• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[NT] NTs and God

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
You have every right to believe what you believe, Owl, and I have no interest in trying to convince you you're wrong (you might be right!), but in the context of 'NT' types I find your post interesting in that it's presented as a statement of fact rather than a point of view in a debate. Aren't NTs supposed to be into debate and opening their minds to other views? I'm a noob, so maybe I'm wrong about that...just wondering!

There are many threads on this forum concerned with debating the nature and existence of God, and I've posted in some of them, but the OP didn't ask for points of view in a debate. (S)He asked for what NT's believed about God.

Most persons aren't aware of what historic or philosophical theism affirm about God, so I took this opportunity to inform any interested persons of what these positions hold.
 

Helios

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2008
Messages
273
MBTI Type
INTP
What do NTs think of God, and how do they relate to Him ?

Is it possible for an NT to be interested in God ?

In my personal experience, NTs tend to exhibit hostility or scepticism towards the notion of a deity, especially those of the theistic sort. This appears to be especially prevalent in members of my own type, something which I would attribute to the conjoining of a strong desire for autonomy and a highly critical mind; unfortunately, most contemporary apologies for a theistic deity (usually the Christian God) are rather poor, leading to the latter remaining unsatiated. However, it certainly is possible for an NT, and even an INTP, to be interested, and to believe in, God, as a cursory glance of the population will show you.
 

EcK

The Memes Justify the End
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
7,708
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
738
In my personal experience, NTs tend to exhibit hostility or scepticism towards the notion of a deity, especially those of the theistic sort. This appears to be especially prevalent in members of my own type, something which I would attribute to the conjoining of a strong desire for autonomy and a highly critical mind; unfortunately, most contemporary apologies for a theistic deity (usually the Christian God) are rather poor, leading to the latter remaining unsatiated. However, it certainly is possible for an NT, and even an INTP, to be interested, and to believe in, God, as a cursory glance of the population will show you.
arg, please, stop using palatino police, it hurts my eeeyeesss
 

Erudur

New member
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
190
MBTI Type
INTJ
If we're talking about life and the dependence of god on life, why would we base our opinion on the opinions of physicists or other experts in fields unrelated to the one we are talking about?

..."There are holes in theory A, so theory B is automatically correct."

P.P.S. Define "Soft" / "Hard" science.

1-I agree. This is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.

2-Mycroft read the same thing from my posts. No, I am not saying that. Though I am saying that there are holes in theory A.

3-from wikipedia

"Soft science is a colloquial term, often used for academic research or scholarship which is purportedly "scientific" however it is not based on reproducible experimental data, and/or a mathematical explanation of that data. The term is usually used as a contrast to hard science.[1]

Within the natural sciences, research which depends upon conjecture (sometimes called hypothesis), qualitative analysis of data (compared to quantitative analysis), or uncertain experimental results is sometimes derided as soft science.[2] Examples are evolutionary psychology[3] or meteorology[4]. When soft science refers to a natural science, it is usually used pejoratively, mainly due to the term's association with social science, implying that a particular natural science topic described as "soft" does not belong to the field of natural science."

It was a dig.
 

EcK

The Memes Justify the End
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
7,708
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
738
1-I agree. This is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.
You couldn't be wronger, It's only a metaphysical question if people didn't believe god created the univers and themselves, did do miracles, and exerce his will on the universe.
if you intervene, you change the universe. Even observation has an effect on the observed thing.

Science = the study of the natural world. from the latin scientia, meaning knowledge.

Again and again, you show a weak understanding of science, logics, and mathematics.
I'm not trying to insult anybody, just saying what I see.
 

Erudur

New member
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
190
MBTI Type
INTJ
You couldn't be wronger, It's only a metaphysical question if people didn't believe god created the univers and themselves, did do miracles, and exerce his will on the universe.
if you intervene, you change the universe. Even observation has an effect on the observed thing.

Science = the study of the natural world. from the latin scientia, meaning knowledge.

