POLL: God - Man or Woman?

Remove all ads!

You don't know too many Canadians, do you?

I think this whole debate boils down to an acceptance of what constitutes "proof".

In order to believe in God, I need something I can detect with my own five senses (well, maybe not taste - eeewwww! ). For me, "faith" is not enough. But then, I wasn't raised in a religious household, nor have I had any experiences for which religion could provide the only answer that I could find acceptable. So my standard of proof (or what I am willing to accept as such) differs from yours; not that my standard is any better - it's just different. And in all likelihood, unless one of us has a profound experience to change our respective opinions, neither one of us is likely to change our views any time soon.

But that doesn't mean that we can't still get along.

 

@hacken slash- it seems to me you might want to consult your theology again. the idea that we can see good and evil at work in the world, and subsequently infer infinite good and infinite evil, is explicitly contradicted by the fundamental christian tenet of salvation by grace. that is, on account of our fallen state, we cannot achieve salvation through works, no matter how good these works might appear to us. it is only by the grace of god, by the sacrifice of christ on the cross, that we may be saved.

also, there is no "infinite evil" in christian theology; evil is only the absence of god. god is the alpha and omega, and so the only ultimate infinity. if satan et al. have fallen into darkness, this darkness is not an opposed or competing power to the light of god; it is only the absence of that light. if you still want to believe in "infinite evil," I suggest you look up "gnosticism" and "manicheism."

it seems to me that the only interesting christian theologians out there are the ones that have given a great thought to the problem of doubt. this includes, in my mind, a lineage of writers from augustine to kierkegaard to bonhoeffer. any of these would be welcome correctives to the absolutist "left behind" dubya christian bull**** currently in circulation. to think of faith as characterized by a constant wrestling with doubt is far more compelling imho than a faith of constant certainty, which seems to me to be more about group identity and a lack of imagination than anything else.

and i kinda like the xtc "dear god" lyrics, tho probably more in the context of the rest of the lyrics and the song itself (along with partridge's delivery). the "problem of pain" as c.s. lewis called it, is by no means a trivial issue in christian theology.

and then i wonder about all of the fundamentalist christian "thinktanks" out there churning out probability stats on how many lotteries one must win to evolve a world. these guys are always laughably behind and inept with their science, which i guess is fitting as the whole philosophical preoccupation with proving or disproving the existence of god on the basis of the logic of causation went out of fashion say in the 17th century. evolution is itself a constantly evolving theory, and it's been an incredibly productive one (especially the more we understand genetics), and given my (tenuous) faith in civilization, i'm reasonably sure that if it's ever displaced, it will be by another scientific theory and not by a theological coup. i really think christians would be more productive with their time if they spent it examining the epistemology and ontology of faith as opposed to making silly arguments about god *literally* creating the universe in seven days.

finally, another lyric for your consideration: "if the real jesus christ were to stand up today, he'd be gunned down cold by the cia..." true or false?

 

It is interesting to see that people who believe in evolution are actually just as much dependent on faith as any religious group though. Who can say they were there to witness creation, and who can say they were there to witness the first fish to fly or the first bit of mass to all of a sudden have life? Also i would like to know what new information on genetics you are talking about Bion?

interesting that you should say that because these thinktanks are not so preoccupied with proving God exists; Christians do not go around proving whether or not God exists from logic, because that is what they believe , though they do use it logic to help others like humanists who do not want to say they believe anything by faith. And that is why this argument will not get anywhere.

Just by the way, many of the greatest scientists in the past were also great philosophical and CHRISTIAN thinkers, such as Newton.

 

@Orrick the Grey- the comment on genetics and evolution was really just meant as an illustration of how many different ways the theory of evolution impacts science beyond the question of origins. even if we were to imagine that evolution with a big E said nothing about the origins of human beings, evolution with a small e -- at the most basic, that the more successful organisms tend pass on their genetic material, while the less successful don't -- would still be useful in day to day science, and that it would be evolving as scientists test and revise their understanding of what they are looking at. for example, one interesting thing in genetics (and bioinformatics) is the shear amount of information in the genetic code. while part of this code was certainly under evolutionary pressure, other parts were not, whether due to redundancy, lack of expression, or simply lack of importance to survival. and there are also social factors in evolution; successful group cooperation leads to individual success, etc. so one could say for example that: 1) evolution does not produce "optimized" solutions, but rather satisfactory ones; and 2) although evolution looks at success and failure at the level of individual organisms, there is also a strong group component to that individual success. evolution with a small e, simply considered as a process, provides a framework within which alot of basic, practical science is being done today. this framework is itself constantly under revision. while you might say that evolution is a matter of faith because no one was there to see it (although the question of whether actually "being there" constitutes a privileged form of knowledge is itself a thorny one, think of the last court room you've seen), i think you'd find plenty of scientists who would claim to see some aspect of it up close everyday, whether in running through generations of c. elegans in a lab, or studying the evolution of a virus across human populations in public health, etc. in these cases, evolution is simply a practical idea. if it weren't, or if they could decide on a better working framework, scientists would chuck it out the window.

all of this might be challenging to faith, or it might not. imho, there is nothing even about evolution with a big E that would challenge faith; what it would challenge would be a literalist interpretation of the bible (but then again i'm more than happy to see that challenged anyway).

