₦airaland Forum

Pastor AIO:
By awareness I take it you mean consciousness.

No, I mean awareness.

Of all the things we know for sure in Life Consciousness is the most subjective. It is such a totally subjective experience that it cannot be demonstrated in anyway whatsoever. (Which is a point I was going to bring up in another thread but I got distracted, but there are two types of Proof. Demonstrable proof and subjective proof. Subjective proof cannot be demonstrated and so cannot be raised in an argument to convince someone else.)

I know for sure that I am conscious because I experience it. I can never know for a fact whether or not you are a conscious being. It can never be demonstrated to me, your consciousness. It could be that you are a very clever automaton or some form of Artificial Intelligence. They have AI now that can have conversations and appear to think like conscious humans but in actually fact it is just sophisticated programming. How am I sure that you are not just a cleverly neurologically programmed automaton. I'll never know if you are in actual fact conscious because you cannot demonstrate or communicate that to me.

I disagree, consciousness can be demonstrated and raised in argument. For the most part it would be human-centric, but it can be shown. In any case, that's another topic as consciousness wasn't my point.

I, for reasons of my own, actually believe that the entire universe is conscious, from the Rocks to the wind blowing through the trees down to Space and time itself. And as for perception which is the ability to receive and retain information, everything can receive information. A plasticene receives information when you imprint it with a stamp. There are many qualities of consciousness and I fear that you might be taking ego-bound consciousness for the whole of consciousness.

I find the idea of a conscious Universe interesting. No, that's not what perception means. No, I have not used the ego as the catch-all for all consciousness.

Being on Nairaland I would presume that you are nigerian. Of course that could be wrong, but if you are nigerian and even if you are not yoruba I would presume that you've come into contact with enough of yoruba culture to have some idea of their context. I don't blame you if you say that you've made an effort to avoid yoruba people for most of your life, but even then you ought to have some idea of the culture. I try to learn as much as I can about different african cultures because I feel it is inappropriate that I can quote european classics and yet have so little knowledge of my own motherland. Trust me Ori is a conscious entity in all of Yoruba land and it stretches further. I know in igboland it is called Chi and God almighty is called Chineke which means Great Chi.

I haven't made any efforts to avoid Yoruba people, etc. If Ori is a conscious entity that is comparable to the notion of "God" a being with awareness and the abilities to influence based on prayers, etc, and it requires worship, then it's not likely the same as Heraclitus's Logos.

Oh, so I see now, the difference between us is that you have 'grasped' the Tao.

No, the difference between us as far as this thread goes is I have an idea of the concepts I am employing and I'm appropriating them logically.

I don't think that I ever said that anyone who extolled the unknown was a christian.

It's a summary based on my perception of several things that you've presented in this thread. For instance,

"There are two possibilities. Logos was a specialised term, a jargon, that belonged only to christianity and which christians understood in a sense quite different from how other people understood it. Or it was meant in the general sense in which case the Evangelist is laying claim to something that predates christianity. Does this make it any less christian?

What about if Paul the apostle goes to Greece and finds there a shrine that has been raised to an unknown god. And he then subsequently starts to preach to the people about their shrine that he found in their country. Was that just opportunism? Or were the Greeks worshipping the christian god without knowing it. Could they thus qualify to be called Christians?"

"The more talk we carry on about this the more we will come to the point where we have to recognise that we are talking about something beyond human conceptions and which can only be experienced as a mystery. "

"The Logos precedes genesis and has been at work through out all of history. Those that know him are Christians whether the term or the religion christianity had been coined by that time or not. "

"References to the "Ori" concept. "

By the way, it's not extolling the unknown, but extolling the sense of the unknown.

Pastor AIO:
I believe a Christian is a follower of Christ. In the gospel of John Yehoshu'a ben Yosef is identified as the Christ. What is Christ? Greek Christos is the translation of hebrew Messiah which means the anointed one, the Chosen One.

Yoruba also call Ori Ayanmo meaning that which is Chosen. They follow the Chosen One.

