If you are human, you are not capable of understanding God.

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Besides you can't even name the benefits so I'm not sure how you could possibly speculate on the reason.

Dingsturbation, irrelevant and madeup.

 

[BlackSand]

I say we have a showdown like Elijah did against the prophets of Ba’al.

People who believe in humankind on one side and those who believe in God on the other side. Put two alters up with a lamb. Then ask a group of humans to consume the sacrifice and then have the other side ask God to consume the sacrifice.

Then we will know once and for all. Do humans exist or does God exist? We can’t have it both ways.

.

What one offers God, or asks God for, is not God's will.

.​

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I say we have a showdown like Elijah did against the prophets of Ba’al.

People who believe in humankind on one side and those who believe in God on the other side. Put two alters up with a lamb. Then ask a group of humans to consume the sacrifice and then have the other side ask God to consume the sacrifice.

Then we will know once and for all. Do humans exist or does God exist? We can’t have it both ways.

.

What one offers God, or asks God for, is not God's will.

.​

Riiiiight....everything according to god's will, unless inconvenient to the narrative. That's a cute little game you guys have rigged up.

 

[ding]

According to Darwin it must still be valid

False. Darwin would never have said that. Madeup nonsense.

According to natural selection there are two main components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation. So natural selection confirms that spirituality offers a functional advantage over materialism ( a point you even agreed with). So if there was no longer a functional advantage, religion would have been abandoned when the advantage disappeared. Which it didn't.

 

[ding]

Besides you can't even name the benefits so I'm not sure how you could possibly speculate on the reason.

Dingsturbation, irrelevant and madeup.

Not irrelevant. Totally relevant. You already agreed that spirituality offers a functional advantage over materialism. There's a Darwinian reason why religion still exists and you can't bring yourself to admit it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So natural selection confirms that spirituality offers a functional advantage over materialism ( a point you even agreed with).

False. Sometimes traits form as artifacts, and if those traits are not disadvantageous enough to prevent most individuals expressing it from breeding, then there is little to no pressure for the trait go away. Spirituality may just be an artifact of sentience. Furthermore, natural selection no longer has the effect on the human gene pool it once had. And you can bet your life Darwin would agree with me on all of this and not you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not irrelevant. Totally relevant.

No. The stuff you make up about other posters is never relevant, despite your nauseating and compulsive repetition of this behavior in every thread.

 

[ding]

I say we have a showdown like Elijah did against the prophets of Ba’al.

People who believe in humankind on one side and those who believe in God on the other side. Put two alters up with a lamb. Then ask a group of humans to consume the sacrifice and then have the other side ask God to consume the sacrifice.

Then we will know once and for all. Do humans exist or does God exist? We can’t have it both ways.

.

What one offers God, or asks God for, is not God's will.

.​

Riiiiight....everything according to god's will, unless inconvenient to the narrative. That's a cute little game you guys have rigged up.

Sort of like everything is Darwinian unless it's inconvenient to YOUR narrative?

 

[BlackSand]

Riiiiight....everything according to god's will, unless inconvenient to the narrative. That's a cute little game you guys have rigged up.

.

Sweetie ... I never suggested anything someone does, or what is convenient to their narrative, is God's will.
Only people like you who desire to deny God's will, require that game to be played.

.​

 

[ding]

So natural selection confirms that spirituality offers a functional advantage over materialism ( a point you even agreed with).

False. Sometimes traits form as artifacts, and if those traits are not disadvantageous enough to prevent most individuals expressing it from breeding, then there is little to no pressure for the trait go away. Spirituality may just be an artifact of sentience. Furthermore, natural selection no longer has the effect on the human gene pool it once had. And you can bet your life Darwin would agree with me on all of this and not you.

You need to go back and start reading from here to see where you agreed that spirituality offers a functional advantage over materialism.

If you are human, you are not capable of understanding God.

Does God exist? Yes and no. God is not constrained by existence one way or the other. No one can impose existence upon God, or deprive God of it. God is none, or one, or many. Or all simultaneously. Or not. That is what it means to be God. If you insist God exists, God does not exist...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[ding]

Not irrelevant. Totally relevant.

