a human world?

[kilted exile]

Whether God exists or not, of course it's here for us. Who else is it here for? And we all use it. All of us, including you. We don't live in caves and hunt for food. We live in houses made of wood from trees and drive in cars made of steel from iron out of the ground burning oil dug up from the ground. And we use electricity and heat our homes and use water for plumbing and fly in planes in the air and sail in boats on the water. We build bridges and tunnels and skyscrapers.

We are human and we control the earth. We manipulate nature.

That we do, and I think if the earth was made for us, we would be better suited to exist in it without making these changes (this is not to say we shouldnt make these changes). There are many other organisms which are more suited to exist in the environment/wilderness than us.

We change the world to make it suitable for us.

[Redzeppelin]

I imagine it's fairly clear that I was joking.

It was - but there's always that chance...

I know. Very nice. However, it also contains:

1. Numerous species that find humans delicious (human predation by wolves is still a fact of life in some of the poorer Eastern European countries). These were put there by God, if Genesis is to be believed.
2. Various extremely interesting seismic and atmospheric phenomena that routinely result in large-scale death on the part of human beings completely at random.
3. A host of microbiological nasty little things that have, more than once, wiped out a quarter of the human population, also put there by God according to Genesis.

No, not quite: Genesis does not indicate that these things were put on earth in their destructive form - after creation God said it was "good" - which means that these things in their destructive form did not exist. Once humanity brought sin into the world, all of reality was changed; not only did human nature degrade, but nature degraded as well. Sin affects all of the "spheres" of existence: human, natural, spiritual.

Astrophysicist Hugh Ross is making the falicious assumption that life cannot exist in a form different form the one we currently see it in.

Since the form we have in front of us is the only one we can really say does exist (and to assume all kinds of other life-forms is merely groundless speculation until exploration of other planets proves otherwise), I think it a fair assumption for Mr. Ross to make. We cannot call his argument "fallacious" simply because he does not allow for life-form configurations that we have no reason to believe exist (without some sort of evidence or reasonable hypothesis to follow).

Oh really? That's very interesting, but are you sure that sin wasn't arrogant, agressive, pulpit-bashing, biggoted, asinine, prosyletic bullying? Does that sound familiar?

Sure it does - because the atheists on these threads resort to this kind of bashing pretty regularly. But, these things weren't around in the beginning - they showed up later, and - regrettably - proliferated. I don't know why atheists keep wanting to act like the fact that sinful Christians exist is some sort of "handful of aces" that invalidates everything we say. It doesn't. You pick the worst exceptions in Christianity and thrust them at us as if it proves some major point about God or Christianity. It does so only as much as a few bad cops indict all police officers, or a few crooked lawyers indict all lawyers.

[cuppajoe_9]

It was - but there's always that chance...

I'll tell you what: if I suddenly become a theist, I'll tell you about it. Until then, work on the assumption that I haven't. Fair?

Since the form we have in front of us is the only one we can really say does exist (and to assume all kinds of other life-forms is merely groundless speculation until exploration of other planets proves otherwise), I think it a fair assumption for Mr. Ross to make.

To put it another way: the chances of drawing any given hand of bridge in a particular order is one in trillions. But to cite this as evidence that the deck is stacked would be evidence of insanity, because if you didn't draw that hand, you would have drawn another equally unlikely one. Mr. Ross is making a similar fallacy. If the universe wasn't the way it is now, it would be some other way. If it happened to be a way that didn't support us, we wouldn't be talking about it.

Sure it does - because the atheists on these threads resort to this kind of bashing pretty regularly. But, these things weren't around in the beginning - they showed up later, and - regrettably - proliferated.

Wow. Ok, I thought that I made it pretty clear, but I was talking to you about the specific statement that you made. That sinful Christians exist has nothing to do with the fact that if you personally attack me, I will get angry. What other people do is moot.

[Redzeppelin]

I'll tell you what: if I suddenly become a theist, I'll tell you about it. Until then, work on the assumption that I haven't. Fair?

You made the joke, my friend. I just went along with it.

