Advertisement

Archive for Sunday, May 14, 2006

Creationist discusses science in public school

May 14, 2006

Advertisement

— It wasn't particularly unusual that a group of bored-looking high school students were rolling their eyes Monday morning at a geeky science dude making lame jokes like "It's 'amino acids,' not 'mean-old acids."'

It was, however, unusual that the teenagers were sitting in their public school's library and that the geeky dude giving them a different perspective on science was not a scientist at all, but an evangelical Christian representing an organization promoting a literal interpretation of the Genesis story.

"I'm here to talk to you today about what we know and what we don't know in the world of science," Mike Riddle, a biblical creationist from Answers in Genesis, told the first of six groups of students he addressed. "And to talk about the possibilities there."

Riddle had been invited to Potosi High and John A. Evans Middle School by Randy Davis, superintendent of the Potosi-RIII school district, and his board to discuss science with science students. During an hour-long presentation, Riddle never said the words "Jesus" or "God" or even "religion." Over and over he prodded the students to question established scientific principles and theories and encouraged them to think about a career in science.

Science educators, public school administrators, church-state watchdog groups and the creationist movement's practitioners themselves all agree it's rare that an evangelical group gains front-door access to science students in a public school setting. Answers in Genesis said since its founding 12 years ago, it had been invited into a public school only five times.

Because of the constitutional issues involved, creationists have begun seeking entry through schools' back doors, via the students themselves. In conferences and workshop across the country, typically held in church halls, Answers in Genesis holds training sessions for seventh to 12th graders. Many of the students who participate come from Christian schools or are home schooled. But some parents pull their children out of public schools to attend the afternoon-long sessions, according to Mark Looy, a vice president and co-founder of Answers in Genesis.

"One of our major teaching themes is to encourage kids to foster critical thinking skills," Looy said. "Sadly, public schools offer a one-sided view when it comes to science, and it's right for students to ask why they're only hearing one side."

Glenn Branch, deputy director for the National Center of Science Education, sees it differently. "They prepare students to ask questions to embarrass teachers when talking about evolution," he said.

Comments

xenophonschild 8 years, 7 months ago

"encourage kids to foster critical thinking skills." Oh please. You lying hypocrite scum.

And what critical thinking skills should students use inre your bible, that extensive piece of Jewish drivel? To believe that a man can be God; that man was created in God's own image; that natural physical laws that rule the universe can be abrogated by the mere will of a man?

No. Your time is over. You will not go quietly, but you will go.

gr 8 years, 7 months ago

xeno,

You seem angry. Ask yourself, why. Do you get this angry over the Easter Bunny?

"And what critical thinking skills should students use inre your bible, that extensive piece of Jewish drivel? "

Please explain. The article didn't say anything about using the Bible. In what way are they not fostering critical thinking?

Or are you just "kicking against the pricks of your conscience?"

gr 8 years, 7 months ago

"They prepare students to ask questions to embarrass teachers when talking about evolution," he said.

Hmmm. Are public school teachers so ill-prepared as to not defend "the faith"? Are they unable to answer questions from students about a "myth"?

xenophonschild 8 years, 7 months ago

gr & the remainder of the "faithful":

You poor deluded simpletons. Evolution is fact, not theory. It is as completely described as any phenomena in sciecnce; anyone who claims that evolution is not fact, is not established science, is either a liar or a fool, or both.

"Creation" is not science: it is religous. It seeks to replace the truth of science with the tired, worn lies of your Jewish bible. Anyone truly concerned with fostering critical thinking among the young should point out the myriad inconsistencies in your bible, and have them investigated.

No, gr, I'm not angry. Disappointed that, after three hundred years since the Industrial Revolution and the rise of empiricial science, there are still so many deluded people who continue to believe in mythological nonsense. People should pursure Truth relentlessly, and Truth is not to be found in your Jewish bible.

xenophonschild 8 years, 7 months ago

conservativeman:

Communism was a failed social/political/philosophical experiment. It was created in disgust over a heredity aristocracy; it became corrupt as it lacked checks and balances against human failings, and it died after imploding from almost continuous economic disasters.

The one - and perhaps only - thing I admired about communism was the dearth of religious nonsense allowed in Soviet society. The power of the Greek Orthodox Church was broken; Christianity will never recover there. For better or worse, Russia is a nation of secular humanists. While they are down now, in a generation or two, they will again be a significant power. We can only hope they will not disregard democracy entirely.

gr 8 years, 7 months ago

xeno: "anyone who claims that evolution is not fact, is not established science, is either a liar or a fool, or both."

But, evolution doesn't mean the same to everyone. You need to define it. While some parts of evolution IS fact, other parts are pure fantasy and conjecture. You can't generalize evolution nor creationists.

Science is facts. Evolutionists and creationists interpret those facts. Neither change the facts, though both invent some.

xenophonschild 8 years, 7 months ago

To get back to cases, creationism is a lie. It should be taught in church, in Sunday school, to the young and gullible. It has no place in public education, particularly when we need our best minds to keep us in the game of international economic competition.

China, Korea, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, and now India are trying to push us out of the international marketplace. We've pretty much lost the Muslim world to them; we can't afford to give up much more. If their students are better educated, better prepared - with the truth, not a gaggle of religious drivel - then they will outperform us, and America will no longer be the shining city on the hill.

xenophonschild 8 years, 7 months ago

gr:

I am a simple layman, not a scientist. You do not, must not, and are not allowed, to "interpret" evolution as you see fit. Two and two are four, period. You cannot "interpret" that two and two is nine. The truth of evolution can, and has been repeatedly, demonstrated by empirical science. I can lead you to websites and books, but somehow I imagine you're not all that interested.

Creation is a lie. Religions are mixtures of common wisdom and outlandish lies. If you choose to live your life believing a lie, then I feel sorry for you.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

"Xenophon:

"The one - and perhaps only - thing I admired about communism was the dearth of religious nonsense allowed in Soviet society."

Marx, Frued, Lenin, Stalin, Kruschev, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mao all shared that. You keep good company xenophon.

"The power of the Greek Orthodox Church was broken; Christianity will never recover there."

That would be "Russian Orthodox" xenophon, but my guess is that along with the rest of your Jesuit education, details were optional.

"For better or worse, Russia is a nation of secular humanists."

I'd say listening to your arguments, that would be for the worse.

"While they are down now, in a generation or two, they will again be a significant power."

Wishful thinking Comrade. Russian demographic collapse rivals that of France or Denmark. Russia may again be a superpower friend, it'll just be populated with Chinese of Muslims.

"Creation is a lie."

Be specific then. How did it all happen? You repeat the mantra. How about shutting us all up and telling us how the universe brought itself into existence and ordered itself toward consciousness genius?

If you have nothing more than speculative theoretical physics, Super Strings, or M-Theory, that stand no hope of actually proving reality at T-minus Big Bang, then you my friend are a member of a faith group.

xenophonschild 8 years, 7 months ago

Lepanto 1571:

Wondered when I'd hear from the local Scholastic.

For almost five centuries, the Russian Church was one of the metropolitanates (hope I got that right) of the Greek Orthodox Church at Constantinople. The head of the Russian Church was appointed by the patriarch of the church in Constantinople, although I believe the Byzantines eventually let the Russians run their own Church. In any event, when the Turks captured Constantinople, the Russian Church became independent. It may have done so a few years prior, but no matter. The Russian Church was, and still is, essentially Greek Orthodox.

Who knows the truth about the universe? Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose can take us back to the Big Bang, and a few theoretical physicists (Greene, notably) offer up compelling theories, but no one knows for sure. It would help a lot if we knew more about dark matter and dark energy.

From my studies, and favorite theologians (Spinoza) I wonder if the universe is like an internal combustion engine that contracts - gravity eventually squishes all matter to a size smaller that the dot on this "i" - then, when it reaches a certain density and heat - a trillion trillion degrees - it explodes.

This is where the sublime majesty of God becomes evident. The formation of stars, exploding supernovas, all the essential amino acids and materials (carbon, iron, magnesium) for creating life being showered throughout the universe randomly, but adequate to start life in hospitable environments. Why is life created? Who knows? But scientists believe that other life forms, perhaps even other civilizations are myriad in the universe, maybe even in our own galaxy.