[EDIT] yes, newton was a christian, as was nearly everyone in pre- (or even post-) enlightenment europe, including galileo (who had a rather tough time of it, no?). however, i think i could pretty confidently speculate that newton wouldn't have minded evolution at all (if he would have kept his christianity is another issue); and there are plenty of christian scientists (that is, scientists who profess christianity) today who buy evolution either wholly or in part.

 

@Bion

No...no need to consult "my" theology, as it appears the only Christian theology you are familiar with is Fundamental Evangelical Protestant.

I meant not to infer that there is "infinite" evil in Christian theology (and I don't think that I did), only that our observations can lead in either direction from the spectrum that we observe. Infinite good does exist, and that is where we find God. I agree with you in general on your definition of evil.

Maybe you can clarify this lyric, simply on behalf of xtc:

"real" Does this mean the one 2000 years ago wasn't the real one?

"gunned down" Does this mean assasinated?

"cold" As in shot in the back?

"by the cia" Do they do that anymore?

So, no, the answer to the question is false. Anyone of faith can tell you that when the "real" Jesus Christ comes again, it's not to die again.

More bad theology from people who have discovered that opposed thumbs can grip a crayon.

 

@ Chevalier: Holy...?!?

What does THAT have to do with anything I said Chev'? Your presuppostions are showing again... .


Also, why are you quoting replies from long dead threads here?

Who said anything about "perfect"?

Context is good...always quote in context!

...Or His NON-existence .

Maybe...I am not an "absolutist" per se. I only even mentioned the whole thing in response to Orick's claim that all ahteists were absolutists or somesuch.

@ Hack-N-Slash:

Refresh my memory here; what "claim" did I make in regards to whether it is easier to believe or not believe in gods? Honestly, I participate in literally dozens of these discussions every week so I would like to be clear on what it was I said and in what context which you are refering to.

I don't think I follow you here. Are you saying that because we can percieve degrees of what we as individuals will dub "Good" behavior and "bad" behavior, that it stands to reason that some "ultimate" Good and evil exist(i.e. "God" and "Satan"?)??

First of all, it is not so much an observation as it is a perception. Muslim terrorists are "witnessing" and fighting against a "great evil" just as Christian American soldiers are, right now. If I had been born and raised in the middle east, by a muslim family I MAY well be agreeingt with them right now.

God and evil are not objective things, like gravity or matter. They are dependent upon the individual perception. Nazi's under Hitler's regime did not think they were doing "evil" anymore than YOU think that YOU are doing evil.

I gather that by "the big why's" you mean things like "Why are we here?" and "what is our purpose?", ci? If so then of course science is not a tool for such exasmination because science does not work well from presupposition. Here you are begging the question by assuming there ARE "big why's".
Science is not an ANSWER to most questions. Science is a METHOD of examining our environment.
Plumbing cannot tell us why we are here(or even if that is a legitamate question) but that does not make plumbing a less valuable trade/practice.

Wrong. Atheism means quite simply and literally "Without gods". It is not a worldview adn does not contain a position on evolution, abortion, gun control, the metric system or anything else but whether one believes in supernatural gods or whether one WORSHIPS anything as a god(such as the sun or divine emporers).

Wrong again(see above). Atheism is not a religion, a worldview, a political belief, a body of knowledge or a code of behaviors or dogma. It is simplyu a response to a particular question/claim: "Do you believe in god(s)?" or "God exists!". The answer of atheism being "I see no reason to think so/believe in such".

Wrong again. Cosmology, abiogenesis, astronomy etc. are not part of evolutionary biology and evolution does not figure into ideas about the Oort belt and such. Evolution only explains biodiversity /speciation on earth.

First off Halley's appears every 76 years(not 88...minor nitpick). I have been reading a lot about comets lately(Carl Sagan & Ann Druyan's Comet as well as Asimov's various essays) adn let me come right out and say that a thorough refutation/explanation of your assertions/arguments here would be a massive undertaking which I do not have the time or inclination to undertake right now.

