Sunday, September 2, 2007

What to believe

With certifications like 350-018 and 642-533, you can go places. Programs like 642-812 as well as 70-528 also readily accept such applicants and even

go to the extent of offering free courses like EX0-100 and 220-603.

Two paths to get to here from there:

EarthCreated by G-dBig bang, going against the laws of conservation and energy, matter was created from nothing
LifeCreated by G-dMatter that was created from nothing somehow forms into life (single-cells)
Human LifeCreated by G-dEvolution from single cell through the animal tree eventually to human (relies on scientific 'proof' missing key 'proof' of actual evolving into a human from another animal)

Any wonder why we believers scoff at evolution? (yes this is a very simplistic argument, sue me)


ThunderDragon said...

That's not a simplistic argument. It's not even an argument!

Lord Nazh said...

Nothing wrong with my statements on either side TD, feel free to try to argue your side.

CalumCarr said...


Thanks for viiting and commenting on my return.

I agree with TD.

Why did you not simply state that you believe in God?

Why do you use "G-d"? Perhaps like Lord Voldemort in the Harry Potter stories your God is the God whose name can not be spoken

Lord Nazh said...

"Any wonder why we believers..."

Doesn't that line state it Calum?

I put G-d because of someone that asked me not to right his name (jewish) because of his beliefs. It was a simple thing for me to do and habit-forming.

Again, you and TD both miss the point. It isn't about my belief, it's about the belief of the evolutionarys ;)

CalumCarr said...

Posted this already but not appeared. Is your God working in mysterious ways?

Read ""Straight and Crooked Thinking" by Robert H. Thouless.

For the rest, zzzzzzzzzzzzz....

ThunderDragon said...

Evolution doesn't specifically RULE OUT God at all. It doesn't say God CAN'T exist. If you wanted, you could probably say that is it 'tracking God's making of the human'.

Everything is wrong with your statements, especially the last bit - "Any wonder why we believers scoff at evolution?" That sort of dismissal of any opposing argument is worthy of an eco-fascist.

I have no problem with people believing whatever the hell they want to, but if they want to talk or write about it, they should damn well have a better argument than that - or at least be willing to expand on it.

As far as I am concerned, religion/faith is a private thing. Believe whatever the hell you want. But don't bring it up unless you are actually willing to discuss it properly.

Gracchi said...

Lord N- but here is the rub- how do you resolve these interesting questions- firstly who created God- secondly what is God's relationship to time- thirdly what is God's relationship to free will- fourthly how do you account for the evidence for Darwinian evolution.

Oh and by the way science is not a set of beliefs but a method for elucidating regularities within nature. Scientific theories are suggestions which explain those regularities- like gravity or indeed more complicated ones like relativity and are tested by experiment as Einstein's ideas were at the end of the First World War. Given that you dislike science what epistemology do you propose replacing it with.

Lord Nazh said...

TD: do you agree nominally that I have the right to 'bring up' whatever the hell I want to on my blog? Is there any particular reason you got so hell bent on reading my post? The last part was my statement, what about the table, what was wrong? If you truly want to argue, then do so, don't attack me because you think the post wasn't up to your snuff. If the post truly upsets you so, then please, calm yourself and don't respond until it meets YOUR standards on my blog.

Gracchi: I love science, it was and always will be one of my favorite subjects. It really should have said evolution, but science is what I put on the table :)

My question is more on the what you have to believe to follow one of the 2 paths. One path you have to believe in G-d and that he did all this, the other you have to believe in a 'big-bang' type accident whereby the laws of science are bypassed once (and never again) to create out of nothing. Then you have to believe that evolution (which you seem to think is proven even though they can't seem to prove that man actually came from anything 'missing link' and all that) occurred by chance and just so happened to come up with us.

Debbie said...

Oops, I was going to comment on Labor Day, but hit the wrong comment button and here I am on a deep debate about God. God has always been, he didn't come from anywhere.

The Biblical version of creation is not in conflict with evolution, as many scientists will acknowledge. I don't mean that people evolved from monkeys, but in general.

I could go on and on disputing and answering questions, but ... on to Labor Day.

Lord Nazh said...

Evolving (ie an animal 'adapting' to its surroundings) is proven. But the point to where an animal (ape) evovled into a whole new animal (human) is not.

Thanks for stopping by Debbie. I thought this would be basically funny, didn't realize it would essentially heat up people ;)

ThunderDragon said...

This is a public forum, and if you bring up a subject, you should actually be willing to discuss it, not just dogmatically say "it is because I say so". So why bring it up in the first place?E

volution IS proven, and certainly so to a FAR greater extent than any of the alternative theories. Man did develop from an ape-like creature. Not the modern apes, but a prehistoric version. You can't deny the simple fact.

Evolution or science in general does not rule out the existence of God or any other supernatural being. There are not "two paths" - God or anti-God - but a myriad of different paths with slightly different relations between religion/faith and science. Science itself does not rule out God, and neither does religion itself deny that science can not be correct.

Lord Nazh said...

TD: I beg to differ, this is MY forum, but I get your point :)

Look back at what you 'discussed' to begin with. You attacked me for what I wrote, not my belief, not the table I painstakingly (ok maybe not pain) made up.

You asked why the Hell i didn't do this or that without EXPANDING on your thought.

Lord Nazh said...

TD: Science can preclude G-d or not, but Science does not believe that G-d did any of the 4 things I listed, so that point is moot.