I'm searching for contemporary theologians who can make some sense of what modern science is telling us about the universe, and how that plugs into God. I believe that God is an "It," not a he/she. It is an abstraction, like Love or Beauty or Justice - that controls matter through natural physical laws. It does not care about human beings any more than it does any other life form. It is not possible for a human being to have a "personal relationship" with God, just as it is not possible to have a personal relationship with gravity or electromagnetism . . . unless you're falling in space without a parachute, or have a nano-second before your hand touches a "hot" power line.

xenophonschild 8 years, 7 months ago

Lepanto 1571:

I am amused that you admire Thomas Aquinas. It may very well be that, were he alive today, he would not be a Christian - for he loved reason too dearly - and would probably be a secular humanist enthralled with all we're discovering in the universe.

And I wonder why you give allegiance to a supernatural religion when you, too, admire reason. Any attempt to establish Christianity by reason is doomed to failure, for to do so implicitly acknowledges the authority of reason.

And one thing my Jesuit masters taught us was that Aristotle's philosophy was a Greek gift to Christendom, a Trojan horse concealing a thousand hostile elements. I owe you a debt of gratitude, for I had forgot that every civilization worthy of the name has had to make accomodations with Aristotle. It was Avicenna and Averroes, as well as Aristotle, who infected Christianity with the germs of rationalism.

learn 8 years, 7 months ago

Remember Galileo was asked by the church to proclaim that the earth is not round? Theologian in religion cannot be applied to scientific enquiry.

Please refer to this article from Einstein: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/einstein_religion.html

gr 8 years, 7 months ago

xeno: "Creation is a lie."

That is not a fact. You cannot prove creation is a lie any more than I can prove it is true. Although, I believe there is more supporting evidence for creation than not.

"Two and two are four, period. You cannot "interpret" that two and two is nine."

"But scientists believe that other life forms, perhaps even other civilizations are myriad in the universe, maybe even in our own galaxy."

That's not "two and two", but an interpretation / speculation. Notice the word, "believe". ;-)

Another example: The age of the earth, the age of life, the age of a fossil is not a fact. That is an interpretation of facts. That is, "two and two is nine".

GardenMomma 8 years, 7 months ago

Five words: Separation of church and state.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

Xenophon,

The Russian Orthodox Church is, well, Russian. The Eastern churches are ethnic. They are "Greek" only in that they celebrate the Divine Liturgy of Chrysostum or variants other than the Latin Rite. Other than that, they are a Russian church and were the lapdog of not patriarchs, but Premiers.

The rest of your answer is an excellent opinion. I would add Steven Weinberg Martin Reese, and John Gribbin, not to mention Brian Greene (who's two book I thoroughly enjoyed) to your list of distinguished theoretical physicists. The one common thread through them all is that despite grand theories of reality, those theories remain just that: theories.

I am more than willing to play by the rules of science. You prove your version of a natualistic reality that is observable, testable, measureable, verifiable, falsifiable and repeatable and you'll have a convert. Science has no legitimate claim (by submission to its own rules, as certain things will always be 'behind the veil') in its promise to provide a comprehensive explanation of reality and hence a superior worldview. It's rules are too narrow and its language insufficient to deal with ultimate questions.

But what you offer, as I say, is a wonderful opinion; but an opinion it reamins.

Empirical proofs are what your worldview demands, lest you are forced to accept certain things on faith. Since faith is required to believe as you do, what separates you (specifically) from the Christian? What particularly qualifies you to deem Christianity "a lie" and your version of naturalistic reality "the truth?" There is no necessity in your belief system.

xenophon: "I am amused that you admire Thomas Aquinas. It may very well be that, were he alive today, he would not be a Christian - for he loved reason too dearly - and would probably be a secular humanist enthralled with all we're discovering in the universe."

Regarding Aquinas, again, an unprovable opinion. But it does show that you are re-discovering him for the giant he is. What are we discovering in the universe that marginalizes the Christian God? Disproves Aquinas' precepts? Specifically.

"And I wonder why you give allegiance to a supernatural religion when you, too, admire reason. Any attempt to establish Christianity by reason is doomed to failure, for to do so implicitly acknowledges the authority of reason."

Is it your contention that God is unreasonable? Aquinas (and Aristotle) say this is impossible. If God is an abstraction as you say, and He is the universe (reality) (as Spinoza contends) then reality is an abstraction and is apart from itself. Please explain how this would be reasonable.

Learn:

"Remember Galileo was asked by the church to proclaim that the earth is not round? Theologian in religion cannot be applied to scientific enquiry."

Galileo was not asked to proclaim any such thing. Galileo was asked to put up or shut up regarding helio-centrism.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

C-man,

You are a gentleman sir.

You're as sharp as Cicero, as argumentatively formidable as Erasmus and as strong-willed as a barbarian king. In short, a real man in a dopey mall child world of effeminate GQ models, and one I'd trust on my flank on a hot LZ.

Not to mention the bonus that your piercing humor whips the disciples of State into a predictable hysteria and emotional meltdown, which, of course, amuses me to no end.

Respectfully,

Lepanto

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

GardenMomma,

"Five words: Separation of church and state."

Interpreted: "No Church and all State."

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

Magdalena, aka holygrailale,

"Your compliments to conservativeman were flowery but I wouldn't trust a person who admits in his profile that he plagiarizes without guilt. Perhaps you haven't read his profile."

"Barbarian king." This is flowery?

Willingly admitting to plagiarizing without guilt (and claiming otherwise in the blogosphere is most likely a severe compromise of integrity) is probably a problem for you (probably like evil). Where I come from we call that forthright and honest.

BTW, you really forego any legitimacy to criticise trustworthiness with your "Fundamentalist Top Ten" above from EvilBible.com. I noticed no citation. PERHAPS you should add "plagiarizes without guilt" to reclaim your integrity and be more careful in throwing stones toward those in whose "crimes" you most certainly share guilt.

"If the beginning of knowledge is the awareness of ignorance, then agnosticism is no vice but a state of clarity."

Then as you admit, I'll accept it as a state of intellectual immaturity. We certainly agree here.

"Inconsistent Triad."

I suppose you would prefer an enslaved will?

gr 8 years, 7 months ago

Ale: "So if I tell you that I will lie to you, that makes me honest???? I guess only if I share your politics."

What does that make you if you DON'T tell us that you will lie to us?

shanefivedyes 8 years, 7 months ago

Hypocrite - The feigning of beliefs,or virtues one does not hold. Source Webster Dictionary

gr 8 years, 7 months ago

Ale: "Evilbible.com is an interesting site."

Any specific lie you have questions about?

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

Magda,

"During this discussion, we have learned that the Almighty allows evil. Either he is one twisted mofo, or he's not Almighty."

Why are either of these necessities? Be specific.

"God can not be God and his antithesis at the same time."

Is God now to be understood as "creation?"

"Catholics call anything they can't explain "a Mystery"."

And scientists call it a "theory" or "hypothesis?"

Why are these superior terms?

Please give us a detailed brief on the nature of reality an instant prior to the Big Bang complete with testable, measurable, observable, falsifiable, and repeatable empirical evidence.

Or would you like continue the self-delusion that your worldview is above burdens of proof?

I look forward to your response.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

In short Magda,

I've noticed you incapable of actually answering questions. You're posts are replete with triumphalism and diversion when pressed, a sure sign of one who has only a meager grasp of the subject matter. If I'm wrong, I look forward to your correction.

Let me repeat my questions to you:


"During this discussion, we have learned that the Almighty allows evil. Either he is one twisted mofo, or he's not Almighty."

Why are either of these necessities? Be specific.

"God can not be God and his antithesis at the same time."

Is God now to be understood as "creation?"

"Catholics call anything they can't explain "a Mystery"."

And scientists call it a "theory" or "hypothesis?"

Why are these superior terms?

Please give us a detailed brief on the nature of reality an instant prior to the Big Bang complete with testable, measurable, observable, falsifiable, and repeatable empirical evidence.

