If there is a God, is it a man or woman?

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 42 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: God - Man or Woman? (42 votes.)

God - Man or Woman? (Choose 1)
* Man - 12% (5)
* Woman - 2% (1)
* Both - 19% (8)
* Neither - 36% (15)
* I don't know/believe; I just want to see the results - 31% (13)

God is supposed to be so far beyond human understanding that I put Neither. If He's unique, then there's only God. There are no different types of God; no men Gods or women Gods, just God. I really hope that makes sense.

What if God was one of us?
Just a slob like one of us?
Just a stranger on the bus,
trying to make his way home?

Wow...How do I follow Death Rabbit...

"Tell me all your thoughts on God,
Cause I really want to meet her."

Actually, God is neither male or female. God is spirit and does not possess a genderized physical body as all humans do (except for perhaps Micheal Jackson). It is easy to picture God as a wise, old human male due to art and sayings such as "Our Father", but in truth the fatherhood of God has nothing to do with any physical appearance.

There's a lot to say on this subject...but I think that answers the question...again, from a Christian perspective.

"I don't want to start any blasphemous rumors
But I think that God's got a sick sense of humor
And when I die I expect to find Him laughing."

Make that a JUDEO-Christian perspecive, Hack. ;)

DR - Thanks for reminding me of that awful song. :eek: Hopefully that girl is taking some more lessons, wherever she is.

RM - Mine would be Pagan-Christian, since I celebrate both Christmas and Easter.

I'd agree with Hacken Slash; assigning biological characteristics to God would be limiting Him (yeah, Him. I'm not PC. Sue me) by giving him the ability to suffer from physical maladies (sickness, pain, death, etc.). Since God is, by (Chrisian) definition, infinite, he possesses nothing that would limit Him in any way, unless he wanted to possess it.

Limiting or not, it's illogical. If it's illogical, why bother? ;)

I don't remember which one of the latest Popes, but one of them said "God is Father, but he's mother even more.", heheh.

It's a bit different when we take God in Trinity or God Father. Father implies malehood, even though not at all necessarily in biological sense. Just a male character, I would say, not like it's like with mortals, anyway.

For sure, though, Jesus is male ;)

So, I guess I wouldn't have to burn you at stake for referring to God as she, even if it's weird and just simply not right ;)

I chose "neither." (By the way the question should have given male/ female choices rather than man/woman) But if you think about it, it makes more sense that god is a female. Females are mothers. Females carry and nuture babies. Should it not be a female who gives birth to the human race?

God is a black male, former shooting guard for the Chicago Bulls, who's jersey nr. 23 is retired forever to honor him. :D

Woman

This may be a bit late but I so wanted to post it :

Dear god, sorry to disturb you but...
I feel that I should be heard loud and clear
We all need a big reduction in amount of tears
And all the people that you made in your image
See them fighting in the street
'Cause they can't make opinions meet about god
I can't believe in you

rings a bell?

God is anything you want it to be.

*looks around confused*

Ummm...Rally, how can you be a Christian, but not a Judeo-Christian? Christianity without a Jewish basis is kinda like a tree with no roots.

How bout I just say that it's from "my" Perspective.

God is anything you want it to be. That's amazing...so we now have become God's creators...hmmm

*still confused*

I did think of another good one-liner though:

"When God made man...she was only joking"

Hacken Slash's post has pointed me in the following direction:

God is not a djinny in a lamp. While God is not limited like humans are (e.g. is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent), visualising God as virtually anything you like at the moment resembles the ancient practice of worship of same gods by different names, occupations (one god switching from a warrior god to a farmer god for example), genders, age, ritual virginity or lack thereof, and so on. Those multiple aspects of a god served one purpose: convinience.

Religion is not about comfort, though. As HS pointed above, the faithful are not a god's creators. In Judaism, Christianity and Islam, it's not the faithfuls' place to shape God to their liking. The place of believers is to be also followers and do God's will, not the other way round.

Religion is all about comfort.

Elaborate.

At risk of getting in trouble. There is no God, therefore s/he can be neither male nor female. No one said it yet, so I figured that I should.

Religion is about giving humans the comfort of certainity in a by nature uncertain universe.

While it works for some people, in general faith precludes full knowledge and full understanding. If you know something fully and understand how it works, you don't have to believe, so no faith is in question. Religion is based on faith.

Chev': I think the certainty that Joacqin is refering to is the metaphysical stuff...we do not cease existing after physical death, there is some ultimate purpose, everything will be alright/some entity will save us from our own folly, etc.

The sense of understanding that you refer to and the dichtomy of faith/reason only becomes a factor when two or more people who "know" God try to describe him or are asked how we might verify God's existence.


Lady Luthien: XTC? I was just listening to "Senses working Overtime" a while ago:).


*Runs off to track down Ministry's "Psalm 69"*

Why do people keep believing so seriously to some old fairy tales? :rolleyes: But if there really was something in the clouds (beside airplanes and weather-balloons, or maybe a few birds), it would be definitely "male." :D Only a strong, epitome of a MALE could get somewhere that high without needing to brush hair or buy new shoes :spin:

@Virne

Normally I'd be concerned over how you would survive invoking the wrath of God...except for I don't think you'll even survive invoking the wrath of women.

*steps away to avoid whatever strikes first...lightning bolt or pumps*

Dear god, sorry to disturb you but...
I feel that I should be heard loud and clear
We all need a big reduction in amount of tears
And all the people that you made in your image
See them fighting in the street
'Cause they can't make opinions meet about god
I can't believe in you
This trite little rhyme serves not only to evidence the existence of extreme Good, but on the converse...extreme Evil. I just love it when un-educated poets are given a soap box.

