Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:I am more sympathetic to the existence of a Spinozan God/Nature than an anthropomorphic god interested in human affairs. It is hubristic to think we are so special. We live, we die-that is the way of all things.

And yet, in both good and "bad" senses, Man is unlike anything else. Oh, some animals may be similar in a few ways, but the overall complexity of Man is unlike any other creature.

Really? Humans have 23 Chromosome pairs. King Crabs have 208. We are certainly as far as we are aware a lot more intelligent, and because we have adopted tools and language have a much greater impact on our environment and so have a greater impact.

But I do wonder whether claims of us being "unique" are not just a result of observer bias. We have no idea what goes on in the minds of animals, how complex their lives are to them. We assume that we are the most intelligent life, and that itself makes us more "unique" than other species. There are many species on Earth we have yet to discover, so how can we know for sure we really are so special?

Some years ago, a noted atheist proclaimed there were many planets with intelligent life. Over the years as science learned more, he pared that number down, eventually concluding life on other planets was unlikely.

Is that a reference to Fermi's Paradox, or are you thinking of someone else. If the latter, it's a bit vague and I would love to see actual references.

I suggest that the lack of sentient life elsewhere makes us either ridiculously, win the lottery four times in a day lucky, or the objects of design. If the objects of design, then we are left with two choices: a Deistic creator who doesn't care or a Biblical Creator who does.

Two notes here:

1) absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The known universe is astonishingly big, and we are only now seeing light from stars and galaxies as they were millions of years ago, or billions. If light speed is the limit that Einstein theorised it is, then it would take any life even longer than that to meet us or us meet them. And they may be intelligent enough to avoid us completely.

2) and what is the problem with a Deistic creator who doesn't care? It seems consistent given the massive suffering that is a hallmark of life (human and animal) for the majority of existence.

In fact, in the light of all that suffering, a God that does care and imposes it upon us and our fellow creatures is perhaps not a good God, but an evil one.

If there is a God concerned with us he sure created an awfully big universe for us to inhabit.

Because He was hoping for endless Star Trek spinoffs?

Hegel. Spinoza. Hawking.

Finite men trying to explain the infinite.

And acknowledging their limits, for the most part. Hawking definitely - he deliberately places bets against his own theories.

And still, whether the universe is infinite, or just incredibly big, it is still an interesting question to pose philosophically if we are positing a creator / "designer". Especially one so omnipotent, yet so involved with just our world and species as described in the Biblical texts texts.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:I am more sympathetic to the existence of a Spinozan God/Nature than an anthropomorphic god interested in human affairs. It is hubristic to think we are so special. We live, we die-that is the way of all things.

And yet, in both good and "bad" senses, Man is unlike anything else. Oh, some animals may be similar in a few ways, but the overall complexity of Man is unlike any other creature.

Really? Humans have 23 Chromosome pairs. King Crabs have 208. We are certainly as far as we are aware a lot more intelligent, and because we have adopted tools and language have a much greater impact on our environment and so have a greater impact.

But I do wonder whether claims of us being "unique" are not just a result of observer bias. We have no idea what goes on in the minds of animals, how complex their lives are to them. We assume that we are the most intelligent life, and that itself makes us more "unique" than other species. There are many species on Earth we have yet to discover, so how can we know for sure we really are so special?

I'll let you argue for crustaceans.

Some years ago, a noted atheist proclaimed there were many planets with intelligent life. Over the years as science learned more, he pared that number down, eventually concluding life on other planets was unlikely.

Is that a reference to Fermi's Paradox, or are you thinking of someone else. If the latter, it's a bit vague and I would love to see actual references.

I believe it was Sagan. I have the notes somewhere. If I find it, I'll post it.

When one considers the necessary gravity, distance from the Sun, and myriad of other conditions needed to keep conditions constant enough for life to flourish, I like the odds of our being alone.

2) and what is the problem with a Deistic creator who doesn't care? It seems consistent given the massive suffering that is a hallmark of life (human and animal) for the majority of existence.

It was not always so and it will not always be so. He is long-suffering, but justice is coming.

In fact, in the light of all that suffering, a God that does care and imposes it upon us and our fellow creatures is perhaps not a good God, but an evil one.

