God Related Discussions - Page 2 - OzChess

**Gendo Ikari** · 10-21-2007, 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

A while back I read Richards Dawkin's "The God Delusion," and am currently reading "Daniel Denett's "Breaking the Spell." I was prompted to take a gander at YouTube, where I found this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/user/SoldierInGodsArmy

Heh, nice video.

'It's written right there on your heart'... sounds too Kantian for my liking. The rest is just good for comic value.

**hugodiaz** · 10-21-2007, 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

A while back I read Richards Dawkin's "The God Delusion," and am currently reading "Daniel Denett's "Breaking the Spell." I was prompted to take a gander at YouTube, where I found this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/user/SoldierInGodsArmy

#$%^%^ youtube.com was recently blocked in China!

I am extremely upset about that and I really hope it is only a temporary thing.

**Just2Good** · 10-22-2007, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by hugodiaz

#$%^%^ youtube.com was recently blocked in China!

I am extremely upset about that and I really hope it is only a temporary thing.

They blocked YouTube? Did they say why? I'd be upset about it too. Can you see the YouTube clips we put up here as member?

AO

**vagrantnomad** · 10-22-2007, 11:08 PM

the guy in that clip is a fruitloop.

anyway im playing in a tournament on itsyourturn (a chess site) and in the 1st round i let a guy win a game so we'd both go to the next round and he sent me this back, i havent responded.

From: myssara (258369147)
To: steven watson
Date: 10/12/07, 21:37:03
Subject: you make me afavor and I make you one

Message: have you read Quran before I am sure that if you read it you will believe it if you think on its
words and you will found it around you
You will believe that its from the god and the
only god for every thing the who we must worship
and fear.I ask you not to be anger we still friends I will live to make you afavor when you want Just read the holy Quran and think, think
and think and you will believe if the god want
peace with you my friend and have good luck at the champion.

**phild707** · 10-23-2007, 01:23 AM

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

Thanks for that Phil

Opinions aside, I think the evidence seems to be stronger for an argument that God does exist as opposed to the opposite argument.

For instance, if God did not create the world, oceans, stars, planets, and life generally, then how was such created?

AO

Here's my take on the BIG question AO.
I doubt that we will never know how the universe came to be just as we will probably never know if its the only one.
Science has taught us what little we do know about our universe.
Religions on the other hand have taught us little about it.
Christianity in particular has actually been responsible for the impeding of human understanding of the natural world by presenting a false earth centric view of it and the persecution of those who would contradict their views.

The Miller-Urey experiment, way back in the 50's, was the first to demonstrate that in the apparently hostile conditions of the primitive earth hydrocarbons, including importantly, amino acids, will form naturally (and rapidly).
Amino acids are used to make proteins in living cells.
We have no reason to believe other than life evolved naturally in the primeval sludge just as it must have evolved naturally in countless numbers of other similar environments across the universe.
Consequently the universe is teeming with life.

One of the really interesting questions that arises from this is:
Is it inevitable that the leading intelligent life form on every earth will go through the same rise and fall cycle as here?
1. Learns to use tools and conquers fire
2. Learns to comminicate in a complex language
3. Masters technology
4. Destroys the environment and ultimately perishes with all other life in it.

**Spiny Norman** · 10-23-2007, 08:57 AM

If you're reading Dennett and Dawkins' books (e.g. "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" and "The God Delusion") then I would recommend that you balance their light-weight philosophical meanderings with some proper philosophy.

Suggest you do a Google search for "Library of Christian Philosophy" which will direct you to the Calvin University site ... then search there for Plantinga (Alvin) who is probably the world's foremost Christian philosopher. There are a number of his papers there which pick apart Dennett's and Dawkins' books, either refuting them outright, or else showing that D+D's attempts at refuting Christianity/theism are way wide of the mark.

My assessment of Dawkin's book, without having read it myself, but based on reviews by some serious philosophers, is that it is the philosophical equivalent of a Mills and Boon novel. Extremely lightweight, lacking in substance and clarity.

Dennett's books are quite a bit more substantial than Dawkins, which probably explains why Dawkins is on the best seller list and Plantinga is virtually unheard of outside Christian circles ... most people simply don't to deal with deep thinking and logic.

**Spiny Norman** · 10-23-2007, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by phild707

Consequently the universe is teeming with life.

... and the actual, scientific, observational evidence for this is ... what, exactly? ... feel free to provide a single, uncontestible example of life from outside our solar system.

**phild707** · 10-23-2007, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by frosty

... and the actual, scientific, observational evidence for this is ... what, exactly? ... feel free to provide a single, uncontestible example of life from outside our solar system.