(not refering to you, Lady Luthien, only to the writers of such shallow and short-sighted prose)

What gender does god have... Both? Neither? Dont know. No one does. No one *can* know. And the only thing I am even less certain about is if god(dess?) exists at all. At least not in the form and shape he/she/it is presented to us by the churches.
Organized religions. :rolleyes: The divine is too far beyond us to possibly have a grasp of it and we should not even try to confine it in a rigid faith.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear god, sorry to disturb you but...
I feel that I should be heard loud and clear
We all need a big reduction in amount of tears
And all the people that you made in your image
See them fighting in the street
'Cause they can't make opinions meet about god
I can't believe in you

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This trite little rhyme serves not only to evidence the existence of extreme Good, but on the converse...extreme Evil. I just love it when un-educated poets are given a soap box.

(not refering to you, Lady Luthien, only to the writers of such shallow and short-sighted prose) I would agree that it is not amongst XTC's better lyrics. Groups like Ministry have done far better articulating the atheistic and areligious(even the ANTI-religious) viewpoints both lyrically and musically in songs such as The Deity, Scarecrow(why more people did not pick up on the symbolism of the crucifix and a scarecrow before 1992 is beyond me) and Psalm 69("The body of Christ came down to me/Preaching with c*** in his hands/He wants you to suck on the holy ghost/and swallow the sins of man!").

XTC's Senses working Overtime was when they were on top of their game lyrically IMO.


And all the world is football shaped
It's just for ME to kick in space
And I can see, hear, smell, touch, taste.
And I've got one - two- three- four- five...
Senses working overtime.

Trying to taste the difference between lemon and lime
the pain and the pleasure and the church-bells softly chime.


I have said it before and I will say it again. 99% of the time, a surefire way to write a bad song is to start with the intention of writng about patriotism or proselytisation or even atheism/areligiousness.

The songs "Proud to be an American" adn McCartney's recent "Freedom" are perfectly good examples of this.
Even Lennon's beautiful "Imagine" cannot hold a candle to Al Jourgenson's(one half of Ministry. The other being Paul barker) prose set to industrial grindcore stylings.

People like Trent Reznor confound me. It is hard to believe that the same guy who wrote "If I were TWICE the man I could be/I'd still be HALF of what you need!"(good lyric) is responsible for "You're God is DEAD/And NO one cares!/If there is a HELL/ I'll see you there!"(???).

Tripe isn't a small enough word.


That's amazing...so we now have become God's creators...hmmm

*still confused*We have always been creators of gods. Histoprically man has always created gods to explain that which he had difficulty explaining otherwise. Humnans are pattern-seeking animals and as such we don't like loose ends. When presented with questions such as "What preceded the big bang?" or "Does humanity have a 'purpose'?", we somehow find "I don't know(yet)." to be distasteful so we answer "God did it!" and "yes, God gives us purporse".

@ RuneQuester

I agree that patriotic drivel is usually very trite...as well as this new wave of "Christian" music...give me Taize chant anyday. But that's all a little off topic and maybe in the wrong forum entirely.

Just wanted to make a comment to your statement Histoprically man has always created gods to explain that which he had difficulty explaining otherwise. You are absolutely correct on the trait you observe...but this trait in humans is not evidence of our fabrication of God but rather a fingerprint of the Creator within us, that portion of us "made in his image" that seeks a return and reunion with God. As Saint Augustine said, "Our souls are restless until they rest in you".

But this is something that we'll never agree on, as we have disagreed spendidly in the past, and likely will in the future.

If we go over to the Sensorium we can agree about music though. ;)

Random thought coming out of nowhere - not a man or a woman, but a child.

But the question was probably more about male/female, but just one thought. I don't think that little boys and little girls were that different.

Looky this; I'm still alive. :cool: This just proves my point: there is no big pansy hopping on the clouds -or it was flattered of me calling him an epitome of a male. :D

So, it's clear now; there is no god and if there is, it's definitely male. I have proven my point. :heh:

Christianity and religion in general was invented for one sole thing in my opinion. And that is "control." Nothing more nothing less. Mankind always hungers for power. What is power? Break it down to one fundamental, and it is the influence one has over someone, or something, else. Religion was created because man wanted more power. Yet how can someone control a race of people who ultimately are always looking out for number 1, are all individuals who want different things from life and have their own opinions and morals etc. There is only one way to mass control a population of unique individuals. That is to give these unique, individualistic race, something in common and use that common ground as a basis for manipulation. Hence faith, hence religion, hence the all powerful all knowing figure that epitomises this way of "thinking," God. Religion is humanities attempt to obtain order from inevitable chaos. Religion is control.
So is God a man or a woman? God is neither. God is a means to an end.
That's my take on it anyway :hmm:

Of course in modern day society Religion has evolved into something more than this...

God is a man, period.

There's no way a woman would let things get so [snip] up in her house for so long. ;)

[Single asterisk profanity deleted.] - Beren

[ April 18, 2004, 19:23: Message edited by: Beren ]

Gehn: Hate to hijack but speaking as a pretty vocal atheist, I have to disagree with you about religion. The "control" angle is just too simple and is only applicable to certain regimes(or individuals) throughout history.

Religion is, ironically enough, an evolutionary adaption and one that gave us a distinct survival advantage at one time. People who feared "evil spirits" in the night were less likely to wander into a crevasse or somesuch.

The problem is that the same evolutionary adaptions which help us at one time in a particular environ, are often harmful to us at a different time or in a different environment. Religion is proving to be such a hindrance to us right now by opposing education, scientific/medical progress, social progress etc.
This is not to say that ALL religious people or even MOST religious people behave in a detrimental manner but all t takes is a vocal minority and some degree of control or presence in the mass media(i.e. televison) outlets...

