Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

PJ, when someone has sincerely and honestly looked at probably the same information you have on a subject and then come to a conclusion differing from your own conclusion, do you typically say they are living in squalor and denial? Would you prefer (as I have said to Michael) that I jettison my personal morals and become a liar to you, to the community, to myself, my family, and even to your (presumed) God, by pretending to a belief that I actually don’t have?

Yes, DavisBJ, if I were you, I would 'jettison' my personal morals and become someone who tells the truth and you'd finally have your head 2gether. Finally, You'd have something true to believe in. I just had to respond to this post and I do hope that patrick jane will also respond to it.

Much Love, DavisBJ,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

I don't believe this. If you had spent any serious time learning why God must necessarily exist, you'd not be 'honestly' denying His existence.

Start with Spinoza: If you have it, it is a product of the universe. IOW, if the universe can't give it, you can't have it.

Deism is VERY intuitive. You need to self-examine a WHOLE lot more than you have to date. Imho, and according to reason and God, you haven't been honest with yourself. :nono:

Dear Lon,

You tell him!! Excellent Job!! I'd say Great Job, but I usually only use the word Great when describing God or His Works!! Thanks TONS, Lon!! I've got to go for a bit, but I'll Be Back!!

Much Love In Jesus Christ And The Holy Spirit!!

Michael

 

[Lon]

It's a coping mechanism crafted to deflect the possibility that someone could actually have "seriously looked into" the existence of God but come to a different conclusion.

Ah, so you lied the first time you said you believed there was likely a god :think: just not convinced?
Agnostic or atheist?

Rather than deal with that, Lon preempts it by telling himself upfront that anyone who disagrees with him couldn't have looked into it seriously.

That or just not capable of average intelligence? You get a bit testy when you have to face the fact that God exists. Why is that? :think: Maybe I'm remembering too simply my own cognitive journey? You want to travel the road a bit? Try to leave your emoting behind tho, and leave your angry eyes at home. :up:

 

[DavisBJ]

Yes, DavisBJ, if I were you, I would 'jettison' my personal morals and become someone who tells the truth and I'd finally have my head 2gether. Finally, I'd have something true to believe in. I just had to respond to this post and I do hope that patrick jane will also respond to it.

Much Love, DavisBJ,

Michael

Michael, my posts to you, and to a lesser extent, some of my posts to others seem to act like some kind of lit fuse that soon results in a full meltdown on your part. I can’t prevent you from answering posts that I direct to others, but at least I can choose to not respond to the points you make in hijacked responses. For that reason, I am going to continue not responding to the specifics of the posts you address to me. You are free to wallow in the pretense that my avoidance is because I am cowering in the knowledge that I am unable to respond rationally. (This is the same approach I use when inebriated people want to argue with me.)

Ignore # 73

 

[Jose Fly]

Ah, so you lied the first time you said you believed there was likely a god :think: just not convinced?
Agnostic or atheist?

?????????? When did I ever say "there is likely a god"? :idunno:

That or just not capable of average intelligence?

Yeah, that too. Either way, it's a means for you to avoid having to deal with the possibility that someone intelligent could actually think things through and come to a different conclusion.

You get a bit testy when you have to face the fact that God exists. Why is that?

I do? I almost never talk about God here. Most of the time it just doesn't interest me. In fact, even in my last post here I wasn't talking about God, but instead was talking about you.

Maybe I'm remembering too simply my own cognitive journey? You want to travel the road a bit? Try to leave your emoting behind tho, and leave your angry eyes at home. :up:

Still can't get past my avatar eh? That's very interesting.

 

[Lon]

?????????? When did I ever say "there is likely a god"? :idunno:

You'd said something about just being against fundamental Christians with a few other points. Sorry for giving you credit for deism. Atheists don't tend to fall as high on my intelligence assessment scale. You really cannot be an 'intelligent' atheist. You'll hate that but 'intelligent' literally 'means' something. The moment you realize things 'mean' something, you can't be an atheist.

Yeah, that too. Either way, it's a means for you to avoid having to deal with the possibility that someone intelligent could actually think things through and come to a different conclusion.

True.