You're equivocating. Christians adhering to the belief that salvation comes through the being that was realised in Jesus is not the same as Yorubans adhering to an idea of a "chosen". I use sugar all the time. Jude calls his girlfriend sugar. Therefore, I use Jude's girlfriend on food all the time. Equivocation.

Christianity itself predates the term christian. The term was coined after the movement began.

Yes, but it didn't predate Jesus, the one called the Christ.

Prior to orthodoxy Christianity was itself a wide host of "conflicting" religions. Although I personally do not see the conflict.

There were many grounds for conflict, but that's another topic.

Pastor AIO:
I've mentioned in another thread that the accurate translation of Logos into Yoruba would be to use the word Ori. See what the Yoruba consider as Ori. They consider it a road map of their lives. They believe that prior to coming to this world they knelt before God and pick out an Ori. Ori is often described as destiny or Ayanmo (that which is chosen).

[snip]

The question that I want to ask is, Does Ori sound like a being to you here or does it sound merely like a cosmological concept. A concept not dissimilar to Tao perhaps.
Or statements like A a ki fi ori w'ori. We do not compare heads, or destinies. In other words don't judge a man's life by the measure of another man's destiny.

But then again amongst the same people we find that they pray to their Ori. In fact Ori is the most venerated diety in Yoruba belief.

'Ori mi gbemi, ori mi la mi
Gbemi atete niran a tete gbeni ku f'orisa
Ori lo ngbeni, kii se Orisa

Ori save me, Ori prosper me
you are quickest to consider me
you are quicker to my aid than Orisha
It is Ori that saves one, not the Orisha

So my main question is whether the Yoruba consider Ori to be a 'Being' (I'm still not sure what you mean by this though) or just a concept without 'cognizance'. Would you consider Ori to be a being?

To explain being isn't as easy as it may seem; however, since it seems to be a sticking point, perhaps a provisional, concise idea of what I mean by being might do. Being, for me, indicates some level of awareness [and perhaps perception] towards something.

As to the "Ori" question. It's hard to say without a context of the people using the term. For instance, the conception of Ori as perceptive entity may be peculiar to just some parts of the Yoruba people, as opposed to all; or that may be the case with the other conception.

I would like to suggest that these traditional people were perhaps a bit more sophisticated than you are theologically and the problems lies in your inability to keep up.

Somehow I doubt that.

This same inability can be at the root of your problem with Heraclitus' Logos or the Tao. You see incongruity where they don't.

I don't have a problem with Haraclitus's logos nor with the Tao - I'd say you're the one having problems with grasping them. There are several problems here, not least that you either don't seem to have realised the flaw that started the thread or that you aren't understanding the terms in place.

In any case, are we still at the strange point where any one that extols a sense of the unknown - or, if you want, logos of whatever variation - is somehow a Christian? Or has your argument shifted?

Pastor AIO:
The entire gospel is based on the fact that reality is a duality. The duality of flesh and spirit.

I disagree with the former; and agree that the latter is a factor that can be interpreted from the text.

There are two possibilities. Logos was a specialised term, a jargon, that belonged only to christianity and which christians understood in a sense quite different from how other people understood it. Or it was meant in the general sense in which case the Evangelist is laying claim to something that predates christianity. Does this make it any less christian?

I'd say the latter is probably more closer to the fact: that is, while logos has long and varied history, nuances could have influenced understanding of the general conceptions of the term. Does it make it any less Christian? It predates Christianity; it isn't a Christian term; and has a life outside of the Christian faith. Yes, that makes it definitely not Christian - as an exclusive determiner.

What about if Paul the apostle goes to Greece and finds there a shrine that has been raised to an unknown god. And he then subsequently starts to preach to the people about their shrine that he found in their country. Was that just opportunism? Or were the Greeks worshipping the christian god without knowing it. Could they thus qualify to be called Christians?

Opportunism. The Greeks wouldn't have been worshipping the Christian god without knowing it, no more than they were worshipping Jupiter when the Romans syncretised Zeus with their legends.

