Is there a God? What do YOU think???

[TeleMad]

DEIOLOGIST: The Biblical God is made in "mans image". Man has 98% The same DNA as a chimp, this makes the biblical god a monkeys uncle. I thank God that God has nothing to do with that bozo.

 

Hmmm. It is conceivable that God was thinking about characteristics other than DNA overlap when He (according to the famous story) imbued man with some of His characteristics. Chimps do indeed have 98% of our DNA. You might note that they don't have 98% of the world's capital assets, literature, music compositiion, art history or Nobel prizes.

 

Neither does God.

 

And, both chimps and humans share, among other things:

 

1) 4 limbs, each with an articulation in the middle, and the front limbs having one bone in the arm and two bones in the forearm, and tarsals, metatarsals, and five phalanges, including opposable thumbs

 

2) two forward-facing camera-type eyes with axons running in front of the retina and returning to the brain through an optic disk

 

3) a complex peripheral and central nervous system, including a brain with frontal, parietal, occipital, and temporal lobes, with many cranial nerves in the same anatomical positions

 

4) a spinal chord protected by cervical, thoracic, etc. vertebrae

 

5) a four-chambered heart serving a dual-circulation (pulmonary and systemic) closed circulatory system

 

6) an endocrine system

 

7) a reproductive system

 

8) a digestive system

 

9) the ability to recognize itself in the mirror as being itself

 

10) the ability to mentally create a plan of action

 

11) complex social behavior

 

12) etc. ...

 

 

Now, how many of those attributes do humans share with God? Seems we were made in the chimps image.

[Biochemist]

Neither does God.

Yes, but the issue is creativity. There is no deterministic source of it.

Now, how many of those attributes do humans share with God? Seems we were made in the chimps image.

Some might argue that, at a particular point in time, He shared all of these human attributes and a couple more.

[bumab]

And, both chimps and humans share, among other things.....

 

I think the point was non-physical similarities, as opposed to physical traits that obviously arose during common evolution.

[TeleMad]

I think the point was non-physical similarities, as opposed to physical traits that obviously arose during common evolution.

 

What non-physical similarities do we share with a putative God?

[Biochemist]

What non-physical similarities do we share with a putative God?

The issues presented was creativity. But there are others: perception of beauty, a contruct for morality, a drive for altruism, the capacity for free wil, etc.

[TeleMad]

The issues presented was creativity.

 

No, it wasn't. This side discussion was started with the following statement:

 

DEIOLOGIST: The Biblical God is made in "mans image". Man has 98% The same DNA as a chimp, this makes the biblical god a monkeys uncle. I thank God that God has nothing to do with that bozo.

 

Where do you see creativity mentioned in there?

 

 

Biochemist: a contruct for morality...

 

You mean like God telling Satan he could kill Job's servants and children? You mean like God telling Satan he could cover Job from head to foot with painful sores? You mean like God destroying all living humans except for the handful on the Ark? You mean like God allowing - or causing - millions of fetuses to spontaneously abort each year?

 

And are you aware the chimps have a sense of fairness?

 

Finally, it's hardly 'fair' to compare the characteristics of some supposed and unconfirmable entity with a verifiable organism like chimps. I could just as well say that the magical flying pink unicorns have a sense of beauty and morality that chimps lack, but so what?

[Biochemist]

No, it wasn't. This side discussion was started with...Where do you see creativity mentioned in there?

TM - I mentioned music, art history, literature, Nobel prizes: all examples of creativity that are not well accounted for by determinism.

You mean like God telling Satan he could kill Job's servants and children? You mean like God telling Satan he could cover Job from head to foot with painful sores? You mean like God destroying all living humans except for the handful on the Ark? You mean like God allowing - or causing - millions of fetuses to spontaneously abort each year?

You have dropped into an attack on the Biblical record on several occasions. I am happy to debate this, but this is not the context of the current discussion. The context was narrowly related to the source of characteristics that are not accounted for by determinism.

 

I understand you have some animation about the Bible. I suggest we trade emails about this on the side.

[Queso]

C. I believe that every person is God.

of course 1 person HAD to vote for this one...!

it's like putting a big red button in an empty white room with a sign that clearly states DO NOT PUSH!

[TeleMad]

You have dropped into an attack on the Biblical record on several occasions. I am happy to debate this, but this is not the context of the current discussion.

