I Like Pope Francis

[Chinahand]

Evolution by natural selection does not preclude divine intervention. I don't see what your problem is with this. If the window of possibility is open for extraterrestrials to screw around with our development, why not God?

 

I would give absolutely nothing for the theory of Natural Selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent. … If I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory … I would reject it as rubbish.

Charles Darwin

 

Over extraterrestrials screwing around with DNA - well I think Larry Moran summed up the scientific arguments for such theories. Link

[Thomas Jefferson]

 

Evolution by natural selection does not preclude divine intervention. I don't see what your problem is with this. If the window of possibility is open for extraterrestrials to screw around with our development, why not God?

 

I would give absolutely nothing for the theory of Natural Selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent. … If I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory … I would reject it as rubbish.

Charles Darwin

 

Over extraterrestrials screwing around with DNA - well I think Larry Moran summed up the scientific arguments for such theories. Link

 

Miraculous "additions" don't factor into my thinking on evolution by natural selection. I believe life itself is a miracle.

[Albert Tatlock]

I believe life itself is a miracle.

You're certanly one in a million...thankfully.

[Gladys]

Sounds like an Aldi advert.

[Chinahand]

Evolution by natural selection does not preclude divine intervention. I don't see what your problem is with this. If the window of possibility is open for extraterrestrials to screw around with our development, why not God?

 

Miraculous "additions" don't factor into my thinking on evolution by natural selection. I believe life itself is a miracle.

You are such an inconsistent poster, I do basically believe you are just an attention troll with basically no coherent philosophy behind your posting - if you are a Deist then you don't believe in an intervening Miracle working God. Such a being is remote, and basically unknowable, or are you going to claim from observing the universe you can provide some characteristics of your Supernatural Prime Mover? Please do enlighten us - erm actually maybe not.

[Thomas Jefferson]

 

Evolution by natural selection does not preclude divine intervention. I don't see what your problem is with this. If the window of possibility is open for extraterrestrials to screw around with our development, why not God?

 

>>Miraculous "additions" don't factor into my thinking on evolution by natural selection. I believe life itself is a miracle.

You are such an inconsistent poster, I do basically believe you are just an attention troll with basically no coherent philosophy behind your posting - if you are a Deist then you don't believe in an intervening Miracle working God. Such a being is remote, and basically unknowable, or are you going to claim from observing the universe you can provide some characteristics of your Supernatural Prime Mover? Please do enlighten us - erm actually maybe not.

 

 

The original spark which created the universe or multiverse was and is a miracle according to the dictionary definition. As for your claims about such a deity being remote or unknowable, that is really not the case when you factor in the kabbalistic idea of the tzimtzum (the universe being created as a contraction of the divine light) in which God is both distant and near. You might want to read up on gnosticism before you try your usual obsessive compulsive need to label everyone according to your own limited paradigms.

[Chinahand]

As for your claims about such a deity being remote or unknowable, that is really not the case when you factor in the kabbalistic idea of the tzimtzum (the universe being created as a contraction of the divine light) in which God is both distant and near.

Glad to see your Deepity generator is working - if it ever fails you can always try out this one.

[Thomas Jefferson]

 

As for your claims about such a deity being remote or unknowable, that is really not the case when you factor in the kabbalistic idea of the tzimtzum (the universe being created as a contraction of the divine light) in which God is both distant and near.

Glad to see your Deepity generator is working - if it ever fails you can always try out this one.

 

And you call me a troll? What does Deepak Chopra have to do with anything?

[Lxxx]

 

 

As for your claims about such a deity being remote or unknowable, that is really not the case when you factor in the kabbalistic idea of the tzimtzum (the universe being created as a contraction of the divine light) in which God is both distant and near.

Glad to see your Deepity generator is working - if it ever fails you can always try out this one.

 

And you call me a troll? What does Deepak Chopra have to do with anything?

 

It's a lazy dig from a pseudo-intellectual, patronising troll.

[Thomas Jefferson]

An expanded explanation...

 

It's not just kabbalistic either; you can find the gnostic idea of God being simultaneously imminent and distant in Meister Eckhart's writings or in the Theologia Germanica (we don't know who wrote that) which are late medieval Christian. Except those two have the addendum miracle of the Incarnation and Resurrection, which is why I thought I would leave Christian gnosticism aside as it only complicates things -- or at least provides lots of red herring ammo to hurl at me. If Christianity really regarded God as this imminent force which can intervene and perform miracles at will, why would there even be a need for the Incarnation? Why go through all the effort of being born as a human being and dying on a cross? Why not just miraculously create a human form and die? And it's not just contradiction. Clearly things are more complex than your straw man understanding of Christian theology might suggest. All the miracles performed in the Old Testament were not done by God but through angels. This indicates that God cannot interact directly with physical creation. The reason for this is because in order for the physical universe to exist, God had to "withdraw" his "presence" from a set point, otherwise nothing would exist but God and so life wouldn't be capable of forming or being independent of God. You have to conceptualise two realities: one where nothing exists but God, and then one where nothing exists but God and an area (the universe) which is enabled to exist because God has withdrawn his presence. That means God is distant and doesn't engage with the universe, except through intermediaries -- angels. On the flip side of this idea, is the notion of divine sparks, in which human beings each contain a "part" of God, which goes back to the Genesis account of God creating man and woman in his "image". Not a visual image but more a "I think therefore I am" sentience type of image. And that means there is a contraction within a contraction going on; God is present and immediate within living beings which naturally evolved in a universe in which God is distant and doesn't interact (because such a universe couldn't exist otherwise). I am sure the same idea is in Hinduism and I know it's in Sufism.

[Chinahand]

What has Chopra got to do with it? He uses exactly the same techniques your Kabbalists are using. They are using deepities, you were using deepities, Chopra uses deepities.

This type of language does not advance understanding, it just mushes.

As Dan Dennett says

:

Deepities are the tag lines of Theology and Theologians are the spinmeisters of religion.

Dennet lists the Canons of Good spin:

It is not a bare faced lie,
You have to say it with a straight face,
It has to relieve scepticism without arousing curiosity
and it should seem profound.

What you are posting up fits that perfectly.

[Thomas Jefferson]

I think if you go back and re-read my post, you'll find that although you may not agree with any of it, or might think it completely absurd, you are just being disingenuous by calling it "mush". There was nothing vague or mysterious about what I said.

[Chinahand]

I think if you go back and re-read my post, you'll find that although you may not agree with any of it, or might think it completely absurd, you are just being disingenuous by calling it "mush". There was nothing vague or mysterious about what I said.

You call it absurd, I call it mush - the main point is that it has no content. What you are posting about is totally vague and deliberately shrouded in the mysterious - you are quote Kabbalah FFS!

 

My replies are in red.

An expanded explanation...

 

It's not just kabbalistic either; you can find the gnostic idea of God being simultaneously imminent and distant in Meister Eckhart's writings or in the Theologia Germanica (we don't know who wrote that) which are late medieval Christian. Except those two have the addendum miracle of the Incarnation and Resurrection, which is why I thought I would leave Christian gnosticism aside as it only complicates things -- or at least provides lots of red herring ammo to hurl at me.

[Different sects and writers producing woo doesn't stop what they are writing woo - no content so far]

 

 

If Christianity really regarded God as this imminent force [what does this really mean? How it is known that this is the case - it is irrelevent how Christians regard God, I can regard him as being made of quantum gluons, the question is whether there is any evidence that this is accurate] which can intervene and perform miracles at will, why would there even be a need for the Incarnation? [ there is no point asking me this, ask a Christian, I feel Christian redemption is totally inconsistent - link]

 

Why go through all the effort of being born as a human being and dying on a cross? Why not just miraculously create a human form and die? And it's not just contradiction. Clearly things are more complex than your straw man understanding of Christian theology might suggest.

 

All the miracles performed in the Old Testament were not done by God but through angels. [All? Really? God never intervenes directly - burning bushes, having a chat with Moses, carving tablets etc etc. Also why are you assuming an Iron Age book is an accurate source of information - great legends, stories and wisdom literature, but lots of superstition, genocide and justifying human social behaviour and organization totally at variance to modern ideas of community too. Sorry but why should I take any of this as being useful evidence for the supernatural? Based on what?]

 

This indicates that God cannot interact directly with physical creation. [it does nothing of the sort - firstly I am pretty certain you are wrong in your view that the God of the Old Testament can only intervene via angels, but even if the Bible did show that all it shows is that is what Jewish Chroniclers etc believed about God - it indicates what Iron Age Jews believed about God and nothing else]

 

The reason for this is because in order for the physical universe to exist, God had to "withdraw" his "presence" from a set point, otherwise nothing would exist but God and so life wouldn't be capable of forming or being independent of God. [No that is not the reason for any of this - that is something you have to demonstrate not assert. Why would a God have to withdraw, why would that mean nothing exists but God - Pantheists disagree with you, why are they wrong? You've stated that life is divine, but now say God has to be separate from life in order for to be life - contradictions upon contradictions based on assertions which are based on empty deepities - what is a set point, how does God "withdraw" - would you call it absurd? I call it mush]

 

You have to conceptualise two realities [why? On what basis? - because you or some person says so? That isn't a good enough reason]: one where nothing exists but God, and then one where nothing exists but God and an area (the universe) which is enabled to exist because God has withdrawn his presence. [why is the universe "enabled by God's withdrawl - what does this mean, how do you know this, on what basis?]

 

That means God is distant and doesn't engage with the universe, except through intermediaries -- angels. [Ditto - why does it mean that? How do you know this is so, you are asserting on no basis but pretending you are making a logical argument, you are not]

 

On the flip side of this idea, is the notion of divine sparks, in which human beings each contain a "part" of God, which goes back to the Genesis account of God creating man and woman in his "image". [No, Genesis is not the origin of this superstition - it is far older and exists independently in many other cultures, but again so what - how do you know humans contain this? Based on what evidence, why only Humans and not other self aware, communicating, tool using animals - chimps, dolphins etc - what evidence exists to justify these beliefs - I contend none, though I'm sure you'll provide more fake logic and deepities to tell me I'm wrong]

 

Not a visual image but more a "I think therefore I am" sentience type of image. And that means there is a contraction within a contraction going on; God is present and immediate within living beings which naturally evolved in a universe in which God is distant and doesn't interact (because such a universe couldn't exist otherwise). I am sure the same idea is in Hinduism and I know it's in Sufism. [Yes, all religions rely on self contradictory, unevidenced woo to justify them making massively over grandiose statements about issues where it would be far more honest to simply say we do not know. It really is fascinating, I am accused of being arrogant and creating a straw man, but it is you who are claiming to understand the relationship between God and the Universe. PZ Myers did it best, sorry but what you are presenting is simply a Courtier's Reply to the little boy pointing out the Emperor is not wearing any clothes.]

[Thomas Jefferson]

[quilp]

God....

 

 

 

 

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/God_is_dead

 

 

 

 

 

 

?