To put it another way: the chances of drawing any given hand of bridge in a particular order is one in trillions. But to cite this as evidence that the deck is stacked would be evidence of insanity, because if you didn't draw that hand, you would have drawn another equally unlikely one. Mr. Ross is making a similar fallacy. If the universe wasn't the way it is now, it would be some other way. If it happened to be a way that didn't support us, we wouldn't be talking about it.

I don't think so; the deck of cards in bridge is a specified entity, containing a certain number of cards with a certain number of suits; the deck cannot help but produce certain results, and there are configurations it absolutely cannot produce due to its clear limitations. Since we are here, and the resulting universe around us seems to (at this point) indicate that we're different from many planets, then it seems reasonable to work with what is here. Since the question is whether or not the earth was designed for humanity, the fact that the planet just happens to have the 128 necessary things for human life against astronomical odds makes the suggestion of ID reasonable (not convincing to you, I'm sure, but reasonable). The math makes its case.

Wow. Ok, I thought that I made it pretty clear, but I was talking to you about the specific statement that you made. That sinful Christians exist has nothing to do with the fact that if you personally attack me, I will get angry. What other people do is moot.

If you took my post offensively, then accept my apologies. But spare me the sterotypes about Christianity - it is tiresome and reflects poorly on you because I didn't engage in name-calling.

[cuppajoe_9]

Since we are here, and the resulting universe around us seems to (at this point) indicate that we're different from many planets, then it seems reasonable to work with what is here. Since the question is whether or not the earth was designed for humanity, the fact that the planet just happens to have the 128 necessary things for human life against astronomical odds makes the suggestion of ID reasonable (not convincing to you, I'm sure, but reasonable). The math makes its case.

The logic doesn't. If it wasn't here, we wouldn't be having the conversation. If, by some quirk, early evolution had favored reptiles, you'd be asking why the universe should be so fine tuned as to support reptilian life. If the conditions of the universe cranked out talking rocks, you'd be asking why the universe is so fine tuned for talking rocks, and so on, ad inifitum.

If you took my post offensively, then accept my apologies.

Your post implied that people like me caused the fall. How was I supposed to take it, exactly?

But spare me the sterotypes about Christianity...

None presented or implied. Those adjectives modify only your post. Any Christian-bashing is entirely in your mind.

...it is tiresome and reflects poorly on you because I didn't engage in name-calling.

Well, you implied that all the problems with the universe can be explained by the fact that it contians people like me and accused me of comparing myself to God, but hey, as long as you didn't engage in name-calling.

[Redzeppelin]

The logic doesn't. If it wasn't here, we wouldn't be having the conversation. If, by some quirk, early evolution had favored reptiles, you'd be asking why the universe should be so fine tuned as to support reptilian life. If the conditions of the universe cranked out talking rocks, you'd be asking why the universe is so fine tuned for talking rocks, and so on, ad inifitum.

None of those do exist - so you're not really presenting a challenge to my argument. You're only telling me my argument would be the same no matter what the life form. OK - so life is equally improbable no matter what configuration it arrives in. There.

Your post implied that people like me caused the fall. How was I supposed to take it, exactly?

My post implied that the sin of the earliest of God's created beings is still in full-swing; the most basic of sins that took out our first parents is currently full-blown in our world where people argue that God is unnecessary for our understanding of reality.

None presented or implied. Those adjectives modify only your post. Any Christian-bashing is entirely in your mind.

No - it's right here:

Oh really? That's very interesting, but are you sure that sin wasn't arrogant, agressive, pulpit-bashing, biggoted, asinine, prosyletic bullying? Does that sound familiar?

The difference is that you do claim essentially that God is not necessary by claiming He doesn't exist - I, however, have committed none of the terms you listed (which your final question cannot help but imply).

Well, you implied that all the problems with the universe can be explained by the fact that it contians people like me and accused me of comparing myself to God, but hey, as long as you didn't engage in name-calling.

Identifying your attitude for what Christian theology says it is, is not "name-calling."

The attempt to explain reality in only human terms is to place ourselves as equals to God. You're not required to agree with theology.

