Things that make you believe in a God

[Sleeping in EQ]

This thread has reminded me that I need to get back to my "faith and process" thread.

I think the quote I posted from William James continues to apply.

[Mormon Red Death]

that's right up there with live, love, laugh.

<Name of Family> Established <year they were married>

[tooblue]

I think by standards of the past woot has been remarkably restrained here which is partly why I am feeling a little defensive of him. I do understand that there are people who do not want to discuss their factual and logical thoughts on religion except in an affirming way. You and I see eye to eye on very little tb but I appreciate that you are engaging here rather than saying the discussion is not appropriate.

Suggesting a discussion is not appropriate is very different than questioning the purpose or merits of the discussion. In my mind I have only ever questioned the purpose or merit of certain discussions.

I am didactic by nature and that is in part a cause for the misunderstandings. However, it is not the only cause.

[Jackrabbit]

Yes it is, I promise. Perhaps you're not aware that it's a wacky fringe view because you haven't read any mainstream books in the field? I can see why you might think it's accepted if all you're reading is religious books on the topic.

But this is a distraction. Please explain what you're actually arguing here. Near as I can tell, you're saying that because similar niches are sometimes filled by similar but phylogenetically distinct organisms, that every niche must be filled by one exact type of creature, therefore humans are inevitable. Is this what you're arguing? If not, please go ahead and finally present your argument. Which niche are you referring to? You do realize that humans are currently filling a great many ecological niches, many of which were already filled by other creatures that are now either extinct or getting there?

That's false; it is a minority view; it is not a fringe view like intelligent design is, and it is currently being debated in the scientific community.

And regarding your critique? I've said that I'm not an expert on speciation, so I'm not concerned with the details. My graduate training is in applied mathematics. Conway-Morris's work bridges the evidence from cosmology and theoretical physics, where many leaders in the field (Davies, Barrow, Tipler), believe the universe is structured in a way that would give rise to beings capable of comprehending the universe. And spare me the religious bias crap, many of them are deists and not religious.

And you keep bringing up Francis Collins, and it's obvious your slander is unwarranted. Although I'm not sure what issues you're talking about, but I'm guessing it's his dismissal of evolutionary theories of morality.

Now this is the portion of evolutionary biology I'm most qualified to talk about, because I'm a game theorist. He is right to be suspicious of "just so" stories from sociobiology about the evolution of morality, because they're that, "just so" stories. No experiments. Sociobiology is nothing more than a branch of natural hsitory. The best we have is game-theoretic models. Those can be easily rigged.

And don't give me any crap about a "consensus view." Most biologists don't have any math apart from a semester of calculus. They wouldn't be able to tell me what an Evolutionarily Stable Strategy is, let alone compute one.

Francis Collins's PhD is in physical chemistry, and I know he can solve second-order differential equations.

[Jackrabbit]

By the way, I don't want to post anymore, it just irks me that scientific knowledge on othis board is monopolized by a godless heathen who's painting a misleading picture that all the evidence is against the faithful. It's not.

It's a working assumption of all physicists that mathematics exists in its own unseen world, and it's not just a human invention we read into nature. Even atheists like Roger Penrose, believe there is an unseen reality in nature, not necessarily God, that we are trying to decode.

I admit an affinity towards Conway because he may be uncovering something in biology that would unite physics and biology.

Bye.

[UtahDan]

By the way, I don't want to post anymore, it just irks me that scientific knowledge on othis board is monopolized by a godless heathen who's painting a misleading picture that all the evidence is against the faithful. It's not.

It's a working assumption of all physicists that mathematics exists in its own unseen world, and it's not just a human invention we read into nature. Even atheists like Roger Penrose, believe there is an unseen reality in nature, not necessarily God, that we are trying to decode.

I admit an affinity towards Conway because he may be uncovering something in biology that would unite physics and biology.

Bye.

Jack this is a board where we debate things. You obviously have something to add here, don't just take your ball and go home because someone has disagreed with you aggressively. I have enjoyed what you have added here.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Jack this is a board where we debate things. You obviously have something to add here, don't just take your ball and go home because someone has disagreed with you aggressively. I have enjoyed what you have added here.

[woot]

That's false; it is a minority view; it is not a fringe view like intelligent design is, and it is currently being debated in the scientific community.

And regarding your critique? I've said that I'm not an expert on speciation, so I'm not concerned with the details. My graduate training is in applied mathematics. Conway-Morris's work bridges the evidence from cosmology and theoretical physics, where many leaders in the field (Davies, Barrow, Tipler), believe the universe is structured in a way that would give rise to beings capable of comprehending the universe. And spare me the religious bias crap, many of them are deists and not religious.

And you keep bringing up Francis Collins, and it's obvious your slander is unwarranted. Although I'm not sure what issues you're talking about, but I'm guessing it's his dismissal of evolutionary theories of morality.

Now this is the portion of evolutionary biology I'm most qualified to talk about, because I'm a game theorist. He is right to be suspicious of "just so" stories from sociobiology about the evolution of morality, because they're that, "just so" stories. No experiments. Sociobiology is nothing more than a branch of natural hsitory. The best we have is game-theoretic models. Those can be easily rigged.

And don't give me any crap about a "consensus view." Most biologists don't have any math apart from a semester of calculus. They wouldn't be able to tell me what an Evolutionarily Stable Strategy is, let alone compute one.

Francis Collins's PhD is in physical chemistry, and I know he can solve second-order differential equations.

I don't know what Collins thinks about sociobiology. I'm referring to his insistence on evangelizing his religious beliefs under the guise of scientific authority, much like SCM often does.