Or would you like continue the self-delusion that your worldview is above burdens of proof?


I look forward to your response (again).

I realize we are talking about evil Magda. It is you who refuse to engage the topic actually. I am more than willing to discuss it and you are diverting (I've noticed from reading your posts that this is a compulsion of yours). I saw no sign at the entry of this thread that afforded Magda a monopoly on questions. Did I miss something or are you just an intellectual coward and refuse to answer for your (supposedly superior) epistemology like your buddy xenophon?

As far as calling names, you making that assertion only makes you look more like the insincere hypocritical fool you are not-so-slowly proving youself to be.

After all, your reputation as a dishonest hypocrite plagiarist has been established and you've been spinning like a top trying to bury it, so what else should I expect?

As I don't see the paradox, what specifically is a liability to an all good, omniscient, omnipotent God, in evil being present in this creation (universe)? You're the one who has given us the Inconsistent Triad, I just don't see the inconsistency. Please explain, in detail.

If you're scared Magda, just say so! If not, explain to "enlighten," so we can move toward this seemingly hyper-reasonable epistemology you possess. Certainly it must be grand, as only an unassailable view of reality could justify such pedantic displays of adolescent contemptuous dismissiveness and a fast-talking arrogance that sees itself above actually answering questions.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

Magda,

Nice try to cut and run.

But I will add that attempting to correct grammar and punctuation is YET ANOTHER SIGN of not being able to actually grasp the subject matter, so you feel compelled to correct such and DIVERT again. These seem the only errors you are capable of actually correcting, so nice job.

Why are you so openly exhibiting your adolsecence (there's a mispelling for you)? I was looking for a worthy opponent. Apparently it won't be you.

Magda: "I'm sure that you can inform all of us of the religious or philosophical doctrine I've proposed that you assert is triumphant over Christianity."

That's the issue Magda, you and your ilk feel you are somehow exempt from criticism or analysis and seek justification through negation; hence the retreat into agnosticism and the narrowing of your mind to time, space and matter. Invoking the IT is hardly an assertion against a benevolent God and you know it. While a fun parlor trick like asking if "God can make a rock so big that he can't lift it?", it disproves nothing. Pure adolescent nonsense.

So I'll ask you some more questions regarding evil regarding your worldview being validated by the IT, that you won't answer and will only add further evidence as to what I say regarding you:

What freedom would there be in only a compulsion toward the good?

What meaning could you possible even place on good without its privation?

Does evil have the final say or does it serve a purpose toward the good?

Can good be brought from evil?

What demand of necessity is there placed upon God to oppose freedom, even if he were Love?

More to the point for you as an agnostic, is the problem confronting you by attempting to assume away God, by somehow making him liable for evil:

The problem of good.

Where does that fit in for you?

...not to mention, beauty, love or self-sacrifice, as mere side subjects.

BTW, I'm glad to hear you respect Merton. He gets it mostly right with the exception of his dabbling in pantheism later in life. I assume your "respect" extends only as far as is convenient and not to the point of actually attending Mass as he did?

I'm fully aware of the Inconsistent Triad, what I'm testing is to see if you do; or if you are merely parroting something you actually have little knowledge of and use only as a punch-line.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

Magda: "Until you see or understand the paradox, you have no basis upon which to address the subject.

Contact a priest at your local Catholic parish. They'll be happy to help."

Translated: holygrailale can't explain it and must predictably dismiss any adversary who presses him.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

I've read each of these. I question whether you have. You seem unable to synopsize into a coherent argument. You may cut and paste, correct grammar and cite websites ad infinitum, that doesn't mean for a minute that you have a clue as to what you're talking about.

Judging from your responses (or lack), I would say you don't.

No grammar to correct so you are left in the pitiable position of having to let a website speak where you can't?

Let me repeat:

Magda,

Nice try to cut and run.

But I will add that attempting to correct grammar and punctuation is YET ANOTHER SIGN of not being able to actually grasp the subject matter, so you feel compelled to correct such and DIVERT again. These seem the only errors you are capable of actually correcting, so nice job.

Why are you so openly exhibiting your adolsecence (there's a mispelling for you)? I was looking for a worthy opponent. Apparently it won't be you.

Magda: "I'm sure that you can inform all of us of the religious or philosophical doctrine I've proposed that you assert is triumphant over Christianity."

That's the issue Magda, you and your ilk feel you are somehow exempt from criticism or analysis and seek justification through negation; hence the retreat into agnosticism and the narrowing of your mind to time, space and matter. Invoking the IT is hardly an assertion against a benevolent God and you know it. While a fun parlor trick like asking if "God can make a rock so big that he can't lift it?", it disproves nothing. Pure adolescent nonsense.

So I'll ask you some more questions regarding evil regarding your worldview being validated by the IT, that you won't answer and will only add further evidence as to what I say regarding you:

What freedom would there be in only a compulsion toward the good?

What meaning could you possible even place on good without its privation?

Does evil have the final say or does it serve a purpose toward the good?

Can good be brought from evil?

What demand of necessity is there placed upon God to oppose freedom, even if he were Love?

More to the point for you as an agnostic, is the problem confronting you by attempting to assume away God, by somehow making him liable for evil:

The problem of good.

Where does that fit in for you?

...not to mention, beauty, love or self-sacrifice, as mere side subjects.

BTW, I'm glad to hear you respect Merton. He gets it mostly right with the exception of his dabbling in pantheism later in life. I assume your "respect" extends only as far as is convenient and not to the point of actually attending Mass as he did?

I'm fully aware of the Inconsistent Triad, what I'm testing is to see if you do; or if you are merely parroting something you actually have little knowledge of and use only as a punch-line.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

Magda:

"I'm truly disappointed. Conservativeman had such high hopes you'd "kick my ass". I thought I would meet up with a student of history instead of a redneck yahoo. I was wrong."

Yeah, you were wrong alright.
Wrong in thinking that you could slough off tripe and deem it original and profound.
Wrong to think that a few hyperlinks to websites would cover your inadequacies.
Wrong in thinking you actually knew what you were talking about. Wrong in thinking yourself above scrutiny. Wrong in thinking that diversion was an effective technique of argumentation. Wrong in being contemptuously dissmissive when pressed.

All in all, you are correct that you were wrong. We have found something in which we agree.

Whenever you feel you have the seeds to actually make an argument, you feel free to get back with me.

If you were actually search for a "student of history," I've given you plenty of opportunities to actually seek an historical argument on numerous other threads. Based upon your performance here, you may want to avoid real embarassment.

You were very clear in your instructions that IT was a philosophical and theological issue. As we never even discussed the theology of the matter, I fail to see where we would could have even gotten to the history of the thing. Did you actually want to discuss the history of the IT and were just unclear perhaps? Or again are you diverting because I deemed you, at present, not a worthy opponent and you felt the need to flatter me through imitation?

How have my "credentials" as an historian been compromised here? Be specific.

Which particular argument of history would you like to divert to? This didn't seem to work out too well for you.

As for being a "redneck?" Care to expound. If it be true, then that bodes very poorly for you. You don't need me to kick your ass Magda, you managed that masterfully all on your own.

My challenges remain and, I expect based upon your argumentative method, will go unheeded.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

Magda,

You sound punch-drunk.

Let's get back to the subject. You've quoted Kreeft in his problem statement but fail to acknowledge his four point solution to the supposed "problem of evil."

Can you explain the ommission? Is Kreeft wrong on any point? If so, why? If not, why didn't you cite his solution?

I await your reply.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

Nice duck Magda, don't want to tackle your Kreeft citation I guess?

Let me repeat, it seems to discuss anything with you that is something one must be prepared to do.

Let's get back to the subject. You've quoted Kreeft in his problem statement but fail to acknowledge his four point solution to the supposed "problem of evil."

Can you explain the ommission? Is Kreeft wrong on any point? If so, why? If not, why didn't you cite his solution?

I await your reply.

Observer, this really is a conversation for adults. Duh-Vinci Hoax will be out on Friday. Your speed would be more like finding a line forming somewhere so you can scarf up the tickets and continue to line the pockets of a neo-feminist fraud?