Again and again, you show a weak understanding of science, logics, and mathematics.
I'm not trying to insult anybody, just saying what I see.

Metaphysics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Before the development of modern science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as "natural philosophy"; the term "science" itself meant "knowledge". The scientific method, however, made natural philosophy an empirical and experimental activity unlike the rest of philosophy, and by the end of the eighteenth century it had begun to be called "science" in order to distinguish it from philosophy."

If you claim that science has proven that matter/life came about without a creator or designer, you've moved beyond science to metaphysics. You've made a "philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence."

I'm not insulted, I am amused. To a large degree, I've been trying to make complex points by using simple analogies. I've also been a little sloppy in the way I framed my points. You have misinterpreted that as a weak understanding of "science, logics, and mathematics."

To get into the nitty gritty of some aspects of microbiology that can't be explained by random mutations and natural selection would be very difficult. I am hoping that some will be curious enough to take the time to read the literature of the expert dissenters themselves.

To take one more shot at the "coin flipping" "jumping to the moon" dialogue: darwinists mistakenly believe that you can get from simple forms of life (or building blocks of life) to complex forms of life through many little steps (random mutations - some beneficial, some detrimental) over long periods of time, with the process guided to favor the beneficial mutations through natural selection. The ID proponents* look at some of the necessary steps along the process and say, "hey, you can't get from A to B through random mutations and natural selection because the distance between these necessary steps is larger than the the amount of ground that can be covered by these steps."

There are events that are mathematically impossible. If darwinism claims to explain something by an event that is mathematically impossible, that claim is false. In saying this I am not discarding all of darwin's theory. To clarify, aspects of darwinism follow the scientific method, and certain hypothesis have been tested/reproduced. The problem is that darwinism, as a theory, has made assertions that cannot be tested (yet those assertions have been taken as fact), and has made assertions that appear to be false.

*(many of whom started out as darwinists, but changed their mind when they ran across problems with darwinism in their field of study)
 

Kangirl

I'm a star.
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
1,470
MBTI Type
ENTJ
I'm glad to be of service, but I would also warn against developing the mentality that you need to be an expert in every given field to have common sense and to be able to arrive at rational conclusions. This is the mentality the "no one can ever really know anything!" faction feeds off of.

Oh, don't worry, I completely agree with this. The fact that I can't have a 100% informed conversation with, for example, an eminent biologist in no way takes away from my ability to recognize logic - flawed or not.

2-Mycroft read the same thing from my posts. No, I am not saying that. Though I am saying that there are holes in theory A.

Erudur, I am not trying to be confrontational but...what *are* you saying? Can you boil down your POV somehow and post it? Are you simply pointing out flaws in theory A (and if you are, OK, but are we being invited to come to conclusions or are you really, actually just pointing out flaws and nothing else? In which case, what does this have to do with belief/non-belief in God?)?

I read the article you posted a few pages back - interesting and I enjoyed it but I'm not really seeing the connection to the theism conversation going on here. There are possible flaws in Darwinian theory as it's currently understood. OK, fine. So...what do you suggest we make of that? Or are you suggesting anything?

Owl - thanks for replying. :)
 

Erudur

New member
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
190
MBTI Type
INTJ
yeah, the bible's vision of the world, cosmology, geology and so on obviously works.
Especially when u know it's supposed to be written by the dude who created all of the forementionned things

i'll go for the weak minded theme

I know ppl usually go all 'i understand and respect religion' but as said previously in this post (i think) I dont.

Respect isn't something a group, or a person is entitled to.
It's about deserving, and I dont have much respect for those pathetic memes.

ps: u dont BELIEVE in science, u see it works, and then if something doesnt fit, u correct it, in a quest to get closer and closer to a 1:1 interpretation of the universe. Using this approach in religion, u'd probably be left with 'take a deep breath and relax' as a way of life. (no i dont think the killings of the bible would 'work' in modern days)
pss: no, trying to understand how things work is not BAD it's the reason why most of the things u have now DO work, but yeah, thank for reminding us that religions teach ppl not to think. Yeah, i can quote christian thinkers here.
But hey, I always enjoy the zelot jargon.

pss: U did also misread most of what I said intepreting it as simply angry ranting.