I do? I almost never talk about God here. Most of the time it just doesn't interest me. In fact, even in my last post here I wasn't talking about God, but instead was talking about you.

Er, just above with "??????????" The exaggeration wasn't lost on me. Nor was the time you ripped your kids out of AWANA lest they become Christians. You have a lot of denial and a bit of running scared about you. Its a bit of a threat to your façade? God is there. There is no way to walk away from the great philosophers and theologians without understanding this.

Still can't get past my avatar eh? That's very interesting.

Didn't even mention it. You jumped in here, again. It wasn't with me, but about me. I simply challenged you to walk a road. Don't want to come? Your loss.

 

[patrick jane]

PJ, when someone has sincerely and honestly looked at probably the same information you have on a subject and then come to a conclusion differing from your own conclusion, do you typically say they are living in squalor and denial? Would you prefer (as I have said to Michael) that I jettison my personal morals and become a liar to you, to the community, to myself, my family, and even to your (presumed) God, by pretending to a belief that I actually don’t have?

No. you should continue be a contentious atheist and denying the deity of Christ. Never mind the eyewitness testimony we have

 

[Jose Fly]

Sorry for giving you credit for deism.

No worries.

Atheists don't tend to fall as high on my intelligence assessment scale. You really cannot be an 'intelligent' atheist. You'll hate that but 'intelligent' literally 'means' something. The moment you realize things 'mean' something, you can't be an atheist.

Except for the fact that your odd personal opinion about atheists is directly contradicted by the data.

Er, just above with "??????????" The exaggeration wasn't lost on me.

It's just a means of expressing my dismay.

Nor was the time you ripped your kids out of AWANA lest they become Christians.

No, I have no problem with them being Christians. FYI, they both teach at VBS every year. The problem I had with AWANA was them coercing very young kids to become little robotic missionaries.

You have a lot of denial and a bit of running scared about you. Its a bit of a threat to your façade?

How so?

God is there.

Where?

There is no way to walk away from the great philosophers and theologians without understanding this.

What about all the great thinkers who either believe in completely different gods than you, or the ones who are atheists?

 

[DavisBJ]

No. you should continue be a contentious atheist and denying the deity of Christ. Never mind the eyewitness testimony we have

The contentious part you are partially correct about. In spite of previously saying that I was going to avoid contending with Michael, yet I have succumbed to the temptation to respond to what is really just inane nonsense from Cadry. Mike probably can’t help being the way he is, but I certainly have room for improvement on that score.

On the divinity of Christ I have several questions, but for now I will simply ask - who were the eyewitnesses you refer to are, and how do we know what they saw?

 

[patrick jane]

Seems to me that Lon has gotten admissions from a couple atheists that God is real. Good job Lon !!

 

[patrick jane]

The contentious part you are partially correct about. In spite of previously saying that I was going to avoid contending with Michael, yet I have succumbed to the temptation to respond to what is really just inane nonsense from Cadry. Mike probably can’t help being the way he is, but I certainly have room for improvement on that score.

On the divinity of Christ I have several questions, but for now I will simply ask - who were the eyewitnesses you refer to are, and how do we know what they saw?

The apostles and the multitudes of people. Even after DBR Christ Jesus returned for 40 days before ascending, which was also witnessed by multitudes. We know what they saw

 

[DavisBJ]

Seems to me that Lon has gotten admissions from a couple atheists that God is real. Good job Lon !!

PJ, read carefully for yourself, rather than relying on Lon’s spin doctoring. Here is verbatim what I expressed about my belief in God (and that Lon somehow twisted into being an admission that I said God physically exists):

… what I mean by “God” (a fictional powerful figure invented in people’s desires to have answers to some difficult questions) …

Is your conception of God no more real than what I expressed to Lon about how real God is?

 

[DavisBJ]

The apostles and the multitudes of people. Even after DBR Christ Jesus returned for 40 days before ascending, which was also witnessed by multitudes. We know what they saw

Tell me what they saw, and how do you know the account is correct?

 

[patrick jane]

Tell me what they saw, and how do you know the account is correct?