Jesus suffered more than anyone, ever. This is not an action of an evil god, but of a kind God who would sacrifice Himself for His rebellious creatures. The "problem of evil" has a simple solution: Adam sinned against God. The rest is history. Yet, God will one day reverse the effects of Adam's fall, but not until the return of Christ.

And still, whether the universe is infinite, or just incredibly big, it is still an interesting question to pose philosophically if we are positing a creator / "designer". Especially one so omnipotent, yet so involved with just our world and species as described in the Biblical texts texts.

Particularly one who says He numbers every grain of sand and names every star. Oh, and inhabits all of existence.

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:I'm ok with what people believe privately that no has public impact. But of course it has always has a public impact--it can't just stay private because religions denigrate other religions, they insist on their version of morality being reflected in laws, they insist on their practice of religion even if it negatively affects the rights of others to enjoy public space . Once religion touches the public sphere all I would ask is one thing: proof.

If we hold the same standard for liberal dogma, like that a person feeling black makes him/her "black," then I'm fine with your stance.

What "liberal dogma" is this? One recent topical example of someone apparently trying this is not the same as a universally accepted "liberal" tenet. Quite a lot of people, black or white, liberal or conservative are critical of her.

Otherwise, you're simply demanding for yourself and your belief system what you will not grant others. I think there's a word for that: hypocrisy.

When there is a Law saying we have to recognise a white person as black, you have a point. Until then, no.

The past matters. Everything you do in life matters. The value of your life is the good you've done as compared to the harm you have done . You don't get a do-over, or completely new start, but you can try to make-up for it.

We have crossed into the metaphysical. I will only say that if you set the standard for God, then the Apostle Paul was a hopeless case. If you set the standard, there is no such thing as redemption. I'm glad you don't, with all respect.

Are you saying Paul did less good after the road to Damascus than the bad he did before? I would concur.

Doctor Fate wrote:I'll let you argue for crustaceans.

And the rest? Or is that conveniently forgotten so you can make a lame jibe?

Some years ago, a noted atheist proclaimed there were many planets with intelligent life. Over the years as science learned more, he pared that number down, eventually concluding life on other planets was unlikely.

Is that a reference to Fermi's Paradox, or are you thinking of someone else. If the latter, it's a bit vague and I would love to see actual references.

I believe it was Sagan. I have the notes somewhere. If I find it, I'll post it.

I won't hold my breath. Or assume the above is an accurate summation of Satan's position.

When one considers the necessary gravity, distance from the Sun, and myriad of other conditions needed to keep conditions constant enough for life to flourish, I like the odds of our being alone.

It is not "distance from the Sun" so much as having a temperature range that allows liquid water. If we find evidence of primitive life having existed on Mars, that is a bit of a game changer, before we even look outside our solar system.

2) and what is the problem with a Deistic creator who doesn't care? It seems consistent given the massive suffering that is a hallmark of life (human and animal) for the majority of existence.

It was not always so and it will not always be so. He is long-suffering, but justice is coming.

Sorry, that does not answer the
question. Non-sequiters rarely do.

I get that the idea of a non-caring Deity is a threat to the ideas of those who believe in an actively caring one, and I get that this would render your "response" null. But what is the actual problem if it turns out we were created by an agency that does not care thereafter? Other than denting our egos, of course?

In fact, in the light of all that suffering, a God that does care and imposes it upon us and our fellow creatures is perhaps not a good God, but an evil one.

Jesus suffered more than anyone, ever. This is not an action of an evil god, but of a kind God who would sacrifice Himself for His rebellious creatures. The "problem of evil" has a simple solution: Adam sinned against God. The rest is history. Yet, God will one day reverse the effects of Adam's fall, but not until the return of Christ.

Did he? He spent less than a day on the cross, right? Usually it took much longer than that to die. Where did he suffer more than a famine victim starving over months? Where did he suffer more than someone affected by the Bhopal disaster? Where did he suffer more than the Nazi's victim kept in concentration camps, forced to work, held for years, some dying from disease and nutrition, others murdered, and a minority surviving with mental and physical scars?

You may well believe he did. But I don't accept that Adam's sin "solves" the question of why everything else has to suffer evil. Punishing the descendents of a criminal is wrong.

And still, whether the universe is infinite, or just incredibly big, it is still an interesting question to pose philosophically if we are positing a creator / "designer". Especially one so omnipotent, yet so involved with just our world and species as described in the Biblical texts texts.