There are also religions(and brands of mainstream religions) throughout history that encourage and promote education adn/or critical thinking but these are, sadly the minority.

[ April 18, 2004, 18:15: Message edited by: RuneQuester ]

How can there be no God?
If you believe there is no God then you are saying an absolute "there is no God"
but where do you get absolutes from?
how can you say there is no God then?

hope you follow that. basically you cannot prove a universal negative. The reason people say there is no God is because they cannot see or understand the evidence and they want to say there is no God because that allows them to do what they want, and live how they want.

How can there be no God?
If you believe there is no God then you are saying an absolute "there is no God"
but where do you get absolutes from?
how can you say there is no God then?

You are mistaken. Atheism, at it's core, is simply LACK of a positive belief in the existence of God(s). It is a response to a theist's positive assertion that "God(s) exist(s)" or the question "Do you believe in(or alternatively "do you WORSHIP...") God(s)?".

It is akin to someone telling YOU that Fairies exist and have been stealing your socks without substantiating the claim through rules of inference/rational arguemnt or evidence. You would be logically correct in repsonding "I see no reason to believe that fairies exist OR are stealing my socks".

hope you follow that. basically you cannot prove a universal negative.Exactly! Which is why the burtden of proof is on the THEIST when he asserts that God exists, jkust as it is on the person who asserts that fairies exist.


The reason people say there is no God is because they cannot see or understand the evidence and they want to say there is no God because that allows them to do what they want, and live how they want. Trying real hard to be polite here but ...sorry, that is completely stupid! I do not want to give my lunch money to the school bully so maybe I should just deny he exists! Do you think that might work?
Is my lack of belief in Santa Claus or Bigfoot due to my not wanting to be subject to sorcerous pranks or attacks by garbage-smelling woodlands primates?

[ Saying the statement is stupid starts to blur the line into an attack on the poster himself. There's always a more tactful way to state your opinion. ] - Beren

[ April 18, 2004, 19:22: Message edited by: Beren ]

Your taking my words in little bits and attacking each section, but if you look at this as a whole, you might hopefully realise that bullies do exist and I CAN prove that, but God is a lot harder to prove that He exists. By the way I forgot to say that the reason He is called the Father is because He has fatherly attributes as we see them. He is, as has been said, a spirit so you cannot say he has a gender (which is difficult to understand, so you say He because of his fatherly qualities). Oh and I can see where you are coming from, perhaps I miss stated something there, but I was tired)

What i meant for you to understand was that you believe that there are no absolutes because you are an athiest right.. but then you must absolutely believe there are no absolutes.. or something like that. That is how I heard someone argue it but I cannot really remember what comes after that.

Isn't this why religious wars are started?

Your taking my words in little bits and attacking each section, but if you look at this as a whole, you might hopefully realise that bullies do exist and I CAN prove that, but God is a lot harder to prove that He exists.As long as I don't take what you say out of context, this is the most sensible way to respond...taking one complete idea/arguemnt at a time and analysing and responding to that single idea/argument.

The point YOU made was that you thought that atheists sole motivation for not believing was a desire to not be bound by God's rules. The implication being that God's existence is obvious to those who look for him without such ulterior motives.
Therefore I took the example of something which DOES obviously exist(a bully) to show that one cannot rationally disbelieve in such things because one would rather not be constrained by those entities' demands/behaviors.

Either God exists and can be rationally infered(as the bully) OR his existence is NOT a given(to say the least) and I am correct in NOT assenting to YOUR claim.




What i meant for you to understand was that you believe that there are no absolutes because you are an athiest right..Wrong. I totally believe there ARE absolutes(as most atheists do). I accept that I absolutely exist. I accept that I am absolutely bound by the physical laws of the universe(gravitation etc.).

OR are you refering to moral absolutes such as an objective "good" or "evil"? If so then no, I do not believe that conceptual things "exist" in the same way as WE exist.


but then you must absolutely believe there are no absolutes.. or something like that. That is how I heard someone argue it but I cannot really remember what comes after that.???

Chev': I think the certainty that Joacqin is refering to is the metaphysical stuff...we do not cease existing after physical death, there is some ultimate purpose, everything will be alright/some entity will save us from our own folly, etc.Hardly sounds any less convenient than "there's nothing up there and you can do whatever you want and can get away with".

The sense of understanding that you refer to and the dichtomy of faith/reason only becomes a factor when two or more people who "know" God try to describe him or are asked how we might verify God's existence.You can have both reason and faith, while you can't be both black and white, so the dichotomy isn't oh so perfect, and the difference lies in that you either know or believe. You don't have to believe if you know. Plus, obviously, you can't draw facts from beliefs. E.g. belief in God has no effect on His actual existence. And so on.

My two cents in the discussion of absolutism and anti-absolutism:

"There are no absolutes" is an absolute statement. Any authority to make such a claim also implies absolute knowledge, at least as to this particular fact. Ergo: an absolute standard, at least for this one thing. So, if a person claims absolute knowledge as to the supposed fact that there are no absolutes, the person's understanding contains an internal contradiction and can be dismissed on formal grounds before actually even looking into the matter.

@RuneQuester

Contrary to your claims, I’ve always found it easier to believe in “God”, or a Divine, Supreme Creator…it has always seemed much more logical and “scientific” to me than to not believe.

From our human experience we can see varying degrees of good and evil in the world…it is easy to extrapolate that observation into an understanding of the existence of infinite good (God) and infinite evil (Satan). This observation fits well into the workings of the human mind and I have always found it a bit incomprehensible to think that good and evil could begin and end with me. In fact I have always found that having good Theology was a far better tool to deal with the big “whys” in life than straight science.

