God and Bananas

Status
Not open for further replies.
I haven't been able to dive into this thread yet, but I somehow knew it would be this. I remember seeing it a couple years ago on cable.

Growing Pains indeed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQnop6SUtGE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oI9kI_xc_k&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9izVu_TtAE&feature=related

Not that I'm agreeing with the bananamen at all, but why can't we have both a creator deity and science / evolution? To me evolution seems like a complex system with a set of predetermined rules that was created to allow change and improvisation. Now I don't claim to understand evolution as an expert on the subject would, but if you look at the basic concept of what evolution is I don't think this is too far off. I don't think it is that crazy to say some intelligent entity programmed those rules in some way, then leaving evolution to take its course. And evolution shouldn't be looked at only in an Earthly biological sense. What about the evolution of stars, planets, solar systems. What about the evolution of climate? Culture? Technology? Look at the DVX to the HVX. Is that not a kind of evolution?

Now I'm not totally against the idea of a creative intelligence, one that is advanced immeasurably beyond what the human mind can currently conceive, as the creator of the universe. But to try to fool people the way they are, that isn't a very intelligent thing to do if they want their theories to be taken seriously and have any lasting effect. This may be a harsh statement, but it seems like they're doing it just to keep the Bible in print.

And to riff on Mattin's line, what do I know? I just point lenses and lights at things.

What do the creationists say about the Laws of Physics?
 
Last edited:
JasonFox said:
No, I don't have any intention of looking for them. I honestly don't have time. And I'm not trying to call you out as a jerk or anything, either. Are you going to provide support for your assertion that all people who call themselves scientists are seekers? No? Cool. I don't care that you don't. I just disagree with the statement.
Click to expand...

Why did you ask a question just to answer it yourself? And why would you assume I would not?

I would gladly start providing examples from Archimedes on up, and have a debate about it.

Because debating is fun.

But certainly not with someone who doesn't care and doesn't have time.

Funny that this conversation is becoming an example for my point...
 
Mark Harris said:
Why did you ask a question just to answer it yourself? And why would you assume I would not?

I would gladly start providing examples from Archimedes on up, and have a debate about it.

Because debating is fun.

But certainly not with someone who doesn't care and doesn't have time.

Funny that this conversation is becoming an example for my point...
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, debating can be fun. And if I had the time I might take you up on it. But you busted my chops for not providing examples in my original post, which is exactly what you did in yours. If you're not going to include a few of your examples when making a statement others might feel is debatable, don't give me flack for doing the same.
 
I doubt this discussion could go that much further w/o getting inflammatory... but I'd love to hear a debate where an atheist disputes the law of cause and effect... and a creationist disputes illogical contradictions in sacred texts... because if you think about it... both of them would have a hard time.

There are questions that are impossible to answer on both sides of the issue, such as "where did the first super-particle come from, and how did it get introduced into this void, and if this was a void, what is outside of it? and what "contains" a void anyway?

Sooner or later either side can be reduced to questions that can't be answered... which is why I yearn for debates that stick to logic. Both sides have to be willing to concede points... but both sides get way too passionate about what they believe, with no acceptance of even a smidge of middle-ground.
 
MattinSTL said:
I doubt this discussion could go that much further w/o getting inflammatory... but I'd love to hear a debate where an atheist disputes the law of cause and effect... and a creationist disputes illogical contradictions in sacred texts... because if you think about it... both of them would have a hard time.
Click to expand...

But I suspect the atheist at some point would say he doesn't know the answer, while the creationist would claim he does.
 
Strictly for sake of debate... I'd insist that faith was not allowed... only logical points... but yeah, you could be right about that.

The reason I phrased my little paragraph as I did... is because yes, there will be questions on both sides that can't be answered... and the point is that NEITHER side should be arrogantly close-minded... although I'd never expect an atheist to accept the simplified definition of God that is packaged and repackaged by so many people... and I'd never expect a theist to accept any points that poke holes in that nice packaging. (Note that I'm not saying anything of what "the package contains" but only that the people who created the package are protecting THAT over the deeper idea... because the deeper idea couldn't possibly be grasped, understood, or sold.)