You don't think that comes across as angry ranting?
 

Erudur

New member
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
190
MBTI Type
INTJ
Erudur, I am not trying to be confrontational but...what *are* you saying?

EcK kind of goaded me into joining the thread with his early stuff (some quoted above). The darwinism commentary was a reaction to EcK.

I intentionally held back my own cosmology to keep it from being mixed into my debate with EcK. That mixture would just complicate the dialogue even more.

My more complete answer to your question cannot be proven, so I don't want to give the impression that I think it can be. I'll give EcK (and/or Mycroft) some time to bounce off my latest posts if they want to and then share some of my own cosmology.
 

EcK

The Memes Justify the End
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
7,708
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
738
EcK kind of goaded me into joining the thread with his early stuff (some quoted above). The darwinism commentary was a reaction to EcK.

I intentionally held back my own cosmology to keep it from being mixed into my debate with EcK.
I'll give EcK (and/or Mycroft) some time to bounce off my latest posts if they want to and then share some of my own cosmology.
he just secretly hates me
 

Erudur

New member
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
190
MBTI Type
INTJ
profilepic5643_1.gif


Who could hate this? *pats on the head and says "there, there"*
 

EcK

The Memes Justify the End
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
7,708
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
738
Metaphysics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Before the development of modern science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as "natural philosophy"; the term "science" itself meant "knowledge". The scientific method, however, made natural philosophy an empirical and experimental activity unlike the rest of philosophy, and by the end of the eighteenth century it had begun to be called "science" in order to distinguish it from philosophy."
Gosh, you never quit do you.
The universe, is a thread, everything we know, is connected.
The human mind is part of the universe, wether you consider we have some sort of magical soul or just a physical brain.
Therefore philosophy only applies to human life, not to the understanding of the mechanics of the universe.
The metaphysical by its name is misleading. If the metaphysical uses relative tools to analyse a system which its a part of, it's NOT metaphysical, it's just philosophical.
About the question of a metaphysical god, once again, the creation of a thing, take a universe, can be considered as beyond the thing if the creator doesn't interfere with the universe it created.
In the case of ID, the god in question obviously didn't just create the universe but intervened.
Again and again and again, you don't understand things as a inter related structure but as discrete elements. Not a particulary striking example of ... (fill the blank using some non abrasive words)

This is really becoming extremely boring.

[/B]
I'm not insulted, I am amused. To a large degree, I've been trying to make complex points by using simple analogies. I've also been a little sloppy in the way I framed my points. You have misinterpreted that as a weak understanding of "science, logics, and mathematics."
And I'm getting more and more bored. Complexity is about constructing complex things, which you never did, you just take discrete elements and show us how they never fit in a system.

ps: yeah, the cosmology thing, give it to me.
 

Erudur

New member
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
190
MBTI Type
INTJ
That's the accepted definition of metaphysics - I posted the link. Accepted definitions are stubborn things. Sorry if that's boring to you.

And I'm getting more and more bored. Complexity is about constructing complex things, which you never did, you just take discrete elements and show us how they never fit in a system.

And quickly you're back to the ranting.

*"there, there"*
 

EcK

The Memes Justify the End
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
7,708
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
738
That's the accepted definition of metaphysics - I posted the link. Accepted definitions are stubborn things. Sorry if that's boring to you.



And quickly you're back to the ranting.

*"there, there"*
Well see the arguments instead of reading the ranting. It's just my personnality.
And I didn't read half of it to say the truth, because I just know what they say. But they are still wrong. Metaphysics are not logically consistent. It needs to be redefined or simply deleted as a word or used as a way of speaking.
It only applies to a creator that never interfered with its creation, and even then can be discussed.
 

