Intelligent design [was] old news to Darwin

Chicago Tribune ^ | 13 September 2005 | Tom Hundley

[general_re]

Conclusion: Tivo is simpler and easier to understand. All hail Tivo.

[Right Wing Professor]

What was the line about a thousand religions and only one sauce?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I'm not defining God in this question to be anything other that who is really is given the supposition that we're all equally in the dark as to WHO this God is.

But do I read you correctly that IF this God were the God of the PCUSA, you wouldn't be adverse to having the entire world believe in this God? (My original question was just "God" but I think you're now further defining the concept as the PCUSA God. Correct?)

[Thatcherite]

IF there exists a God who created heaven and earth (one that we would agree on at some future date, considering the supposition here is that there IS such a God), would it be a bad thing for all the world to acknowledge that specific God?

Who knows? Hypothetically speaking if that God planned to torture forever everyone on earth who acknowledged Him then that would be a bad thing. Such a God might even lie about His intentions to fool worthy people into spreading His word.

You are assuming that (a) the God can be trusted and (b) the God is good according to conventional human standards of morality. Neither of these propositions is in evidence.

All hypothetical. I am not saying that this is true of the Christian God, but you cannot demonstrate that my proposition is false.

[Junior]

Sure, acknowledge all you want. I'll probably join you. However, I refuse to let anyone who claims to speak for said god to run things.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

What God wants, God gets of course.

Of course. Or else He's not God.

[PatrickHenry]

I like #2, but keep searching. I want the best for the List.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The only assumption the question is making, and it is stated as the given assumption, is that there is a God.

IF there is a God and that God is reality, regardless of any of our beliefs, would it be a "good thing" or a "bad thing" for all the world to believe in this God?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Sure, acknowledge all you want. I'll probably join you

Excellent. That makes three. Now we can progress to the definition of this God.

[Right Wing Professor]

But do I read you correctly that IF this God were the God of the PCUSA, you wouldn't be adverse to having the entire world believe in this God? (My original question was just "God" but I think you're now further defining the concept as the PCUSA God. Correct?)

You're sure all the PCUSA elephants are the same elephant?

But OK, if the skies opened, and a great bright light appeared, and a giant voice said, "I am the Omnipotent one, exactly as described by the PCUSA, well close enough, and they got a darn sight closer than you ragheads, anyway, and from now on I'm running things around here", well yes, I'd be inclined to give him due deference. I'd prefer, however, to let The Big Guy take care of the enforcement of credulity himself. It's beyond my pay-grade, and besides, I don't care.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

She never answers my questions. Anyone else want to try this one? If I think of an elephant in the refrigerator, and you think of an elephant standing in a butter dish, are we thinking of the same elephant?

My question has never required us to draw distinctions between the definitions of God; the question is presupposing we acknowledge the simple "existence" of some undefined, yet-to-be-determined God, creator of heaven and earth.

I think you knew that, but you just liked the image of elephants balancing on butter dishes.

[Right Wing Professor]

My question has never required us to draw distinctions between the definitions of God; the question is presupposing we acknowledge the simple "existence" of some undefined, yet-to-be-determined God, creator of heaven and earth.

Good. His name's Allah. A billion Muslim's can't be wrong.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"If there was no God, I wouldn't care who knew it."

An honest admission you don't care about the truth. Thanks.

[Right Wing Professor]

Oooh, bad bad bad. That was "Muslims".

And I do indeed love elephants standing on butter dishes. Well, most of them.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Well, you're the one who insisted on defining this God further into the PCUSA God, but glory be, it's a sight closer than I ever thought you'd go.

I have problems with the PCUSA concept of God, but none that can't be discussed and debated (especially considering I'm a member in good standing.)

Now further, it's my understanding that CR's are simply in agreement with you, Professor. They, too, think it would be a "good thing" rather than a "bad thing" IF there is a God that all the world bow to Him.

Life is long and God's time-table is His own business. If you're so inclined, read some of the books I linked to in freebooks.com. I wish you prosperity and joy, and hope you find them by the will of the one true God of all creation.

[RightWingNilla]

Good. His name's Allah. A billion Muslim's can't be wrong.

No no no. Its Chtitithtylthlyu. And once I am President, if you dont bow to His will you will be stoned and smighted.

[RadioAstronomer]

I do indeed love elephants standing on butter dishes

Things are getting a bit odd around here. :-)

[longshadow]

Oooh, bad bad bad. That was "Muslims".

Your transgression has been noted in your permanent file at the Apostrophe Police HQ.

[Thatcherite]

I already answered. Who knows? It depends on what the God is like.

[Right Wing Professor]

Now further, it's my understanding that CR's are simply in agreement with you, Professor. They, too, think it would be a "good thing" rather than a "bad thing" IF there is a God that all the world bow to Him.

No. I specifically said I wouldn't care whether the rest of the world gave due deference. I said the Big Guy needs to take care of that on his own. So we don't agree.