Jesus Christ appeared to the Apostles after he was Risen and that included many other witnesses, over 500 in total, maybe thousands. We know the accounts are correct because they were verified and agreed upon before being written

 

[DavisBJ]

Lon, I question how fruitful our exchange is going to be. In my “real” life (apart from TOL) I am immersed in science, where ideas are sometimes disputed. A good way for a scientist to lose credibility is for him to stretch his opponent’s arguments far beyond what the opponent actually said. It is crucial that we try to simply but accurately express our ideas, and also to understand and respond to what our opponents actually believe.

Your response indulges freely in the “if they give an inch, then take a mile” type logic. I do not intend to have to twist your mischaracterizations of what I said back to a semblance of what was expressed. I will point out a typical example:

Earlier Lon said

… Start with Spinoza: If you have it, it is a product of the universe….

I responded

… Ok, then your God is therefore a product of the universe. I agree with that, but do you?

Explicitly stated, I have been consistent and clear that I think God exists in the imaginations of people. I believe people are a product of natural processes, and they invented "God" in their imaginations. I also know the claim (especially from TOLers) that God created the universe, which seems to sit poorly with the idea that it was the universe that created God.

But here's Lon's twisted reading of that

Great, so you believe in a God that produces intelligence at this point, yes? That's tremendously further than you just were!!!

Lon apparently does not want to correctly express my stance on my disbelief in God. But if, for the sake of argument, the universe did create God, maybe the God is interested in nothing more than using planets like bowling balls to hurl at distant suns, or running around to see if the universe created other Gods, but nary any interest in Him producing “intelligence”.

So I invite Lon to revisit my post, and if he chooses to respond to it accurately, I will do likewise. Fictional parodies of what I posted don’t interest me much.

 

[DavisBJ]

Jesus Christ appeared to the Apostles after he was Risen and that included many other witnesses, over 500 in total, maybe thousands. We know the accounts are correct because they were verified and agreed upon before being written

Written where, when, and by whom?

 

[rstrats]

MichaelCadry,
re: "Of course beliefs can be consciously chosen!!"

As I said, I've never been able to consciously choose any of the beliefs that I have and I would like to be able to do that. If you think that you can consciously CHOOSE to believe things, I wonder if you might explain how you do it. What do you do at the last moment to instantly change your one state of belief to another? What is it that you do that would allow you to say, "OK, at this moment I have a lack of belief that 'x' exists or is true, but I CHOOSE to believe that 'x' exists or is true and now instantly at this new moment I do believe that 'x' exists or is true"?

Maybe you could use something like leprechauns to demonstrate your ability and technique. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, a leprechaun is a "fairy peculiar to Ireland, who appeared in the form of an old man of minute stature, wearing a cocked hat and a leather apron" and who stores a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow and if ever captured has to grant 3 wishes. So, assuming that you don't already have a belief in them, how about right now, while you are reading this, CHOOSE to believe - be convinced without a doubt - that they exist. Now that you believe in leprechauns, my question is, how did you do it? How did you make the instantaneous transition from lack of belief to belief?

 

[Lon]

No worries.

Except for the fact that your odd personal opinion about atheists is directly contradicted by the data.

Ah, phishing for dollars....
1) :nono: "Can't" in fact. 2) I'll ask you again: Do you 'have' intelligence?' Do you have meaning? Purpose? Guess what?
Your link cannot undo the 'meaning' of words (and doesn't, just gives sad statistics and most high IQ's I know are Christians per fact. Many members of MENSA are as well. Albert Einstein was a deist working through Judaism/Christianity but rejected all other forms.

It's just a means of expressing my dismay.

Just what I said.

No, I have no problem with them being Christians. FYI, they both teach at VBS every year. The problem I had with AWANA was them coercing very young kids to become little robotic missionaries.

:think: The same with VBS. I suppose they are going to be done with that now lain:

How so?

Where?

To even be able to ask implies there is a God. Spinoza said you cannot have a property without the universe giving you that property, THUS to have meaning, intelligence, and purpose in the universe, there must necessarily be meaning, intelligence, and purpose to give. To see beauty, it HAS to be a property of the universe. Reflexively, it means the universe gives what it has or it cannot be in the universe.