The oort belt is a hypothesis(as I understand it) offered as a potential explanation of some currently unknown bits. It does not matter whether it turns out to be correct or not(anymore than Dark Matter or superstring theory) and is certainly not positied as a means to get around some allegeed contradiction within evolutionary biology!?!

I am also unsure how you assertt that comets do not exist beyond 200,000 years or what this could possibly have to do with evolution of life on earth!?
Evolution is one of, if not THE most strongly supported scientific theories we have ever had. It has stronger evidenciary support than GRAVITY for crying out loud!(and yet no one challenges the theory of gravitation!).

Cite? No evolutionary biologist or paleontologist ignores any such fossils and a quick trek over to the Talkorgins.org site will answer all your questions about such things.

I willgive you a more throough debunking but it will require that I dig out my reference materials and spend some time on this.

Too bad no such tree-fossil exists! Again, this is a bald assertion(I suspect you will be pulling out the Paluxi man-tracks creationist hoax next...*sigh*)

Wrong again! We DEBUNK these wild CLAIMS!

That Dembski I smell? or Gish? I can see this is a sticking point for you so I will defginately have to start a new thread refuting these creationist claims(if someone does not beat me to it).

Yep...Dembski & Behe. You should question your sources more thoroughly and save us a lot of time.

This is Dembski's infamous take on the "probability argument". it is fallacious primarily for two reasons:

1)you cannot retroactively calculate the odds of something happening as if the event were an intended goal all along. Go shuffle a deck of cards and draw three at random adn note what cards were drawn. Now tell me what the odds were you would draw THOSE cards in THAT order! Astronomically low! You could not have possibly drawn those cards by "chance". You must have cheated!

2)Behe & Dembski's "lottery analogy" is false for the following reasons: If you have a lottery drawing where the odds of winning are, say 1 in ten million, the odds that SOMEONE will win are still virtually 100%! it is only the odds that YOU will win that are astronomically low.

Secondly, you are assuming evolution operates by "starting from scratch" with every adaption/speciation. it does not. Evolution always builds upon what came before. Let's look at your lottery analogy again.
Let's say it is a standard "Irish lottery"(I believe that is the term) wherein you select 5 or 6 two digit numbers(where a zero can be one of the digits). Picking all SIX numbers correctly, at once would be an incredible feat! But that is not how evoluition works. Evolution is like picking a number over and over until you hit on the "right" one, keeping that correct numebr and then moving on to the second number, and so on until you have all six. If you were given many years to do this, being able to keep "correct numbers" as you got them then it would not be so long before you had a winning lottery ticket.

A common but unsubstantiated claim by the ICR and AiG. Even if there WERE many mathematicians who made such an error, it would not change the facts of evolution(it would just mean that mathematicians should stick to math which is their field adn evolutionary biologists should keep their noses out of Theoretical physics)

I see no such evidence at all. ANyone can "find" evidence to support a presupposition or conviction because we are pattern-seeking animals. JFK conspiracy theoprists will see the same "evidence" regardless of whether LHO acted alone or not(only if he WAS part of a conspiracy would more substantial/obejctive evidence be apparent).

Are you copy/pasting this stuff? I swear I have read and refuted this same nonsense before!

???

I hope you DO sleep well(as I do) but what does that have to do with anything?

Oh yeah, and what chev said, too

[ April 20, 2004, 19:13: Message edited by: RuneQuester ]

 

[QUOTE/]No...no need to consult "my" theology, as it appears the only Christian theology you are familiar with is Fundamental Evangelical Protestant.[/QUOTE]

no...i'm afraid that "salvation by grace" has always been a central tenet of christianity, from eastern orthodoxy to catholicism to protestantism. the "fundamental evangelical protestant" theologians (if there are any) might parrot this line in it's reader's digest condensed version, but that doesn't reduce the centrality of grace to christian thought. as an example, western christian theologians in the middle ages spend a great deal of time thinking about the status of the "virtuous pagans" that lived before christ. this was only to be expected given the fundamental influence of greek and roman thought (esp plato and aristotle) on theology at the time. the position was that these thinkers were "virtuous" in having intuited the "good," and thus the hand of god at work in the world, but their knowledge of the good was by definition incomplete because it was not informed by the grace of god and the sacrifice of christ. thus, for dante, the virtuous pagans would be placed at the outermost level of hell -- not really such a bad place, relative to the inner layers of hell -- where they awaited the redeption of christ and their transference into purgatory. dante has the utmost respect for these virtuous pagans; however, as great as their wisdom might be, and as much as they might know about the "good", there is no other place for them than hell until they are redeamed by christ.

and so, to reiterate: "salvation by grace" is not exclusive to "fundamentalist evangelical protestants," and methinks it is you who should be hitting the books, not i...

as for the above lyrics, it seems obvious to me that they describe a hypothetical situation, not a theological position. poems, if not pop music lyrics, often make use of such hypothetical situations; i think the term is "poetic license." the artist's intention, i think, was to call into question whether US power is always truly acting "with god on its side" (dylan); i don't think he was prophesying that jc would return again, as told in the scriptures, with the revision that he be shot by the cia. (btw, the chorus of the song iirc is "islam is rising/ the christian's mobilizing/ the world is on it's elbows and knees/ it's forgotten the message and worships the creeds; granted this particular pop artist isn't so good with subtlety.)

and on last set of lyrics, from wayyyyy back...