Atheism is terribly dependent upon evolutionary theory to satisfy the question of “from whence did we arise” and as a result must vigorously defend the sanctity of that theory. The need to keep evolution sacrosanct has caused scientists to create things that are not there (e.g. The Oort belt…an imaginary region outside our solar system where short-term comets can spawn. The existence of short-term comets in space provided a severe impediment to the massive amounts of time required to make evolution seem plausible, as short-term comets, which are our most famous comets, have a life expectancy of 200,000 years or so. In order for us to still see Haley’s every 88 years, science had to invent a source for comets for which there is no evidence…other than “it must be there…or this theory is CRAP”).

It has also required science to ignore things that ARE there (e.g. Polystyrate fossils…fossils that penetrate through two or more geologic layers. It is quite a sight to see a fossilized tree trunk that extends through 5 geologic strata which are said to represent a billion years of time…that’s one helluva tree! The atheists and evolutionists dismiss these as wild flukes…but the fact is that there are more polystyrate fossils in existence than the entire catalog of fossils that support human evolution…by a factor of almost 10!)

Evolution and atheism requires a sweeping disregard, indeed disdain for mathematics. In order for ONE protein to form in the so-called “primordial soup” at the dawn of life, requires odds that are equivalent to winning the State lottery 10 consecutive times. When these odds are applied to the then necessary age of the earth, they become only astronomical and implausible…but when you stretch the envelope to consider the random generation of one amino acid from it’s complimentary proteins…it becomes inconceivable. That’s why mathematicians tend to view current evolutionary theory with skepticism if not outright disbelief.

It is impossible to take these mathematical truths a step further, look at the entire universe, and not see the hand of a Creator…a design and a plan by which everything was made.

These are only a few of the many examples that can be raised against atheism and its lap-dog, evolution.

We’ve had this debate before, RuneQuester, and basically agreed to just not discuss it anymore…but I had to speak out on behalf of those who do believe in God. You are good at what you do (debunking God and faith in general), but I sleep well at night with what I know and believe to be true. Pleasant dreams.

Oh yeah, and what chev said, too ;)

@HS – you know I like you, and respect your (or any other ‘believers’) opinions, but as an agnostic with atheistic leanings, I have to respond:
Contrary to your claims, I’ve always found it easier to believe in “God”, or a Divine, Supreme Creator…it has always seemed much more logical and “scientific” to me than to not believe…In fact I have always found that having good Theology was a far better tool to deal with the big “whys” in life than straight science…and that’s the problem I have – that religion seems to be the “easy” way out. “It’s God’s” will”. So I don't need to understand. But for me, if there is a God, I need to understand why he/she/it does what he/she/it does.
Evolution and atheism requires a sweeping disregard, indeed disdain for mathematics. In order for ONE protein to form in the so-called “primordial soup” at the dawn of life, requires odds that are equivalent to winning the State lottery 10 consecutive times. When these odds are applied to the then necessary age of the earth, they become only astronomical and implausible…but when you stretch the envelope to consider the random generation of one amino acid from it’s complimentary proteins…it becomes inconceivableI don’t deny the seeming incredible odds, and I don’t pretend to be a mathematician. But when you are talking about billions of years, and a nearly infinite number of lives (I’m including single cell lives here), it seems to me that it would be very possible that something as amazing as the variety of lifeforms we have on Earth could occur naturally.

Granted, science doesn’t provide all the answers yet. But neither does religion. I’ve always thought of religion as a convenient way to “explain” (or actually not explain) that which we do not yet understand.

@ Splunge
you know I like you, and respect your (or any other ‘believers’) opinions, but... As soon as I saw the "but", I knew I was in for it! I like you too Splunge, in fact you're my favorite Canadian. ;)

I understand your rap on religion, that it seems easy to just rely upon the standard "God said so" argument. Too many people of faith fall back on that when they don't know what to say when questioned, but the fact is there is a staggering treasury of human thought that has been applied to the "hard" questions. For 2000 years Fathers and Doctors of the Church have dealt and grappled with these issues, and shed tremendous light and understanding on the human condition and experience...they rival or exceed the development of humanist philosophers. There are outstanding answers and incredibly deep thought out there.

That being said...I'd rather be in a room with a bunch of atheists and agnostics than with a bunch of "believers" who don't believe like I do...at least you don't tell me I'm gonna burn in Hell!

There is one element of Faith that is very hard for me to accept...it did not come easy at all...and that is "There is a God, and he is not me."

I like you too Splunge, in fact you're my favorite Canadian. You don't know too many Canadians, do you? :D

I think this whole debate boils down to an acceptance of what constitutes "proof".

In order to believe in God, I need something I can detect with my own five senses (well, maybe not taste - eeewwww! :shake: ). For me, "faith" is not enough. But then, I wasn't raised in a religious household, nor have I had any experiences for which religion could provide the only answer that I could find acceptable. So my standard of proof (or what I am willing to accept as such) differs from yours; not that my standard is any better - it's just different. And in all likelihood, unless one of us has a profound experience to change our respective opinions, neither one of us is likely to change our views any time soon.