 

It's not? The topic of the thread is "Is there a God? What do YOU think???". Both sides of the debate are welcome in this thread, and one reason I think there is no (Biblical) God is because of the contradictions the Bible contains. So this is the perfect place for my opinions about God and the Bible to be posted.

[kaelcarp]

There has never been a very good logical, rational argument for the existence of any kind of deity. Now, I don't have a problem with someone believing in one. I believe lots of things without a logical, rational argument for them. That's faith.

 

When people start to treat faith as science, however, it bothers me. Science is skepticism, the opposite of faith. It makes very few assumptions, whereas faith is based upon assumption.

 

This is something I really dislike about current movements in the United States to present fundamentalist religious belief as science.

[Queso]

amen kaelcarp.

[Biochemist]

It's not? The topic of the thread is "Is there a God? What do YOU think???". Both sides of the debate are welcome in this thread, and one reason I think there is no (Biblical) God is because of the contradictions the Bible contains. So this is the perfect place for my opinions about God and the Bible to be posted.

TM- You can, of course, talk about whatever you would like.

 

But the context of the thread is "God" as opposed to the God reflected in th Bible. If we were to begin to debate the assertion that the God that really matters is the Christian one, I would not start with an assessment of whether the Bible is true. I would start with Jesus' historicity and His resurrection.

 

Biblical veracity per se would be a side bar to that discussion.

[Biochemist]

There has never been a very good logical, rational argument for the existence of any kind of deity.

There are many philosophers that do not believe this is true. There are also many basic scientists that take the existence of free will as demonstrable evidence of deity.

 

The arguments for the Christian God are a separate set of specifics. My point here is not to argue the case, but merely to suggest that many well-informed, well structured thinkers (including Einstein) were theistic, and believed that conclusion was logical.

[Biochemist]

When people start to treat faith as science, however, it bothers me. Science is skepticism, the opposite of faith. It makes very few assumptions, whereas faith is based upon assumption

There is some truth in this, but my discomfort is that many folks treat science as faith. I think that the argument for Naturalism is at least as much a postulate as the argument for theism, and many basic science sorts (even on this site) refuse to acknowledge that parity. Somehow, postulating God is a lot more faithful than postulating a lack of God. That is not science. That is bias. Bias based on an unsupported postulate is faith.

This is something I really dislike about current movements in the United States to present fundamentalist religious belief as science.

I am not aware of this happening anywhere. Certainly those rare examples where states would like to teach Intelligent Design as a contrast to Darwinian naturalism are NOT examples of Fundamentalism. Is that what you were referring to?

[lindagarrette]

Certainly those rare examples where states would like to teach Intelligent Design as a contrast to Darwinian naturalism are NOT examples of Fundamentalism. Is that what you were referring to?

At least five states in the south and midwest US wit ID agendas is not rare and it is a Christian fundamentalist program previously known as Creationism.

[Biochemist]

At least five states in the south and midwest US wit ID agendas is not rare and it is a Christian fundamentalist program previously known as Creationism.

I may be reacting to the definitions here, but Fundamentalists are folks that proscribe certain behaviors (like smoking, drinking dancing), Creationists are folks that believe a basket of things that are generally at odds with accepted science (e.g., young earth, literal 7 day creation, flood geology, etc), and ID folks are advocating a hypothesis (or several hypotheses) of imputed design that is potentially detectable via the scientific method.

 

There were (in fact) efforts on the part of Creationists decades ago to preclude the teaching of evolution. The current efforts are (as I understand them) narrowly focused on allowing the teaching of the ID hypotheses. There is little doubt that the intent of these folks is to demonstrate that the Naturalism that is often implied within Darwinism has a valid opposing view. But I don't think it is reasonable to label these folks as either Fundamentalists or Creationists.

[lindagarrette]

But I don't think it is reasonable to label these folks as either Fundamentalists or Creationists.

It is very reasonable to suppose that the ID proponents have a Creationist agenda and it follows logically that the agenda includes the biblical story of creation which is fundamental to Christianity. If it were not for the Adam and Eve story, the entire foundation of that religion, salvation from original sin by the "resurection" would crumble. What other reason could there be for the ID notion. Look at the supporters. They are certainly not scientists. Th best known, are Christian fundamentalists.