User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 73

  1. #11
    The Eighth Colour Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    Aeon
    Enneagram
    10w so
    Socionics
    LOL
    Posts
    1,366

    Default

    Ok, to clarify. There are two cases assuming God exists:

    God is deliberately misleading us, or we see the world as God created. In the latter case, it would be redundant.

    Edit: Note, the word 'God' is a placeholder...

  2. #12
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    I don't like using the term "God" when it comes to a creationist's attitude.

    Other religious views are equally plausible (except maybe something like Scientology.)

    Whether some deity/deities created bits of this universe or not.

  3. #13
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    For instance if you believe a scientifically determined finding you need to have faith that they did not simply fabricate their research or abandon the proper methodology if their thesis did not reflect the findings and then require different conclusions.
    I do not believe any scientifically determined finding. I accept them based upon the evidence. Should additional evidence surface that causes the finding to be modified, or even debunked, I will accept that on the same basis. In this example, you are using the word "faith" where I would use "trust", or even "confidence". You are not expressing faith/trust/confidence in the facts of the finding itself, but rather in the integrity of the researchers, a very human and subjective commodity.

    I accept evolutionary principles, with the understanding that they themselves will evolve as we continue to learn about life on earth. But, what is the origin of these principles? What is the origin of the law of gravity, or conservation of energy, or light reflection at an interface? I can easily believe (believe, not accept as a scientific finding) that these are the work of a divine entity. Moreover, I do not believe that this entity would simply have set all the physical world as we know it in motion, and walked away. Instead, his/her continual presence is needed to keep these principles constant. This is my "middle ground", at least until I learn more.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  4. #14
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Incorrect

    Creationism says that each species was created by God. But ever since, "The Origin of Species", by Charles Darwin, we have known that this is incorrect.

    And further, we get proof that creationism is incorrect every day as we sequence the genome.

  5. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    I do not believe any scientifically determined finding. I accept them based upon the evidence. Should additional evidence surface that causes the finding to be modified, or even debunked, I will accept that on the same basis. In this example, you are using the word "faith" where I would use "trust", or even "confidence". You are not expressing faith/trust/confidence in the facts of the finding itself, but rather in the integrity of the researchers, a very human and subjective commodity.

    I accept evolutionary principles, with the understanding that they themselves will evolve as we continue to learn about life on earth. But, what is the origin of these principles? What is the origin of the law of gravity, or conservation of energy, or light reflection at an interface? I can easily believe (believe, not accept as a scientific finding) that these are the work of a divine entity. Moreover, I do not believe that this entity would simply have set all the physical world as we know it in motion, and walked away. Instead, his/her continual presence is needed to keep these principles constant. This is my "middle ground", at least until I learn more.
    Well, like I said people may not use the word faith, although those words that you use would mean the same thing, perhaps that is semantics?

    Your second point, the thesis about a deity, which is the origin of the other scientifically discovered laws is one I could accept and believe myself. It is not easy to explain but presently I believe that the world exists because God remembers it and is cognizant of it. Which would be similar to what you have said about God not being a creator but continual presence.

    Part of what I dont like about creationism is it attributes qualities or methods to God which are human and temporal, I believe that is a mistake but also in osme ways blasphemous.

  6. #16
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Part of what I dont like about creationism is it attributes qualities or methods to God which are human and temporal, I believe that is a mistake but also in osme ways blasphemous.
    We have almost no choice but to anthropomorphize God, to a point. Ignoring for the moment any idea that we are made in God's image, our own human image is the one most readily available when relating to other beings. It is thus a useful frame of reference, as long as we remember it is at best a metaphor.

    What I don't like about creationism is that it so often contradicts science. Since I consider science and spirituality as ways to study different aspects of the same thing, for me they must be complementary, not contradictory. I do not expect science to be able to prove statements of faith. That would turn them into scientific findings. I also do not turn to faith to explain things that science can measure and understand. It is interesting that the boundary between these two realms has shifted, primarily through the development and use of technology. Where it all ends, I cannot say. Human understanding of either sphere will never be complete, so there is plenty of room for my individual understanding to grow.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  7. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    We have almost no choice but to anthropomorphize God, to a point. Ignoring for the moment any idea that we are made in God's image, our own human image is the one most readily available when relating to other beings. It is thus a useful frame of reference, as long as we remember it is at best a metaphor.

    What I don't like about creationism is that it so often contradicts science. Since I consider science and spirituality as ways to study different aspects of the same thing, for me they must be complementary, not contradictory. I do not expect science to be able to prove statements of faith. That would turn them into scientific findings. I also do not turn to faith to explain things that science can measure and understand. It is interesting that the boundary between these two realms has shifted, primarily through the development and use of technology. Where it all ends, I cannot say. Human understanding of either sphere will never be complete, so there is plenty of room for my individual understanding to grow.
    I would agree that athropomorphic allusions are hard to avoid, there are problems as you indicate in description of the ineffable. Although I think creationism does more than that, it God created as man creates, it was a single event and something which eventually mankind could do also, I think its an entirely different "thing" which has happened and is happening. There's nothing which mankind has created which is capable of evolution in the way that Darwin and others have observed the animal kingdom, ourselves included, are capable of doing.

    I do think that fundamentally creationism is a result of a mistaken and hostile reaction to science.

  8. #18
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,859

    Default

    I belive that evolutionary theory is correct. There is no designer.
    Having said that, I don't think it's complete. Life forms are simply too complex to be fully explained by the theory at present. there are other organizational principles at play that we have yet to discover.

  9. #19
    Senior Member Saslou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    4,915

    Default

    Interesting ideas. Please keep them coming.

    Baruch Spinoza goes with the idea (i think) that instead of having nature or god, he plays with idea of god being a part of nature as opposed to being outside of it.

    I don't believe god is the creator of heaven and earth, but i think something played a part in bringing us/this into being. I'm just not ready to give it a label as of yet.
    “I made you take time to look at what I saw and when you took time to really notice my flower, you hung all your associations with flowers on my flower and you write about my flower as if I think and see what you think and see—and I don't.”
    ― Georgia O'Keeffe

  10. #20
    Post Human Post Qlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by saslou View Post
    Interesting ideas. Please keep them coming.

    Baruch Spinoza goes with the idea (i think) that instead of having nature or god, he plays with idea of god being a part of nature as opposed to being outside of it.

    I don't believe god is the creator of heaven and earth, but i think something played a part in bringing us/this into being. I'm just not ready to give it a label as of yet.
    I tend to think within a Kabbalistic framework.. which I bet somebody named Baruch Spinoza is influenced by. Basically it describes the universe as being a part of and an expression of God, but only partially. God is represented as having a shown face (the Universe as we can experience it) and as a hidden face.. that which we can never know.. the part of God that is outside anything we can measure/experience.

Similar Threads

  1. Animistic vs Naturalistic Explanation
    By Skip Foreplay in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 12-20-2011, 10:08 PM
  2. MBTI vs the MBTI Step II test
    By Totenkindly in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-31-2008, 09:25 PM
  3. Faith vs Faithfulness
    By Totenkindly in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 11-01-2007, 07:10 AM
  4. Does SJ vs SP account for gender bias?
    By Tayshaun in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-17-2007, 08:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO