Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Intelligent design - going away?

Discussion in 'The Members Lounge' started by Oli, Nov 16, 2005.

  1. Kaiser phpbb3

    Kaiser phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Most of the time i am just too sleepy or high on exams to type anymore....writting 12 pages in 3 hours isn'tr a very nice thing you know? :D
     
  2. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    A question to our non-Christians...

    I have seen lots of questions asked along the lines of 'what if something proved that there was no God'.

    Quite a lot of Sci-Fi writers will remove God & Religions from their future by having all faith quashed by Alien races not having any concept of God, which therefore proves that God is not an all-pervasive being.


    However...

    What if that question was reversed?

    What if an Alien race who could be proven had never visited earth before was discovered tomorrow who had a belief structure similar to Christianity (and/or any other religion)?
     
  3. Kaiser phpbb3

    Kaiser phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Why did i say that?
     
  4. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    That is highly unlikely, as the development of religion, as every development in human history, is very specific to its time and place of origin. It would require that the alien race in question had been through the same development process as early humans with respect to the earliest developments of the concept of a spiritual world, evolving gradually into montheistic religion as we know it.
     
  5. Kaiser phpbb3

    Kaiser phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    But in this case,you are merely observing it from the way humans develop isn't it?
    I believe what Ricky is trying to say is on the grounds that if there was a God,then the religious structure would be the same because there is only ONE then.
     
  6. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    I think that you have answered my question...

    You do not believe this to be possible. But what if it did happen?
    You would say "the alien race in question had been through the same development process as early humans with respect to the earliest developments of the concept of a spiritual world, evolving gradually into montheistic religion as we know it".

    Rather than considering that maybe that is one heck of a big coincidence, and possibly God might exist. ;)

    What if 2 Alien races were discovered with Christian-type beliefs?


    Many non-Christians do seem to find it highly likely that 'proof' will be found of God's non-existance*, and expect Christians to answer that condition. So, my challenge to you was/is simply - what would you do if a 'proof' was found for God existing?



    *The most amusing one I read was a sci-fi future where a big computer had been built which worked out all the good & bad things that happened to people, and included data such as their beliefs etc, and it computed that the events were without pattern, so therefore God does not exist, and everybody in the world said 'oh well, that's that then'. :D :lol: :D
     
  7. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    If this did indeed happen that is still no proof that God exists. It merely means that the development of religion among the other Alien race went along similar lines as that of a minority here on earth. There would be sociological, anthropological explanations for it I'm sure, and we should seek these rather than claim it is evidence of the existence of God. After all, more people believing in God hasn't made God any more visible lately.

    Also we must remember that Christianity is but one type of religion found on earth; Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, etcetera still exist and their foundations are entirely different. None of these religions have any more claim than any other at being "true".

    I do not believe that evidence for the non-existence of God will present itself; it doesn't have to. As the protagonists of the statement that God exists, the burden of having to provide convincing evidence lies with Christians. As long as they fail to give me any proof of the existence of God I have no reason to believe that he does.

    In short, I see what you are getting at but the "if" factor is really huge. First, it is unlikely that religious development in social systems on other planets has been along similar lines as that on Earth. Second, if there was indeed such a similarity, while this would be an amazing coincidence it is not in itself proof of the religion being true. Even if all Aliens we ever meet have a similarly devised montheistic faith as we do, that still does not mean there has to have been a central force behind its development.
     
  8. Kaiser phpbb3

    Kaiser phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Ricky,i don't think he'll ever budge.I think he needs a visit from JEsus that was like the apostle Paul's.
    Well seriously Roel,the burden to prove that God exist,whether you believe it or not,does not lie with the Christians.As biblical texts record,even when shown with miracles,the people's hearts were hardened(part of the reason why he was crucified.)And i am sure that even if you were to see healing,miracle take place in front of your very own eyes,you will find something rational to explain it away,am i not right?Only thing that i can do is to sincerely plead with you to go to a modern church and "experience" God for your self.We can only bring the horse to the river,the horse decides if it wants to drink from the river. :D
     
  9. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    I think you're misunderstanding the concept of rationalizing what you would explain as acts of God. It is not that because I am unwilling to believe in God, I will seek for any imaginable reason why any event would not be an act of God; it is that since I can still find these reasons, I do not need God to be my explanation. Hence as long as I can find a way to "reason it away" I will do so and happily fail to believe in God. Why would I?

