The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

[Rivendale]

This was very interesting, stem, thank you for laying out Barnes' argument. As a probability argument, he never seems to admit that positing a supernatural god should have a probability far less than the low probability of our universe, which because it actually does exist and is observable has a greater than zero probability. An observable event like that should always be assigned a greater probability than the idea of a god, which is given with no comparable observable evidence.

Eta it seems honorenthos is making a similar argument, but from the standpoint of the low probability of the evolving universe still not excluding an actual event; my argument is that comparing a probability between an observed event and a postulated event (god) the observed event by definition always should be assigned the higher probability, and therefore considered more likely.

I know people who use fine tuning as their ultimate reason for being a theist. I just don't know how you get to a Christian/Muslim/Hindu... god from fine tuning. It seems to appear many times with "look at the trees" while ignoring the Loa loa eye boring worm. And what guarantee is there that the god is good? Maybe he/she/it is evil.

[Bret Ripley]

... "look at the trees" while ignoring the Loa loa eye boring worm.

It doesn't hit as close to home as the loa loa, but the ant zombie fungus can be seen as another 'wth' sort of thing to spring from the mind of a benevolent creator:

https://www.livescience.com/47751-zombi ... rains.html

[huckelberry]

... "look at the trees" while ignoring the Loa loa eye boring worm.

It doesn't hit as close to home as the loa loa, but the ant zombie fungus can be seen as another 'wth' sort of thing to spring from the mind of a benevolent creator:

https://www.livescience.com/47751-zombi ... rains.html

I thought that Darwin had some good ideas about how these sort of things happen.

[honorentheos]

Hi Honorentheos, I suppose I could have added that the universe is absurdly large, well even much larger. Sometimes that seems a strong evidence against god and sometimes to me it questions what kind of understanding of God might that indicate. I find myself thinking that the observations you made here question what sort of god could reasonably exist and what sort of ideas about god do not fit.

I have no question that evolution is the process of life population of the planet. It fits mountains of evidence and makes sense.

I do not see a reason from my theistic point of view to assume that people are preferred or at least that they are the only thing of concern in this universe. I do not even think they are the only life that matters here. In fact I feel strongly that they variety of life is family and matters.

About Gods communication I think God limits communication to very little. Logically it is possible the God communicates nothing to us. I believe that people sometimes have a sense of Gods presence and that sense makes us ask questions about values and how we relate to the world and other people.

This is a fair point regarding the need to determine what one may consider contained within theism. I personally view this to mean theism as espoused by one of the variety of religious traditions with a minimum criteria of there being an intelligent "something" responsible for creation which, to have meaningful distinction from naturalism, also intervenes in said creation. If, by theism, one opens up the definition to be a higher "something" like perhaps a consciousness that has awareness of creation but in all other ways is indistinguishable from naturalism, then we are just talking about naturalism. What occurred before the Big Bang being a mystery, and the concept of life after death being a mystery and therefore irrelevant to ones beliefs in God, such a theism would be probably closer with naturalism than they would be to someone like, say, MG, who envisions God to be very much an agent active in the universe for whom humans are a special part of His creation.

[honorentheos]

... "look at the trees" while ignoring the Loa loa eye boring worm.

It doesn't hit as close to home as the loa loa, but the ant zombie fungus can be seen as another 'wth' sort of thing to spring from the mind of a benevolent creator:

https://www.livescience.com/47751-zombi ... rains.html

Ant thralls of Zuggtmoy. Excellent.

[huckelberry]

Hi Honorentheos, I suppose I could have added that the universe is absurdly large, well even much larger. Sometimes that seems a strong evidence against god and sometimes to me it questions what kind of understanding of God might that indicate. I find myself thinking that the observations you made here question what sort of god could reasonably exist and what sort of ideas about god do not fit.

I have no question that evolution is the process of life population of the planet. It fits mountains of evidence and makes sense.

I do not see a reason from my theistic point of view to assume that people are preferred or at least that they are the only thing of concern in this universe. I do not even think they are the only life that matters here. In fact I feel strongly that they variety of life is family and matters.

About Gods communication I think God limits communication to very little. Logically it is possible the God communicates nothing to us. I believe that people sometimes have a sense of Gods presence and that sense makes us ask questions about values and how we relate to the world and other people.

This is a fair point regarding the need to determine what one may consider contained within theism. I personally view this to mean theism as espoused by one of the variety of religious traditions with a minimum criteria of there being an intelligent "something" responsible for creation which, to have meaningful distinction from naturalism, also intervenes in said creation. If, by theism, one opens up the definition to be a higher "something" like perhaps a consciousness that has awareness of creation but in all other ways is indistinguishable from naturalism, then we are just talking about naturalism. What occurred before the Big Bang being a mystery, and the concept of life after death being a mystery and therefore irrelevant to ones beliefs in God, such a theism would be probably closer with naturalism than they would be to someone like, say, MG, who envisions God to be very much an agent active in the universe for whom humans are a special part of His creation.

