[Enigmatic Harpo Marx]

Re: The design argument

said that the cause is always greater than the effect.

If I remember correctly, that was Descartes. But the idea of perfection has many complexitites much like the idea of infinity. A perfect being should have no problem creating a perfect creation since it is, after all, omnipotent.

[Sacha-DG]

Re: The design argument

If I remember correctly, that was Descartes. But the idea of perfection has many complexitites much like the idea of infinity. A perfect being should have no problem creating a perfect creation since it is, after all, omnipotent.

The idea of infinity was also down to the trademark argument. How coud the lesser have an idea of or 'give rise to' the greater, without that idea being put there. ie. how could finite beings such as ourselves, create the idea of an infinite being, such as God? Descartes believed that this idea must have been put there, however, we can create this idea simple by negating the concept of finite, thus leading us to infinite.
I agree with your statement about omnipotence; if he is so powerful, why did he create us capable of sin?

[Enigmatic Harpo Marx]

Re: The design argument

if he is so powerful, why did he create us capable of sin?

If you want the Christian answer to that question (I'd asume that's the kind of answer you want since you are, in fact, on a Christian forum) I would suggest reading the Bible, because in all honesty, that's not exactly a new question to be posed by humans.

[Sacha-DG]

Re: The design argument

If you want the Christian answer to that question (I'd asume that's the kind of answer you want since you are, in fact, on a Christian forum) I would suggest reading the Bible, because in all honesty, that's not exactly a new question to be posed by humans.

I'm not interested in a book which is over 2000 years old. I have read books from 3 years ago which are already outdated.

And who says what kind of question we should and shouldn't pose? To not ask questions is to accept ignorance.

[Enigmatic Harpo Marx]

Re: The design argument

I'm not interested in a book which is over 2000 years old. I have read books from 3 years ago which are already outdated.

And who says what kind of question we should and shouldn't pose? To not ask questions is to accept ignorance.

You're obviously missing my point. You're on a Christian forum. You're going to get Christian answers. You say that not asking questions is ignorant yet I can't help but wonder about the ignorance of someone that refuses to read the Bible. I'm not asking you to believe in it but, I hate God and I've still read it, but for Christ's sake (no pun intended) you should at least read a book that can seriously be considered the most influential one ever written. Like I said before, you're not the first one to ask questions such as "Why do we sin?". To think that you can't learn anything from a book just because it's old, is not only arrogant but it's downright stupid.

[Sacha-DG]

Re: The design argument

You're obviously missing my point. You're on a Christian forum. You're going to get Christian answers. You say that not asking questions is ignorant yet I can't help but wonder about the ignorance of someone that refuses to read the Bible. I'm not asking you to believe in it but, I hate God and I've still read it, but for Christ's sake (no pun intended) you should at least read a book that can seriously be considered the most influential one ever written. Like I said before, you're not the first one to ask questions such as "Why do we sin?". To think that you can't learn anything from a book just because it's old, is not only arrogant but it's downright stupid.

Don't get me wrong, I have considered reading it. However this forum completely changed my mind about it. I've seen how ignorant and intolerant some of the people on this forum are, and I think: "Why would I want to read a book that does that to people?"

[Enigmatic Harpo Marx]

Re: The design argument

Don't get me wrong, I have considered reading it. However this forum completely changed my mind about it. I've seen how ignorant and intolerant some of the people on this forum are, and I think: "Why would I want to read a book that does that to people?"

Oh well, the fact that you considered reading completely makes up for the fact that you haven't

Look, how people react to a book is a reflection of themselves not a reflection of the book itself. I think even the True Christians would agree with me (they would just say that they react the way God wants them to).

I can't help but think that your "concern" over the type of people that read the Bible is just an excuse to cover up laziness

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: The design argument

Don't get me wrong, I have considered reading it. However this forum completely changed my mind about it. I've seen how ignorant and intolerant some of the people on this forum are, and I think: "Why would I want to read a book that does that to people?"

Secretly I think that is some of these people's goals. This site changed my life and when I joined, I totally did not see it coming. The people on this site in a weird way show you how they are true Christians and how all liberal Christians are just phony charlatans frankly. You can read my other post "You are right" about that.

Now, after accepting this we have to look at these people and make a choice - if you want to be Christian, you have to be like them or at least share the same beliefs and worries, if not you aren't really a Christian. For many people, that is a horrific realization.