The world is the way it is because (according to Christian theology) it has people in it who share your belief: God is unnecessary. Had Adam and Eve not bought into that lie, we'd be in a different place right now. If the esteemed Mr. Dawkins is allowed to call God a "delusion," I'm equally allowed to call certain attitudes by the name my system of belief defines them to be: sin.

[cuppajoe_9]

The difference is that you do claim essentially that God is not necessary by claiming He doesn't exist - I, however, have committed none of the terms you listed (which your final question cannot help but imply).

Every single one of the adjectives that I use applies specifically to the post the I was replying to, and I will defend that statement if necesary. Any implication that all Christians behave in that way was put into my post by you, not me. What Richard Dawkins does in his free time has nothing to do with me. I will not be responding to any more ridiculous suggestions that I am comparing myself to God or that I am personally responsible for everything bad in the world. Thank you.

[Redzeppelin]

Every single one of the adjectives that I use applies specifically to the post the I was replying to, and I will defend that statement if necesary. Any implication that all Christians behave in that way was put into my post by you, not me. What Richard Dawkins does in his free time has nothing to do with me. I will not be responding to any more ridiculous suggestions that I am comparing myself to God or that I am personally responsible for everything bad in the world. Thank you.

Fine - stay insulted if you wish. One apology per infraction is fair to me and I've already offered one.

I have not personally said that you are responsible for anything. I've indicated that your view - one you do not hold in exclusion but along with millions of others - is essentially the view that caused the fall of Adam and Eve - the refusal to see that God is necessary. That you hold that belief (as do I and most human beings at some point or other because we inherited this pattern from Adam and Eve) does not personally implicate you in the atrocities of this world as much as it does implicate you as a sinful human being (just like me).

[cuppajoe_9]

I have not personally said that you are responsible for anything. I've indicated that your view - one you do not hold in exclusion but along with millions of others - is essentially the view that caused the fall of Adam and Eve - the refusal to see that God is necessary.

And you don't see why I somebody might be extremely angry about that suggestion? Particularly when you've completely failed to back it up with any kind of evidence in the past?

[Redzeppelin]

And you don't see why I somebody might be extremely angry about that suggestion? Particularly when you've completely failed to back it up with any kind of evidence in the past?

We are fully off-topic and I expect to get "moderated" anytime now.

"Back up" what?

People who claim atheism essentially engage in the original sin of Adam and Eve who ate the forbidden fruit in order to be like God - the desire to be like God in this case was the desire to be His equal - the desire to understand life without having to go through Him for understanding. The theory of evolution does the same thing - it attempts to explain life without recourse to God. Why you're so insulted by this is beyond me. In fact, why anybody who doesn't believe in God gets bugged by the use of the word "sin" kind of confuses me - it's like a Star Trek fanatic calling you a "Klingon" - so what?

[manolia]

Using this logic however, it would be just as acceptable to say the world was made for bunny rabbits.

(bunny rabbits, why not? Your sense of humour is so 'Monty Pythons'-like)

[Turk]

If we are here, that means this world is for us.

[kilted exile]

(bunny rabbits, why not? Your sense of humour is so 'Monty Pythons'-like)

I always knew my time watching Monty Python re-runs was better spent than reading the Blake poems my teacher had wanted me to read. I may still be no closer to understanding whatever Iambic pentameter is, but I can make somebody laugh and that is far more worthwhile. In closing Ha! take that Ms Togher

[cuppajoe_9]

Why you're so insulted by this is beyond me.

I doubt that your would react any differently to the statement "the Christian mindset is responsibile for everything bad that has ever happened".

[Redzeppelin]

I doubt that your would react any differently to the statement "the Christian mindset is responsibile for everything bad that has ever happened".

That comment (or a variation of it) has been made numerous times by various posters (some more tactful than others) on this forum and the philosophy forums - I doubt you will find that I have responded with similar intensity.

Either way, no point is worth this kind of bickering. I am sorry to have offended you and will try to avoid doing so in the future. I have been guilty of pursuing my point at the cost of our relationship, and there is nothing more important than in maintaining good relationships - not even an argument is worth such a cost. Please accept my apology.