Would they qualify to be called Christians? Depends on what you mean by Christian. By that logic, they'd also qualify for adherents of a wide host of conflicting religions.

simmy:
3. i am not claiming the whole world came from shem ham and j, neither am i disputing the fact but it should be interesting to note that scientists generally divide the worlds races into three very broad groups which are congruent with what the bible claims to be the descendants of shem , ham and j

I dispute the claim that everyone descended from Ham, Japheth and Shem. And, no, scientsts don't generally divide the world's races into three very broad groups.

4. Note that present day negroes fall into the very broad group scientists refer to as hamitic.

"Hamitic" is, at best, a pseudo-scientific term.

5. at worst the biblical account can be viewed as an early attemp atgrouping the races of the world. ( a fairly accurate one if u ask me)

Tracing the origins of all of the races of the earth is still an ongoing process which still baffles scientists, so whatever we say on this thread is subject to a great deal of speculation

That's not right. A great deal is known about the origins of races, so there's no need for the many, often despairing, speculations that have appeared in this thread. That is not to say that there isn't much to be disovered, just that enough is known.

simmy:
If they were as innacurate as you have made them out to be, im sure scientists would have re-classified all; of them and wont have kept any names

Who kept what names? Even at the height of racial classification based on features, the use of the Biblical terms were used mostly by Christian scientists. Further, in the classification of race by features, they had at least one extra racial classification with which to contend (Austraoid, and to be pendantic, Mongoloid). Hamitic isn't a racial classification, and, yes, it's inaccurate.

Ok. mayb i went a little offpoint. scientists didnt xctly build on the biblical model. but the moral remains the same. if the Genesis account was so innacurate, the scientific world would have completely distanced itself from it.

Or not even bother with rubbish of that kind.

4 Him:
especially as you can't really defend your position beyond posting sarcastic ripostes.

4 Him: It is usually claimed by noise makers who pretend to be informed that the USA was not founded on christian PRINCIPLES (note that there is a big difference between a principle and a religion) . . . a cursory look at history tells us otherwise. A simple case in point is the motto of the USA - IN GOD WE TRUST.

KAG: What are Christian principles? "In God we Trust" was added a few decades ago as, IIRC, a response to the "Red scare"

4 Him: You're not really seeking an answer so i will pass on that. [Latter part was the only one to receive a response that wasn't a cop-out]

KAG: I'm not really seeking an answer? Thanks for that.
I don't think it [in God we trust] was widely used, and the country was founded well before 1863.

4 Him: Sorry, it was widely used on US coins as early as 1863. Considering how common coins are i'd wager pretty much every school kid as at that time was familiar with the motto. The country was founded in 1776 not 1863 (a moot point): but since you choose to pursue the matter . . .

President George Washington, September 17th, 1796 "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible"

KAG: That's [coin issue] debatable, but you do have a point. Oh, I thought your argument was to show that the USA was founded on Christian prinicples", not that 100 years later some coins bore reference to a god and Washington perhaps said something about the Christian god and the Bible. I guess not.

Do we still know what Christian principles means?


4 Him: more roundabout discourse saying nothing of substance. God was an integral part of the lifestyle of the men who drafted the US constitution and served as its founding leaders.

As for christian principles? Please read the bible.


intellectual dishonesty must be a staple element in that ambiguous "christian principles" thing.

I'm out; thanks for your time.

4 Him:
more roundabout discourse saying nothing of substance. God was an integral part of the lifestyle of the men who drafted the US constitution and served as its founding leaders.

As for christian principles? Please read the bible.

Well, this has certainly developed into redundancy. Good showing.

4 Him:
Sorry, it was widely used on US coins as early as 1863. Considering how common coins are i'd wager pretty much every school kid as at that time was familiar with the motto.

That's debatable, but you do have a point.

The country was founded in 1776 not 1863 (a moot point): but since you choose to pursue the matter . . .