No. The stuff you make up about other posters is never relevant, despite your nauseating and compulsive repetition of this behavior in every thread.

I have no idea what you are talking about. You seem upset today. Is everything OK?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There

There's a Darwinian reason why religion still exists

Not necessarily. There may be a Darwinian reason it formed in the first place. And maybe even not that, save for indirectly.

 

[schmidlap]

I say we have a showdown like Elijah did against the prophets of Ba’al.

People who believe in humankind on one side and those who believe in God on the other side. Put two alters up with a lamb. Then ask a group of humans to consume the sacrifice and then have the other side ask God to consume the sacrifice.

Then we will know once and for all. Do humans exist or does God exist? We can’t have it both ways.

.

What one offers God, or asks God for, is not God's will.

.​

Riiiiight....everything according to god's will, unless inconvenient to the narrative. That's a cute little game you guys have rigged up.

Sort of like everything is Darwinian unless it's inconvenient to YOUR narrative?

I'm not sure why you think Darwin is relevant to gods existing or not existing. He contributed significantly to biology, not epistemology.

His scientific discoveries merely demanded that some folks alter their ideas about gods and creation.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

9

Sweetie ... I never suggested anything someone does, or what is convenient to their narrative, is God's will.

I bet you have suggested everything is according to god's will.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sort of like everything is Darwinian unless it's inconvenient to YOUR narrative?

No educated, rational person would suggest the human race is still being as influenced by darwinian natural selection the way we were 100,000 years ago. Especially not Darwin. But here you are doing that very thing.

 

[ding]

There

There's a Darwinian reason why religion still exists

Not necessarily. There may be a Darwinian reason it formed in the first place. And maybe even not that, save for indirectly.

Well... William James offered an explanation that seemed reasonable...

When all is said and done, we are in the end absolutely dependent on the universe; and into sacrifices and surrenders of some sort, deliberately looked at and accepted, we are drawn and pressed as into our only permanent positions of repose. Now in those states of mind which fall short of religion, the surrender is submitted to as an imposition of necessity, and the sacrifice is undergone at the very best without complaint. In the religious life, on the contrary, surrender and sacrifice are positively espoused: even unnecessary givings-up are added in order that the happiness may increase. Religion thus makes easy and felicitous what in any case is necessary; and if it be the only agency that can accomplish this result, its vital importance as a human faculty stands vindicated beyond dispute. It becomes an essential organ of our life, performing a function which no other portion of our nature can so successfully fulfill.​

 

[BlackSand]

​

I bet you have suggested everything is according to god's will.

.

Shit no ... Not even close ...

.​

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm not sure why you think Darwin is relevant to gods existing or not existing.

He is trying to forward the idea that it was all designed this way by magical gods just for us special humans.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There

There's a Darwinian reason why religion still exists

Not necessarily. There may be a Darwinian reason it formed in the first place. And maybe even not that, save for indirectly.

Well... William James offered an explanation that seemed reasonable...

When all is said and done, we are in the end absolutely dependent on the universe; and into sacrifices and surrenders of some sort, deliberately looked at and accepted, we are drawn and pressed as into our only permanent positions of repose. Now in those states of mind which fall short of religion, the surrender is submitted to as an imposition of necessity, and the sacrifice is undergone at the very best without complaint. In the religious life, on the contrary, surrender and sacrifice are positively espoused: even unnecessary givings-up are added in order that the happiness may increase. Religion thus makes easy and felicitous what in any case is necessary; and if it be the only agency that can accomplish this result, its vital importance as a human faculty stands vindicated beyond dispute. It becomes an essential organ of our life, performing a function which no other portion of our nature can so successfully fulfill.​

He may be right in cases and in general.

 

[ding]

Sort of like everything is Darwinian unless it's inconvenient to YOUR narrative?

No educated, rational person would suggest the human race is still being as influenced by darwinian natural selection the way we were 100,000 years ago. Especially not Darwin. But here you are doing that very thing.

No educated, rational person would suggest the human race is not being as influenced by darwinian natural selection.