|
Post by Liberian Girl on Jan 20, 2018 21:41:34 GMT
I'm not here to defend any religion; I am not a member of any church. Although you did earlier say how theists can be arrogant and then say something like that?
I don't believe what I believe because it gives me "comfort" (as you alluded earlier) because I'm not making any further claims about God as a personality, or what he is like....I'm not pretending God is a fluffy, friendly man in the clouds who listens to me - my use of the title (or term) God is literally the easiest way for me to identity, in common language, that life HAD to have a starting point - and that starting point cannot be nothing. It had to be a starting force, a beginning, a power of some kind.
But I know we have done this before, several times. I know my take doesn't make sense to you etc so I gracefully bow out now lol.
|
|
respect77
The Legend Continues
Posts: 10,367
Member is Online
|
Post by respect77 on Jan 20, 2018 21:56:20 GMT
I'm not here to defend any religion; I am not a member of any church. Although you did earlier say how theists can be arrogant and then say something like that? What is it then? You place it outside of all scrutiny and critique and it is based on nothing but belief, subjectivities and what people feel in their guts. I am sorry if "nothing but a fantasy" sounds offensive, but it really is not much more than that with those attributes. Also, consider that while you are careful not to make any further statements about the nature of this god that you think was the first cause, but most religions do make very definite statements about who god is and what nature he has. And when religions go there (and most do) then it becomes clear that it really is full of fantasies. Typically those fantasies will mirror people's understanding of the world at the time when those religions were formed and their holy scriptures were written.
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Jan 20, 2018 22:31:03 GMT
I'm listening to the conversation between Prof. Brian Cox and Russell Brand and it's unfortunate Brand constantly interrupted or talked over him speaking absolute nonsensical garbage trying to sound more intelligent than what he actually is going borderline Deepak Chopra.
|
|
|
Post by SoCav on Jan 21, 2018 0:41:15 GMT
And BTW, our idea of gods/God also went through a lot of evolution over time. First you had polytheism with very much human-like gods who weren't perfect at all. They could be petty, they could be nasty, they could be fallible, they stole, they raped, they did nasty stuff, they could be very, very human The Greek Gods were the first soap opera stars in documented human history! lol. I'm listening to the conversation between Prof. Brian Cox and Russell Brand and it's unfortunate Brand constantly interrupted or talked over him speaking absolute nonsensical garbage trying to sound more intelligent than what he actually is going borderline Deepak Chopra. Yeah, I watched a bit earlier and got Deepak vibes too.
|
|
|
Post by Liberian Girl on Jan 21, 2018 6:51:17 GMT
I am just not sure science can ever truly understand everything going on BEFORE the existence of 'everything.' Science is a giant of understanding what is here, of pulling apart and understanding details in the world before us, not necessarily the why's. If that happens in my lifetime then obviously, that's that, my thinking is wrong. While even science (to an extent) is leaving an open door currently, (to a degree), I'm placing my bet that there is an intelligent causation to it all. That the "rarity" of us (as Brian Cox called us) is too rare, too specific, too valuable, to have been a biological lucky-lottery.
I know evolution has explained a lot on how life has has developed but it can't really provide answers on the beginning cause of it all.
I listened to the podcast a couple times and despite how much of a big Russell fan I am, I do agree he can talk over people at times which can be frustrating. I think he really means well and it's because he's so passionate about these subjects, but yes, I think it must be frustrating for the person being interviewed. I only noticed it towards the last quarter of the podcast I think.
I said I'd gracefully bow out and here I am. I will stop here because even though these chats can often be interesting, you/we could literally be here 400 pages later and still not agreeing lol and likely making our same points again, again and again lol.
|
|
respect77
The Legend Continues
Posts: 10,367
Member is Online
|
Post by respect77 on Jan 21, 2018 7:05:20 GMT
I really do respect that. I think there's this general idea out there that theists hate science or reject it, and I don't. I know science has uncovered some absolutely mind-blowing stuff, beyond anything I could comprehend. My feelings on science are positive - I promise I'm not a "backward bible-better." BUT I also believe science is about studying the details of our world and the intricacies of it, understanding how something works or evolves. I don't yet believe science has the capacity to account for what "kicked off" non-life to life, what the spring board from geology to biology was. That's fair enough (and btw I certainly didn't get the impression you hate or reject science). But, as respect said, think about how far we've come. Someone likely said something very similar to what you're saying about 160 years ago. Then Darwin published On The Origins of Species and blew everyone's minds. The notion that we were not created fully formed but evolved through natural selection was basically incomprehensible. Knowing that that - and countless other examples over the centuries - happened, why would we assume science won't be able to surprise us in the same way our ancestors were? Yes, the theory of evolution is a good example. Before the idea of natural selection you can see why it would have sounded counter-intuitive if someone had said "we were not created fully formed". How then could such a complex, creative, thinking and amazing organization as a human being then just "suddenly appear out of nowhere" - would the question be then. It would be unimaginable without an intelligent designer. But then natural selection shows it is perfectly possible such an amazing, complex organization to develop without any intelligent designer. Actually it is more than a possibility. Every evidence discovered since points to this being the right answer. The mechanism of it and why organizations become more complex and more effective under the pressures of their environment is well explained by natural selection. Now that issue is solved the next question is how life started at all, but people who say it is surely impossible without an intelligent designer commit the same mistakes as those who said before Darwin that it is impossible for humans to form without an intelligent designer. I don't why know theists think that all of a sudden we should have all the answers and if we don't then "God did it". We are not at the end of human history. We are in a process of development - so is our knowledge. That we don't have the answer yet to how life (or the universe) started it doesn't mean there isn't a perfectly natural answer that is again the right answer without the need of any intelligent designer.
|
|