Ben Stein Expelled

[Zerai]

It's like if he gives you free will, but knows everything, such that he could technically know all paths you could possibly choose, except, he knows everything, such that he knows what path you will take of all the possible options. And he knew when he created the universe everything that would happen. And he knew that if he created the universe like it is, bad people will exist and bad things will happen to good people. But he knew that, all of it, and did it anyway. How is that omni benevolent? You could argue well in the end, they end up in heaven and good things happen. But he also knew people would sin. And burn in hellfire forever. Or whatever non-heaven entails..but he knew. He knew exactly what would happen when he created the universe like so. But he did it anyway.

How is that a good god?

[Jedah]

Originally Posted by Tea on tuesday

There are lots of ways. Free will could simply be a result of the complicated structure of the mammalian brain and it's complex neural networks. There's nothing that physically prevents it, or perhaps an undiscovered fundamental particle interacts in some certain way that causes free will to arise, who knows. You certainly don't need a deity like figure to imbue it, all though they certainly could.

How would you know? You can't go back and test situations multiple times to see if theres ever a second outcome; every moment happens once, to our knowledge, and it has a single result. Even if it is a result of our brain, our complex neural network, it still exists in the realm of the purely physical. A machine's gear doesn't decide how much it turns; it turns according to its function and condition. In the absence of God, how do you make a case for a condition in humanity that escapes the causality the rest of the universe is subject to?

[Tea on tuesday]

And, that's why I've always argued the case that the question of free-will is ultimately indeterminable. All evidence for free-will is equally evidence for determinism. But, you claimed that free-will could only result from a deity like entity I countered with examples of how it could. Sure, you can't test my examples but you can't test your examples either. They are all conjecture and all equally dismal at passing a null hypothesis test. So, how exactly is God did it different from hitherto unknown process did it.

edit: Ah, I see your hangup. You're caught up in a logical fallacy. You want to say everything that makes up the brain follows the laws of causality therefore the brain follows the laws of causality. It's a fallacy of composition and an invalid line of reasoning. That line of reasoning may ultimately be true, but not for the reasons you have considered.

[Jedah]

Originally Posted by Tea on tuesday

And, that's why I've always argued the case that the question of free-will is ultimately indeterminable. All evidence for free-will is equally evidence for determinism. But, you claimed that free-will could only result from a deity like entity I countered with examples of how it could. Sure, you can't test my examples but you can't test your examples either. They are all conjecture and all equally dismal at passing a null hypothesis test. So, how exactly is God did it different from hitherto unknown process did it.

edit: Ah, I see your hangup. You're caught up in a logical fallacy. You want to say everything that makes up the brain follows the laws of causality therefore the brain follows the laws of causality. It's a fallacy of composition and an invalid line of reasoning. That line of reasoning may ultimately be true, but not for the reasons you have considered.

The importance of God, specifically, is his ability to exist outside the physical universe.

Yeah, it was fallacious, how about:

All objects in the universe are subject to the laws of causality
All human beings exist in the universe
All human beings are subject to the laws of causality

You're right, it's not going anywhere, but it's still fun to toy with (well, it is for me anyways). Doubly so since every conversation we have on this subject seems to reduce the source of more and more moral laws and ethics to physical conditions and stimuli.

[Arakkis]

Man, I take off for a few days and this thread goes in a totally different direction. OK, I will roll with this new philosophical argument because it interests me. Schatze, I will continue to argue the scientific implausibility of the spontaneous creation of life in the next religion vs. science thread.

It is too bad Kolle gave up a few pages back. He and Pancreas were having a great back and forth and he just quit. Come back and fight like a man, Nancy.

I think the series Preacher said it best in terms of why man has free will. Garth Ennis said that God is an egomaniac and made us to worship him. Now to any religious person this would sound like blasphemy, but I think the message is lost because of the language used. Let me put it another way: God wants man to worship Him even though he can choose not to. God made the angels first and they were totally beholden to God. God then created man (the process of which is still up for debate) to whom He gave the ability to disobey God. In this act of creation, God imbued man with the ability to make choices for himself without direction. God is omniscient because He can step in at any time and change our course of action, but He doesn't do this. The Bible says we were created in God's image, and I think this means more than a head, two arms, and two legs. I think it means that we were allowed to shape events how we see fit within our limited abilities to do so. With this explanation, we can then see that pain and suffering that is perpetrated by a person onto another person is not God's fault since we are given the choice to be moral or immoral.