Oh my name it is nothin'
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I's taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And that land that I live in
Has God on its side.

Oh the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side.

[snip]

But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.

In a many dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.

 

@Orrick:

My word but this is an oft parroted bit of nonsense!

1)Evolution, nor atheism requires "faith". I have NO faith and never touch the stuff. I do not have "faith" that the sun will rise or a chiar will support my weight when I sit down. I ahve OBSERVED the sun to behave as it does adn I know enough about the construction of a chair to infer that it will support my 160 ilbs. when I decide to sit in it.

Likewise we observe evolution happening all the time...even today we can directly observe the processes in laboratory experiments.

I find it ironic that the same people who insist Saddam had weapons of mass destruction will deny that evolutionary theory is correct. If the theory of evolution were FALSE then there copuld be no chemical weapons developed, no insulin treatments for us diabetics, no vaccinations or innoculations etc. ALL of modern biology is dependent upon the correctnes of evolutionary theory. Like any good scientific theory, the ToE makes predicitions. If these predictions do not pan out then the theory has to be discarded or reworked. SO far ALL predictions made by the ToE have been true(unlike Biblical prophecy adn the like).

Ugh...That was painful to read. First of all you have a misunderstanding of what evolution is. It is not about fish magicvally transforming into birds adn whatnot. A fin may become a "leg" through gradual steps over millions of years and whatever adaptions that grant a survival/reproductive advantage can just as easily lead to a species exitinction when conditions change.
For example: Creature a has slightly webbed feet. it lives in an environ where it must travers ponds and strems quite often. Webbed feet are not the norm for it's species but they prove to be just advantageoius enough that the creature survives to pass these genes along to it's offspring.

Repeat over millions of years and let's hypothesize that the "poinds" and "streams" have become lakes and rivers(if not an ocean!). HTe creature now has feet like a duck or perhaps webbed fins like a fish. He can traverse the waters quite well adn those who did NOT develope these advantageous adaptions have long since died out(caught by predators or starved or whathave you).

Then a catyclism occurs and the lakes and rivers dry up! The web-footed/finned creature now is easy prey for carnicorous predators and has difficulty getting food/sustenance.

THat is evolution.

As for "witnesses" we do not need "direct" witnesses to say something more than likely happened or existed. No one around today saw the sun existing thousands of years ago but we can be relatively sure that it DID exist right?

Many were/are also atheists such as Einstein, Asimov, Sagan, Dawkins, Gould, Burbank, etc.. SOmething like 85% of the current roster of NAS scientists are atheist right now. Virtually ALL of biologists are atheists.

 

To return to the original topic...

God is a spirit who appears to us to posess features of both genders.






God also does not believe in evolution, atheism or insipid pop music.

Sorry, I couldn't resist after I stirred up such strident responses.

I'll play nice.

 

I just wanted to know if people thought God was a guy or girl...

/me looks at the past two pages

Wow

 

God is a man.

But it's a bit confusing, because he's a cross-dresser.

Edit: why are there locusts suddenly swarming my office?

 

OK, heeding the warning. I will, of course, happily grant any request for getting crushed by magnificent logic in other threads.

In topic: Spirits have no sex in the context of carnal relations and reproduction, because they don't need any, but they can have some abstract male or female character. For example, angels aren't really supposed to be of either sex, but Jews and Christians typically consider archangel Michael male, for example With God Himself, it works the same way.

 

AM about to post a new thread titled "Debunking creationism" in which Hack-n-Slash's points will be refuted in even greater detail(will still keep things pretty simple though or I would lose myself!).

See you there!

 

those interested can also check out "The God and/or Evolution Poll!!!" thread, originally on AoDA but transported by Tal to Whatnots, presumably on account of the excess of exclamation points in the thread title...

and while we're on the topic of whether God is gendered, perhaps the following questions are germaine:

if God is not gendered, is s/he NONgendered? or maybe BIgendered? or maybe even TRANSgendered? or was s/he UNgendered?

 

I can't believe this thread has gone on for this long.

Come on, you guys...is there any doubt that Jack Nicholsen is a man?

 

@DR

Wait...I thought that God was George Burns?