There is no proof of course but there are mathematical statistics and the statistical evidence is overwhelming.

Feel free to keep your head stuck in your "proper" (presumably heavyweight) philosphy.

**Spiny Norman** · 10-23-2007, 03:57 PM

Heh heh, I'll do that ... its fun (and quite challenging, to put it mildly)!

BTW, I presume you are aware that creationists and ID-ers have been putting improbability arguments against evolution for decades ... and they are typically howled down with a "doesn't matter how improbable it might seem, here we are". Good for the goose, good for the gander, that's what I say now.

My cry is "show me the evidence, or accept that its belief not science". <wink>

**phild707** · 10-23-2007, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by frosty

Heh heh, I'll do that ... its fun (and quite challenging, to put it mildly)!

BTW, I presume you are aware that creationists and ID-ers have been putting improbability arguments against evolution for decades ... and they are typically howled down with a "doesn't matter how improbable it might seem, here we are". Good for the goose, good for the gander, that's what I say now.

My cry is "show me the evidence, or accept that its belief not science". <wink>

Oh yes, and the stats are really fun too!

Astronomers estimate there are about 100 Thousand Million stars in the Milky Way alone. Outside that, there are millions upon millions of other galaxies also!

The late Dr. Carl Sagan once said that there are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of planet earth.

Planet earth is one of those that orbit our sun, in a quiet neighbourhood of the Milky Way.

So lets just reduce our planet hypothetically for a moment to a grain of sand and imagine that here we are, infinitely small microbial lifeforms living on the surface of a perfect little blue-green grain of sand on lets say, 7 mile beach, (Tasmania of course!)

One microbe turns to another and asks "How can you prove there is life on any other grain of sand? Show me the evidence!".

Perhaps the 1st microbe is right

**Iconoclast** · 10-23-2007, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by frosty

...balance their light-weight philosophical meanderings with some proper philosophy. Suggest you do a Google search for "Library of Christian Philosophy"

Theology is not philosophy. Theology is on a parr with Pyrimid Power and Feng Shui.

There are a number of his papers there which pick apart Dennett's and Dawkins' books, either refuting them outright, or else showing that D+D's attempts at refuting Christianity/theism are way wide of the mark.

Oh goody. Five hundred pages of assertions that faith proves faith is true.

My assessment of Dawkin's book, without having read it myself, but based on reviews by some serious philosophers, is that it is the philosophical equivalent of a Mills and Boon novel. Extremely lightweight, lacking in substance and clarity.

In deed. However, Dawkins is a communicator of (science) ideas. He is no a hardcore philosopher. At least his writings are not the "philosophical equivalent of" the Bible.

Dennett's books are quite a bit more substantial than Dawkins, which probably explains why Dawkins is on the best seller list ...

Agreed

**Spiny Norman** · 10-24-2007, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

However, Dawkins is a communicator of (science) ideas. He is no a hardcore philosopher.

Then perhaps he ought to refrain from making philosophical pronouncements and making statements about the (non)existence of God. Tell me again what that has to do with science? "The God Delusion" indeed. No, however much you might wish that Dawkins was a communicator of science ideas, he is in fact a populist, lightweight, philosophical hack that could be refuted by any first-year university philosophy student with one hand tied behind their back.

**Iconoclast** · 10-24-2007, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by frosty

Then perhaps he ought to refrain from making philosophical pronouncements and making statements about the (non)existence of God.

Frosty, anyone can make a philosophical (thinking) statement, not just philosphers (professional thinkers). Dawkins need not have to slug it out with a professional philosopher, to be correct. All he needs to do is present the facts and let the reader think for themselves. The main fact is, that despite a million genius-hours spent on finding "god," there is not one scintila of evidence of "god." Hence, to believe there is a god, is delusional.

Tell me again what that has to do with science? "The God Delusion" indeed.

It has everything to do with science. Science is the persuit of truth/fact. If you assert that "god is true/real, then only science can be used to vverify the assertion.

[Dawkins] is in fact a populist, lightweight, philosophical hack that could be refuted by any first-year university philosophy student with one hand tied behind their back.

In your dreams. Actually, any scientist can refute a deluded philosopher.

**Spiny Norman** · 10-24-2007, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

If you assert that "god is true/real, then only science can be used to verify the assertion.

What on earth would make you think that? Stating that "God exists" is a philosophical statement. Nothing whatsoever to do with science.

Here's a challenge for you ... how about you use science to prove conclusively what you had for breakfast this morning.

