OK so Tim steps up to Rung 2 (you realise it takes more faith to disbelieve than to believe). He starts with the old: the probability of life existing is so small that it is ridiculous to suggest it just happened by chance. He makes an analogy with a poker player getting hand after hand of straight aces and suggests any normal person would 'slug the guy' for cheating.
This goes back to what I was saying in an earlier post - religion likes to appeal to 'common sense'. 'Everybody knows' if someone got 23 consecutive poker hands of straight aces they'd be cheating.
The problem is, nobody really knows what the odds for life-creation are. Nobody really knows what the Universe is, how big it is, how it got here, if there was anything before it or if there will be anything after it. Tim has already said his god exists outside the Universe. Mate, it's hard enough dealing with shit inside this Universe, if you're going to start looking outside it you can forget concepts such as probability.
How could you look at nature and say there's something wrong with it? To believe in human rights is to say everything else in nature is wrong.
Nope.
Tim's trying to say humans aren't like the rest of nature. Because we act against the 'survival of the fittest' principle.
No we don't. Those who think we do don't understand the principle. My evidence: 9 BILLION people by 2050. Why? - because we look after each other, use our intelligence and work in social groups to create systems by which we are THE fittest primate species on this planet, right now.
We're not the only species to work in this way, either. It's just we have the intelligence to really exploit it.
If there is a God, human rights make sense. If there is no God, human rights don't make sense.
Oh.... sigh... groan... fuck me... I hate these halfwits... make them stop... please make them stop...
Human rights makes perfect sense to me. But perhaps that's because I've spent more than 13 seconds thinking about it. Christians have burnt people, tortured people, eaten their heathen babies, stuck them on spikes, you name it, Christians have done it to their fellow humans.
Meanwhile, human societies have developed. In general, the wealthier a nation is, the more able it is to protect its citizens and the more able those citizens are to demand protection. Some wealthy countries, like the USA, let those protections slip (Unsubscribe-me.org). It's not fullproof. But, in general...
Is this so hard to understand?
Tim seems to be saying we need to explain the existence of human rights and the best way to explain them is by saying God exists.
No, Tim. Human rights exist because humans exist.
Belief in God makes more sense of life, right?
Yes, that a god would create a bunch of beings even though he didn't need them and knowing they would go bad he set up some deal where he would sacrifice himself to himself and then if those creatures believed that he had they would exist in Happy Forever while the creatures who didn't would live in Unhappy Forever.
Yes, Tim, that really makes my life make sense.
And that's about it in terms of the 'reasons' for God. The third rung is all about commitment. Now that you realise it takes less faith to believe in God than to reject him, you have to invest in your belief... blah blah blah.
So, to sum up, the reasons to believe in a god are... I think I'll break these down into 3 rungs:
rung 1) because otherwise you have to think properly about things. If you just believe 'God done it' then that explains everything without you having to think at all.
rung 2) now that you've stopped thinking, you're stupid enough to go out an buy Tim's book and make him very wealthy indeed.
rung 3) ...
2... 1... and you're back in the room!
Monday, April 28, 2008
Tim's (Very Silly) Reason's For God cont...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Would it not be an objective creature consciousness that "guided" the transformation process of reptiles to birds? Or maybe paralyzed cliff-jumping reptiles decided that the next generation should sprout some wing nubbies.
I think it is double extra convenient that you have a one liner to disqualify legitimate arguments...even Darwin struggled with irreducible complexity.
I looked up all those big words in a thesaurus.
I wouldn't dream of making the list yet. Its in my 5-year plan. Until then, I'll probably just try to fight gummby to the death...or thumb wrestle.
Evolution/natural selection isn't my thing. And anyway, what is the point of discussing such things if you start from the point of "How can I fix my fantasy/belief system into the natural world as we now know it?"
Dox: "Would it not be an objective creature consciousness that "guided" the transformation process of reptiles to birds?"
No, it would not. Not according to the evidence.
"Or maybe paralyzed cliff-jumping reptiles decided that the next generation should sprout some wing nubbies."
There's no 'deciding' involved. Some dinos had feathers, most likely for insulation. The birds we have now are decended from them. So this small dino is running away from a predator and jumps off a cliff and because of a accidental mutation he glides safely to the bottom. He survives to make new gliding dinos. These gliding dinos do rather well, what with their flying advantage. Before you know it, there thousands of the things...
"I think it is double extra convenient that you have a one liner to disqualify legitimate arguments..."
You don't need my oneliners. As I say, it's not my field. But there are hundreds, if not thoudsands, of peer-reviewed papers out there for you to study so you can really get it.
It'll take you a few years to really get a deep and sophisticated understanding.
Or you could just read a fairy story about gods and magic snakes and donkeys and stuff.
"So this small dino is running away from a predator and jumps off a cliff and because of a accidental mutation he glides safely to the bottom."
