Why bother with God? (General)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, May 20, 2011, 01:50 (4746 days ago) @ David Turell

From my position on the fence, I can see no evidence for any of them ... beneficence, omniscience, omnipotence, as listed by David ... since the world as I see it could just as easily reflect the opposite. 
> 
> I don't list those characteristics, religions do. I'm not sure of God's characteristics. 
> 
> > I once said that a last refuge for God resided in the consciousness... I find this less and less true. 
> 
> When you can explain consciousness to me, then I will accept your statement.-I think that it stands to reason that we've never witnessed a disembodied consciousness. A simple argument, but reasonable. 
 
> > 
> > The lectures I watched were in dealing with the topic of Free Will. Something that we've spent some time on in the past few months. He completely eliminated determinism as a viable option; while on the physical level cells behave as determined automatons, it turns out that this is inconsequential regarding the question of free will. (I can post the lectures for those interested...)
> 
> Please do.-http://vodpod.com/watch/4950028-dan-dennett-free-will-responsibility-and-the-brain-the-situationist-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cSgVgrC-6Y-Block 2.5hrs for these. They cover some identical material, but they are different enough (one was targeted towards law students, the other towards philosophers). If you only choose one, i'd choose the second, its the most comprehensive.-> > All approaches to Intelligent Design to date have not resulted in anything that can be empirically tested--nor have such tests been proposed via thought experiments. What utility is an explanation that you can't subject to correlation and causation? I posit none. When you read Dembski and Behe... you have reinterpretations of evidence, but nothing you can take to a lab. What use is a reinterpretation that doesn't allow you to advance?
> 
> What if the reinterpretation is correct? I believe Behe has suggested some real testing. I'll have to look for it.-A reinterpretation that can't be tested has no hope of ever being verified or falsified. Therefore it's--as you once put it--mental masturbation.-Also, how many instances in life have you been presented with situations in which *reason alone* sufficed for an answer? I agree, (extremely) educated guesses as they exist in medicine CAN be right, but... how do you determine if your guess was correct?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"