People with higher IQ 'Less Likely to Believe in God' (1 Viewer)

[chaldoking]

Search and you will find - the amount of evidence for the existence of God is astounding. Naturalism is the worst possible solution.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

So I take it you believe in aliens, unicorns, centaurs, and other magical bullshit? It's not near sighted, it's realistic. People have claimed to have seen aliens, and in some cases can even provide 'evidence' to prove they've seen an alien, but we shun them away and call them insane because empirical evidence cannot be afforded. Just because they have a video tape of something they claim to be an alien, it doesn't mean it is an alien.

No, you are simplifying the issue. I don't believe in unicorns or centaurs as very obviously they are human constructions and would serve no purpose. Aliens, in the form of life on other planets I believe is possible. You act like there is zero evidence or reason for a god's existence. Take a look out the fucking window, read a book on biology and tell me you aren't amazed at what 'mother nature' (scientists word for when they don't want to admit a deity) has formed. An agnostic or an atheist is telling me respectively that it created itself or was created from nothing, all this intelligent design, or that we cannot tell.

 

[chaldoking]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-'less-likely-to-believe-in-God'.html





What do you guys think. Is a belief in god linked to your intelligence?<!-- / message -->

Of course it is - those with intelligence are more likely to believe. Why? Because God is wisdom and from wisdom stems intelligence.

 

[Numbers]

No, you are simplifying the issue. I don't believe in unicorns or centaurs as very obviously they are human constructions and would serve no purpose. Aliens, in the form of life on other planets I believe is possible. You act like there is zero evidence or reason for a god's existence. Take a look out the fucking window, read a book on biology and tell me you aren't amazed at what 'mother nature' (scientists word for when they don't want to admit a deity) has formed. An agnostic or an atheist is telling me respectively that it created itself or was created from nothing, all this intelligent design, or that we cannot tell.

And for all we know, a flying spaghetti monster could have created everything I see out the window. How can you be so sure that it is the actions of God which have created everything we see?

 

[chaldoking]

No, you are simplifying the issue. I don't believe in unicorns or centaurs as very obviously they are human constructions and would serve no purpose. Aliens, in the form of life on other planets I believe is possible. You act like there is zero evidence or reason for a god's existence. Take a look out the fucking window, read a book on biology and tell me you aren't amazed at what 'mother nature' (scientists word for when they don't want to admit a deity) has formed. An agnostic or an atheist is telling me respectively that it created itself or was created from nothing, all this intelligent design, or that we cannot tell.

Unfortunatley, many people are blind (spiritually that is).

 

[Enteebee]

God is very obviously a human construction, now whether there actually is a God of some type is another question... but your 'idea' of God is without a doubt nothing more than your construction. You are a being living in a reality of provisional truths trying to make assumptions about the nature of reality outside of that provisional reality. It is simply impossible (as far as I know) for you to be even close to right... Whatever mechanism of logic/knowledge/whatever you use will be a product of something within this provisional reality and may very well not at all represent what is beyond our current capability.

 

[chaldoking]

And for all we know, a flying spaghetti monster could have created everything I see out the window. How can you be so sure that it is the actions of God which have created everything we see?

Because God transcends time. Scientists are under the perception that there was an exact time in which the universe began, if so why have they been unable to explain exactly 'how it originated'? Furthermore, if the universe had an exact time in which it began, and scientists use the word matter - would matter not be transcendant - thus a belief similar to that of Aristotle in relation to God?

 

[TacoTerrorist]

And for all we know, a flying spaghetti monster could have created everything I see out the window. How can you be so sure that it is the actions of God which have created everything we see?

God in the context I am describing is not the Christian God but simply a being of high intelligence whose characteristics can only be defined by the methods used to create life. If this deity or 'God' physically looks like a flying spaghetti monster then so be it.

 

[chaldoking]

God is very obviously a human construction, now whether there actually is a God of some type is another question... but your 'idea' of God is without a doubt nothing more than your construction. You are a being living in a reality of provisional truths trying to make assumptions about the nature of reality outside of that provisional reality. It is simply impossible (as far as I know) for you to be even close to right... Whatever mechanism of logic/knowledge/whatever you use will be a product of something within this provisional reality and may very well not at all represent what is beyond our current capability.