    Basically what you are doing right now is saying "yes, yes, well Roel, you're wrong, because God exists, it says so in the Bible". That is nothing compared to the argument I've made for you to make a point about a supposed Christian alien race. In fact it isn't even a viable argument, because it presupposes that whatever is written in the Bible is true; whether or not that is correct doesn't matter as long as it is not accepted by both sides in the discussion. As long as you cannot present me with any proof for the existence of God outside of the Bible I will not believe you because I do not believe the Bible is right. If the only other proof you have is that which can be "experienced" I will not believe you either because one thing I strongly believe in is the ability of the human mind to make real what it wants to be real.
     
  10. Kaiser phpbb3

    Kaiser phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Which is why i gave up trying to convince you didn't i?And as i have said,it is your call basically Roel.I do not have to prove anything to you.I have never misunderstood the concept of rationalizing i'm afraid.I never did think that Christians should be all blind faith.But to me,there is supposed to be a healthy balance.And as for the "experiencing" part,all i can say i that i had it.And being my personal testimony,you can sure doubt my integrity over it but you simply cannot deny it because it is,afterall,my own testimony and you can't refute that.But you can choose not to believe me.

    And there is one more thing,i must concede that it would take God himself to show himself to you.But even then,i suspect that you would start giving Him rational reasons why He is not real :D

    You see,the thing is,you are so firmly rooted in the belief that there is no God,that even if i were to try and find you proofs that He exists,you will "explain" it away.Perhaps you can tell us what would be an unimaginable reason for you to start to believe that He exists if you think what i am saying is untrue mate.
     
  11. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Personal experience is all very well but it's personal. Obviously... so it can't translate to anyone else.
    I've experienced a "UFO sighting", been "psychic" (for several months) and met a "ghost" but I still don't believe in any of them either, simply because there's a more logical explanation, and I'm (fairly) aware of how the human mind works, looking for patterns and coincidences etc even when they don't exist..
    Ummm, rats, run out of time (I'm having to use local library PC for the week and we have limited allowance).
    Will come back with devastating argument later in week :lol:
     
  12. Kaiser phpbb3

    Kaiser phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    That's it,men are all very confident of how their brain works.And yes,i did say personal experiences are personal and so.I am fairly aware of how the mind plays tricks on us mind you.But then again,i am utterly convinced.But i do look forward to seeing your arguments.But i can't say that i will return any arguments because honestly and with all due respect,i see no point for it.Maybe i should blame my limited reasoning abilities.heh :D :D :D
     
  13. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Roel - maybe my example was not the best.

    What I was getting at was, what would you (you = non-Christians, not just Roel!) do if proof was found that seemingly showed God did exist?

    You may (and have already) say 'it is unlikly', but then I reckon that it is highly unlikely that we will get proof that he does not exist, but I still get asked that question.
     
  14. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Fair enough.

    I am not opposed to believing in God per se, I do not believe in God because I see no proof of his existence anywhere. Of course I am not inclined to easily accept anything as proof because that would undermine my credibility. Even so, if I were to be presented with undeniable proof for the existence of God, I would not seek to deny the truth. However, this would not mean I would have to believe in God, simply that the facts would force me to accept his existence as true. Similarly, do you "believe" human beings have two legs, or is it simply so?
     
  15. Tony Williams

    Tony Williams Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    23
    via TanksinWW2
    An interesting argument, gentlemen, I hope you don't mind if I join in :)

    My take on the whole business of 'belief' - with particular reference to creationism v. evolution - is laid out here (you might find it interesting): http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Scales.htm

    I have studied the Bible (in the dim and distant past) and found it an interesting document for what it reveals about the way people thought in the past. It is clearly a mixture of folk tales, mythology, instruction and some genuine history all mixed together, written by many hands over a long period of time. Separating which elements are mythological and which are historic is where believers and non-believers will always disagree.

    To my mind, the sequence of development of religion (which IMO is likely to apply to any intelligent race which is remotely like humanity) goes like this:

    1. Intelligent beings become self-aware, start to wonder where they come from.

    2. In the absence of any knowledge, they make up stories about where they came from in order to try to explain the existence of life, the universe and all that (you see this in all cultures - the stories are, of course, all different).

    3. The best storytellers obtain status and influence in their societies because people like to listen to them, and find their 'explanations' comforting - it gives them a place (usually a central place) in the world.

    4. The storytellers start to build up a whole structure of belief, laws etc which helps to establish them as the leaders - the 'priest' class is born.

    5. The stories and laws are written down, and obtain the status of 'holy books' which must be believed and obeyed - this happens in many religions (but the books are, of course, different).

    6. Successors to the original storytellers - the prophets - start to add more and more laws onto the structure in order to increase their power (a simple example: the Bible says nothing about priests being celibate, or that a Pope will be infallible).