(I personally find it easier to rely on memory, rather than on science, when working out things like that). Horses for courses. Science is really good at making and stitching together observations, but without philosophy underpinning it its just a complete waste of time.

**Iconoclast** · 10-27-2007, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by frosty

Stating that "God exists" is a philosophical statement. Nothing whatsoever to do with science.

When a student does science, they can be awarded a PhD - Doctor of Philosophy. It is rational to say, then, that in the thinkers in the thinging houses think that science is a philosopical pursuit. Disagree with me? Then go argue with the all the universities of the world.

Here's a challenge for you ... how about you use science to prove conclusively what you had for breakfast this morning.

Conclusively? What degree of conclusivity would suffice?
1. 0.05 (statistically)
2. Beyond reasonable doubt (legally.)
3. On the balance of probability (civil action: 50-50.)
4. Absolutely
5. Existentially
6. Theoillogically
7. My mum said.
8. Nepharious hand waving.

Horses for courses. Science is really good at making and stitching together observations, but without philosophy underpinning it its just a complete waste of time.

With all that "stitching" and "underpinning" you should stick to your knitting.

You have it the wrong way around. Practical philosophy must be based in science, not the other way around. In philosophy you to striving to not make unexamined assumptions before using them in a logical argument. You cannot make a leap based on faith or an analogy. The way to examine the veracity your assumptions is by the scientific method. ie test it in the real world.

You have no business declaring god as being "true," because, all you have is the untestable feeling - which we call faith - in god being true.

Keep that horse of yours on your course because you have it hitched behind your cart and will cause an accident.

I have a question (an easy one). What is your definition of "God?" I need a target.

10-21-2007, 10:26 PM	#16 (permalink)
Gendo Ikari Director Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 99	Originally Posted by Iconoclast A while back I read Richards Dawkin's "The God Delusion," and am currently reading "Daniel Denett's "Breaking the Spell." I was prompted to take a gander at YouTube, where I found this guy. http://www.youtube.com/user/SoldierInGodsArmy Heh, nice video. 'It's written right there on your heart'... sounds too Kantian for my liking. The rest is just good for comic value.

10-21-2007, 11:09 PM	#17 (permalink)
hugodiaz Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: China (Yes, really) Posts: 14	Originally Posted by Iconoclast A while back I read Richards Dawkin's "The God Delusion," and am currently reading "Daniel Denett's "Breaking the Spell." I was prompted to take a gander at YouTube, where I found this guy. http://www.youtube.com/user/SoldierInGodsArmy #$%^%^ youtube.com was recently blocked in China! I am extremely upset about that and I really hope it is only a temporary thing.

10-22-2007, 07:55 PM	#18 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,056 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by hugodiaz #$%^%^ youtube.com was recently blocked in China! I am extremely upset about that and I really hope it is only a temporary thing. They blocked YouTube? Did they say why? I'd be upset about it too. Can you see the YouTube clips we put up here as member? AO __________________ . "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~ Buckminster Fuller ~

10-23-2007, 01:23 AM	#20 (permalink)
phild707 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Burnie International Airport Posts: 298	Originally Posted by Arrogant-One Thanks for that Phil Opinions aside, I think the evidence seems to be stronger for an argument that God does exist as opposed to the opposite argument. For instance, if God did not create the world, oceans, stars, planets, and life generally, then how was such created? AO Here's my take on the BIG question AO. I doubt that we will never know how the universe came to be just as we will probably never know if its the only one. Science has taught us what little we do know about our universe. Religions on the other hand have taught us little about it. Christianity in particular has actually been responsible for the impeding of human understanding of the natural world by presenting a false earth centric view of it and the persecution of those who would contradict their views. The Miller-Urey experiment, way back in the 50's, was the first to demonstrate that in the apparently hostile conditions of the primitive earth hydrocarbons, including importantly, amino acids, will form naturally (and rapidly). Amino acids are used to make proteins in living cells. We have no reason to believe other than life evolved naturally in the primeval sludge just as it must have evolved naturally in countless numbers of other similar environments across the universe. Consequently the universe is teeming with life. One of the really interesting questions that arises from this is: Is it inevitable that the leading intelligent life form on every earth will go through the same rise and fall cycle as here? 1. Learns to use tools and conquers fire 2. Learns to comminicate in a complex language 3. Masters technology 4. Destroys the environment and ultimately perishes with all other life in it. __________________ "It ain't no sin if you crack a few laws now and then, just so long as you don't break any." Mae West

