Religious broadcaster builds $4M home despite layoffs at his ministry

[Neosutra]

I honestly have no interest in seeing your google skills Plow. But if you want to play, explain to me:

How does a reaaaaaaally super smart poli-sci major that got his girlfriend pregnant and flunked out of engineering school rationalize macro-scopic particle formations (atoms and higher) as being "non coincidental" and evidence for a god?

Because that is the only question on my mind.

I thought about having you fetch me some answers on the 4 major problems with any of the top ToE equations, but with your intellect, you would just solve the equations and put guys like me out of business! I mean, 15 minutes with google is all you need right?

[kuronosan]

Seriously, anyone interested in checking out microbial vector delivery systems?

Maybe we can get some to synthesize some popcorn.

[Mirinika]

Seriously, anyone interested in checking out microbial vector delivery systems?

Maybe we can get some to synthesize some popcorn.

Popcorn and vectorial delivery system ? Count me in ~

[Plow]

I honestly have no interest in seeing your google skills Plow. But if you want to play, explain to me:

How does a reaaaaaaally super smart poli-sci major that got his girlfriend pregnant and flunked out of engineering school rationalize macro-scopic particle formations (atoms and higher) as being "non coincidental" and evidence for a god?

Because that is the only question on my mind.

It's the sheer quantity of coincidences that make me think there's something driving it.

It's like... existence itself is not only a coincidence, but a coincidence built on literally infinite other coincidences.

That so many things work so beautifully in cooperation and opposition to form this reality leads me not only to believe that it must occur in infinitely more realities, but that there is some actual reason to it.

That reason is where there's a bit of a line (and where you're attempting to lead me into a God of the gaps argument).

But here's a difference you seem to not be seeing: you're declaring that there's nothing, and that it's a fact. I'm not attempting to fill the gaps with God... that may or may not be the cause for "coincidence". You're stating outright that "coincidence"= nothing, as if you know for a fact that there's nothing causing that.

I'm thinking I should start calling you the Atheist of the gaps. You firmly believe that the cause of anything is "nothing," until that nothing is filled with a scientific understanding. At that point, your "nothing" argument becomes the next lack of understanding, until it's figured out as well.

Am I saying that eventually we're going to hit the wall that is "God"? No. I'm saying we *might*.

Are you saying we're eventually going to hit the wall that is "nothing"? Absolutely.


That got really broad, so let me clarify for you:

I don't see it as necessarily "non-coincidental." I see the coincidences as amazing, miraculous, Godlike, whatever term you want to attack at the moment.

I thought about having you fetch me some answers on the 4 major problems with any of the top ToE equations, but with your intellect, you would just solve the equations and put guys like me out of business! I mean, 15 minutes with google is all you need right?

You should have, you'd have at least made me concede that it has to be something reasonable to even explain the concepts behind within an hour, instead of taking the dog with your tail between your legs stumble away.

[kuronosan]

Phage Wars 2 | Armor Games

Here. Have at you.

[Neosutra]

I think you need to look up the difference between coincidence and probable occurance Plow.

You use words like coincidence and miracle to describe everyday things, and insinuate that "if something happens, then it was miraculous coincidence, because it had the possibility of not happening at all, and thus suggests there is a god!".

Really, like I said before: I may find it miraculous that Taco Bell gets my order correct, but that doesnt actually mean it was a miracle. You may find it "miraculous, or extremely coincidental" that life exists where the conditions that support it arise, but that doesnt mean it is a miracle.

You are basically saying "existance proves there is a god".

[Plow]

Your Atheist of the gaps concept of everything being absolutes is clouding your interpretative capabilities.


I'm not saying it's evidence there is a God, I'm saying it seems like there might be a God.


You're simply too lost at the concept of someone arguing that beliefs they don't hold themselves are ok; you're not being able to grasp the idea that I don't have to believe there is a God and be a Christian in order to attempt understand the beliefs themselves.

[kuronosan]

I think you need to look up the difference between coincidence and probable occurance Plow.

You use words like coincidence and miracle to describe everyday things, and insinuate that "if something happens, then it was miraculous coincidence, because it had the possibility of not happening at all, and thus suggests there is a god!".

Really, like I said before: I may find it miraculous that Taco Bell gets my order correct, but that doesnt actually mean it was a miracle. You may find it "miraculous, or extremely coincidental" that life exists where the conditions that support it arise, but that doesnt mean it is a miracle.

You are basically saying "existance proves there is a god".

Something that is miraculous is, by definition, what a miracle is.

There's a difference between a miracle of circumstance and a religious miracle. Morgan Freeman said it best in Bruce Almighty:

"You want a miracle, Bruce? Be the miracle."

Miracles aren't waving your hand and making water into wine, walking on water, or curing the sick by touching them.

Miracles are things that defy all current knowledge of a subject or understanding and yet still occur despite the odds. Discovering a cure for AIDS when nothing seems to work and everything seems lost would be a miracle. Some kid who grows up in a shitty neighborhood and then becomes a Nobel Prize winning scientific genius is a miracle.

Again, miracles occur when something that just seems so unlikely to occur suddenly or deliberately does at just the right moment. They're not religious at all... people have just adapted it to be that way.

[guartz]

That's funny. I thought a miracle is, by definition, divine intervention?

"They're not religious at all"

Is there some kind of a new age hippie movement to turn religious terms into politically correct terms? Damnit, where is George Carlin when you need him?

[kuronosan]

That's funny. I thought a miracle is, by definition, divine intervention?