President George Washington, September 17th, 1796 "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible"

Oh, I thought your argument was to show that the USA was founded on Christian prinicples", not that 100 years later some coins bore reference to a god and Washington perhaps said something about the Christian god and the Bible. I guess not.

Do we still know what Christian principles means?

4 Him:
You're not really seeking an answer so i will pass on that.

I'm not really seeking an answer? Thanks for that.

In God we trust - became official US motto in 1956 but had been widely in use as early as 1863.

Below is an 1864 US coin

https://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j82/davidylan/coin.jpg

I don't think it was widely used, and the country was founded well before 1863.

4 Him:
It is usually claimed by noise makers who pretend to be informed that the USA was not founded on christian PRINCIPLES (note that there is a big difference between a principle and a religion) . . . a cursory look at history tells us otherwise. A simple case in point is the motto of the USA - IN GOD WE TRUST.

It might interest Huxley to note that it smacks of poor scholarship to base American internal policy on a "treaty" signed with foreign powers (Tripoli) primarily to protect US shipping interests in what used to be moslem waters. The treaty was written in arabic (not a US language) and a careful reading of the above quote from article 11 of the treaty is clear evidence that this was written as a form of political appeasement.

What are Christian principles? "In God we Trust" was added a few decades ago as, IIRC, a response to the "Red scare"

Pastor AIO:
The evangelist make no mention of a trinity

You're right the evangelist didn't, but the implication of a duality is present.

Pastor AIO:
Just a thought: was the word in common usage at the time the gospel was written. in what sense was it meant. and was the evangelist aware that there could perhaps be misconstruing of what he meant.

Hard to say. The word must have been in use at the time, though, because it needed no explanation and it had been in use long before the birth of the author of John.

Pastor AIO:
Logos is not a concept for me. It is not definable.

I'd agree that it's a concept that is not particular to you, but it would seem that it is somewhat definable for Christians that accept the Trinity: the logos often defined as the Jesus aspect of the godhead.

and if by cognizant you mean conscious then I would say 'he'( as per convention) is he above categorisation into conscious or not conscious.

Why he? I'm not sure I understand the question. By the way, recognition of cognizance in the logos is, perhaps, a step towards definition of the term.

The more talk we carry on about this the more we will come to the point where we have to recognise that we are talking about something beyond human conceptions and which can only be experienced as a mystery.

May be. May be not. I doubt it, though.

Pastor AIO:
I think I ought to wait for Syrup to come speak for herself. But while it's you talking KAG, . . . I think that you are falling into the same trap of allowing categorisations and constructs to cloud your thinking. A discussion about the creator of the universe is a discussion about the creator of the universe whether or not you frame it in theology or philosophy.

That or I'm appreciating the fact that the context gives an idea of what terms are meant to indicate.

You're kidding.!! I would have thought from the forceful and determined way you posted that you had a fixed definition that you wanted to put across. Maybe that's just your writing style.

When it's my thoughts it generally is forceful and determined.

My definition of religion is the practice of making whole something that is deemed to be fractured. For instance the relationship between a man and his diety. Religion is the act of seeking reconciliation. Yet it does not just apply to the relationship between a man and his diety, but also a man and his environment, and a man and the different parts of his being. Though the etymology of the word religion is unsure I am inclined to accepted the explanation that it comes from the latin roots Re Ligere. To bind back, or to bind again.

It would seem your defnition encompasses philosophy and even environmentalism, when taken away from the deity aspect, no?

I take it that you are an expert on the Tao too. What makes you so sure that the Tao is not conscious?

I am not an expert on the Tao. I'm not so sure that the Tao is not conscious, my intention wasn't so much to describe the Tao but to give an idea - through a vague comparism - of what can be inferred from Heraclitus's writings.

I really wish you had your notes so I know better where you are coming from. I suspect that you are making some humungous assumptions about stuff you know nothing about. All I can say for now is that I hope you are aware that Taoism is a practice and those that are steeped in this practice are unequivocal about one thing. 'The Tao that you can talk about is not the real Tao'.