Evolutionary scientists AGREE that man evolved from a prehistorical ape, they have not PROVEN this is a FACT just because they agree to it. They cannot prove when this occurred, or exactly what ape it occured from. They have taken their hypothesis as far as they can and instead of waiting to prove it to claim fact, they instead claim fact on the basis that the Bible cannot prove them different (scientifically).

The scoff part was the fact that our view of the 4 things is simple and the evolutionary/science view requires said scientists to believe that their Laws of science were in fact broken and in no other way could this whole thing start unless that was so (but the laws can never be broken again, scientifically).

Gracchi said...

My Lord. The issue is that scientists wouldn't neccessarily say that they had proved evolution- they would say that it is the theory that best fits the facts of what we know- there may be another theory. Isn't there another answer- that we just don't know the answers to some of these questions. But there are questions equally that you don't know the answers too- theological puzzles that remain unsolved- for instance the relationship of God to time. If God is allknowing and sits inside time- then effectively none of us have responsibility for our actions they were chosen for us before we were born. If God sits outside time then how does he understand action or time itself- because he sees it all as the same continuous present he therefore cannot see before and after and distinguish action.

Lets take evolution- as I understand it it is proved that animals evolve, it is also proved that we have a great deal in common with apes, it is further proved that you have apes which look more and more like humans and humans more and more like apes when you go back- yes we haven't got the skeleton that shows the actual interspecies moment- but we do have skeletons- Lucy for example from West Africa that have the markers of ape like individuality. The issue here is that we can prove some evolution but as you rightly say we are missing one step- that's a problem but the likelihood is that that step will turn up.

I don't think that believing in God lets you off either- you have to explain exactly what God is, where does he come from, what created him. Furthermore you have to account for the structure of the universe- the fact that we see our brains undeniably are physical- I can change your thoughts by zapping you with an electrical current. Where does God's brain reside- or are you a dualist- in which case how do you explain the fact that our thoughts are physical.

I do not beleive in God- but not because science has disproven him- but because I don't see what aspects of the world would be explained by his existance that are not explained at the moment by what I know and what we might know. By Occam's razor I therefore dismiss the thesis that there is a God.

Liz said...

I don't know about evolution, I struggle with the internet.

Anyway, what I started saying before I accidentally closed everything down was a Shakespeare quote. "There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy "

The human mind is limited. Very limited. Incapable of comprehending much on the grand scale of things yet we think we can work out and ancapsulate the whole of evolution, creation, the universe, in a few sentences.

Yes, I believe in God the creator. I also belive that he is a logical God - evolution. But the scope of what I don't know or understand is mammoth. And it doesn't particularly trouble me.

I find it strange the way non-believers get so fired up and passionate in their need to disprove faith.

I've just read why you use G-d. I know James does too and I wondered why. That explains it.

ThunderDragon said...

It may be YOUR forum, but it is also PUBLIC.

"You asked why the Hell i didn't do this or that without EXPANDING on your thought."

because I wasn't arguing that God does or doesn't exist. I don't know, or care. I wasn't making an argument, I was questioning your lack of one, which you have still not yet produced.

"Science does not believe that G-d did any of the 4 things I listed, so that point is moot."

No, SCIENTISTS tend not to believe that God did them, not Science in and of itself. That point is no more moot than priests saying that evolution isn't true means that religion rules out all scientific explanations.

Lord Nazh said...

Gracchi: that's the beauty of G-d, I don't have to explain ANYTHING about him, that's not a requirement of HIS. Yes scientists do make that connection Gracc, notice anything missing in it? Proof? Facts? You know that 'proven' part you were talking about?

Liz: I know :)

TD: I don't think public means what you think it means. So you are trying to argue that I don't have an

ThunderDragon said...

Yes, it does. Public - viewable by anyone. This is public.

I have already PROVEN that you don't have an argument. I'm asking you to MAKE one or not post on an issue.

Lord Nazh said...

MY forum, no matter who can see it, it is up to ME what goes here.

My argument (as it were) is the differing paths to here from the beginning, if you have nothing to say on that, then stop commenting on it.

The only thing you have PROVEN is that you think I should post something different than what I have on MY blog. Unless you want to argue again that evolution is PROVEN by a FACT, then stop saying that my post doesn't meet your criteria.

Unpremeditated said...

There is a problem here m'lord. Why do you require a different level of proof from science than you require from God? In criticising the science of evolution you suggest (incorrectly) that it lacks the necessary proof (in anticipation of the probable rejoinder, it is worth pointing out that if I see a man holding a smoking gun and standing over a corpse with a bullet hole in it I am entitled to believe that the evidence before me is sufficient proof of his guilt, in the absence of contradictory evidence, without needing to have seen the bullet being fired) but when the defenders of science try to apply the same questions to God you change the rules of the game. Why so and with what justification?

As to the relationship between evolution and God, many if not most scientists would say that evolution in no way either proves or disproves the existence of God/gods. All they do ask is that it be accepted that evolution is a process which occurs undirected and independent of any outside intelligence. God and evolution _can_ live happily alongside each other and - in the minds of many - do.

Finally, evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the big bang. Evolution says nothing at all about the origins of the universe. Evolution speaks only to the development of life - something which occurred billions of years after the birth of the universe, whether that birth was by a Big Bang or divine fiat.


 Recently played a few games on Caldera (warzone) and then... Lots of luck in this one, but satisfying