because previously the only way to explain any of these things were by appealing to a supernatural cause. I think it's just pointing out that God is unnecessary for us to explain the complexity of life.

I think it's one of a collection of reasons that you can use in favor of atheism even if the point itself doesn't support atheism. I know that sounds paradoxical, so I'll try to clarify it a bit. Let's say there is a list of 10 reasons why you find God necessary/compelling/true. I think the point is that one of those reasons can't be the fact that we don't know why life on Earth is the way it is.

Does this make any sense at all? It's like saying Jim is a great guy because of X, Y, and Z. And then I respond, "no actually Bob did Z." This doesn't mean that Jim isn't a great guy or that Jim didn't do X and Y. It just means that Z isn't a reason to think Jim is awesome.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I think it's just pointing out that God is unnecessary for us to explain the complexity of life.


[/ QUOTE ]

Part of the problem is what we mean by necessary. It isn't necessary to include God in a scientific formula in order to understand how some natural phenomena work - E=Mc2 is sufficient for its purpose. But then you don't have to phrase it "The fact E=Mc2 satisfies me as an atheist", which implies that God isn't necessary for E=Mc2 to be true - that part is question begging at the least. To say that evolution provides a natural explanation for biological diversity is fine (assuming without admitting for the discussion that evolution is true), but then to add that it satisfies you as an atheist carries with it the same implication and question begging as above. I don't see how you can avoid the implication that evolution proves at the least that God isn't necessary in the theistic sense when phrased that way. If evolution is true it's just as satisfying to a theistic scientist as an atheistic one - it's the atheist who's making it into a theological polemic, just as was the case with Darwin's Origin. I read scientists who say science has nothing to say about God either way - then Dawkins pops up and people like Stenger write books claiming science proves God doesn't exist. No Christian layman is going to make a fine distinction between the fact that Dawkins never said the words and Stenger does - they stand for the same thing and their positions are exactly the same for theists. So the answer to DS' question is still as I stated.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think it's just pointing out that God is unnecessary for us to explain the complexity of life.


[/ QUOTE ]

Part of the problem is what we mean by necessary. It isn't necessary to include God in a scientific formula in order to understand how some natural phenomena work - E=Mc2 is sufficient for its purpose. But then you don't have to phrase it "The fact E=Mc2 satisfies me as an atheist", which implies that God isn't necessary for E=Mc2 to be true - that part is question begging at the least. To say that evolution provides a natural explanation for biological diversity is fine (assuming without admitting for the discussion that evolution is true), but then to add that it satisfies you as an atheist carries with it the same implication and question begging as above. I don't see how you can avoid the implication that evolution proves at the least that God isn't necessary in the theistic sense when phrased that way. If evolution is true it's just as satisfying to a theistic scientist as an atheistic one - it's the atheist who's making it into a theological polemic, just as was the case with Darwin's Origin. I read scientists who say science has nothing to say about God either way - then Dawkins pops up and people like Stenger write books claiming science proves God doesn't exist. No Christian layman is going to make a fine distinction between the fact that Dawkins never said the words and Stenger does - they stand for the same thing and their positions are exactly the same for theists. So the answer to DS' question is still as I stated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you even read my entire post?

[ QUOTE ]

Does this make any sense at all? It's like saying Jim is a great guy because of X, Y, and Z. And then I respond, "no actually Bob did Z." This doesn't mean that Jim isn't a great guy or that Jim didn't do X and Y. It just means that Z isn't a reason to think Jim is awesome.

[/ QUOTE ]

Saying it's satisfying to an atheist is basically reiterating the fact that no supernatural forces aren't necessary to explain things.

I can see why you take issue with Dawkins. He goes too far in his claims. But I don't think this particular issue is one which you should have a bone to pick with him. He is obviously trying to convince people that atheism is correct. So he is always going to add in comments that point to the fact that his views on science comprise a consistent world view that don't require a God.

I really think the part that I quoted from my last post explains a lot of this.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Because previously the only way to explain any of these things were by appealing to a supernatural cause. I think it's just pointing out that God is unnecessary for us to explain the complexity of life.


[/ QUOTE ]
I notice NotReady acknowledgies that it depneds what is meant by necessary but then his supposed case aginst Dawkins must dissolve even in his eyes as he relies on a particular meaning of necessary to put words in Dawkins mouth (and its pretty obviously not the use made by Dawkins).

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]
relies on a particular meaning of necessary to put words in Dawkins mouth (and its pretty obviously not the use made by Dawkins).


[/ QUOTE ]


If he has such a brilliant mind and is such a great writer he should have been able to figure out the ambiguity of his words (though I don't agree they are ambiguos). So he's either saying what I claim or he's a very poor writer. I'll take either.

Or, it may be he just doesn't have a clue what theists think and has no idea what Christianity is about - yeah, that could be it. So much for the brilliance of his mind.