Although you can still be a liberal Christian and stand by your beliefs after viewing this site, you have to admit this site takes away almost all of your credibility, and makes you look a fool.

Now, I don't know if there is such a place as Freehold Iowa, and a Landover Baptist Church, or which, if any, of these forum members are for real or for fake, but whatever the answer, they have a potent message, a message that has effected me deeply.

Sorry for hijacking my own thread here. :S

[Sacha-DG]

Re: The design argument

Perhaps it is indeed laziness. Don't get me wrong, I will read it, because i'm intruiged by its obvious influence. Perhaps I will begin after I finish reading Discourse on the Method.

[One-eyed Jack]

Re: The design argument

OK, OK.

Sacha: "OEJ, for a snake to have huge legs, it would have to have a huge pelvic bone..."

But it is such a classy image: an elegant 12-foot boa, attractively patterned in cream, chocolate brown, and puce, gracefully swaying about like a liana vine as it climbs a flight of stairs, it's muscular thighs clad perhaps in black pinstriped trousers, an ebony walking-stick cunningly gripped in a coil of its tail...

But now it's all ruint by facts. (YOU ruint it!)

So what do you get with if the Earth is perfectly balanced, every creature perfect in every way, every limb, organ, pelt, and tissue just the best it can possibly be?

You get a universe in which Kirstie Alley can lose weight, that's what!

Dang! I'm not sure why I wrote that. I really like well-fleshed women.** But anyway, what you get is creatures who are not challenged to overcome their defects. They are not spurred to be the best they can be because they already ARE the best they can be.

So the perfect and omniscient and omnipotent God made defective merchandise all a-purpose! In that way His creatures and His children can have the challenge and the joys of overcoming adversity as well as perversity. They can struggle and succeed and better their lot, and then they die.

Back to William "Wild Bill" Paley. If Paley walked out on the blasted heath and he found not a single watch but fifty million watches -- in fact, if there were watches everywhere and there always had been -- then he probably would have said, "Damn. Another batch of watches has sprouted overnight. Must come up like mushrooms. Or maybe they hatch out of miniscule eggs. Natural? I'd call it more than that -- I'd call it nature run rampant! I can't sleep for the ticking!"

So we see that Paley's original postulate was not realistic: we find life everywhere, and ridiculously abundant life at that. It is not at all like a singular and extraordinary watch mysteriously placed just so on a rock in the middle of a heath.

Whew. So we have solved it: Paley was wrong. A watchmaker didn't design life, God did.

~~ OEJ

** From the testimony of Reverend Burnside:

"I don't want no
skinny woman,
meat don't shake
on her bones."

[One-eyed Jack]

On reading the Bible

Do dip into the Bible. It's easier for a novice to read some of the songful stuff like the Ecclesiastes and Isaiah and the Song of Solomon and the story of Job, and leave the really dense history until later. Of course some Christians want you to open it to the first page and read straight through, but I would differ with the brethren on that.

(Probably get an infraction...)

And do use the King James. It's easier to read than Shakespeare (most parts, anyway) but has passages of similar beauty. If it were not the holy and perfect Word of God then it would be a great literary treasure. How's this for a lament:

We grope for the wall like the blind, and we grope as if we had no eyes: we stumble at noon day as in the night; we are in desolate places as dead men.

We roar all like bears, and mourn sore like doves: we look for judgment, but there is none; for salvation, but it is far off from us. Isaiah 59:10,11

Note the rhythm in the first phrase: "We grope for the wall like the blind..." Trochaic meter with a stressed final syllable, very elegant. The rhythms become more complicated, but look at the first bit of the second verse: "We roar all like bears..." The same rhythm repeated.


God was a good poet when He wanted to be.

~~ OEJ

[Sacha-DG]

Re: On reading the Bible

Do dip into the Bible. It's easier for a novice to read some of the songful stuff like the Ecclesiastes and Isaiah and the Song of Solomon and the story of Job, and leave the really dense history until later. Of course some Christians want you to open it to the first page and read straight through, but I would differ with the brethren on that.

(Probably get an infraction...)

And do use the King James. It's easier to read than Shakespeare (most parts, anyway) but has passages of similar beauty. If it were not the holy and perfect Word of God then it would be a great literary treasure. How's this for a lament:

We grope for the wall like the blind, and we grope as if we had no eyes: we stumble at noon day as in the night; we are in desolate places as dead men.