10-23-2007, 08:57 AM	#21 (permalink)
Spiny Norman Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 224	If you're reading Dennett and Dawkins' books (e.g. "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" and "The God Delusion") then I would recommend that you balance their light-weight philosophical meanderings with some proper philosophy. Suggest you do a Google search for "Library of Christian Philosophy" which will direct you to the Calvin University site ... then search there for Plantinga (Alvin) who is probably the world's foremost Christian philosopher. There are a number of his papers there which pick apart Dennett's and Dawkins' books, either refuting them outright, or else showing that D+D's attempts at refuting Christianity/theism are way wide of the mark. My assessment of Dawkin's book, without having read it myself, but based on reviews by some serious philosophers, is that it is the philosophical equivalent of a Mills and Boon novel. Extremely lightweight, lacking in substance and clarity. Dennett's books are quite a bit more substantial than Dawkins, which probably explains why Dawkins is on the best seller list and Plantinga is virtually unheard of outside Christian circles ... most people simply don't to deal with deep thinking and logic. Last edited by Spiny Norman : 10-23-2007 at 12:07 PM

10-22-2007, 11:08 PM	#19 (permalink)
vagrantnomad Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: qld at the moment Posts: 272	the guy in that clip is a fruitloop. anyway im playing in a tournament on itsyourturn (a chess site) and in the 1st round i let a guy win a game so we'd both go to the next round and he sent me this back, i havent responded. From: myssara (258369147) To: steven watson Date: 10/12/07, 21:37:03 Subject: you make me afavor and I make you one Message: have you read Quran before I am sure that if you read it you will believe it if you think on its words and you will found it around you You will believe that its from the god and the only god for every thing the who we must worship and fear.I ask you not to be anger we still friends I will live to make you afavor when you want Just read the holy Quran and think, think and think and you will believe if the god want peace with you my friend and have good luck at the champion.

10-23-2007, 12:05 PM	#22 (permalink)
Spiny Norman Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 224	Originally Posted by phild707 Consequently the universe is teeming with life. ... and the actual, scientific, observational evidence for this is ... what, exactly? ... feel free to provide a single, uncontestible example of life from outside our solar system.

10-23-2007, 03:21 PM	#23 (permalink)
phild707 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Burnie International Airport Posts: 298	Originally Posted by frosty ... and the actual, scientific, observational evidence for this is ... what, exactly? ... feel free to provide a single, uncontestible example of life from outside our solar system. There is no proof of course but there are mathematical statistics and the statistical evidence is overwhelming. Feel free to keep your head stuck in your "proper" (presumably heavyweight) philosphy. __________________ "It ain't no sin if you crack a few laws now and then, just so long as you don't break any." Mae West Last edited by phild707 : 10-23-2007 at 03:25 PM Reason: to remove needlessly caustic remark

10-23-2007, 03:57 PM	#24 (permalink)
Spiny Norman Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 224	Heh heh, I'll do that ... its fun (and quite challenging, to put it mildly)! BTW, I presume you are aware that creationists and ID-ers have been putting improbability arguments against evolution for decades ... and they are typically howled down with a "doesn't matter how improbable it might seem, here we are". Good for the goose, good for the gander, that's what I say now. My cry is "show me the evidence, or accept that its belief not science". <wink>

10-23-2007, 06:25 PM	#25 (permalink)
phild707 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Burnie International Airport Posts: 298	Originally Posted by frosty Heh heh, I'll do that ... its fun (and quite challenging, to put it mildly)! BTW, I presume you are aware that creationists and ID-ers have been putting improbability arguments against evolution for decades ... and they are typically howled down with a "doesn't matter how improbable it might seem, here we are". Good for the goose, good for the gander, that's what I say now. My cry is "show me the evidence, or accept that its belief not science". <wink> Oh yes, and the stats are really fun too! Astronomers estimate there are about 100 Thousand Million stars in the Milky Way alone. Outside that, there are millions upon millions of other galaxies also! The late Dr. Carl Sagan once said that there are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of planet earth. Planet earth is one of those that orbit our sun, in a quiet neighbourhood of the Milky Way. So lets just reduce our planet hypothetically for a moment to a grain of sand and imagine that here we are, infinitely small microbial lifeforms living on the surface of a perfect little blue-green grain of sand on lets say, 7 mile beach, (Tasmania of course!) One microbe turns to another and asks "How can you prove there is life on any other grain of sand? Show me the evidence!". Perhaps the 1st microbe is right __________________ "It ain't no sin if you crack a few laws now and then, just so long as you don't break any." Mae West