"They're not religious at all"

Is there some kind of a new age hippie movement to turn religious terms into politically correct terms? Damnit, where is George Carlin when you need him?

Source: Merriam-Webster
Miracle
2: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment

[Tristam]

It's the sheer quantity of coincidences that make me think there's something driving it.

It's like... existence itself is not only a coincidence, but a coincidence built on literally infinite other coincidences.

That so many things work so beautifully in cooperation and opposition to form this reality leads me not only to believe that it must occur in infinitely more realities, but that there is some actual reason to it.

That reason is where there's a bit of a line (and where you're attempting to lead me into a God of the gaps argument).

But here's a difference you seem to not be seeing: you're declaring that there's nothing, and that it's a fact. I'm not attempting to fill the gaps with God... that may or may not be the cause for "coincidence". You're stating outright that "coincidence"= nothing, as if you know for a fact that there's nothing causing that.

I'm thinking I should start calling you the Atheist of the gaps. You firmly believe that the cause of anything is "nothing," until that nothing is filled with a scientific understanding. At that point, your "nothing" argument becomes the next lack of understanding, until it's figured out as well.

Am I saying that eventually we're going to hit the wall that is "God"? No. I'm saying we *might*.

Are you saying we're eventually going to hit the wall that is "nothing"? Absolutely.


That got really broad, so let me clarify for you:

I don't see it as necessarily "non-coincidental." I see the coincidences as amazing, miraculous, Godlike, whatever term you want to attack at the moment.




You should have, you'd have at least made me concede that it has to be something reasonable to even explain the concepts behind within an hour, instead of taking the dog with your tail between your legs stumble away.

I don't think coincidences mean what you think it does. I think you're conflating improbability with the existence of god and miracles. You're also proposing the argument from design, which, like others have said, is our way of thinking things are perfect because we're only capable of observing them. If you could see infrared light in addition to the visible spectrum you'd say the same thing. In fact, you would probably say the same thing if it were impossible for your brain to perceive light atall yet still proclaim your senses of smell and touch to be the most perfectly designed senses ever, how would you know the existence of a sense of sight to be better than what you have when evolution has quite obviously decided for us that it is more beneficial than our sense of smell.

Where you're ascribing a "reason" to an unknowable god, others would prefer to investigate the natural basis for the reason things exist. One methodology cannot provide any answer to the existence of things in the natural world, since it is by definition unknowable. If it *is* knowable, than it is subject to testing, which you claim it is not, so we defer to it being unknowable and unable to interact with the world. So when one methodology can make predictions and explain the universe we live in, while the other proposes nothing that can be known, why should they deserve equal opportunity in the marketplace of ideas? Why, in that case, assuming one desires knowledge about the natural world shouldn't one be an atheist? Or at least agnostic. Theism seems a bit absurd to me in that regard.

When we approach the study of religion from an atheistic perspective, we can begin to add up the good and bad influences on society brought about by the acceptance of religious beliefs. We live in a society where being theistic is the default, and is practically bathed in a warm glowing light by politicians and other public figures.

But the questions that need to be seriously addressed include: Can theism impede progress by stopping science (very much yes) and to what degree does this happen in theistic societies? Do theistic societies induce charitable giving and altruism (even I think there's some evidence for this)? To what degree is charity and altruism an innate aspect of human nature? Do the psychological benefits of belonging to a religious organization benefit more than belonging to other organizations? How can a society regulate and define what is considered "extremism" (The word of Jesus, in america, is practically the same as one's own personal opinion).

I don't think we live in a society where the above questions are likely to be answered scientifically and successfully communicated to the public. For the obvious reasons that a person speaking from the pulpit is not constrained by what happens in the natural world, and to their listeners they are just as (if not more) valid as someone drawing conclusions based on natural observations.

edit: for above talk on "miracles" I think if we define a miracle as a statistically improbably outcome, we can still propose natural means for that miracle, meaning that god is irrelevant with respect to improbabilities.

[guartz]

Source: Merriam-Webster
Miracle
2: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment

1: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs.


Question is, what was the point of your original post? To pass on the wisdom of Almight Bruce?

[kuronosan]

да, Guartz. To pass on the wisdom of almighty Bruce. That's my ultimate goal in all of this is to quote movies and get people to watch them.

[Plow]

tristam's post saddens me, but I'll have to get to it later, busy now ><

[guartz]

да, Guartz. To pass on the wisdom of almighty Bruce. That's my ultimate goal in all of this is to quote movies and get people to watch them.

Since we are on a topic, don't you love how that series portrays religion? There were two, I think, Evan and Bruce?

Here is the plot line.

You got these two guys, or are, oh, just too BUSY with their BUSY lives to believe in God! But ho ho ho, God has a plan for them! AND it's hilarious!

Personally, I wanna burn the script writers at the stake. Publicly.

[guartz]

oh Tristam and his logic.

Look here logic man, does your science provide me with an emotionally compelling reason as to why i'm alive?

Didn't think so.


Therefore, god.

[Plow]

Nah, it's just more of the same old anti-religious exemplifying everything they despise about religion by portraying their own impressions onto others.


It's amazing how many of these people can just completely ignore what you're saying and tell you you're saying whatever they don't like so that they can argue against it more easily.

[guartz]

That's assuming you know what your saying.

[Plow]

I know I'm not foolish enough to claim to know one way or the other.

And pretty much every argument they're making is that I'm claiming to *know* for a fact, because they themselves assume to know for a fact whatever they believe is true.

[guartz]

What you are doing is separating truth and fact. Which is quite reasonable, but not in the field of science, much like tristram pointed out.