Erudur

New member
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
190
MBTI Type
INTJ
That about sums up the dialog. You half read or don't read what I'm writing, and respond with unrelated comments mixed with rants.

In the case of darwinism (a theory of part of the "interrelated structure" as you call it), its flaws are found by looking at the details.

ID uses scientific method to evaluate details of life (whether those details suggest a directed process or not). Metaphysics asks questions about who the designer might be and what "he" might be like.
 

EcK

The Memes Justify the End
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
7,708
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
738
That about sums up the dialog. You half read or don't read what I'm writing, and respond with unrelated comments mixed with rants.
I dont have much patience with cliché.

In the case of darwinism (a theory of part of the "interrelated structure" as you call it), its flaws are found by looking at the details.
Step back, take a look at history, everytime the ID scientists gave an example of something that was supposed to prove that darwinism for example wasn't congruent with this or that species. They were proven wrong in the end. Like in the case of the peppered moth, the eye, and so on.
ID uses scientific method to evaluate details of life (whether those details suggest a directed process or not). Metaphysics asks questions about who the designer might be and what "he" might be like.

...
Once mr god interacts with the universe. His 'metaphysicality' can be questionned to an extent. Just as a measurement tool interferes with the system it observes.
 

Erudur

New member
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
190
MBTI Type
INTJ
I dont have much patience with cliché.
And yet you are so fluent in using it.


Step back, take a look at history, everytime the ID scientists gave an example of something that was supposed to prove that darwinism for example wasn't congruent with this or that species. They were proven wrong in the end. Like in the case of the peppered moth, the eye, and so on.

False.

Remember that link I posted three times. These neo-neo-darwinists are just now acknowledging some of the flaws that the IDs have been pointing out for some time now. Ironically, the comments include an ID dig and a mis-association of ID with creationism.
 

Erudur

New member
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
190
MBTI Type
INTJ
From your article:

"then you have to accept that vast chasms of adaptation can be traversed by the slow plodding accumulation of inherited changes. Natural selection can travel huge distances if given time."

This statement is offered as fact when it is not. The possible "chasm" sizes are much smaller than are needed to get from a simple form to the next viable more complex form.

"One favourite example is the bacterial flagellum, a whip-like tail that propels the beast along. It looks beautifully designed, with a drive shaft and motor made up of over 40 proteins. If you take one away, the flagellum stops working. To ID proponents, this "irreducible complexity" means it cannot have evolved."

Just because the article uses a mocking tone does not mean the author has proved his point. He hasn't.

Both articles deal with examples of how a body of DNA reflected changes through mutations and natural selection without any real increase in complexity. Neither deal with how new, useful information came into existence to allow mutations and natural selection to transition one species to a new more complex species.

The first attempts to do so by pointing out that one bacterial species has 33 proteins while another has 40, therefore the 33 version is an example of a transitional species. But then goes on to say. "So the notion of natural selection bodging together the tail using bits already present in bacteria is plausible. No need for a designer."

Over and over again, darwinists use examples of "natural selection bodging together" bits of DNA as an example that mutations and natural selection can account for the addition of new, useful information that didn't previously exist. When you look at exactly what that means in the details, the assertion is preposterous.
 

Kangirl

I'm a star.
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
1,470
MBTI Type
ENTJ
My more complete answer to your question cannot be proven, so I don't want to give the impression that I think it can be.

I just want the answer, forget the 'proof' for now.

Do you, or do not accept this:

"Flaws in theory A do not necessarily *prove* theory B." Just yes or no!

You keep posting these flaws, or suspected flaws, over and over and over, and then you keep claiming you're not offering them as 'proof'. What are you offering them as? Why are you posting them?

A few times you posted something along the lines of "x can't possibly exist without an intelligent designer - therefore the existence of x = god/intelligent designer exists". Is this your position or not? Again, that's a yes or no question.

I inceasingly have no idea what you're actually trying to get across here.
 
Top