God doesn't exist... agree or disagree?

[SRhyse]

Originally Posted by Shisko Shi

That is not actully true. He still believed but what set him off was the fact his child who had the same thing as him killed her. This posed him off that he went with publishing his thoughts and theory on evolution. In fact evolution can eaisly bused in a theistic God

I take it you're trying to equate something like this for Darwin making his book a "God-Sucks" parade? http://askjohnmackay.com/questions/a...d-christianity
(Note, that's not even well accepted among creationists and Christian apologetics)

Setting aside that not being true, which it isn't, even if it were somehow 110% true that Darwin published any work on evolution he ever wrote, his motivations for publishing, or even writing, are in no way connected to their truth value or validity as theories. In most ways, Darwin kicked off evolutionary studies, and framed it well, but all that went into developing his theory in the same sense gravity is a theory came from countless people and man hours after.

You saying Darwin publishing his works on evolution as anti-Christain because his daughter died, in addition to not being true, is like saying Galileo published his works on the Earth rotating around the sun because he had bad gas or wanted to get laid. His gas may have been the worst gas in history, and he may have been hurting for companionship, but neither make his theories any more or less true.

Darwin's daughter dying isn't present in any of the support, backing or analysis validating his own theories in his writing. I'd be pissed if my daughter died too, but it wouldn't invalidate any substantiated contributions I made to science.

*Edit - I guess this applies to Souret too. Everybody read and be marry .

[Shisko Shi]

You are a Vis adim!!! Clears throut

No you basiy reworded what I said f
Diffrenty

[SRhyse]

Originally Posted by Shisko Shi

You are a Vis adim!!! Clears throut

No you basiy reworded what I said f
Diffrenty

What do you mean? Can you be more specific?

[Shisko Shi]

I'll try layer it is hard with this iPod ok? Maybe at 830 or 900 Pst

[Muffintop]

Originally Posted by Souret

Actually you are incorrect here. There was a period in his life where his faith wavered after his daughter died but he never lost faith and before death was a theist. Darwin believed in a god of evolution rather than a creator.

The deathbed thing about Darwin (if that's what you're talking about) has been, many times over, debunked. Darwin died an agnostic.

[SRhyse]

Originally Posted by Shisko Shi

I'll try layer it is hard with this iPod ok? Maybe at 830 or 900 Pst

Alright, I look forward to reading it then.

In the mean time, the only other thing I can fathom you may have meant is that Evolution isn't irreconciable with theistic religions. Or maybe that it can be taken to support it, work with it, something to that effect. That doesn't have anything to do with Darwin's motives for publishing either, but I'm at a loss to read anything else from your post.

Whether or not that's something you meant, I can briefly address it anyway since it'd still be related to the thread. Writing this quickly, so it might be a little dense -

If you're going to limit that to theistic religions with creation stories, or claims, the closest you're going to get is maybe evolution is the 'how' of how the world was made, developed, etc. But if you accept it as true, you immediately undercut most Theisms you could be referring to because creationist theories or aspects to them don't hold up as literal explanations or theories. If you try to hold them as 'true' or 'sensical' in that sense, you end up with truths that don't hold up as true or sensical, running into things like infinite regression, them not really 'doing' anything as theories or explanations in a predictive or informative sense, them being horrible as theories and explanations because you can vary them quite a bit without changing anything... The reason many religious philosophers and scholars resorted to 'methodological naturalism' over the years, which means it isn't the place of religion to explain real or natural things in the same way theories or science might, is because religious explanations for things like that are horrible explanations.

It's similar to saying that the world was made by a bunny - that doesn't really tell you anything or let you do anything with it as a theory or explanation if it's true, and there isn't anything analytically supporting it as an analytic type of true. You increasingly marginalize religion and it's 'truth' in the literal or historic sense, leaving only 'metaphorical' truth and meaning, which is only metaphorically useful. If religion's just a metaphor, in whole or in part, your use of it is all based on interpretation and hermeneutics, meaning you're basically left to your own devices again, nor can you use it to argue anything approaching objectivity or fact.

You end up with what Stephen J Gould framed as religion and science being "nonoverlapping magisteria," leaving Science handing the practical and functional things, religion with... well, left with what indeed . As a psychogical tool and something that can affect people in ways that can be for better and worse. And a great object to study in the culture, art, and workings of it, and how it reflects the way we work as people.

*Note - I write 'religion' here as a blanket term, but I'm referring mainly, as stated earlier, to Monotheistic religions and beliefs on them as being historically or literally true. Many 'religions' people call religion aren't religions but philosophies. If you're going to claim a monotheistic religion like Christianity as valid philosophically, not historically or literally, then you have to divulge a divine authority backing or legitimizing it as well. With many of them, once you do that, you're left with a poorly supported, thought it, and frequently contradictory philosophy at best.

[Shisko Shi]

Agnostic isn't a non believer muffin it is philosophical position that wether God exist or not cannot be known... There for he isn't a non theist

[Muffintop]

Originally Posted by Shisko Shi

Agnostic isn't a non believer muffin it is philosophical position that wether God exist or not cannot be known... There for he isn't a non theist

If anything, he was more of an gnostic-atheist.

In his own words about religion, ''I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress.''

[Shisko Shi]

There is no such thing... There is only theistic, atheist and agnostic

Atheist jus means you believe that everything can be explained with out the conception of God

[Shisko Shi]

He was just agnostic

[SRhyse]

Originally Posted by Shisko Shi

There is no such thing... There is only theistic, atheist and agnostic

Atheist jus means you believe that everything can be explained with out the conception of God

[Muffintop]

Along with what Rice posted, based on what I had wrote earlier--Darwin's words--Darwin, if anything, based on his work and personal notebooks, was leaning more in the direction of atheism.

I've basically said all I can say on the matter, you can take it or leave it. The thread is supposed to be about god, not Darwin's affiliation.

[SRhyse]

Originally Posted by Muffintop

Along with what Rice posted, based on what I had wrote earlier--Darwin's words--Darwin, if anything, based on his work and personal notebooks, was leaning more in the direction of atheism.

I've basically said all I can say on the matter, you can take it or leave it. The thread is supposed to be about god, not Darwin's affiliation.

If Darwin wasn't an Atheist in addition to being a self proclaimed Agnostic, making him an Gnostic Atheist (TM), he likely wouldn't have spent the rest of his life dodging the question of whether or not he was an Atheist.

[SRhyse]

Originally Posted by Shisko Shi

I could point it out... but God that would take forever. I will admit.. Studing the Theistic veiw in Philosophy changes my veiw... BUT! I do believe in God... Not on Faith but reason. You are the only one I know Souret that is in a way a scolar in philosophy like me. So you should know the reasons.. For one Cosimology

This thread got off track, so I'll bring it back together with this, as I don't think anyone's going to reply to my prior ones as they had promised, much to my dismay -

You claim that Comotology, then Cosimology, which I'm taking to mean 'Cosmology,' have reasonable and/or proven arguments on any level for there being a God. Which arguments/reasons are these, and in what way does cosmology address the existance of a God?

[Fighting_dreamer]

Sorry to butt in but having studied philosophy of religion a bit I am tempted - I think that would be the argument from universal causation or an argument from first cause...

The argument is influenced by philosophers like Plato and Aristotle and in the light of the modern science (such as the big bang theory) is presented as:
- whatever begins to exist has a cause.
- the Universe began to exist.
- Hence, the Universe had a cause.

So if the universe exists...then there is a cause..and if there is a cause then there is something that caused it....

It's complex and sometimes I feel that the cosmological argument can only do so much...but nevertheless it's interesting to ponder upon the theories presented by influential figures like Aristotle...

The metaphysics part in the cosmological theory is interesting because even the Physicists turn to metaphysics to settle the questions they don't have answers for...

[Muffintop]

Originally Posted by Fighting_dreamer

Sorry to butt in but having studied philosophy of religion a bit I am tempted - I think that would be the argument from universal causation or an argument from first cause...

The argument is influenced by philosophers like Plato and Aristotle and in the light of the modern science (such as the big bang theory) is presented as:
- whatever begins to exist has a cause.
- the Universe began to exist.
- Hence, the Universe had a cause.

So if the universe exists...then there is a cause..and if there is a cause then there is something that caused it....

It's complex and sometimes I feel that the cosmological argument can only do so much...but nevertheless it's interesting to ponder upon the theories presented by influential figures like Aristotle...

The metaphysics part in the cosmological theory is interesting because even the Physicists turn to metaphysics to settle the questions they don't have answers for...

Infinite regression. Who created the creator? That would go on and on and on and on and, well, you get my point.

Interesting point, nevertheless!

[Fighting_dreamer]

Originally Posted by Muffintop

Infinite regression. Who created the creator? That would go on and on and on and on and, well, you get my point.

Interesting point, nevertheless!

Hehe! spot on! yes kinda like infinite regression! that's the problem with this argument because if you attribute the cause factor to everything then it leads you to 'what caused that 'something' (a creator) that created this 'other thing' (universe)..

However, William L Craig has revived the classical cosmological argument and formulated an argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite ...which kinda included more reasoning...but then there are number of philosophers who refute this argument and still take the infinite route (rather than finite) to explain the existence of everything...

Having said all that, I think that faith is a personal experience...and depends on an individual's mindset and perception (it's like that example, the glass being seen as half empty or half full!). Be it science or philosophy...both can prove and defy the existence of a supreme being

[Shisko Shi]

Like I posted before...

[JLI2infinity]

Originally Posted by Shisko Shi

Like I posted before...

Flawed.

False dichotomy.

No. Reject Wager. Don't Believe in God.

One of the several hundred other non-Abrahamic religions are true and there is no afterlife, or we become one with nature, or we are reincarnated, or we reach some path of enlightenment, or we are swallowed by the Great Juju Monster of the Sea. Take your pick. Eternal damnation is a small possibility amongst many others. Just because it's a concept in the most popular religions doesn't mean it's the only option.

[Shisko Shi]

Clearly this is based around God... tHe Single God Religion. Not the others. The ones with Allah is the same thing.. so choose.