I doubt that - regarding the former. I've used google to double-check, and its clear Heraclitus wasn't presenting logos as either a being or a deity. As for the latter I've always understood it as "The Tao that can be defined is not the Tao", meaning that it can be talked about, but not defined. Semantics?

The same thing goes for philosophy. That is not to knock your conception or understanding of what you have read which might even actually be an elegant conceptualisation. But ultimately it is just a conception.

I agree.

ps. What constitutes a 'being'?

Oh, geez, that's a tough one. May we save that for another thread?

Pastor AIO:
Well I'm sorry you consider it a joke. I'm not laughing so you'd better say something funny quick or just scram.

Then, in that case, the premises of your argument weren't well thought out. Worse still, we now appear to be at the point where Christianity is defined by appreciation of the etymology of logic as opposed to belief in Jesus.

Pastor AIO:
You should tell Syrup that. She is the one that suggests that it's use in philosophy makes it untenable as a religious factor. (or that is how i understand it, if I'm wrong perhaps she would like to explain what it is she actually means.)

No, that wasn't what syrup or her post indicated. What she said - amongst other things - was that the "the term 'Logos' did not originate as a Christian or theological term." That is the application of logos preceded its use in a theological sense or, indeed, in the Christian scripture.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive and perhaps you don't like the word 'encroaching' so I withdraw that and say instead that they overlap.

Yes, they overlap.

So by your definition is Buddhism a religion? Is Taoism a religion?

Some versions of both, yes.

I actually understand religion to be something other than the worship of a particular diety but that would be too petty if we reduced this to an argument over the definition of a word. For the purposes of this thread I will accept your definition. The Logos is the source and creator of the universe however ever Heraclitus is not religious because though he believed in the Logos he did not advocate worshipping it. I'll grant you that.

what would be your definition of religion? Mine was a quick idea of the connotations i associate with the term, it certainly isn't meant to be the final definition of the word.

What I really need you to explain to me is how you arrived at the notion from studying Heraclitus that he wasn't talking about a 'being of substance', whatever that is. I don't actually understand what you mean by that phrase but perhaps it will become clear as you explain.

I can't find my notes, so I can't quote from them, but, Heraclitus's conception of the Logos is perhaps closely comparable to the Tao: a force akin to an energy that permeates all things. It wasn't a being itself, according to Heraclitus.

How can Heraclitus' logos which is the source, the creator, the molder of the universe, whose plan we had best adhere to in order to live a good life, . . . how is this different from the christian understanding of Logos?

Christians conceive of the logos as a part of the Trinity/godhead beings. The logos is a definable thing in the Christian sense. A cognizant creator. not so with Heraclitus.

What do you think of this quote from Christ. 'Before Abraham, I am'.

Or of all the mentions of Christ 'prior' to Christianity. All the prophets. Of Melchizedek. Of the salvation of those who lived before Christ. Did not the Law and the Prophets bear witness to this.

Superficial nonsense.

The Logos precedes genesis and has been at work through out all of history. Those that know him are Christians whether the term or the religion christianity had been coined by that time or not.
And as for those that don't know. . . Well you've got semantics.

The logos isn't a him. So is your argument now: although the concept "logos" existed long before Chistianity, because Christians believe their God-man precedes all, then despite pointing out the flawed application of logic, the concept is still Christian.

I'm leaning towards the idea that this thread is a joke.

Pastor AIO:
I've got an argument for you. It goes . ,

no and no and no and no again. . . .no . NO! no. nonononono.

What are the steps of reasoning, how do I arrive at my point. Well, let's not let that minor detail bother us.

no no no nno!!

'They told me to go to rehab
I said NO NO NO'

The no suffices because I was certain the rest of the posts and the main body of my post addresses those points. For instance, the argument that got a "no" response was rebutted by arguments pointing to the incident of logos outside of and before Christianty, etc. If you want me to expand on the nos I can.

therationa:
I have shown on some of my other threads why one must treat with caution with some of the major narratives of the bible. I showed that from the biblical narratives, it is not possible to reconcile the Nativity stories within the gospels and with the historical actualities.

In this thread, I would like to pose a general question, which is the following;

Are there any biblical events or narratives that can be demonstrated as having historical verifiability?


For instance, can the following events be shown to have a basis in history?

1) Garden of Eden
2) The Jewish sojourn in Egypt
3) The Noah Flood
4) The conquest at Jericho
5) Earthquake at the crucifixion of Jesus
6) Resurrection of dead saints
7) King David's kingdom
8-) The massacre of the innocent by Herod
9) The star of Bethlehem
10) The existence of King Ezekiel
11) The existence of Jesus

Only the last one, and that's somewhat sketchy at best. The one no apologist seems willing to tackle, at least in my experience, is the resurrection of the dead saints thing. There's a lot of skirting when that one is involved.

I like Kurt Wise - at least better than other YECs. IIRC, he is the only YEC that has admitted that it's his interpretation of the Bible that is keeping him a YEC, as opposed to falsifiable evidence. The others rail on about evidence while putting up disclaimers that strengthen their Morton's demons.

It's a pregnant woman.

ricadelide:
Interestingly, just over a century ago peer-reviewed consensus in geology (although the field was still relatively young at that time) was that the earth was millions of years old. Within less than two hundred years, that consensus has grown by a thousand-fold.
If the principle of uniformitarianism and others which form the basis for geology are not true (and which unfortunately cannot be proven either way, being in the past) that figure could be drastically different from what the present consensus is. 'Confidence' IMHO is not a term one should readily recurse to if one's underlying principles and assumptions aren't known for certain.
Cheers.

The consensus was that the Earth was at least millions of years old. These days, the consensus, still based on evidence, is that the Earth is at least so many billions of years old. More evidence could change the figure in the future, but it's unlikely the age will be going downwards, and it certainly won't be rounded down to the Young Earth Creationist's belief of the age of the Earth: the laughable 6,000-10,000 years rubbish.

Pastor AIO: Only a Christian can be Logical. Only a Christian has Reason. Everybody else think along fallacious deluded lines.

What is Logic and what is Reason?

Logic is derived from the Greek term Logos. That which is from the Logos is Logic. Only christians abide in the Logos and have the Logos abide in them. qed- only christians can be logical.

No.

Pastor AIO:
hmmm. I've sure ruffled some feathers.
Let me first restate my position. Logic is derived from the Logos! The Christian abides in the logos and the logos in him/her. It follows that the christian is logical. If the christian is not logical the fact is simple: He ain't a christain.

Once again, no.

Now to respond to some objections.
Syrup says that the term logos is a philosophical term and not a theological or christian one. Sometimes it is easy to allow arbitrary human categorisations to befuddle our thinking. If something encrouches on the territory of religion then it is a religious matter.

Not quite. Philosophy deals with matters that religions also dogmatically cling to: metaphysics. It's not encroaching, as the two don't have to be mutually exclusive.

The first written account of Logos that we have is from heraclitus in which he says, to quote you, 'meaning both the source and fundamental order of the cosmos. '

Now if that ain't encrouching on religion's territory then I don't know. I've even heard some argue that Buddhism is not a religion. You can study buddhism all your life and never bow down to any god or even hear the mention of any god.

Heraclitus tells us that the world has a source and that this source has ordered the universe in a particular way. How is that not religious?

It's not religious because it's not a philosophy that pertains to the worship of a particular deity. Although Heraclitus was vague about what he meant by the logos, it can be deciphered from the extracts that are available, etc, that the logos wasn't a being of substance. It was a part of Heraclitus's cosmology, and a staple element in his philosophy, but it isn't quite the same thing as the Christian conception of the word, nor the modern understanding of what logos entails.