There was earlier implication that scientists (atheists?) are seekers... and that theists are not... but I think that it's OK to be a seeker regardless of your foundation... I sometimes think that if there were some intelligence (for lack of a better term) behind everything... that there would be no way to get to a definite answer, because that would invalidate the test. (meaning issues of morality, judgement, internal qualities, etc... i.e. who is a better "soul"... one who lives honorably for hopes of reward and fear of punishment?... or the person who behaves honorably with no expectation of reward or fear of punishment?... or any thought that their actions are even observed?)

If you check the videos at the top of this page... posted by Nektonic... you'll see what makes me go *aaaarrrrrggh*... because Kirk Cameron (sp?) is NOT doing "God" any favors in handling a debate like that... I'm blown away that anybody would let him try to prove points with such ridiculous examples... but the guy sitting next to him is just as incapable of maintaining logic in his debate.

I think there has to be some people out there that aren't "anti-God"... but aren't atheist either... who are turned off by exactly this type of explanation (the videos above)... and that gives them all the fuel they need to reject some grand possibilities outright.

For me the biggest problem in most theology is that they make a concept... which would be FAR FAR more complex then any and all of everything possible, and existing, in the universe... into something that we, as humans, could so easily grasp (mentally).

I will say... about those videos... that "Kelly" should have dressed more reserved... um, wow... it's hard for me to concentrate on anything she was saying. If nothing else... watch the video just long enough to check THAT out... but the rest will annoy any intelligent person.
 
Last edited:
The banana movie proves exactly nothing. It doesn't contain compelling evidence for the existence of God and it doesn't say anything about Christians or Religion or Science. It's just a Youtube video of some dude trying to be either funny (my guess) or profound and failing at both.

I may be missing something though as I honestly can't figure out what the primary argument is here. Religion versus science? Faith versus reason? Creationism versus evolution? These are all separate conversations, and I would argue that some if not all are false oppositions and not mutually exclusive in the slightest. I'm a Catholic and believe in both Intelligent Design and evolution. The Vatican just hosted a conference on evolution as a matter of fact and strict creationists were not even invited.

It is possible to arrive at the truth through the thorough application of logic and this applies to religion as well. "Faith" doesn't mean blind or random or illogical. St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, G. K. Chesterton, C. S. Lewis, these are all people who pounded away at problems of Faith with the same rigor and logic as you'd use to tackle a question of science.
 
There is no primary argument... the thread is an ebb and flow of ideas that in the past, were never able to run this long. I've been hoping to offer some neutrally thought provoking... er... concepts I guess?

The original video is from a guy who is basically saying that bananas, by design, are proof of God... which of course, is a really weak idea on which to base a discussion... because, as I was saying, under that same argument, what about mosquitos? "Oh yes, they were perfectly and thoughtfully designed to spread disease and misery..."

After that the thread turned into theism vs. atheism... and a little logic behind why people choose one or the other.
 
Anhar Miah said:
Not really you started off with a classical Ad-Hominen fallacy on "Creationalist" Reference:
Click to expand...

Not 'classical;' classic. Which I'm willing to retract, if you like. Although since an ad hominem attack is made upon an individual, I find it curious that you think these individuals actually look like anything but enthusiastic jackasses.

Anhar Miah said:
Essentially my response was a rebuke to your point that you attempted to tar everyone into one narrow type, then by defining that narrow type as inferior to then conlcude that their thoughts thus must also be inferior. This is classical Ad-Hominen fallacy , I merely pointed out the even the Ad-Hominen that you used does not hold true.
Click to expand...

As a matter of personal opinion I *do* find these two representative of the intellectual firepower of Creationists. Your mileage may vary.

In any case, suggesting that my initial post should be discarded as ad hominem does not appear to invalidate the observation that your Appeal to Authority is likewise fallacious and should be discarded, too. The fact remains that an intelligent person's endorsement of a foolish idea, does not make that idea any less foolish.
 
Sad Max said:
The fact remains that an intelligent person's endorsement of a foolish idea, does not make that idea any less foolish.
Click to expand...

That only works if the idea can be proven to be objectively foolish. If it's just your opinion that the idea is foolish, than an intelligent person's endorsement of the idea should at least cause you to pause and reconsider the idea for a moment – even if you decide the idea is still foolish.
 
An intelligent person's presentation of an indeterminate statement as fact, does not make that indeterminate statement any more factual. If you prefer.

And, sorry, in light of the very large quantities of factual data supporting the predictive power of properly constructed theories - proof of value being the utility of the method in falsifying improperly constructed ones - the practice of pimping indeterminate la-la myths is instrinsically foolish when we have more useful methods for ascertaining truth.
 