But that doesn't mean that we can't still get along. :)

@hacken slash- it seems to me you might want to consult your theology again. the idea that we can see good and evil at work in the world, and subsequently infer infinite good and infinite evil, is explicitly contradicted by the fundamental christian tenet of salvation by grace. that is, on account of our fallen state, we cannot achieve salvation through works, no matter how good these works might appear to us. it is only by the grace of god, by the sacrifice of christ on the cross, that we may be saved.

also, there is no "infinite evil" in christian theology; evil is only the absence of god. god is the alpha and omega, and so the only ultimate infinity. if satan et al. have fallen into darkness, this darkness is not an opposed or competing power to the light of god; it is only the absence of that light. if you still want to believe in "infinite evil," I suggest you look up "gnosticism" and "manicheism."

it seems to me that the only interesting christian theologians out there are the ones that have given a great thought to the problem of doubt. this includes, in my mind, a lineage of writers from augustine to kierkegaard to bonhoeffer. any of these would be welcome correctives to the absolutist "left behind" dubya christian bull**** currently in circulation. to think of faith as characterized by a constant wrestling with doubt is far more compelling imho than a faith of constant certainty, which seems to me to be more about group identity and a lack of imagination than anything else.

and i kinda like the xtc "dear god" lyrics, tho probably more in the context of the rest of the lyrics and the song itself (along with partridge's delivery). the "problem of pain" as c.s. lewis called it, is by no means a trivial issue in christian theology.

and then i wonder about all of the fundamentalist christian "thinktanks" out there churning out probability stats on how many lotteries one must win to evolve a world. these guys are always laughably behind and inept with their science, which i guess is fitting as the whole philosophical preoccupation with proving or disproving the existence of god on the basis of the logic of causation went out of fashion say in the 17th century. evolution is itself a constantly evolving theory, and it's been an incredibly productive one (especially the more we understand genetics), and given my (tenuous) faith in civilization, i'm reasonably sure that if it's ever displaced, it will be by another scientific theory and not by a theological coup. i really think christians would be more productive with their time if they spent it examining the epistemology and ontology of faith as opposed to making silly arguments about god *literally* creating the universe in seven days.

finally, another lyric for your consideration: "if the real jesus christ were to stand up today, he'd be gunned down cold by the cia..." true or false?

It is interesting to see that people who believe in evolution are actually just as much dependent on faith as any religious group though. Who can say they were there to witness creation, and who can say they were there to witness the first fish to fly or the first bit of mass to all of a sudden have life? Also i would like to know what new information on genetics you are talking about Bion?

and then i wonder about all of the fundamentalist christian "thinktanks" out there churning out probability stats on how many lotteries one must win to evolve a world. these guys are always laughably behind and inept with their science, which i guess is fitting as the whole philosophical preoccupation with proving or disproving the existence of god on the basis of the logic of causation went out of fashion say in the 17th century interesting that you should say that because these thinktanks are not so preoccupied with proving God exists; Christians do not go around proving whether or not God exists from logic, because that is what they believe , though they do use it logic to help others like humanists who do not want to say they believe anything by faith. And that is why this argument will not get anywhere.

Just by the way, many of the greatest scientists in the past were also great philosophical and CHRISTIAN thinkers, such as Newton.

@Orrick the Grey- the comment on genetics and evolution was really just meant as an illustration of how many different ways the theory of evolution impacts science beyond the question of origins. even if we were to imagine that evolution with a big E said nothing about the origins of human beings, evolution with a small e -- at the most basic, that the more successful organisms tend pass on their genetic material, while the less successful don't -- would still be useful in day to day science, and that it would be evolving as scientists test and revise their understanding of what they are looking at. for example, one interesting thing in genetics (and bioinformatics) is the shear amount of information in the genetic code. while part of this code was certainly under evolutionary pressure, other parts were not, whether due to redundancy, lack of expression, or simply lack of importance to survival. and there are also social factors in evolution; successful group cooperation leads to individual success, etc. so one could say for example that: 1) evolution does not produce "optimized" solutions, but rather satisfactory ones; and 2) although evolution looks at success and failure at the level of individual organisms, there is also a strong group component to that individual success. evolution with a small e, simply considered as a process, provides a framework within which alot of basic, practical science is being done today. this framework is itself constantly under revision. while you might say that evolution is a matter of faith because no one was there to see it (although the question of whether actually "being there" constitutes a privileged form of knowledge is itself a thorny one, think of the last court room you've seen), i think you'd find plenty of scientists who would claim to see some aspect of it up close everyday, whether in running through generations of c. elegans in a lab, or studying the evolution of a virus across human populations in public health, etc. in these cases, evolution is simply a practical idea. if it weren't, or if they could decide on a better working framework, scientists would chuck it out the window.

all of this might be challenging to faith, or it might not. imho, there is nothing even about evolution with a big E that would challenge faith; what it would challenge would be a literalist interpretation of the bible (but then again i'm more than happy to see that challenged anyway).

[EDIT] yes, newton was a christian, as was nearly everyone in pre- (or even post-) enlightenment europe, including galileo (who had a rather tough time of it, no?). however, i think i could pretty confidently speculate that newton wouldn't have minded evolution at all (if he would have kept his christianity is another issue); and there are plenty of christian scientists (that is, scientists who profess christianity) today who buy evolution either wholly or in part.

@Bion

it seems to me you might want to consult your theology again. the idea that we can see good and evil at work in the world, and subsequently infer infinite good and infinite evil, is explicitly contradicted by the fundamental christian tenet of salvation by grace. that is, on account of our fallen state, we cannot achieve salvation through works, no matter how good these works might appear to us. it is only by the grace of god, by the sacrifice of christ on the cross, that we may be saved.
No...no need to consult "my" theology, as it appears the only Christian theology you are familiar with is Fundamental Evangelical Protestant.

also, there is no "infinite evil" in christian theology I meant not to infer that there is "infinite" evil in Christian theology (and I don't think that I did), only that our observations can lead in either direction from the spectrum that we observe. Infinite good does exist, and that is where we find God. I agree with you in general on your definition of evil.