What more did Heraclitus have to say about the Logos? Taken from the same wikipedia source we find Whatever it was, "all things come to pass in accordance with this word"[47] and "the word is common."[48] It is "the account which governs the universe (ta hola, the whole)."[49]
Logos appears to be some sort of natural law and yet men must "follow the common (hepesthai tō ksunō)"[50] and not live having "their own judgement (phonēsis)" implying a voluntary assent, which natural law does not offer. He distinguishes between human laws and divine law (tou theiou "of God".[51]

He in other words says that all things come to pass by the authority of the Logos and that this Logos is the account which governs the universe. That might still not sound religious to you but to me it certainly infringes on the roles that I believe are God's. Not least when he then says that men must not live according to their own judgement and he makes a distinction between the divine law and the human laws. He teaches The idea that the universe changes according to a plan or logos, with[b] which the truly aware soul should cooperate[/b], is expressed in the notable but obscure DK B1 and DK B2.. In other words he says that the Logos is divine and that we are better off following the format of the Logos than our own human judgement.

Perhaps that doesn't sound religious to you in which case I won't try to convince you any further.

Um, Syrup said the use of the term predates Christianity, not religious aspects as a whole. Alluding to the use of the logos in a capacity that precedes Christianity has ensured that your initial argument has been falsified. Further, that the word "logos" also precedes Heraclitus should not be overlooked.

However if you look any where in the world you will find that every people have a belief identical with the belief in Logos. How comes? Is it not arguable that this is something that is written on all men's (and women's) hearts, since the dawn of time?

No and no.

syrup:
Hi KAG,

Okay. Do natural causes (as far as "origin" of the world go) assume a "Creator" in the theory of evolution?

I'm not sure I fully understand your question - for one thing it reads wrong. There is no promotion or preclusion of metaphysical creators in the theory of evolution: it's silent on the existence of such beings - they are out of its jurisdiction, same with other science theories. Arguments that assert that gods aren't necessary for parsimony can be based around the theory, but that's about it (arguments of that kind shouldn't be mistaken for the science theory itself).

I'd like to see some pointers that it does.

Pointers that it doesn't preclude creators? Easiest one: many theists accept the theory of evolution.

That's true - and I don't think I have made them quite the same (even with references to "no god".

You implied that they are synonymous.

I understand that - and that is why I was trying to very carefully note that I was referring to those who are passionately describing themselves as "darwinists" (and thus ascring to the "darwinist evolution" concept). There are as many who are non-theistic evolutionists who rule out "God" in their postulations, though.

"Darwinist" is such a "bleh!" term. Darwin was a theist at the time he wrote the origins of species, though. I agree that there are many non-theistic evolutionists.

But he didn't quite hold that view throughout. I may be wrong - and possibly so; but that would be because his thesis do not seem to lean towards that position later on.

If I remember correctly, he lost his faith because of the death of his child. I should look that up - I'll look it up later.

That is what has held my attention so far - the "crevolution" thingy. It's hard for me to see where they play the romance there.

It wasn't the crevolution thing that was wrong it was the assertins that came after.

Lol. . . _{your sense of humour disarms me often times}.

There is no yellow ogre with a unicorn flesh hat sitting in my closet. Yes, that is my positive belief.

syrup:
Both "creation" and "(darwinian) evolution" are mutually exclusive. Please consult the proponents of evolution and you will see precisely what I mean. Those holding to the theory of (darwinian) evolution do not suppose that the "origin" of the world came about by "creation". The position can be illustrated simply as:

Evolution is opposed to creation -

(a) evolution postulates the existence of the world by natural causes (without a creator)
(b) creation asserts a deliberate act of the Creator - GOD.

Not quite. Evolution postulates the existence of species through natural causes. It doesn't preclude the existence of a creator. Simply put, Evolution does not equal atheism.

How many Darwinian evolutionists (or even neo-evolutionists) do you know that speak of the "origin" of the world by a divine and deliberate act? Evolution is not another term or nomenclature for "creation" - they are not saying the same thing at all.

Ignoring the label, many scientists that accept the theory of evolution actually believe a god was the ultimate creator. Francis Collins, Ken Miller are two famous examples of theistic evolutionists. even Darwin believed in a creator when he formulated the theory of evolution.