Honorentheos, you present a reasonable observation and question. I do not see a black white choice between some fundamentalist image and a deist image. For me there is an ongoing dialogue between a relatively traditional (neo orthodox not fundamentalist) and much more agnostic image or understanding of God. I can imagine that all of our god ideas are myths we form trying to understand our relationship to the world and others. Those myths may be substantial though not literal. I am more inclined to a view that God does care and communicate with people and could even have a future for us. For me those poles are in dialogue. I do not separate the more traditional view from naturalism. Naturalism would be understood as a result of and expression of God. In that view I find evolution to be a reflection of God.

My comment about communication from God was meant to suggest both a range of possibilities and my strong belief that people have overestimated communication and downplayed the role of our own thought and growth in experience. I believe God values that growth more than pure doctrine (which I do not think people have) In that view I see God as caring about all peoples not just those with correct doctrine or ritual.

I guess fitting my position as within a dialogue my view of Gods communication is middling. I believe God communicates just not lots of stuff

[Bret Ripley]

It doesn't hit as close to home as the loa loa, but the ant zombie fungus can be seen as another 'wth' sort of thing to spring from the mind of a benevolent creator:

https://www.livescience.com/47751-zombi ... rains.html

I thought that Darwin had some good ideas about how these sort of things happen.

Yes. Loa loa and zombie ants would only give pause (maybe) to someone who does not recognize the occurrence of evolution.

(Out of what I hope is an abundance of caution: what I wrote was in no way intended as a swipe at your contributions to this thread, which I think have been characteristically thoughtful and engaging.)

[Bret Ripley]

It doesn't hit as close to home as the loa loa, but the ant zombie fungus can be seen as another 'wth' sort of thing to spring from the mind of a benevolent creator:

https://www.livescience.com/47751-zombi ... rains.html

Ant thralls of Zuggtmoy. Excellent.

I love it, but must confess I had to Google Zuggtmoy. (My shame cannot be overstated -- I used to hide behind a DM screen, in a bygone epoch.)

[honorentheos]

I do not separate the more traditional view from naturalism. Naturalism would be understood as a result of and expression of God. In that view I find evolution to be a reflection of God.

My comment about communication from God was meant to suggest both a range of possibilities and my strong belief that people have overestimated communication and downplayed the role of our own thought and growth in experience. I believe God values that growth more than pure doctrine (which I do not think people have) In that view I see God as caring about all peoples not just those with correct doctrine or ritual.

I guess fitting my position as within a dialogue my view of Gods communication is middling. I believe God communicates just not lots of stuff

I'm stuck on the idea that god works through evolution, recognizing the results of evolution do not have the characteristics of craftsmanship in design. There is extreme elegance in creation, evolved solutions that are astounding in their simplicity and organizational properties. Bioengineering exists to capture some of that elegance for good reason. But behind it all is evidence that each emergent trait of creation derives from the conditions that immediately preceded it and not from a master plan for creation that includes such ideas as divine intervention, atonement that affects the fate of an individual, or otherwise a being who intercedes in meaningful ways.

So here is a different way to ask the questions I skimmed over: In your opinion, how would a universe that emergently arose from prior conditions as described with naturalism differ from the universe we observe ourselves to be part of and have evolved within?

[honorentheos]

Ant thralls of Zuggtmoy. Excellent.

I love it, but must confess I had to Google Zuggtmoy. (My shame cannot be overstated -- I used to hide behind a DM screen, in a bygone epoch.)

No need to feel shame. Two years ago I wouldn't have known, either. And I had a period of youth where we played many an RPG or other tabletop game including D&D.

My current gig as a DM started initially as a favor to our daughter who asked if I would DM a campaign for her and some of her friends. After declining and then reconsidering, I've gone over the edge. I now DM a game for coworkers, have a neighborhood game we play in, and am setting the stage for a fourth game with some old friends.

And to be fair, I have a thread in my daughter's campaign where a dark lady has terrorized the entire population of her city-state into faking their social standing out of fear of her and a mysterious Red Death (nod to Poe) that kills those whose deception and low-status are exposed. The dark lady being the Red Death and a Zuggtmoy-worshipping thrall herself, whose aim is to unleash the Demon Queen of Fungi on the world and expose the rest of civilization as the insignificant scum they are compared to her regal opulence. All signs point to the party heading that way soon. But then again, they are a bit like Discussmormonism when it comes to following a thread closely...

Wait, this is probably too much of a derail? Hoisted by my own petard! Umm. Smart guy something, magic something? Damn it.