Originally Posted by Pinchandroll

First, God never shows surprise. He is, however, completely "good" so when we make choices that go against His nature, he reacts accordingly. It makes perfect sense to me that a perfect being would be offended when his creations act against what is "good."


Nowhere in the Bible is there evidence or indication that God does not see something coming. Find me a passage you think would satisfy that, and I'll gladly explain the context that will prove otherwise. I'll preemptively warn you against using the Genesis verse where God "goes looking" for Adam and asks "where are you," because there have been plenty of scholarly articles addressing this supposed contradiction to His nature.

Genesis 6:6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.

I had to respond to this because I have never heard a satisfactory answer except my explanation above. God is showing regret here, which implies that man can surprise God with his actions.

I wanted to throw this next tidbit into the mix to see what people think of it. I know this is a crappy example, but it has brought up questions in my head and I want to see what others make of it. In the movie, Oh, God!, John Denver asks God (George Burns) if he can predict the future and God replies, no, it hasn't happened yet. Does anyone think that God is omniscient in the present and past, but since we haven't shaped the future with our choices, it hasn't happened yet? Does a constraint by time go counter to the idea of omniscience?

I make no claim to being a biblical scholar so forgive me if I am totally wrong in any of my explanations above. I stated earlier that I am a Christian because the philosophies of Jesus are the greatest that have ever been recorded. If people took the time to understand the philosophy of the Bible, they would stop hating religion as a whole and realize that it is shitty people that use religion to further their own selfish desires that is the problem, not the message.

[Pancreas]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

It is too bad Kolle gave up a few pages back. He and Pancreas were having a great back and forth and he just quit. Come back and fight like a man, Nancy.

I was thankful for the opportunity to share my beliefs in an open manner. If Kolle wished to continue the discussion I would not be opposed to it.

What I am opposed to however is the manner with which you called him back to the "fight". This is not a competition of wit.

There has been some above average commentary in this thread given the nature of the medium. It would be a shame to see it disseminate into name calling due to some poorly chosen words.

[Pinchandroll]

Genesis 6:6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.

I would say that knowing something bad is going to happen should not keep you from grieving when that thing occurs. If I knew that I would one day have a son and he'd grow up to be a drug addict or something, I would try my hardest to keep that from happening, but when it eventually does happen, I would probably feel regretful. It wouldn't necessarily mean that I'm surprised, since I knew it was coming, but that wouldn't stop me from grieving.

Of course, this is not a direct comparison to God's actions, because God did not actively attempt to stop Adam and Eve (if He had, He could have done so easily - this is where the argument about God desiring free will comes in), but I think the basic idea is the same. God knew people would be full of sin, and He also decided to give them free will to make their own decisions, so even though it is impossible for God to be surprised by anything, He reacts the way you would expect when people go completely against His tenets.

I wanted to throw this next tidbit into the mix to see what people think of it. I know this is a crappy example, but it has brought up questions in my head and I want to see what others make of it. In the movie, Oh, God!, John Denver asks God (George Burns) if he can predict the future and God replies, no, it hasn't happened yet. Does anyone think that God is omniscient in the present and past, but since we haven't shaped the future with our choices, it hasn't happened yet? Does a constraint by time go counter to the idea of omniscience?

Short answer: God knows everything, past, present, and future.

Long answer: It is not even an issue of what we "must" do (fate). We are absolutely free to make our choices, and God's existence in all places at all times does not contradict that. Trying to "prove" this to a skeptic would be very tedious (and probably impossible) simply because it requires the acceptance that God exists outside of time and space (which makes sense, given that we are assuming He is all-powerful), and therefore has the power to give us free will (which is what we understand to be true), while still knowing everything (future included). These are the arguments that can go in circles endlessly, but that's the best I can do right now. If I can find a source that puts it better I'll let you know, but from my understanding it just requires the agreement with free will = choices, and God = knows everything, but the two do not necessarily contradict because we are comparing things that depends on time (humans, their choices) with something that exists at all times, and in fact created the concept of time itself (God).