Maybe you can clarify this lyric, simply on behalf of xtc:
finally, another lyric for your consideration: "if the real jesus christ were to stand up today, he'd be gunned down cold by the cia..." true or false? "real" Does this mean the one 2000 years ago wasn't the real one?

"gunned down" Does this mean assasinated?

"cold" As in shot in the back?

"by the cia" Do they do that anymore?

So, no, the answer to the question is false. Anyone of faith can tell you that when the "real" Jesus Christ comes again, it's not to die again.

More bad theology from people who have discovered that opposed thumbs can grip a crayon.

@ Chevalier: Holy...?!?


Hardly sounds any less convenient than "there's nothing up there and you can do whatever you want and can get away with".What does THAT have to do with anything I said Chev'? Your presuppostions are showing again... ;) .


Also, why are you quoting replies from long dead threads here?


:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sense of understanding that you refer to and the dichtomy of faith/reason only becomes a factor when two or more people who "know" God try to describe him or are asked how we might verify God's existence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can have both reason and faith, while you can't be both black and white, so the dichotomy isn't oh so perfect,Who said anything about "perfect"?

Context is good...always quote in context!


and the difference lies in that you either know or believe. You don't have to believe if you know. Plus, obviously, you can't draw facts from beliefs. E.g. belief in God has no effect on His actual existence. And so on....Or His NON-existence ;) .

My two cents in the discussion of absolutism and anti-absolutism:

"There are no absolutes" is an absolute statement. Any authority to make such a claim also implies absolute knowledge, at least as to this particular fact. Ergo: an absolute standard, at least for this one thing. So, if a person claims absolute knowledge as to the supposed fact that there are no absolutes, the person's understanding contains an internal contradiction and can be dismissed on formal grounds before actually even looking into the matter.Maybe...I am not an "absolutist" per se. I only even mentioned the whole thing in response to Orick's claim that all ahteists were absolutists or somesuch.

@ Hack-N-Slash:


Contrary to your claims, I’ve always found it easier to believe in “God”, or a Divine, Supreme Creator…it has always seemed much more logical and “scientific” to me than to not believe.Refresh my memory here; what "claim" did I make in regards to whether it is easier to believe or not believe in gods? Honestly, I participate in literally dozens of these discussions every week so I would like to be clear on what it was I said and in what context which you are refering to.

From our human experience we can see varying degrees of good and evil in the world…it is easy to extrapolate that observation into an understanding of the existence of infinite good (God) and infinite evil (Satan).I don't think I follow you here. Are you saying that because we can percieve degrees of what we as individuals will dub "Good" behavior and "bad" behavior, that it stands to reason that some "ultimate" Good and evil exist(i.e. "God" and "Satan"?)??


This observation fits well into the workings of the human mind and I have always found it a bit incomprehensible to think that good and evil could begin and end with me.First of all, it is not so much an observation as it is a perception. Muslim terrorists are "witnessing" and fighting against a "great evil" just as Christian American soldiers are, right now. If I had been born and raised in the middle east, by a muslim family I MAY well be agreeingt with them right now.

God and evil are not objective things, like gravity or matter. They are dependent upon the individual perception. Nazi's under Hitler's regime did not think they were doing "evil" anymore than YOU think that YOU are doing evil.


In fact I have always found that having good Theology was a far better tool to deal with the big “whys” in life than straight science.I gather that by "the big why's" you mean things like "Why are we here?" and "what is our purpose?", ci? If so then of course science is not a tool for such exasmination because science does not work well from presupposition. Here you are begging the question by assuming there ARE "big why's".
Science is not an ANSWER to most questions. Science is a METHOD of examining our environment.
Plumbing cannot tell us why we are here(or even if that is a legitamate question) but that does not make plumbing a less valuable trade/practice.

Atheism is terribly dependent upon evolutionary theory to satisfy the question of “from whence did we arise”Wrong. Atheism means quite simply and literally "Without gods". It is not a worldview adn does not contain a position on evolution, abortion, gun control, the metric system or anything else but whether one believes in supernatural gods or whether one WORSHIPS anything as a god(such as the sun or divine emporers).


and as a result must vigorously defend the sanctity of that theory.Wrong again(see above). Atheism is not a religion, a worldview, a political belief, a body of knowledge or a code of behaviors or dogma. It is simplyu a response to a particular question/claim: "Do you believe in god(s)?" or "God exists!". The answer of atheism being "I see no reason to think so/believe in such".


The need to keep evolution sacrosanct has caused scientists to create things that are not there (e.g. The Oort belt…an imaginary region outside our solar system where short-term comets can spawn.Wrong again. Cosmology, abiogenesis, astronomy etc. are not part of evolutionary biology and evolution does not figure into ideas about the Oort belt and such. Evolution only explains biodiversity /speciation on earth.


The existence of short-term comets in space provided a severe impediment to the massive amounts of time required to make evolution seem plausible, as short-term comets, which are our most famous comets, have a life expectancy of 200,000 years or so. In order for us to still see Haley’s every 88 years, science had to invent a source for comets for which there is no evidence…other than “it must be there…or this theory is CRAP”).First off Halley's appears every 76 years(not 88...minor nitpick). I have been reading a lot about comets lately(Carl Sagan & Ann Druyan's Comet as well as Asimov's various essays) adn let me come right out and say that a thorough refutation/explanation of your assertions/arguments here would be a massive undertaking which I do not have the time or inclination to undertake right now.

The oort belt is a hypothesis(as I understand it) offered as a potential explanation of some currently unknown bits. It does not matter whether it turns out to be correct or not(anymore than Dark Matter or superstring theory) and is certainly not positied as a means to get around some allegeed contradiction within evolutionary biology!?!

I am also unsure how you assertt that comets do not exist beyond 200,000 years or what this could possibly have to do with evolution of life on earth!?
Evolution is one of, if not THE most strongly supported scientific theories we have ever had. It has stronger evidenciary support than GRAVITY for crying out loud!(and yet no one challenges the theory of gravitation!).

It has also required science to ignore things that ARE there (e.g. Polystyrate fossils…fossils that penetrate through two or more geologic layers.Cite? No evolutionary biologist or paleontologist ignores any such fossils and a quick trek over to the Talkorgins.org site will answer all your questions about such things.

I willgive you a more throough debunking but it will require that I dig out my reference materials and spend some time on this.


It is quite a sight to see a fossilized tree trunk that extends through 5 geologic strata which are said to represent a billion years of time…that’s one helluva tree!Too bad no such tree-fossil exists! Again, this is a bald assertion(I suspect you will be pulling out the Paluxi man-tracks creationist hoax next...*sigh*)


The atheists and evolutionists dismiss these as wild flukesWrong again! We DEBUNK these wild CLAIMS!


…but the fact is that there are more polystyrate fossils in existence than the entire catalog of fossils that support human evolution…by a factor of almost 10!)That Dembski I smell? or Gish? I can see this is a sticking point for you so I will defginately have to start a new thread refuting these creationist claims(if someone does not beat me to it).

Evolution and atheism requires a sweeping disregard, indeed disdain for mathematics.Yep...Dembski & Behe. You should question your sources more thoroughly and save us a lot of time.


In order for ONE protein to form in the so-called “primordial soup” at the dawn of life, requires odds that are equivalent to winning the State lottery 10 consecutive times. When these odds are applied to the then necessary age of the earth, they become only astronomical and implausible…but when you stretch the envelope to consider the random generation of one amino acid from it’s complimentary proteins…it becomes inconceivable.This is Dembski's infamous take on the "probability argument". it is fallacious primarily for two reasons:

1)you cannot retroactively calculate the odds of something happening as if the event were an intended goal all along. Go shuffle a deck of cards and draw three at random adn note what cards were drawn. Now tell me what the odds were you would draw THOSE cards in THAT order! Astronomically low! You could not have possibly drawn those cards by "chance". You must have cheated!

2)Behe & Dembski's "lottery analogy" is false for the following reasons: If you have a lottery drawing where the odds of winning are, say 1 in ten million, the odds that SOMEONE will win are still virtually 100%! it is only the odds that YOU will win that are astronomically low.

Secondly, you are assuming evolution operates by "starting from scratch" with every adaption/speciation. it does not. Evolution always builds upon what came before. Let's look at your lottery analogy again.
Let's say it is a standard "Irish lottery"(I believe that is the term) wherein you select 5 or 6 two digit numbers(where a zero can be one of the digits). Picking all SIX numbers correctly, at once would be an incredible feat! But that is not how evoluition works. Evolution is like picking a number over and over until you hit on the "right" one, keeping that correct numebr and then moving on to the second number, and so on until you have all six. If you were given many years to do this, being able to keep "correct numbers" as you got them then it would not be so long before you had a winning lottery ticket.


That’s why mathematicians tend to view current evolutionary theory with skepticism if not outright disbelief.A common but unsubstantiated claim by the ICR and AiG. Even if there WERE many mathematicians who made such an error, it would not change the facts of evolution(it would just mean that mathematicians should stick to math which is their field adn evolutionary biologists should keep their noses out of Theoretical physics)

It is impossible to take these mathematical truths a step further, look at the entire universe, and not see the hand of a Creator…a design and a plan by which everything was made.I see no such evidence at all. ANyone can "find" evidence to support a presupposition or conviction because we are pattern-seeking animals. JFK conspiracy theoprists will see the same "evidence" regardless of whether LHO acted alone or not(only if he WAS part of a conspiracy would more substantial/obejctive evidence be apparent).

These are only a few of the many examples that can be raised against atheism and its lap-dog, evolution.Are you copy/pasting this stuff? I swear I have read and refuted this same nonsense before!

We’ve had this debate before, RuneQuester, and basically agreed to just not discuss it anymore…but I had to speak out on behalf of those who do believe in God. You are good at what you do (debunking God and faith in general), but I sleep well at night with what I know and believe to be true. Pleasant dreams.???

I hope you DO sleep well(as I do) but what does that have to do with anything?

Oh yeah, and what chev said, too

[ April 20, 2004, 19:13: Message edited by: RuneQuester ]

No...no need to consult "my" theology, as it appears the only Christian theology you are familiar with is Fundamental Evangelical Protestant.

no...i'm afraid that "salvation by grace" has always been a central tenet of christianity, from eastern orthodoxy to catholicism to protestantism. the "fundamental evangelical protestant" theologians (if there are any) might parrot this line in it's reader's digest condensed version, but that doesn't reduce the centrality of grace to christian thought. as an example, western christian theologians in the middle ages spend a great deal of time thinking about the status of the "virtuous pagans" that lived before christ. this was only to be expected given the fundamental influence of greek and roman thought (esp plato and aristotle) on theology at the time. the position was that these thinkers were "virtuous" in having intuited the "good," and thus the hand of god at work in the world, but their knowledge of the good was by definition incomplete because it was not informed by the grace of god and the sacrifice of christ. thus, for dante, the virtuous pagans would be placed at the outermost level of hell -- not really such a bad place, relative to the inner layers of hell -- where they awaited the redeption of christ and their transference into purgatory. dante has the utmost respect for these virtuous pagans; however, as great as their wisdom might be, and as much as they might know about the "good", there is no other place for them than hell until they are redeamed by christ.

and so, to reiterate: "salvation by grace" is not exclusive to "fundamentalist evangelical protestants," and methinks it is you who should be hitting the books, not i...

as for the above lyrics, it seems obvious to me that they describe a hypothetical situation, not a theological position. poems, if not pop music lyrics, often make use of such hypothetical situations; i think the term is "poetic license." the artist's intention, i think, was to call into question whether US power is always truly acting "with god on its side" (dylan); i don't think he was prophesying that jc would return again, as told in the scriptures, with the revision that he be shot by the cia. (btw, the chorus of the song iirc is "islam is rising/ the christian's mobilizing/ the world is on it's elbows and knees/ it's forgotten the message and worships the creeds; granted this particular pop artist isn't so good with subtlety.)

and on last set of lyrics, from wayyyyy back...

Oh my name it is nothin'
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I's taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And that land that I live in
Has God on its side.

Oh the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side.

[snip]

But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.

In a many dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.

@Orrick:


It is interesting to see that people who believe in evolution are actually just as much dependent on faith as any religious group though.My word but this is an oft parroted bit of nonsense!

1)Evolution, nor atheism requires "faith". I have NO faith and never touch the stuff. I do not have "faith" that the sun will rise or a chiar will support my weight when I sit down. I ahve OBSERVED the sun to behave as it does adn I know enough about the construction of a chair to infer that it will support my 160 ilbs. when I decide to sit in it.

Likewise we observe evolution happening all the time...even today we can directly observe the processes in laboratory experiments.

I find it ironic that the same people who insist Saddam had weapons of mass destruction will deny that evolutionary theory is correct. If the theory of evolution were FALSE then there copuld be no chemical weapons developed, no insulin treatments for us diabetics, no vaccinations or innoculations etc. ALL of modern biology is dependent upon the correctnes of evolutionary theory. Like any good scientific theory, the ToE makes predicitions. If these predictions do not pan out then the theory has to be discarded or reworked. SO far ALL predictions made by the ToE have been true(unlike Biblical prophecy adn the like).


Who can say they were there to witness creation, and who can say they were there to witness the first fish to fly or the first bit of mass to all of a sudden have life?Ugh...That was painful to read. First of all you have a misunderstanding of what evolution is. It is not about fish magicvally transforming into birds adn whatnot. A fin may become a "leg" through gradual steps over millions of years and whatever adaptions that grant a survival/reproductive advantage can just as easily lead to a species exitinction when conditions change.
For example: Creature a has slightly webbed feet. it lives in an environ where it must travers ponds and strems quite often. Webbed feet are not the norm for it's species but they prove to be just advantageoius enough that the creature survives to pass these genes along to it's offspring.

Repeat over millions of years and let's hypothesize that the "poinds" and "streams" have become lakes and rivers(if not an ocean!). HTe creature now has feet like a duck or perhaps webbed fins like a fish. He can traverse the waters quite well adn those who did NOT develope these advantageous adaptions have long since died out(caught by predators or starved or whathave you).

Then a catyclism occurs and the lakes and rivers dry up! The web-footed/finned creature now is easy prey for carnicorous predators and has difficulty getting food/sustenance.

THat is evolution.

As for "witnesses" we do not need "direct" witnesses to say something more than likely happened or existed. No one around today saw the sun existing thousands of years ago but we can be relatively sure that it DID exist right?



Just by the way, many of the greatest scientists in the past were also great philosophical and CHRISTIAN thinkers, such as NewtonMany were/are also atheists such as Einstein, Asimov, Sagan, Dawkins, Gould, Burbank, etc.. SOmething like 85% of the current roster of NAS scientists are atheist right now. Virtually ALL of biologists are atheists.

Whoa! I first overlooked the side discussion because I trusted it would get back on track with the original discussion, the gender of God. Anyways ...

Take discussions about faith and evolution, and whether or not God exists to other threads if you're wanting to continue in those directions.

To return to the original topic...

God is a spirit who appears to us to posess features of both genders.
:)
:)
:)
:)


God also does not believe in evolution, atheism or insipid pop music. :eek:

Sorry, I couldn't resist after I stirred up such strident responses.

I'll play nice.

I just wanted to know if people thought God was a guy or girl...

/me looks at the past two pages

Wow :eek:

God is a man.

But it's a bit confusing, because he's a cross-dresser.

Edit: why are there locusts suddenly swarming my office?

OK, heeding the warning. I will, of course, happily grant any request for getting crushed by magnificent logic in other threads.

In topic: Spirits have no sex in the context of carnal relations and reproduction, because they don't need any, but they can have some abstract male or female character. For example, angels aren't really supposed to be of either sex, but Jews and Christians typically consider archangel Michael male, for example ;) With God Himself, it works the same way.

AM about to post a new thread titled "Debunking creationism" in which Hack-n-Slash's points will be refuted in even greater detail(will still keep things pretty simple though or I would lose myself!).

See you there!

those interested can also check out "The God and/or Evolution Poll!!!" thread, originally on AoDA but transported by Tal to Whatnots, presumably on account of the excess of exclamation points in the thread title...

and while we're on the topic of whether God is gendered, perhaps the following questions are germaine:

if God is not gendered, is s/he NONgendered? or maybe BIgendered? or maybe even TRANSgendered? or was s/he UNgendered?

I can't believe this thread has gone on for this long.
God - Man or Woman? Come on, you guys...is there any doubt that Jack Nicholsen is a man? :cool:

@DR

Wait...I thought that God was George Burns?