We roar all like bears, and mourn sore like doves: we look for judgment, but there is none; for salvation, but it is far off from us. Isaiah 59:10,11

Note the rhythm in the first phrase: "We grope for the wall like the blind..." Trochaic meter with a stressed final syllable, very elegant. The rhythms become more complicated, but look at the first bit of the second verse: "We roar all like bears..." The same rhythm repeated.


God was a good poet when He wanted to be.

~~ OEJ

I agree, that is indeed a beautiful passage. I have a bible around somewhere, though I'm not entirely sure which version.

[Mrs. Mary Whitford]

Re: On reading the Bible

I agree, that is indeed a beautiful passage. I have a bible around somewhere, though I'm not entirely sure which version.

Anything other than the King James 1611 (don't even think about the New King James abomination) is a sure-fire ticket to Hell.

[JennyD]

Re: The design argument

Fortunately, it's all available online at www.bible.com or www.biblegateway.com. And you can follow along with the Bible in a Year section of this very Forum!

[One-eyed Jack]

Re: The design argument

I have been remiss. I have neglected the thoughts of the great Scottish philosopher and clergyman David Hume. I'll just throw this into the discussion now and we can bring it into conformance with the will of Jesus the Christ later.

----

In his religious sermons Hume used an interesting interpretation of the Argument from Evil, which he then applied to the method used in Paley's argument about divine design.

First, the usual preamble:

1. Evil exists.
1a: If God can defeat evil but chooses not to then He is not perfectly good;
1b: If God wishes to defeat evil but cannot then He is not almighty;
1c: If God is confused by pop culture and doesn't know what to do about evil then He is not omniscient.
Ergo: God as advertised in the Bible does not exist.

Hume, being an ardent worshipper of God, found the same resolution that Landover's theological staff have found: God is unknowable, so we simply can't know why He does not put an end to evil. (But presumably it is for excellent, indeed perfect, reasons.)

After figuring all this out Hume sat down with his wife to a nice supper of stovies and bashed neeps. And he got to thinking. And pondering. And moping. (He couldn't help it, he was a philosopher.) His wife, Babette, became worried and said, "Stop fiddlin' wi' yer suppy, Davy!"

But Hume said, "Babs, I have come to the conclusion that my colleague Wild Bill Paley has fallen into error. Grievous err, Babs."

Babs said, "O aye? Na wi' a sarvent girl again! And him having five prior charges o' illicit paternity already pending?"

"No, Babs, not that kind of error. Logical error. You see, if God is unknowable then Bill's great Watchmaker Argument fails. We may make an argument of the a posteriori kind -- you know, Babs, an argument based on perceived evidence -- only if we can construct an understandable cause to explain the evidence. However, I have proven that God in unknowable. Therefore any argument about God that proceeds from a posteriori knowledge is doomed. Doomed, I tell you!"

"Ach, it's na anythin' mooch, then," Babs said. "D'ye fancie them bashed neeps? I put in 'em a wee drap o' nutmeg."

"No, no, Babs! You don't understand! Wild Bill's whole argument hinges on the evidence that life is a complex system analogous to a watch. But we cannot say that God is like a watchmaker, because a watchmaker is a knowable cause whilst God is utterly incomprehensible."

"Ye do natter on," Babs said affectionately. "D'ye want ta be doyne the sex after, Davy?"

Well, Hume did want to be doing the sex after. But later, as he lay in bed watching a spider trekking across the white wasteland of the bedroom ceiling, he once more began to muse, ponder, and mope (omne animal triste post coitum!). Life really isn't much like a watch at all, he thought. There are no gears inside, for one thing -- everything is squishy and splodgy. And while a watch is assembled from parts, life grows from tiny seeds and its parts sprout themselves. The more Hume thought about it the angrier he got. That darned Paley had made a fool of him and everyone else who took his argument seriously! Life doesn't need to be wound like a watch. It doesn't even TICK! And nothing alive -- nothing! -- has Mickey Mouse hands. Paley's analogy, he thought, SUCKS WIND!

Thus the philosopher Hume decided that the next time he saw Wild Bill Paley he would punch him right smack in the gob.

----

~~ OEJ

**Note: this historical reconstruction is very slightly anachronistic, as David Hume died before William Paley published the treatise containing the so-called Watchmaker Argument. But other than that our account is perfectly accurate.