I guess I'll let you think that the inevitability of humans is only a minority view rather than a fringe one. I'll just state that it is not something that many researchers are interested in, and that "being debated in the scientific community" isn't a good definition for what is fringe. By that definition, bigfoot and the aquatic ape hypothesis are merely minority rather than fringe. I do hope those who are interested in it are able to present an argument for it, as you seem unwilling to even try.

I'm also well aware of the tendency for religious nuts to appeal to theoretical physics to support their absurd ideas. SMC's willingness to do so isn't a feather in his cap any more than it is for Deepak Chopra. I'll also remind you that appealing to authority to support your beliefs in lieu of presenting an argument remains bad form.

I'd still like to hear why this argument even appeals to you. What does the inevitability of humans do for your faith?

[woot]

By the way, I don't want to post anymore, it just irks me that scientific knowledge on othis board is monopolized by a godless heathen who's painting a misleading picture that all the evidence is against the faithful. It's not.

It's a working assumption of all physicists that mathematics exists in its own unseen world, and it's not just a human invention we read into nature. Even atheists like Roger Penrose, believe there is an unseen reality in nature, not necessarily God, that we are trying to decode.

I admit an affinity towards Conway because he may be uncovering something in biology that would unite physics and biology.

Bye.

It is not my intention to scare you off. I do love that you consider me a godless heathen and therefore the enemy, though. I can't say that does much for your credibility on scientific matters, but it does explain why you think this debate isn't way out on the fringes. Perhaps among faithful scientists it is only a minority view.

[Jackrabbit]

It is not my intention to scare you off. I do love that you consider me a godless heathen and therefore the enemy, though. I can't say that does much for your credibility on scientific matters, but it does explain why you think this debate isn't way out on the fringes. Perhaps among faithful scientists it is only a minority view.

Wrong again, it's a majority opinion among believing scientists. Collins, Alister McGrath, and many subscribe to human evolution's inevitability. Since believers are 40%, that means convergent evolution is accepted by well over 20% of the scientific community, safely not a fringe view. Evolution reveals the glory of our pantokrator. Soli Deo Gloria!.

[Jackrabbit]

Jack this is a board where we debate things. You obviously have something to add here, don't just take your ball and go home because someone has disagreed with you aggressively. I have enjoyed what you have added here.

Just to be clear goodbye just means I've said what I wanted to say, I'm not mad at anybody.

[UtahDan]

Wrong again, it's a majority opinion among believing scientists. Collins, Alister McGrath, and many subscribe to human evolution's inevitability. Since believers are 40%, that means convergent evolution is accepted by well over 20% of the scientific community, safely not a fringe view. Evolution reveals the glory of our pantokrator. Soli Deo Gloria!.

Is that really true? 40% of what?

[woot]

Wrong again, it's a majority opinion among believing scientists. Collins, Alister McGrath, and many subscribe to human evolution's inevitability. Since believers are 40%, that means convergent evolution is accepted by well over 20% of the scientific community, safely not a fringe view. Evolution reveals the glory of our pantokrator. Soli Deo Gloria!.

Listing 3 names doesn't give you a majority. Again, your work is still ahead of you if you plan to support your argument. Strident assertion isn't sufficient.

I'm willing to entertain the idea that a great many do like this idea, and the reason why it gets so little play is because they recognize the evidence doesn't support this faith-based view. This would make your point irrelevant, since we're talking about evidence here, and all three of the names you've listed have proven time and again that their beliefs are not limited by evidence.

I'm glad you haven't run off for good, but I will continue to insist that you back up your assertions. Presenting a coherent argument for your basic point remains a decent place to start, rather than pretending that the number of people who believe this ridiculous claim is knowable or important.

[wuapinmon]

Listing 3 names doesn't give you a majority. Again, your work is still ahead of you if you plan to support your argument. Strident assertion isn't sufficient.

I'm willing to entertain the idea that a great many do like this idea, and the reason why it gets so little play is because they recognize the evidence doesn't support this faith-based view. This would make your point irrelevant, since we're talking about evidence here, and all three of the names you've listed have proven time and again that their beliefs are not limited by evidence.

I'm glad you haven't run off for good, but I will continue to insist that you back up your assertions. Presenting a coherent argument for your basic point remains a decent place to start, rather than pretending that the number of people who believe this ridiculous claim is knowable or important.

For all your objectivity, your language is absolutely riddled with subjective word choices. I don't give a damn about yall's argument. I'm just sayin'.

[creekster]

Listing 3 names doesn't give you a majority. Again, your work is still ahead of you if you plan to support your argument. Strident assertion isn't sufficient.

I'm willing to entertain the idea that a great many do like this idea, and the reason why it gets so little play is because they recognize the evidence doesn't support this faith-based view. This would make your point irrelevant, since we're talking about evidence here, and all three of the names you've listed have proven time and again that their beliefs are not limited by evidence.

I'm glad you haven't run off for good, but I will continue to insist that you back up your assertions. Presenting a coherent argument for your basic point remains a decent place to start, rather than pretending that the number of people who believe this ridiculous claim is knowable or important.

Geez, calm down, woot. Who are you to insist anything? You can ask, request, point out, etc., but you are in no more position to demand or insist something from JR than I am to insist or demand something from you. The more loudly and stridently you scream how correct you are and how wrong your opponent is the less likely you are to convince anyone, even if you are correct.

Btw, just as you point out that JR quoting someone isn't evidence, why should any of us accept woot saying something as evidence? The whole notion of evidence on this sort of board is usually sort of silly, as really all we have here are arguments. Very, very few of us ever offer evidence (including you, woot buddy).