10-23-2007, 11:05 PM	#26 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Originally Posted by frosty ...balance their light-weight philosophical meanderings with some proper philosophy. Suggest you do a Google search for "Library of Christian Philosophy" Theology is not philosophy. Theology is on a parr with Pyrimid Power and Feng Shui. There are a number of his papers there which pick apart Dennett's and Dawkins' books, either refuting them outright, or else showing that D+D's attempts at refuting Christianity/theism are way wide of the mark. Oh goody. Five hundred pages of assertions that faith proves faith is true. My assessment of Dawkin's book, without having read it myself, but based on reviews by some serious philosophers, is that it is the philosophical equivalent of a Mills and Boon novel. Extremely lightweight, lacking in substance and clarity. In deed. However, Dawkins is a communicator of (science) ideas. He is no a hardcore philosopher. At least his writings are not the "philosophical equivalent of" the Bible. Dennett's books are quite a bit more substantial than Dawkins, which probably explains why Dawkins is on the best seller list ... Agreed __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

10-24-2007, 08:28 AM	#27 (permalink)
Spiny Norman Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 224	Originally Posted by Iconoclast However, Dawkins is a communicator of (science) ideas. He is no a hardcore philosopher. Then perhaps he ought to refrain from making philosophical pronouncements and making statements about the (non)existence of God. Tell me again what that has to do with science? "The God Delusion" indeed. No, however much you might wish that Dawkins was a communicator of science ideas, he is in fact a populist, lightweight, philosophical hack that could be refuted by any first-year university philosophy student with one hand tied behind their back.

10-24-2007, 05:02 PM	#28 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Originally Posted by frosty Then perhaps he ought to refrain from making philosophical pronouncements and making statements about the (non)existence of God. Frosty, anyone can make a philosophical (thinking) statement, not just philosphers (professional thinkers). Dawkins need not have to slug it out with a professional philosopher, to be correct. All he needs to do is present the facts and let the reader think for themselves. The main fact is, that despite a million genius-hours spent on finding "god," there is not one scintila of evidence of "god." Hence, to believe there is a god, is delusional. Tell me again what that has to do with science? "The God Delusion" indeed. It has everything to do with science. Science is the persuit of truth/fact. If you assert that "god is true/real, then only science can be used to vverify the assertion. [Dawkins] is in fact a populist, lightweight, philosophical hack that could be refuted by any first-year university philosophy student with one hand tied behind their back. In your dreams. Actually, any scientist can refute a deluded philosopher. __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

10-24-2007, 05:19 PM	#29 (permalink)
Spiny Norman Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 224	Originally Posted by Iconoclast If you assert that "god is true/real, then only science can be used to verify the assertion. What on earth would make you think that? Stating that "God exists" is a philosophical statement. Nothing whatsoever to do with science. Here's a challenge for you ... how about you use science to prove conclusively what you had for breakfast this morning. (I personally find it easier to rely on memory, rather than on science, when working out things like that). Horses for courses. Science is really good at making and stitching together observations, but without philosophy underpinning it its just a complete waste of time.

10-27-2007, 10:59 AM	#30 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Originally Posted by frosty Stating that "God exists" is a philosophical statement. Nothing whatsoever to do with science. When a student does science, they can be awarded a PhD - Doctor of Philosophy. It is rational to say, then, that in the thinkers in the thinging houses think that science is a philosopical pursuit. Disagree with me? Then go argue with the all the universities of the world. Here's a challenge for you ... how about you use science to prove conclusively what you had for breakfast this morning. Conclusively? What degree of conclusivity would suffice? 1. 0.05 (statistically) 2. Beyond reasonable doubt (legally.) 3. On the balance of probability (civil action: 50-50.) 4. Absolutely 5. Existentially 6. Theoillogically 7. My mum said. 8. Nepharious hand waving. Horses for courses. Science is really good at making and stitching together observations, but without philosophy underpinning it its just a complete waste of time. With all that "stitching" and "underpinning" you should stick to your knitting. You have it the wrong way around. Practical philosophy must be based in science, not the other way around. In philosophy you to striving to not make unexamined assumptions before using them in a logical argument. You cannot make a leap based on faith or an analogy. The way to examine the veracity your assumptions is by the scientific method. ie test it in the real world. You have no business declaring god as being "true," because, all you have is the untestable feeling - which we call faith - in god being true. Keep that horse of yours on your course because you have it hitched behind your cart and will cause an accident. I have a question (an easy one). What is your definition of "God?" I need a target. __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals. Last edited by Iconoclast : 10-27-2007 at 11:17 AM Reason: typos , syntax

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread: