On Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:17:30 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>  
>
>> > Genesis doesn't say anything about God being grand and complex as far 
>> as I know. 
>>
>
> It certainly says God is grand and if it didn't say that a omnipotent 
> being was complex it certainly should have.
>

Ah, so we are talking about what you think Genesis should have said rather 
than what it actually says.

Show me where in Genesis it says anything about God being grand or complex:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NIV

 

> And Darwin provided a real explanation, he didn't just say that complex 
> life evolved from much simpler life, he provided the engine, he explained 
> how the mechanism works. 
>
> But exactly how did God create the heavens and the earth? Genesis doesn't 
> say, and that's why Genesis explains absolutely nothing; it might as well 
> have just said "stuff happens" for all the enlightenment it brought.
>  
>
>> >It's a three letter word and it is not explained at all,
>>
>
> I know. That's the problem.
>

Make up your mind, do you have a problem with the God concept being too 
simple or too complex?
 

>
> > so how complex could it be?
>>
>
> Infinitely, and that's a 10 letter word.  
>

Infinity is not quite as simple as God, but it is still very simple 
compared to natural selection and genetic replication. 


> > Isn't God just supposed to be "I am that I am."?
>>
>
> I believe so. I'm not sure of the exact verse but it's somewhere in the 
> Bible, I think it's in The Book Of Popeye   "I yam what I yam and I yam 
> what I yam that I yam".
>

I was just thinking that there should be a Chuckle Like Popeye Day added to 
the calendar actually.

 
>
>> > Had Gutenberg printed the Origin of Species instead of a Bible, 
>> printing probably would not have caught on with the public.
>>
>
> Had Gutenberg printed the Origin of Species Gutenberg would have been 
> slowly burned alive by the church. Do you have any reason for defending the 
> barbaric actions of this institution other than the fact that I don't like 
> it? 
>

I don't like the church either, but the church is not theology. To me, the 
church is a social organization which uses the popularity of theological 
themes to gain political influence and control over a population. All such 
organizations can be as barbaric, from governments to business to country 
clubs and unions. Theological ideas however, are just early philosophy, 
which is early science. Science, in its refinement of philosophy has made 
obvious strides beyond theology, but not everything that has been discarded 
along the way can be forgotten. This is a simplistic view of progress. 
Until science can reconcile physics with psyche in a way which does not 
diminish either one, there will continue to be a huge blind spot which 
fundamentalist churches will exploit.

>
> > I doubt that most televangelists have even studied theology.
>>
>
> You can study mythology or you can study the appalling behavior of 
> primitive bronze age tribes but there is nothing in theology to study. 
> There is no field, there is no there there. 
>

 
http://divinity.duke.edu/sites/default/files/documents/academics/course-schedule-course-listing-2012-fall.pdf

Hyperbole and bigotry are the antithesis of science, IMO. Ignorance plus 
arrogance only helps your ego, not science.

Craig


>   John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Ba_F2n9-G5AJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to