Infact, when one tries to assume a middle compromise to marry both concepts/theories together (something I might call "crevolution", it will be a very strange soup to serve indeed! WHY? Because those who are passionate about (darwinian) evolution have often said clearly that there is NO PURPOSE or MEANING to life - which immediately stands in stark contrast to what you stated for creation:

Yeah, that's wrong.

Can I ask this question: when was the last time you heard neo-darwinist speak of "purpose" and "the meaning" of life for the coming into being of man?

Today.

imhotep:
There is plenty of evidence in the universe. Just calm down and observe.

Present it.

Begining to sound like the [in]famous => "I think, therefore I exist"

Or not.

Good. In a similar vein, the physical universe is a pointer to the Creator God.

Nope. You missed the causation part and the repeatability aspect. You also skipped the tangible thing.

I'm ready.

Then present it.

imhotep:
An original proof for the non-existence of God will be very welcome. Hiding behind rebuttals is unsatisfactory.

Again, proof is for maths and alcohol. The lack of tangible evidence is, imo, the most basic answer to a call for evidence of gods not existing. It is simple and highly effective. Giving rebuttal to an argument isn't hiding, it is the opposite of hiding: it is, in fact, the attempt to squarely address an issue.

What tangible evidence do you have to prove that I was thinking?

The ubiquity of the process described and its repeatability. While it's possible that you alone are the exception to the norm, it's highly improbable and thereby unparsimonious.

Is neurological evidence thought? Or the effects of thought? Or a combination of both?

Depends. For the most part the evidence is often a physical representation of the processes of thought.

Your turn. Tangible evidence for your assertion.

When you're ready.

imhotep:
Those rebuttals are not proofs. They are cop outs.

I don't think you know what a cop out means. Rebuttals aren't meant to be "proofs" (in fact, I'm not sure I can understand why you'd mention anything of the sort); they are proffered to show the flaws and inaccuracy in an argument.

Proof is also for [good] philosophy.

Only in a mathematical capacity.

Good. What tangible evidence is there for thought? Does the fact that you cannot see or feel thought mean that people do not think?

You mean other than the fact that you had to in fact be thinking to ask "what tangible evidence is there for thought"? Well, if you don't value the evidence that is present in deducing thought through repeatedly testing numerous humans externally, what about neurological evidence. measuring and testing brain waves indicate processes of thought.

Your turn. Tangible evidence for your assertion.

imhotep:
@JayFK
Let me post FIVE philosophical proofs for the existence of God

first, those weren't proofs, they were arguments. I already provided rebuttals to the arguments. You generaly resorted to hand-waving.

Now (without reference to the five proofs above) give me ONE proof for the non-existence of God.

Proof is for maths and alcohol. The lack of any tangible evidence for something metaphysical coupled parsimony and logic has often sufficed for disbelieving tales and utterances.

OLAADEGBU:
Here is the formula:

If there were no God, there will be no atheists, since there are atheists therefore God is, was and is to come. QED

Ha ha ha ha.

imhotep:
Ok. Let me re-phrase.

An atheistic religion is one that believes in the non-existence of God ---> even though it cannot prove this non-existence.

Happier?

Mostly. Just a few minor corrections: An atheistic religion is one based on non-belief in the existence of Gods (plural, not singular) even though it cannot prove gods don't exist.

imhotep:
Atheism is a religion that believes in the non-existence of God.

Only if theism is a religion that does not believe in the non-existence of gods. oh wait, that's not how it works.

Atheism and theism are merely descriptors, not religions. Religious subsets may stem from and reside within both descriptors.

Because atheists cannot disprove the existence of God, they have to rely on faith to believe His non-existence.

Or not.

Faith, afterall, is the substance if things NOT SEEN.

A most apt description of atheism => beilief in the non-existence of God.

I have faith that there is no purple three-headed monster bowling behind your chair.

How is this thread so long? People realise that the Gospel of Barnabas is a known forgery, right? Right?