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

Magda,

While you're pondering Kreeft, and accusing your adversaries of name-calling yet seeing no hypocricy in using terms like "scotch-drinker" or "redneck," how about re-tackling questions you have refused to answer from earlier. While you had hoped they had faded away, I still remember them as not being answered.

What freedom would there be in only a compulsion toward the good?

What meaning could you possible even place on good without its privation?

Does evil have the final say or does it serve a purpose toward the good?

Can good be brought from evil?

What demand of necessity is there placed upon God to oppose freedom, even if he were Love?

More to the point for you as an agnostic, is the problem confronting you by attempting to assume away God by somehow making him liable for evil:

"The problem of good."

Where does that fit in for you?

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

Then Magda,

Feel free to expound upon your "looking for a history student" comment, which was wierd in this discussion and the reason you think me a "redneck."

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

(1) "First, evil is not a thing, an entity, a being. All beings are either the Creator or creatures created by the Creator. But every thing God created is good, according to Genesis." (A) That only takes us back to the Problem. How can good creatures chose to commit evil??? Defective design??? Defective manufacture???


Because they possess wills free to choose. Again why would you desire compulsion? In your view "good" is defined as forced compulsion to the good as opposed to freely choosing it. How can freedom now be determined as "defective?" Freedom is defined by choice. If we were compelled toward the good, there could be no choice in the matter, hence no freedom to choose. That's why I asked you in the beginning if you preferred an enslaved will.

(2) "Second, the origin of evil is not the Creator but the creature's freely choosing sin and selfishness." (A) This is like blaming a creature's poor manufacture or design on the creature itself. This is God saying to a creature: "It's not my fault I made you so poorly." I find such a denial of responsibility suspect in a diety.


I would be suspect of a Diety that compelled my will. Without choice there can be no freedom. You aren't opposed to freedom certainly. Is there an inherent defect in choice? I can't contemplate a universe where freedom can truly exist without the power of choice. "Poorly made" connotes here no freedom and no choice.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

(3) "God's solution to the problem of evil is his Son Jesus Christ. The Father `s love sent his Son to die for us to defeat the power of evil in human nature: that's the heart of the Christian story." (A) This is the most sick and twisted part of the Christian myth. Strong words, I know, given the amount of emotional baggage involved but do this thought experiment: Replace God with yourself and Jesus Christ with your child and you'll see how fu*ked up God is in the Calvery incident. Believe me, any religion that thinks it's ok to allow your son to get nailed and dead on a cross without massive retaliation is too twisted for words.


(Another spelling error holygrail in "Calvery," would you prefer I overlook it for what it is, or would you prefer me accuse you of some sort of "losing your composure" nonsense at this point of describing emotional baggage?) Why? It's not so much that you are appalled by the idea as you are afraid it might be true? Was Jesus just some poor bastard peasant? If so, I'd be glad to take a look at your evidence.
It also tells the story of evil. The Creator allows Deicide to atone through sacrifice for the failure of obedience (the easiest of all Christian doctrines to believe through everyday observation) of the ancestral parents.
Is reparation possible without sacrifice even in your everyday life? Is "I'm sorry" enough when you break a window or must it be repaired to make full amends? Is justice satisfied without giving of something back? Using a mind experiment, imagine God the Uncaused Cause of reality; perfect will, perfect oneness, perfect love, perfect justice. How is justice accomplished for such? Only He could repair that rupture of justice, and if the story of Jesus is true, He did. The Cross explains the reality of evil, as well as the suffering of the innocent and guiltless. If you don't believe in the Cross, it is easy to see your antagonism toward the existence of evil.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

  1. Omitted due to length:
    The "we are not good people" denies the creation by a good God. It bypasses the act of sin and dooms us de facto. The suffering of innocents and children are examples of arguments against this proposition. "Who's to say that suffering is not bad". Well, I guess that works in an S&M parlor in SF, but not as a basis for a world created by a good God. "Who's to say that we know all of God's reason" is a cosmic "Shut up and sit down, kid. You bother me." A proposition that truly is mere negation. Kreeft's final "solution" to the problem of evil is "Trust God".

Do God's human creatures possess wills? If so, how are they to exercise that will if compelled to obedience?
"Good" you continue to define as basically an enslaved will. If not please explain. I still don't see the inconsistency here. We can't know the will of God any more than we can know how the universe came into existence using science as the language of explanation. This is not unreasonable. Even scientists admit they do not know things.

You are left with the unenviable proposition of equating "good" with an enslaved will as I proposed at the beginning. Oh you'll be good in whatever way that would be defined, but you will be so without the freedom to choose such.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

Magda,

"You submit that freedom is the ability for God to be Almighty, All-knowing, All-powerful, All-good and yet irresponsible."

Please demonstrate where I submitted this.

gr 8 years, 7 months ago

(Hate to but in on such a pleasant conversation y'all have going, but here goes:)

Ale: "gr:

What did I lie about???

I thought Evilbible.com was an interesting site??? I made no claims regarding the veracity of anything there.

What are your thoughts as to why there is evil in the world???"

You seem very defensive. I realize others accused you of lying. You said the site was interesting, and I was tying in that "interest" with the accusation, but I am perplexed as to why you thought my statement accused you of lying. I was only asking which of the site's lies you wished to discuss.

=====

"During this discussion, we have learned that the Almighty allows evil.

Either he is one twisted mofo, or he's not Almighty.

Which is it??"

Suppose you were the almighty and created life and humans. What would you do if your creation questioned if you knew what you were doing? If they dared to suggest they were equal to or greater than you?

=====

"Believe me, any religion that thinks it's ok to allow your son to get nailed and dead on a cross without massive retaliation is too twisted for words."

"massive retaliation" - sounds kind of evil to me. What are you saying? God should be evil if it's "for a good cause"?! Hatfields and McCoys?


"By the way, I asked a question a long time ago that is relevent now.

Where is a place in the universe where God does not exist???"

God is all around you. But do you suppose He may not be in your heart? What would you think of a God who forced Himself upon you against your will? Would you be saying, "aw, that's ok, because that shows He's all powerful"? Or would you hate Him that much more? God will keep trying to reach people, and even against their will. But, there reaches a point (ever hear of the unpardonable sin?) where rather than continue torturing people (as you may think), He will respect their wishes and butt out of their lives. He will do His strange act, which is very much unlike Him, and allow the person to keep Him away from them. And, what will that result be?

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

holygrail: "You're pulling the "freedom" card out like it's a get-out-of-jail card in a Monopoly board game."

What card would you have me pull so you don't have to actually prove your assertion of an inconsistency? Shall I just throw softballs, so you can feel good about yourself? Again holygrail, if the presence of evil is an inconsistency, there could be no freedom of will, only compulsion. If I am wrong, I suggest you pinpoint my error and elaborate. Your entire argument has come to this. The very point I began with.


holygrail: "God can't be the source of all creation and be flawed at the same time. Very simple logic."

The presence of evil has not been established as a "flaw," only and "inconsistency" that based upon mitigating factor offered herein may simply be misunderstood. You accuse me of "redefining" terms, when it is you who has failed to define terms at all. And if the logic is so simple you should have long established it. If you wish to divert this to my inabilities, feel free; then you should make light work of correcting me. I think we are finding that this inconsistency is not as simple for the agnostic as you contend.

"By the way, I don't define Good as an enslaved will. How you can is bizarre but I'm not responsible for your madness."

Yes you do define it as such.

How can "Good" have any meaning without its privation? If there is no privation of Good, there can be no choice between Good or its privation. If there is no choice, there is compulsion. If there is compulsion, there is no freedom. If there is no freedom, there is enslavement.

Had God not created our wills to be free, then the inconsistency of His love could be brought into question. Our wills would be compelled and we would be forced to His will. The freedom to choose between good or evil would not exist and we would be as slaves to a master.

Back to my original question: Would you prefer the compelled will required of this fantasyland alternate universe of yours?

gr 8 years, 7 months ago

Posted by holygrailale (anonymous) on May 17, 2006 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

gr:

What did I lie about???