I'm not saying it makes a statement factual. I'm saying that if you actually consider the person presenting the idea to be intelligent, then their belief in the idea should at least cause you to reconsider the idea if only for a moment. If you think the person is a fool espousing foolishness, then that's a different matter.
 
JasonFox said:
I'm not sure what your question is -- a creationist would say God created the laws of physics. :)
Click to expand...

I was just being sarcastic, but it didn't work. I meant to imply that they would probably disagree with the discoveries and theories of physicists and quantum physicists, creating another round of debates on par with the creationism vs. evolution ones that unfortunately have been thrust on us so far.

But you're right, creationists say that God created everything.

I just think that humanity as an intelligent civilization knows so little about the universe and reality in general. Yes it is amazing that we've done and discovered all we have so far but we've barely left the cradle yet. Just think of the debates we'll have with aliens if we ever get out of our solar system and contact an intelligent alien civilization. What about all the strange stars and celestial phenomenon humanity will someday possibly be able to observe more directly by actually traveling nearer to them? Physics theories could and I think will drastically change if our territories are expanded beyond a single star system.

Presently, to say we know God exists or does not and what he, she, or it wants us to do is so arrogantly ridiculous to me that I have a hard time trying to fathom it. It seems like a waste of time to think that we will actually figure it out. Sure it is stimulating to debate and theorize on the subject but that's about as far as I think it will ever go.

And religion is fine. It does have a purpose when not taken as literal fact and as a catalyst for the imprisonment of logic.
 
Last edited:
JasonFox said:
I'm saying that if you actually consider the person presenting the idea to be intelligent, then their belief in the idea should at least cause you to reconsider the idea if only for a moment.
Click to expand...

Not in the least.

Stephen Hawking suggesting that he believes in faeries, would not make me more amenable to seriously considering that faeries exist, for so much as one moment.
 
Sad Max said:
Not 'classical;' classic. Which I'm willing to retract, if you like. Although since an ad hominem attack is made upon an individual, I find it curious that you think these individuals actually look like anything but enthusiastic jackasses.
Click to expand...

No I was not defending the guys, what I was saying is that generalising an entire group into one mono-type is a fallacy, then[1]

Sad Max said:
As a matter of personal opinion I *do* find these two representative of the intellectual firepower of Creationists. Your mileage may vary.
Click to expand...

I already specified who I think are better scholars in this area, so why are you making these assumption.


Sad Max said:
In any case, suggesting that my initial post should be discarded as ad hominem does not appear to invalidate the observation that your Appeal to Authority is likewise fallacious and should be discarded, too.
Click to expand...

Again this is incorrect, [1] what I proved was that your generalising of an entire group into one mono-type is a fallacy, I supplied you with ONE example that invalidated your claim that "One can generalise an entire group into one mono-type"

this had nothing to "appeal to authority", despite making this clear to you.

Sad Max said:
The fact remains that an intelligent person's endorsement of a foolish idea, does not make that idea any less foolish.
Click to expand...

And the opposite also holds true: a foolish person's endorsement of an Intelligent Idea, does not make that Idea any less foolish.

Sad Max, we can debate around in circles endlessly if thats what you want, you happen to be on the atheist camp, that's cool that's fine, I happen to be in the theist camp.

Both camps have struggled since the birth of man to prove to the other side that they are right, no one single man in history of humanity has been able to possibility prove conclusively with absolute certainty either case based purely on evidence and logic:

Strip away all the layers of complex arguments, strip away all the logic and it will always boil down to faith regardless of which camp you happen to be in, the ONLY difference is the atheist camp is based upon intellectual hypocrisy because they are fundamentally based upon the same principle they claim to be against!

Sad Max I'm sure your aware that there are technically two classification of atheists (with sub groups within the two)

(a) Weak Atheist
(b) Strong Atheist

Pick one, now are you telling me that you some how hold the solution that no other atheist (regardless of classification ) has been able to solve since the birth of the Universe?

Anhar
 
Hooray! The thread is still open! Man I'll bet ALL the mods have been watching this one in the background :)

The value of theism vs. atheism can never be proven, or vice versa... it's a personal decision that everybody is (fortunately) free to make. I hope we can continue to respect one another's freedom of choice in this matter.

Now let's sit back and see how thin the ice gets before somebody gets offended and we break through from an angry stomp.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top