I believe in accidents Simon. How many billions of "accidents" had to precede this one to even make it possible? Evolution is all accident start to finish. A tsunami has never made and never will make a Victorian mansion. Monkeys will never be able to fling their poo on the wall in the shape of ornate Celtic knotting. Chaos never produces order.
How many times have you looked at a complex piece of art and wondered if it just slapped itself on there accidentally?
...But one thing you do know (even though evolution/natural selection isn't your thing) is that a complex God did not fashion a complex world and is not taking an active sustaining role in its continuation.
People who have called themselves Christians have done some horrible things--the Crusades, persecution of the Jews, the Salem witch trials. I recognize that. Scripture defines genuine Christians as those who keep the commandments and keep the faith in Christ(Rev. 14:21). A lot of people wear jerseys but very few play the game.
I hope I'm known as the latter.
oops, wrong reference--its Revelation 14:12.
"How many times have you looked at a complex piece of art and wondered if it just slapped itself on there accidentally?"
And your point is?
If you want to suggest evolution is God's artwork, give me one tiny little piece of solid evidence to back that up.
Again, the relious mind is attracted to the 'common sense' argument. If you're a peasant in a medieval village, it makes sense that "God made everyfing, duh". And the ignorant villagers will laugh at you when you tell them their great great great great (x a few thousand) grandparents might not have been human.
But would you let a medieval villager perform micro brain surgery on you?
My point is that you will look at an extraordinarily complex object like an oak tree and attribute that to accident while you will look at a far less complex object like a painting and attribute that to a creator. It would be far more probable that the painting was the one that originated from accident.
No I don't believe God made the world through evolution. That is just a compromise in "evangelicalism" to appease the unappeasable.
So common sense is not something evolutionists hold to...I've pinpointed the whole problem!!! :)
I would definitely not want a villager performing brain surgery, mostly because he doesn't have the knowledge of how complex the brain is. I also do not deny how complex and intricate the world around us is. But I can use my super-powers of inductive reasoning to tell me that the simple has never produced the complex (much like an unintelligent villager successfully performing brain surgery) :).
The theory of evolution is a philosophy, not a science. Science reproduces nature in laboratories. Evolution theorizes the origin of nature while never being able to duplicate them. Evolution will be regarded as a science when they put the "law" in front of it.
The historicity of Jesus' resurrection has never been able to be denied by real non-Christian scholars. I wonder why?
Dox: "It would be far more probable that the painting was the one that originated from accident."
To the simple, ignorant peasant mind, yes.
As I've said quite a few times recently, religion works on the 'everyone knows' basis. A sort of childish 'common sense'. Your statement would seem to make sense to someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.
"But I can use my super-powers of inductive reasoning to tell me that the simple has never produced the complex ..."
You might want to work on those superpowers of yours. They are decidedly un-super.
The problem with the god-believer is the smugness that comes their ignorance.
Do you think a cell of bacteria is simple? Well, I now a few that are showing more signs of intelligence than you right now.
In light of evolution/natural selection not being your thing, is it safe to say that you know what you're talking about? Or, do you leave that to/put your faith in "scientists" who have drastically changed the age of the universe/earth/humanity more times than they'd like to admit?
So, you've side-stepped and once again resorted to insults. Is it because: A.) You hate me. B.) You have a difficult time making friends. C.) You're cornered.
You are far more intelligent than me so "C" wasn't really a viable option in the first place. I think its "B". I'm sure insinuating that bacteria is smarter than me is your way of showing you care.
If you really want to know about evolution/natural selection - there is plenty out there for you to read up.
You need to because you don't know what you're talking about right now. Just some friendly advice.
I really attempt to be a humble guy Simon so if you feel I've misrepresented evolution in any way then I would definitely want to know how. Being dogmatic about things I'm ignorant of would not serve my purpose whatsoever. I'm not just saying that for good measure either.
Its the way you talk about "scientists", as if they are some kind alien species, that shows you're a bit silly. I have several close friends who are scientists.
Guess what - they are all fighting tooth and nail to be the one to make a big discovery so they can get fame, fortune and further funding (the four Fs!).
The very idea that any one of them would decline the opportunity to take evolution apart and replace it with a new theory (which would make them greater than Darwin) is akin to suggesting I would pass up the offer to write a screenplay for Spielberg or Lucas, including a 7 figure paypacket.
I can assure with all my heart, both notions are utterly utterly ridiculous.
Tonight I saw the most magnificent sunset here in Asheville. And of course, I thought of the Maker of Creation and of Beauty....what some folks would call god or God. Peoplepowergranny laments how we often thumb our noses at the Creator when we constantly devour and destroy many of its most beautiful creations, such as mountains and rivers. Vote in my poll, letting me know what makes you believe in a Higher Being than just us.
Post a Comment