Particularly one who says He numbers every grain of sand and names every star. Oh, and inhabits all of existence.

So he says. Full of himself sometimes, isn't he?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I'll let you argue for crustaceans.

And the rest? Or is that conveniently forgotten so you can make a lame jibe?

Why does that sound familiar...

Fate:

I believe it was Sagan. I have the notes somewhere. If I find it, I'll post it.

Danivon:

I won't hold my breath. Or assume the above is an accurate summation of Satan's position.

I'm just enjoying the Freudian(?) slip.

Ray Jay wrote:Fate:

I believe it was Sagan. I have the notes somewhere. If I find it, I'll post it.

Danivon:

I won't hold my breath. Or assume the above is an accurate summation of Satan's position.

I'm just enjoying the Freudian(?) slip.

I didn't think it was Freudian. I just thought Danivon had more knowledge than the good Doctor...

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I believe it was Sagan. I have the notes somewhere. If I find it, I'll post it.

I won't hold my breath. Or assume the above is an accurate summation of Satan's position.

Meh.

But, thanks for the unintentional laugh.

Sorry, that does not answer the
question. Non-sequiters rarely do.

It actually does. You just don't like it. I refer you to Rom. 1: 18ff

And . . .

I'm not going to argue metaphysics with atheists.

Ray Jay wrote:Fate:

I believe it was Sagan. I have the notes somewhere. If I find it, I'll post it.

Danivon:

I won't hold my breath. Or assume the above is an accurate summation of Satan's position.

I'm just enjoying the Freudian(?) slip.

my new(ish) phone has a very annoying way of spell-checking.

I am sure some see poor old Carl like that, though. DF also called him an atheist. Sagan did not define himself as an atheist, and rather his statements and those of his son suggest he was a pantheist, on the lines of Spinoza and Einstein. An agnostic one, at that.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Sorry, that does not answer the
question. Non-sequiters rarely do.

It actually does. You just don't like it. I refer you to Rom. 1: 18ff

I was asking what the problem is with a hypothetical Deity that was not involved or caring about his creation. Answering with religious texts (themselves based on the assumption of a different dirty) is no more an answer than would be a statement of the beliefs from any other religion, or that of a confirmed atheist.

Simply put, all your answer says is "because I don't believe it". Which is an answer of sorts, but so it "because it smells of poo"

Citing that little bit of Godly "wrath" only convinces those who already believe it. If all you have is the Bible, then fair enough, but reminding me that your God hates me doesn't make you any more right.

Nice bit of "tolerance" though.

And . . .

I'm not going to argue metaphysics with atheists.

Clearly you do, if only with a very limited range of what you see as acceptable evidence...

danivon wrote:Clearly you do, if only with a very limited range of what you see as acceptable evidence...

As we have seen, everyone limits what they see as acceptable evidence. As we cannot agree on fundamental ground rules, a debate is quite pointless.

Thanks for your gracious understanding. Have a nice day.

We may be able to terra-form Mars so that human beings can live on it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars

So perhaps Earth is not that unique.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Clearly you do, if only with a very limited range of what you see as acceptable evidence...

As we have seen, everyone limits what they see as acceptable evidence. As we cannot agree on fundamental ground rules, a debate is quite pointless.

Thanks for your gracious understanding. Have a nice day.

I don't say you can't rely solely on the Bible to back up your case that your beliefs are correct because it says that God says so. Just that it's based on circular reasoning and when you use it, it tends to be to sidestep the point rather than to consider the actual question.

If theorising about alternatives to your own religious views pains you so much, then it is indeed your choice if you want to or not. But this does take us back a little towards the original part of the thread - if you can only see a narrow view of "religion", can you be the judge of what practices are or are not "religious"? And who can?

freeman3 wrote:We may be able to terra-form Mars so that human beings can live on it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars

So perhaps Earth is not that unique.

Indeed. Although the possibility that it may have already held life (and may even still do in deep places?) is a more compelling argument.

And then we face the question of whether we "should" change Mars.

fate

I have a friend who has a PhD from Harvard in Biology. If I invited him here to twist you into knots, would that "win" anything?

Your saying that you have a friend with a PHD in Biology from Harvard and he refutes evolutionary biology? Really?
Or at least the evolutionary development of Homo Sapiens?

Please, this would be a wonderful person to meet. The first question is how he got his PHD without studying and understanding evolutionary biology.