It's actually a good topic because it sends the conversation directly back to the original topic: Creation, and the origin of all things (the beginning of time...?).

[Xakk]

Rezzing thread since this shit is in theaters

[Rathgar]

Even Fox says this shit sucks. (Scroll down the page)

FOXNews.com - Mariah Carey's New Album: First Review - Celebrity Gossip | Entertainment News | Arts And Entertainment

[Indiana]

Well I for one am going to watch this movie, just to make sure I don't wake up one day and realize my atheist beliefs have turned me in to a nazi.

[Xakk]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Well I for one am going to watch this movie, just to make sure I don't wake up one day and realize my atheist beliefs have turned me in to a nazi.

Just by watching the trailer I can say that the movie is intellectually degrading. Evolution and Darwinism isn't meant to explain the origins of life or how it arose, only how it's changed. Just because you "believe" in evolution doesn't mean you have to believe in the big bang theory.

He makes evolution sound like a fairy tale, which I love. Mud being struck by thunder sounds religious, which I find confusing and frustrating that he doesn't just say what scientists say what happened. Then again, I don't think Stein is aiming to turn scientists against each other or to get them thinking, he's probably trying to rally a people's army against the intellects of society.

Regardless, he states that the problem that "sparked it all" was that an article was published that said the writer believed that there were things in our DNA that "showed" there was a designer. Sorry guys, this isn't scientific, at all. Where else are you going to get evidence for this other than your fucking ass? But no, Science, you're keeping us down. The article is more philosophical than science. He cites "evidence" from books like Darwin's Black Box (as already said in this thread it is an argument from ignorance, but Meyer claims otherwise).

Furthermore, he uses old shit like the holocaust to prove that "evolution is evil" and "dangerous" since it promotes Social Darwinism. Except the fact that the idea of social Darwinism they believe to exist is actually called GENOCIDE which involves making the peoples to you are killing to be inhuman or lesser humans.

Heil Hitler, brothers.

DNA and Other Designs: Meyer, Stephen C.

[Mazim]

I think its funny that a lot of scientist put religion off as some make believe story, and think the people who believe in this stuff are wacky, however the latest advances of science are little better. 10-30 dimensions, material you can't detect in any way, time travel, worm holes, multiple yous, ect, ect, ect.

P.S. I am not religious.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Mazim

I think its funny that a lot of scientist put religion off as some make believe story, and think the people who believe in this stuff are wacky, however the latest advances of science are little better. 10-30 dimensions, material you can't detect in any way, time travel, worm holes, multiple yous, ect, ect, ect.

P.S. I am not religious.

Obvious troll is obvious.

[Chrisb3]

Once Evolution is down, next target is the Theory of Plate Techtonics.

I for one think that the continents must have been moved by some kind of Intelligent Designer. There is no way that Italy can be randomly so perfectly shaped like a boot, am I expected to belive that a random lump of rock magically turned into a boot shape!?

How could all this movement have happened in 5000 years when apparently we are all moving just a few inches a year in some random direction? The numbers just don't add up. And as for the notion that we are all on floating continents in a sea of magma... well the USA isn't boat shaped! Why hasn't it sunk!? Oh do rocks float now!? How come all this moving hasn't knocked over any buildings or caused sea sickness?

Intelligent Moving, it's true because my parents told me so.

[Lefazz]

Originally Posted by Mazim

I think its funny that a lot of scientist put religion off as some make believe story, and think the people who believe in this stuff are wacky, however the latest advances of science are little better. 10-30 dimensions, material you can't detect in any way, time travel, worm holes, multiple yous, ect, ect, ect.

P.S. I am not religious.

This isn't stuff they pull out of thin air thinking "Hey that sounds cool! Go with it." It IS based off of mathematical models and observation. Religious stories or ideas aren't scientifically testable since they often have physical evidence that contradicts it (like the Biblical world flood) or is so malleable that they can fit ANY evidence (like last Thursdayism).

As far as I understand there is no real intelligence design in nature. If a professor wants to teach that stuff go right ahead if it's philosophy. But if it's in a science class it has absolutely no business there. ID is NOT scientific since it has no evidence to back it up.