Notice the time stamp. Which comes last? Which comes first? Without a reference to what you're referring to, I assumed your response was to the most recent post. Is that out of line?

Besides, either way, I still didn't say you were lying. I was calling you on your logic.
Missed that? ================

"Your theology is that of the "imaginary friend" God. A Superman-like character who files around and watches from above.

It's immature."

Expected you would say that. Was hoping you'd answer my question about what YOU would do.

I believe God is limited. Actually, He limits Himself. It's back to what would YOU do. That would be a resulting contrast, don't you think? Once you explore that outcome, we can continue with the idea of God's limits. You are saying one way is "bad", but you haven't said which way is "good". Share with us how you would go about it.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

holygrail.. Nice tactic: post quick with adolescent stupidity and cover a post you have no hope of actually answering with any semblance of intelligence.

Let me repeat the challenges stated below.

You're only recourse at this point is "moron" since you are quite check-mated.

Nice intellectual response BTW holygrail. "Moron" really moves people's intellects. You are most definitly punch-drunk. But for the sake of fairness:

holygrail: "You're pulling the "freedom" card out like it's a get-out-of-jail card in a Monopoly board game."

What card would you have me pull so you don't have to actually prove your assertion of an inconsistency? Shall I just throw softballs, so you can feel good about yourself? Again holygrail, if the presence of evil is an inconsistency, there could be no freedom of will, only compulsion. If I am wrong, I suggest you pinpoint my error and elaborate. Your entire argument has come to this. The very point I began with.


holygrail: "God can't be the source of all creation and be flawed at the same time. Very simple logic."

The presence of evil has not been established as a "flaw," only and "inconsistency" that based upon mitigating factor offered herein may simply be misunderstood. You accuse me of "redefining" terms, when it is you who has failed to define terms at all. And if the logic is so simple you should have long established it. If you wish to divert this to my inabilities, feel free; then you should make light work of correcting me. I think we are finding that this inconsistency is not as simple for the agnostic as you contend.

"By the way, I don't define Good as an enslaved will. How you can is bizarre but I'm not responsible for your madness."

Yes you do define it as such.

How can "Good" have any meaning without its privation? If there is no privation of Good, there can be no choice between Good or its privation. If there is no choice, there is compulsion. If there is compulsion, there is no freedom. If there is no freedom, there is enslavement.

Had God not created our wills to be free, then the inconsistency of His love could be brought into question. Our wills would be compelled and we would be forced to His will. The freedom to choose between good or evil would not exist and we would be as slaves to a master.

Back to my original question: Would you prefer the compelled will required of this fantasyland alternate universe of yours?

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

holygrail: I find it beyond funny that the only person here referencing Catholic websites / Aquinas, quoting Catholic authors and directing people to parish priests for further education is ...................the agnostic.

I find if funny that this is all he can do. He certainly cannot defend himself or his "insconsistency."

Questions stand, you're ducking and everybody sees it.

And when you do actually articulate a rational response then we can get around to the "problem of good" we spoke of earlier.

gr 8 years, 7 months ago

Ale: "What I am doing right now is fixing lunch and blogging.

Are you asking me to pretend to be a superhero? Haven't done that since the playground in 1st grade."

You seem to be doing quite a bit of typing to pretend you are too busy to answer questions. And you seem to try to be evading the question. Attempts at distraction is not helpful.

Back to the question. You can pretend all you want. Some think you are good at it. Isn't that what science is doing in projecting back in non-recorded history? Isn't that what you are doing by saying you know a better way? I'm just asking you to explain your assertion of why you think God's way is bad -- as opposed to what way?

Again: You are saying one way is "bad", but you haven't said which way is "good". Share with us how you would go about it.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

HG, again nice attempt at diversion and, in effect, admitting defeat.

Get back to me when you muster the seeds to actually debate.

You have shown your colors here my friend. I'm not the only one to have seen it.

Yes, you are arguing from the Catholic playbook, you're just doing a poor job of it. You still show minimal comprehension and remind me of a little league football player attempting to interpret the KC Chiefs playbook.

You're dismissed.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

HG,

While we all feel sorry for you in your search for validation, I see no sincerity in your "feel sorry for me post." You are hollow, dishonest, dismissive when pinched, mean-spirited, and a hypocrite. Read your log sometime for a bush-up of your methods in your "deep search for truth."

But, I would like to say in all seriousness,

You're dismissed!

You can go home now. School's out.

gr 8 years, 7 months ago

"used their minds like I did"

So, why refuse now?

"why the interest????"

Because, I think you realize that the alternative would indeed be evil. (Hitler and others tried it) That's why you are refusing to iterate it. If someone says God doesn't know what He is doing and there is a much better way, why wouldn't I be interested?

You know, I think I'm starting to side with the others....

wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

HG,

You still wish to debate? Good. Maybe you actually will this time.

I approve of your tone, except for the stupid invocation in your last sentence. But I digress...

HG: "I merely presented the Problem of Evil as a challenge to the internal consistency of the Christian faith."

And it has been forwarded that the "problem" doesn't appear to be nearly as problematic as you "presented" complete with an examination of the alternatives.

Need I go back and repaste yet again? You are not beyond burdens of proof HG no matter the entitlement you claim, as there is no neutrality in philosophy.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

C-man and 7.5,

Since holygrail won't discuss his agnosticism, I offer each of you an excerpt of one of Chesterton's many pieces on agnosticism. Chesterton demonstrates that agnosticism is intellectual gutlessness. Very telling of our trysts with holygrail.

"Complete Agnosticism is the obvious attitude for man. We are all Agnostics until we discover that Agnosticism will not work. Then we adopt some philosophy, Mr. Blatchford's or mine or some others, for of course Mr. Blatchford is no more an Agnostic than I am. The Agnostic would say that he did not know whether man was responsible for his sins. Mr. Blatchford says that he knows that man is not.

Here we have the seed of the whole huge tree of dogma. Why does Mr. Blatchford go beyond Agnosticism and assert that there is certainly no free will? . He wishes no man to be blamed for sin. Therefore he has to make his disciples quite certain that God did not make them free and therefore blamable. No wild Christian doubt must flit through the mind of the Determinist. No demon must whisper to him in some hour of anger that perhaps the company promoter was responsible for swindling him into the workhouse. No sudden scepticism must suggest to him that perhaps the schoolmaster was blamable for flogging a little boy to death. The Determinist faith must be held firmly, or else certainly the weakness of human nature will lead men to be angered when they are slandered and kick back when they are kicked. In short, free will seems at first sight to belong to the Unknowable. Yet Mr. Blatchford cannot preach what seems to him common charity without asserting one dogma about it. And I cannot preach what seems to me common honesty without asserting another.

Here is the failure of Agnosticism. That our every-day view of the things we do (in the common sense) know, actually depends upon our view of the things we do not (in the common sense) know. It is all very well to tell a man, as the Agnostics do, to "cultivate his garden." But suppose a man ignores everything outside his garden, and among them ignores the sun and the rain?"

See the entire piece is at:

http://www.chesterton.org/gkc/theologian/whychristian.htm

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

C-mand and 7.5,

I wanted to point you to a source for exploring the naturalistic worldview of the agnostic. Of course I would have sent it to holygrail, but adding to his burden would be immoral at this point, as he couldn't contend with my cross-examination; and reading the authors below would certainly put him in a padded room.

Philosophy of Science and the Impossibility of Epistemological "Neutrality" and "Objectivity" (Especially Within Materialist or Logical Positivist Presuppositional Frameworks)

Here are the essay titles and authors:

I. William P. Alston: What Is Naturalism, That We Should Be Mindful of It? II. Dave Armstrong: Atheist and Christian Presuppositions and "Dogmatism" III. Dallas Willard: Knowledge and Naturalism IV. Michael Polanyi: The Structure of Consciousness V. Michael Polanyi: Transcendence And Self-Transcendence VI. Michael Polanyi: The Stability Of Beliefs VII. Michael Polanyi: Philosophy of Science Website Article VIII. Charles E. Hummel: Michael Polanyi and "Personal Knowledge" IX. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Stephen Thornton): Sir Karl R. Popper X. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (John Preston): Paul Feyerabend XI. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (A.D. Irvine): Alfred North Whitehead XII. John Henry Newman: Christianity and Physical Science XIII. Thomas S. Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions XIV. Edwin A. Burtt: The Doctrine of Positivism XV. Thomas S. Kuhn: Scholastic Theology and the Copernican Revolution

They are listed one after the other at: http://web.archive.org/web/20030604150349/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ520.HTM Enjoy!

gr 8 years, 7 months ago

Ale: I'm not trying to proselytize on this forum.