How can God be a human construct, if God is transcendent?

 

[Enteebee]

Because God transcends time. Scientists are under the perception that there was an exact time in which the universe began, if so why have they been unable to explain exactly 'how it originated'? Furthermore, if the universe had an exact time in which it began, and scientists use the word matter - would matter not be transcendant - thus a belief similar to that of Aristotle in relation to God?

You don't understand what the scientists are talking about, for starters they only ever talk about the beggining of time for our observable universe. It is very well possible that there is something beyond this which is simply unobservable to us...

Take for instance 'cosmic microwave background radiation', in a trillion years time if there is a civilization on a planet somewhere in our universe they will be unable to observe the cosmic microwave background radiation, they will not know that the universe is expanding.

 

[Enteebee]

How can God be a human construct, if God is transcendent?

Transcendence is a human construct?

 

[TacoTerrorist]

...You are a being living in a reality of provisional truths trying to make assumptions about the nature of reality outside of that provisional reality. It is simply impossible (as far as I know) for you to be even close to right... Whatever mechanism of logic/knowledge/whatever you use will be a product of something within this provisional reality and may very well not at all represent what is beyond our current capability.

That is exactly what I think about your position.

 

[chaldoking]

You don't understand what the scientists are talking about, for starters they only ever talk about the beggining of time for our observable universe. It is very well possible that there is something beyond this which is simply unobservable to us...

Take for instance 'cosmic microwave background radiation', in a trillion years time if there is a civilization on a planet somewhere in our universe they will be unable to observe the cosmic microwave background radiation, they will not know that the universe is expanding.

Why should there be any universe at all?

 

[Enteebee]

That is exactly what I think about your position.

I don't make such assumptions. My point is that I stick to my provisional truths (useful analytical statements / empirical hetero-phenomenological experiences) and say that everything outside of that is meaningless as I simply have no way to construct meaning about any of it, so it may as well not exist, for I can know no better than that it does.

 

[chaldoking]

Transcendence is a human construct?

God transcends time. Time is a human construct.

 

[Enteebee]

Why should there be any universe at all?

Why should there be any god at all? I have no idea... maybe asking 'why' is pointless?

 

[HNAKXR]

arguing nebulous concepts at 4am
isn't life great

 

[chaldoking]

Why should there be any god at all? I have no idea... maybe asking 'why' is pointless?

God is love. God is truth. God is wisdom. God is hope.

 

[Numbers]

God is love. God is truth. God is wisdom. God is hope.

AHAHAHAHAHA! This seriously gave me an early morning laugh. Thank you.

 

[chaldoking]

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest?
by Rich Deem

No, this page is not about the 1975 movie staring Jack Nicholson. However, atheists are up in arms thinking that Professor Antony Flew has lost his mind. Flew, age 81, has been a legendary proponent and debater for atheism for decades, stating that "onus of proof [of God] must lie upon the theist."1 However, in 2004, Prof. Flew did the unheard of action of renouncing his atheism because "the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it."2 In a recent interview, Flew stated, "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." Flew also renounced naturalistic theories of evolution:

"It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism."3
​

In Flew's own words, he simply "had to go where the evidence leads."4 According to Flew, "...it seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before."2 Flew also indicated that he liked arguments that proceeded from big bang cosmology. However, Antony Flew does not believe in the existence of a good God who is involved in the lives of human beings, because of the problem of evil. He ascribes very much to the God of Einstein and Spinoza, who created the universe and life on earth and left the scene. He does not believe in an afterlife.
For a man who has spent decades promoting atheism, this decision came as quite a shock to atheists and theists alike. As a former agnostic, I followed a similar path through my undergraduate studies in biology. I became a deist in 1973 after realizing that the naturalistic theories on the origin of life were not plausible. Today, the evidence against abiogenesis is much stronger than even at that time. Therefore, I believe that, at a minimum, deism is the logical choice regarding the question of God.