    I have no idea how the Universe came to exist, but I'm pretty sure that in principle - over a long period of time - a logical scientific explanation for physical developments since the Big Bang will emerge. I see knowledge of the Universe as being like a vast jigsaw puzzle. When people started out, all the pieces were mixed up and they had no understanding of how anything happened, so they made up the stories which later became the mythological foundations of religions. Later on, people started to see how the pieces fit together. Religious explanations for physical facts have, over time, been pushed into smaller and smaller areas of life as our scientific knowledge increased. Today, science has a lot of the outer border of the jigsaw pinned down, and quite a lot of areas in the middle, but there is still much to do to finish the job; conceivably, humanity won't exist that long.

    Why the Big Bang happened, what was there before it, and so on, are questions to which I don't even have the beginning of an answer - but I don't see an answer in religion. After all, if everything has an origin somewhere, where did God come from?

    I have no argument with people who believe that there is more to life than meets the eye - that there is a spiritual dimension, and that how we behave to each other (and the environment) matters. In fact, such beliefs are beneficial, in that the world would be a much better place if everyone had such beliefs - and acted on them. I don't happen to share those beliefs, but I act that way anyway because I think it's important to keep human society functioning in a bearable way.

    However, I am opposed to all organised religions, as I believe they have been - and still are - responsible for much harm in the world. The more they demand absolute obedience from their followers, the more harm they do. I really don't have a problem with the Church of England, which causes no harm to anyone and has a useful dual role as a social club for old folks and an organisation to maintain thousands of historic buildings - our churches and cathedrals - but the more fundamentalist branches of Islam are, IMO, downright evil in their effects.

    I'm reading an interesting book at the moment "How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World - a short history of modern delusions" which deals with the growth in irrational beliefs over the last few decades, after a couple of centuries of scientific advance. I've only just started it, but I'll keep you posted on anything interesting!

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
     
  16. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    Tony wrote:

    Yes, but the scientific crowd and the faithful stand on equal ground in this respect; lack of ultimate answers to fundamental questions. When you state your belief that science will eventually sort it all out you are expressing a form of faith also.
    You have your God and they have theirs.

    IMO science is not likely to answer a question that is by the nature of the scientific method unsolvable. If one looks at the elements of the method you will see what I mean. No need for me to outline the point laboriously.

    I tend to agree with your assessment of organized religion and I personally have little interest in mysticism in any form, new age or ancient. All that being said one would need to be blind or deluded to fail to see organization and order in the universe. To explain such complexity and order as being the result of randomness merely avoids the question rather than addressing it.

    Most people see it as a case of choose your poison, faith in the old, religious God or faith in the new age God, Science. I believe in reason so I accept science as the ultimate expression of rational and logical thought. It is constrained however by the cognitive abilities of those who conceived it so until if and when our minds can get a grasp on concepts like infinity it is unlikely to address the ultimate questions. Of course there is the self limiting aspects of the method itself which as I mentioned makes it unable to be applied to such findamental questions.
    Should we assume that the mechanism created itself and propels itself?
    Science can, and should analyze the movements and chart the workings of the spinning , whirring clockwork mechanism that propels the universe along however that analysis is unlikely to be capable of analyzing the intelligence behind the design of that mechanism of which our minds and science are the result nor ever "see" the hand that nudged the first lever into motion.
     
  17. Tony Williams

    Tony Williams Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    23
    via TanksinWW2
    No, I didn't say that.

    My belief (backed by considerable practical evidence) is that the expansion of human knowledge and understanding which has been going on for centuries will (in principle) continue until we have a logical explanation for every physical development which has happened since the Big Bang. I specifically said that I have no idea about how or why the Big Bang occurred, or what was there before, so I have no beliefs (religious or scientific) about that fundamental question.

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
     
  18. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Nice to have another voice!

    I do agree with you on points like:

    and the bit about big structured religions being the cause of much of the nasty things humans do to each other (usually flying in the face of everything their religion stands for :roll: ).

    As I have said on here before somewhere, the misuse of Religion really, really pees me off. :angry:

    I would love to invent a time machine just to be able to go back and give a few folks a right good slap.

    In Christian love, of course. ;)
     
  19. Kaiser phpbb3

    Kaiser phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Lol Ricky,i gotta agree with you and Tony on that too. There shouldn't even be a Vatican if we study the scriptures carefully.And Peter didn't die in Rome!
     
  20. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    tony wrote:

    Mea culpa. I apoligize for misconstruing your comments.
     

Share This Page