I haven't said that there is an alternative "better way". I have said nothing of the sort. Nice try.

Summarizing your "thought" patterns:

"The Almighty allows evil." "Either he is one twisted mofo, or he's not Almighty." "I haven't said that there is an alternative "better way". "

Could you explain how you aren't?

If someone says something is "bad"/evil/twisted "mofo", then doesn't it mean they know, or at least think they know, what is good and better? How would they know it's bad or evil? Please tell me what's wrong with this thinking.


"People with limited knowledge of science, like GR, haven't figured out that, if you have to change the name of your "Spontaneous Generation" four times in the last one"

HA! I was right! You ARE Kodiac!
Doesn't LJW have some policy against using multiple names?

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

Gr,

One thing that is common when dealing with the Triumphalist, is that actually declaring "a way" makes them liable and opens them up to having to provide burdens of proof. Negation is their only method of debate, which is, of course, as you are succinctly pointing out, intellectual cowardice.

It's best to let them claim their little victory (as their whole identity is tied to it) and live in their self-delusion; as pulling them out of a false sense of superiority would be like trying to make a street-walker on crack, turn straight.

Regards,

Lepanto

C-man, I do hear a buzzing sound now that you mention it.

gr 8 years, 7 months ago

"trying to make a street-walker on crack, turn straight."

You are so funny!

Actually, I'm looking forward to her denial of prior identity. Think she'll answer back?

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

Gr,

"Think she'll answer back?"

My guess is yes.

You've seen the beaten, wounded, fat lipped, bloodied, slit-eyed eyed fighter: Way too punch-drunk and full of pride to not stagger back to center-ring.

Kodiac 8 years, 7 months ago

Just for the record people,

As much as I want to, I cannot claim to be the holygrailale. As for any other thoughts regarding the above subject matter, I have nothing to say....

The One and Only, Your Buddy, Kodiac

gr 8 years, 7 months ago

"People with limited knowledge of science, like GR,"

I don't recall discussing science with you in this thread.

So, Kodiac, why didn't you want to talk about mumps?

gr 8 years, 7 months ago

And I guess that would imply "disscussion" and "limited knowledge"?

Come on, Kodiac. Why did you single ME out for that statement versus the others?

Again: You are saying one way is "bad", but you haven't said which way is "good". Share with us how you would go about it.

gr 8 years, 7 months ago

Excellent tactic!

Back to pretending that it's a dictionary definition and only ignorants wouldn't know what they are.

And, pretending to have not a clue of the past conversation nor any idea of what the ignored previous requests have been. Just a poor little innocent bystander who's being accused. Boo Hoo.

Bravo!!!

wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

Gr,

"Here's an exercise: Count how many times I've had to remind all of you of the subject of this article and the subject of my contribution topic.

Reorientating fellow bloggers to the subject at hand. I've had to do it more than I should have."

I feel sorry for the poster formerly known as holygrailale. She really ought to cry about it a bit more. What a burden of triumphalism she suffers under.

We need to find her a cross to crawl up on and nail herself to! She's so misunderstood; so burdened by dealing with so many stupid people; so burdened by frantically working to cover her inabilities.

She ought to just change her name to "Drama Queen."

I would ask her a question, but that is something she is averse to, so I'll ask you Gr:

Here's an exercise: "count how many times the poster, formerly known as holygrailale aka "Drama Queen," diverted the subject matter. Then go back and count the number of times she failed to answer posed questions. Then, just for fun and laughs, go back and count the number of times Drama Queen was so interested in the subject matter that all she could offer was HAHA. Then, for additional entertainment count the number of times Drama Queen accused someone of something and was found guilty of the same.

Not only is Drama Queen an established plagiarizer and an acknowledged hypocrite, now she has proven herself a first-class whiner.

The only card she has left is playing the victim.

The real fun has just begun.

Boo hoo, weep, sob. Poor wittle Dwama Kween.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

C-man,

Did you want to try my exercise?

Count how many times the poster, formerly known as holygrailale aka "Drama Queen," diverted the subject matter.

Then go back and count the number of times she failed to answer posed questions.

Then, just for fun and laughs, go back and count the number of times Drama Queen was so interested in the subject matter that all she could offer was HAHA.

Then, for additional entertainment count the number of times Drama Queen accused someone of something and was found guilty of the same.

Oh, here's an additional one: Count the number of times the poster formerly known as holygrailale accused someone of name-calling, then proceeded to name-call.

It's a laugh riot. The first one is right of above you.

gr 8 years, 7 months ago

Lepanto: "Here's an exercise: "count how many times the poster, "

1912345+

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

7.5,

I ran across this comment from the poster formerly known as "holygrailale" aka "Drama Queen:"

"Once Lepanto conceded defeat, there was little point in continuing."

Clear proof of expedient citation and lack of integrity, not to mention delusional sociopathology. Logic dictates that it would be impossible to admit defeat against someone who hasn't even shown up to debate.

On to your your relevant commentary:

"Hence, this Being is creator of all things, including the universe. By it's very nature, It is not contained to the spatial limitations of it's own creation."

A true statement and one that Drama will not contend with. The Cause must reside outside of the Effect. Spinoza proceeded from an error here and it is one that continues to be perpetuated by the likes of Drama Queen, and Xenophon for that matter, who will not debate me on this subject. Drama Queen won't contend with it either; no seeds for real debate.

All you will get is spam posting from her in a futile attempt to shout you down, and (of course):

"HAHAHAHAHAHA"

Which in her acknowledged attempts at self-pity should really be interpreted as:

WAAAAAAAAAH, WAAAAAAAAAAH

So, becasue of the above and her clear lack of mental stability thinking I would ever admit defeat to what has been a one sided argument in my favor, I'd be glad to continue this discussion with you as its comprehension still resides above her.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

7.5,

Did I tell you that the poster formerly known as "holygrailale" was so perplexed earlier and deficient for any response that she was reduced to actually having to correct my spelling and grammar?

Oh, and then she turned around and made grammatical errors a few posts down.

A laugh riot and a dead give-away for masking one's argumentative inabilities.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

7.5,

Did you happen to notice if the poster formerly know as "holygrailale" ever got around to contending with the problem of good in a chance and randomly mutating universe?

All I've seen from her lately is HAHA, so I will assume she will continue to duck, dodge, divert and displace. No reason to think based exhibited perfromance, that she's going to muster the integrity (or seeds for that matter) to actually attempt debating hard topics.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

7.5,

I made a grammatical error in the proceeding post. My apologies.

Perhaps I've provided an opportunity for the poster formerly known as "holygrailale" to dazzle us with her mental acuity.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

Drama Queen, aka "poster formerly known as 'holygrailale,'"

Drama Queen: "I enjoy conversation or debate on any of those subjects but if you are here to proselytize the Intelligent Design mythology, then you should not bitch if your religion is exposed for what it truly is."

Where have I "proselytized the Intelligent Design mythology?" Be specific.

What have you exposed? Evil as a problem? Not yet.

You have yet to explain with any precision the problem you have inherited with necessity of evil in the scheme of freewill, which relates directly to your original challenge. If there is an error of logic, I look forward to your correction.

Then you have not even acknowledged the counter challenge of "the problem of good" with which you must contend.

So why should I believe for an instant that you "very much enjoy science, religion, philosophy and mythology."

There is no neutrality in philosophy, so let's explore the above questions, which are natural derivatives of the "problem of evil."

ASBESTOS 8 years, 7 months ago

Conservatism does not = Creationism.

The Kansas "Conservatives" are NOT conservative in anyway shape or form.

Getting into government control of the local school? Not COnservative Establishing Religion by government action? Not Conservative

Mindlessly ignoring scientific principals and advancements? Not Conservative.

Ignoring the economic downslide Kansas is experiencing because the world thinks Kansas is Stupid?

Not Conservative.

Putting Religious issues before CONSERVATIVE INTERPS. OF THE CONSTITUTION and VIOLATION OF STATES RIGHTS issues?

NOT CONSERVATIVE.

This is the only RED state that is SOCIALIST.

Subsidized agriculture and illegal immigrant support by whom?

Non other than Sam Brownback!

Again NOT CONSERVATIVE.

Just because you choose to bang on a Bilbe does not a CONSERVATIVE make.

It makes you socially prudish and dull, but not a conservative.

Godot 8 years, 7 months ago

Of course Kansas is socialist. The largest employer in Kansas is the government, government employees are allowed to hold elected office while remaining government employees, and many do. What else would you expect, but a culture "of the government, for the government and by the government."

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

C-man,

Agree. I've been waiting, but to no avail.

From the poster fromerly known as holygrailale, aka Magdalena, aka Drama Queen:

"Say 'Good Night,' Lepanto."

Not much of a response for one who: "very much enjoy science, religion, philosophy and mythology." But then again, as you'll see below, her only recourse.

That was the response by her given to my:

"You have yet to explain with any precision the 'problem of evil' or the problem you have inherited with the necessity of evil in the scheme of freewill, which relates directly to your original challenge. If there is an error of logic, I look forward to your correction."

OR:

"You have not acknowledged the counter challenge of 'the problem of good' with which you must contend." (Which I'd be glad to explain in depth, of course, but I don't think need to as I'm sure she has googled it and found it insurmountable.)

And my summation to her:

"There is no neutrality in philosophy, so let's explore the above questions, which are natural derivatives of the 'problem of evil.'"

So, her silence comes from necessity C-man. She can't answer without looking the fool and exposing her epistemology for what it is: faith-based and unreasonable.

Respectfully,

Lepanto

gr 8 years, 7 months ago

"We haven't done anything even remotely resembling a debate on the nature of knowledge."

Well, deery, I think you've ensured that.

gr 8 years, 7 months ago

Ale,

There are many speech and debate classes you can take. They will emphasize ideas such as "supporting ideas".

Don't expect us to help educate you on basic conversation.

Again, enroll in a class. Maybe even take what's called a basic core requirement. It will be very helpful to you.

gr 8 years, 7 months ago

Hey, I think ale says "good night" when someone catches her at her own game.

We have power, but the lights aren't shining.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

Epistemology is at the very heart of this debate Magdalena.

Just because you provide a definition doesn't mean you have clue as to what you are talking about.

Nature, source, and scope of knowledge. The only talent you have is sourcing and reading; comprehension and use is another story.

How is evil a problem for the creationist and its privation not a problem for you? What sources of knowledge gives you a pass in answering? Qhat source of knowledge justifies you in not accepting the answers offerred herein?

And the questions continue... (to your embarassment, of course).

Keep posting please, you are my best ally in this argument.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

Magda:

"Knowledge itself wasn't the focus of the debate. A diety (God) was. Very different subject. Had you knowledge of what epistemology is the study of, you would have known that."

How to "know" that God is very much the subject of this debate.

How to "know" good and assign it meaning is very much the subject of this debate.

How one is to "know" anything is very much the subject of this debate.

I'm shocked you don't acknowledge the most basic fundamentals of this discussion.

Magda: "Hell, earlier in this debate, you weren't even aware that the theological Problem of Evil even existed."

Is that why I immediately asked you if you "preferred an enslaved will?" You've offerred nothing to refute: How can "Good" have any meaning without its privation? If there is no privation of Good, there can be no choice between Good or its privation. If there is no choice, there is compulsion. If there is compulsion, there is no freedom. If there is no freedom, there is enslavement.

Had God not created our wills to be free, then the inconsistency of His love could be brought into question. Our wills would be compelled and we would be forced to His will. The freedom to choose between good or evil would not exist and we would be as slaves to a master.

Magda: "Then you tried to artificially create a "Problem of Good" by merely replacing "evil" with "good" in a phrase."

OK, now we're getting somewhere holygrail:

If good is not a problem as you contend under a naturalistic epistemology (there can be no neutrality), perhaps you could explain for us all it's (good) necessity in a self-generating, randomly mutating universe! Everything must lend itself toward necessity and survival. If not, please explain.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

holygrailale: "Your prose contrived. This has been noted on other threads. It's the prose of someone who wants to appear intelligent but all it does is make you look foolish. Your last paragraph is a case in point."

And what particularly in that last paragraph makes it "a case in point?"

Here's the paragraph:

"If good is not a problem as you contend under a naturalistic epistemology (there can be no neutrality), perhaps you could explain for us all it's (good) necessity in a self-generating, randomly mutating universe! Everything must lend itself toward necessity and survival. If not, please explain."

Feel free to explain, if you think you can. If there is an error, please correct.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

holygrailale,

"I don't expect you to put two and two together but have you figured out what I do for a living, schmuck???"

That would be "you 'two." Magdalena. Ouch, that's gotta hurt.

A little nervous that your performance won't match what are now elevated credentials?

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

Magda, you are correct. My apologies. Look on the bright side, I offered you a freebee in order to divert.

Now back to the issue:

holygrailale: "Your prose contrived. This has been noted on other threads. It's the prose of someone who wants to appear intelligent but all it does is make you look foolish. Your last paragraph is a case in point."

And what particularly in that last paragraph makes it "a case in point?"

Here's the paragraph:

"If good is not a problem as you contend under a naturalistic epistemology (there can be no neutrality), perhaps you could explain for us all it's (good) necessity in a self-generating, randomly mutating universe! Everything must lend itself toward necessity and survival. If not, please explain."

Feel free to explain, if you think you can. If there is an error, please correct.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

Nice opinions grail. You've pulled the "I'm smarter than you card," yet seem unable to bring it to bear.

Some of the most unreasonable and unmovable idiots I have ever known held graduate degrees. Many teach in university. Some are doctors. Possession of an advanced degree is a piece of paper. One may hold medical degrees and nimbly and competently repair the human body, that does not make them doctors of philosophy, medieval historians, subject matter experts in cannon artillery, or well grounded in answering ultimate questions.

You assume a position of neutrality. If you doubt it, review your techniques of evasion when I try to pin you down.

Regarding epistemology grail, it bears much on this issue. If your source of knowledge resides solely within the natural, and is limited to the empirical, then you are a naturalist. You are clearly a naturalist. They typically hold their education above their heads and render anyone who opposes them a "moron." It is relevant to the topic as you will see.

The "problem of evil is only a problem if you fail to accept the reasonable answers offered.

Why do you not accept Aquinas' position (Part 1, Q 3, Article 3) (quoting Augustine) that God overcomes the "problem" of evil by bringing good out of it? That is a theological answer grail. As a naturalist, (hence the relevance) it would be insufficient because it lacks empirical evidence (although it could be argued from observation). You have noted that Christ, as the Son of God on the Cross, was the most "sick and twisted" part of Christianity. Yet, theologically, the necessity is crystal clear as foreshadowed by the Levitical Law.

So, as you are inclined to a naturalistic source of knowledge, you don't accept theological answers; anymore than I accept than M-Theory explains the generation of our universe.

So, sensing this, explanations from reason were offered through everyday observation: "How can "Good" have any meaning without its privation? If there is no privation of Good, there can be no choice between Good or its privation. If there is no choice, there is compulsion. If there is compulsion, there is no freedom. If there is no freedom, there is enslavement."

Ultimately, reality ended up with humans possessing free wills and not compelled wills, which certainly must be "good." This sums-up my original challenge to you regarding this matter:

"Would you prefer an enslaved will?"

You have yet to point out an error of logic here (or answer the question for that matter).

So I questioned your alternative grail. As a naturalist, living in a cold, random universe:

"If good is not a problem as you contend under a naturalistic epistemology, perhaps you could explain for us all it's necessity in a self-generating, randomly mutating universe! Everything must lend itself toward necessity and survival. If not, please explain."

gr 8 years, 7 months ago

Do Re Mi.... Maybe she's a music teacher. One who sings songs in circles.

Ale, glad you brought this up again. You never answered it before. Maybe you thought we'd forget? Here' is the question again. Please don't go around in a circle again. We all know how you worked before, how about answering it this time rather than wiggling out of it? We know you have a very active imagination, so feigning inability (to that aspect, anyway) won't work.


"During this discussion, we have learned that the Almighty allows evil.

Either he is one twisted mofo, or he's not Almighty.

Which is it??"

Suppose you were the almighty and created life and humans. What would you do if your creation questioned if you knew what you were doing? If they dared to suggest they were equal to or greater than you?

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

holygrail, you might be educated, but you seem completely inept in this discussion at actually bringing it to bear in this conversation.

You've called us all idiots, but are desperate in not answering the following:

"If good is not a problem as you contend under a naturalistic epistemology, perhaps you could explain for us all it's necessity in a self-generating, randomly mutating universe! Everything must lend itself toward necessity and survival. If not, please explain."

Perhaps "I'm educated" works as an argument ender with your students, here we see little evidence of it, beyond a cetrifugal ability to spin.

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

grail, I need your expertise!

You have commented to C-man:

"You, indeed, have many, many deficiencies. My ten year old knows of what you've just demonstrated ignorance."

Here are my questions:

Shouldn't there be a colon or semi-colon between "demonstrated" and "ignorance?"

Or:

Should the noun "ignorance" be converted to the adverb "ignorantly?"

Or:

Should you insert the word "as" (I think use here would be as a preposition) between "demonstrated" and "ignorance?"

Regardless, don't we have run-on sentence?

gr 8 years, 7 months ago

"And you believe in that crap????"

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.

I believe the question was: Suppose you were the almighty and created life and humans. What would you do if your creation questioned if you knew what you were doing? If they dared to suggest they were equal to or greater than you?

and not what you thought of God. Would your response indicate you would do the same thing?

"God created an imperfect sinful world but you still want God to be perfect. Doesn't work that way.

Either God is imperfect (which makes him not God) or...... God is a figment of your imagination (which makes him a myth)."

We have not established God created an imperfect sinful world. Is that your opinion, someone else's, or do you have some other basis for it? I believe your construct is how they prove 1+1=0: The base assumption is flawed.

gr 8 years, 7 months ago

Ale,

Be sure to check out the thread, "Science scores falling". I think your contributions would be very.....ummm.... well, shall we say, enjoyable?

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

holygrail:

You argue from asserting things arbitrarily and ASSuming them facts (and these just keep piling up). To wit:

"Christianity is a myth."

Care to prove that one? Oh, I forget, your vaunted "education" places you above burdens of proof as we have all seen in your performance herein. How convenient and cowardly. You really have very little confidence, but do spin masterfully.

No matter the number of times you state you are having the better of it in this discussion, it does not equate to it actually being so.

Due to your inability to actually prove much of what you say means at this point, you are merely making arbitrary assertions; which are, of course, being arbitrarily rejected with each attempt at diversion when pressed.

Why should we believe what you assert?

Is there some compelling evidence you have yet to provide?

This just shouldn't be that hard for an "educated" person. As an aside, arguing from negation grail, typically results in more questions (which you are showing no ability to answer at present).

Lepanto1571 8 years, 7 months ago

grail:

You have no compelling proofs I see. Nice try anyway.

Would this be akin to scientists who can't agree on interpretation of empirical evidence. Do all scientists agree on all matters?

"Remember??? I've been the one directing you to go to school, see your priest, see your minister, take a philosophy or science class, read a book."

In other words we shouldn't believe what YOU assert!

"You don't have to have "faith" in knowledge."

I regret you have no faith in science as a language why which to gain knowledge. That's sad. I hadn't realized the depth of your nihilism.

gr 8 years, 7 months ago

illing ale:

"We have not established God created an imperfect sinful world. Is that your opinion, someone else's, or do you have some other basis for it?" ---- gr

=======

More straight ahead contradiction from the clowns.

========

In Christian theology, sin begins in the Garden shortly after creation.

Did you spend time reading about that or do I have to refer you to the Gideons as well??


I'm having a serious problem with where you came up with "straight ahead contradiction" - other than more of your conclusions-on-a-whim. I only negated what you said.

I suggested that maybe God did NOT create an "imperfect sinful world" [sic - as opposed to a perfect sinful world?!] You said, in "Christian theology, sin begins in the Garden shortly after creation." Wouldn't a reasonable person (oops, guess that's not the case) conclude that if sin began AFTER creation, there was none AT creation?

Note: There are many classes in basic logic you could take at your local highschool. You really should so the rest of us don't have to keep correcting you.

gr 8 years, 7 months ago

Ale: "The meaning of my statement is that knowledge requires no belief or faith."

Wow! Another "special" statement.

Why wouldn't you bite over on the other thread? You could "spice" things up over there. I'm sure you have many more "special" statements you could use.

gr 8 years, 6 months ago

Guess you got me there. I wondered where you come up with your hairbrained stuff and then in the next breath state "conclusions-on-a-whim". I guess I don't think through my words.

Speaking of not thinking through, are you able to carry on a conversation more than one sentence and follow it? Do you understand "create" is different than "creation"? How do you think it "broke"? Have you read the first few chapters in Genesis?

"all actions can be traced back to God"

Which comes back to you refusing to answer the ongoing question. If you think God did such a bad job, how should He have done it? Once you explore that.... You probably are afraid to.

Ball? My friend says it's rojo. He doesn't believe you. You must not have knowledge.

gr 8 years, 6 months ago

How does the phrase go:

"If you make your bed in Heaven, he's there. If you make your bed in Hell, he's there. He's everywhere."

And where does that come from? Not the Bible.

"How do I think God should have created the universe???

You forget. I'm the agnostic in this conversation."

Didn't you say you were a teacher? Don't you ask your kids to use their imaginations? I remember studying fiction and the teacher asked us why a certain character did such-and-such. We would fail if we said it was a fictional character and therefore we couldn't say.

"Remember the Ten Commandments??? The movie."

Movies don't reflect what fiction books are like, let alone anything in the Bible. It'd be silly to base one's view of religion on a movie.

============

"If sin is "separation from God", then that implies that it is possible to separate from God."

Actually, I don't think you are understanding something. If it is NOT possible to separate from God, then that would mean we do not have the choice. And, if we do not have the choice, then we are not free-willed, free-thinking people. We are mere robots or puppets. Can you imagine a god who creates like that? One who says his creation praises him? For what point would creation be?

Do you give your students choices in the classroom? What if they were programmed to learn, obey you, parrot back what they're told. Is there any point of you?

gr 8 years, 6 months ago

"It's funny that you claim that people in the real world are just parroting scientific claims."

"Your claim that teaching in science is just parroting of something that an arrogant scientist dreams up in some storeroom somewhere is just placing the paradigm of your own religion upon public science education."

Please, DO elaborate! I'm very interested in how come you make this stuff up.

gr 8 years, 6 months ago

So, you are stereotyping me with what you hold in your mind for everyone you disagree with?

Yeah, I could see how you could make that up, then.

gr 8 years, 6 months ago

Getting confused which thread you're posting on is another to add to "the list". Lepanto needs to add, "taking statements out of context", too.

Hence, there is no wining or losing.

westcoastmama 8 years, 6 months ago

someone posted : Believe me, any religion that thinks it's ok to allow your son to get nailed and dead on a cross without massive retaliation is too twisted for words.

this almost sounds like someone who thinks the war is OK.. i mean, if someone hurts some one you love, say... flys a plane into a building or something hidious like that, that "massive retaliation" would be acceptable?

I don't know if i should post more on this particular subject. Gods hasn't told me what to say about it yet. i guess He'll send me a KNEE mail later... ;o) belief in God takes faith. Faith really doesnt' have to use words.

I have felt evil and I have felt God. the God feeling is better, evil feels slimy and creepy.

Xeno... if you smoke a lot of the magic weed, you can sometimes get a better feel for God. I love a good mystery.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.