What about all the great thinkers who either believe in completely different gods than you, or the ones who are atheists?

Deism is different, entirely different, than atheism. Atheism is anti-'intellectual' by necessity because it denies 'meaning' 'purpose' 'intellect' in the universe, including his/her own.

 

[Lon]

Lon, I question how fruitful our exchange is going to be. In my “real” life (apart from TOL) I am immersed in science, where ideas are sometimes disputed. A good way for a scientist to lose credibility is for him to stretch his opponent’s arguments far beyond what the opponent actually said. It is crucial that we try to simply but accurately express our ideas, and also to understand and respond to what our opponents actually believe.

Your response indulges freely in the “if they give an inch, then take a mile” type logic. I do not intend to have to twist your mischaracterizations of what I said back to a semblance of what was expressed. I will point out a typical example:

Earlier Lon said

I responded

Explicitly stated, I have been consistent and clear that I think God exists in the imaginations of people. I believe people are a product of natural processes, and they invented "God" in their imaginations. I also know the claim (especially from TOLers) that God created the universe, which seems to sit poorly with the idea that it was the universe that created God.

So, even denying the inch? Rereading, sure, I can see your reticence.

Lon apparently does not want to correctly express my stance on my disbelief in God. But if, for the sake of argument, the universe did create God, maybe the God is interested in nothing more than using planets like bowling balls to hurl at distant suns, or running around to see if the universe created other Gods, but nary any interest in Him producing “intelligence”.

Nice, attack the one you debate instead of being substantial! :up: Read up on Spinoza's God yet? :think: :nono: I didn't think so. It'd require you to be more thoughtful, no? Proving a point requires you to read and invest. If not, you are welcome to Dawkin's delusion.

So I invite Lon to revisit my post, and if he chooses to respond to it accurately, I will do likewise. Fictional parodies of what I posted don’t interest me much.

Brilliant. Reread your own lack of clarity. Try to be more cogent with your own mess. You said a lot of things a deist would say in that post:

Sure deism is intuitive. People are strongly attracted to the idea of God. There are obvious reasons for that – the desire for ultimate justice in a world where justice is not universal, the desire for conscious life to continue after death, and so on. But reality doesn’t bend to our desires.

Starting over, when you were 'supposedly searching, did you check with Standford and others regarding the necessary existence of God?

 

[Jose Fly]

Ah, phishing for dollars....
1) :nono: "Can't" in fact.

You're not making sense.

2) I'll ask you again: Do you 'have' intelligence?' Do you have meaning? Purpose? Guess what?
Your link cannot undo the 'meaning' of words

Um.....ok. :idunno:

(and doesn't, just gives sad statistics and most high IQ's I know are Christians per fact. Many members of MENSA are as well. Albert Einstein was a deist working through Judaism/Christianity but rejected all other forms.

What's funny is how you don't appreciate what you've just done. It's no different than someone being shown data indicating that teenagers are more likely to get in car accidents than adults, and responding "That can't be true, because my teen has never been in an accident".

If you don't understand how that's a logical error, then you're just making my point for me.

The same with VBS. I suppose they are going to be done with that now

They've been going or teaching since they were preschoolers, and now they're teens, so no....you're wrong.

To even be able to ask implies there is a God.

So "You can ask questions, therefore God exists"? Great logic there Lon.

Spinoza said you cannot have a property without the universe giving you that property, THUS to have meaning, intelligence, and purpose in the universe, there must necessarily be meaning, intelligence, and purpose to give. To see beauty, it HAS to be a property of the universe. Reflexively, it means the universe gives what it has or it cannot be in the universe.

Or "meaning and purpose" are concepts that we've made up and can make into whatever we like.

Deism is different, entirely different, than atheism. Atheism is anti-'intellectual' by necessity because it denies 'meaning' 'purpose' 'intellect' in the universe, including his/her own.

No it doesn't. Under atheism, a person can give their life whatever "meaning and purpose" they want. And once they do that, meaning and purpose exist, all without God.

Or are you arguing that if humans create something, it doesn't exist? :chuckle: