Recently in a thread about Christianity and D&D I read some arguments by a person of faith that I felt needed to be addressed. One of the problems that I have with faith is that the defenses of its validity as a form of thought are often not very cool. That is to say, not informed or particularly well thought through. This is not to say that the people making the arguments are themselve not intelligent people - I respect all D&D players as possessing a unique intelligence and creativity - but in matters of faith even the most critical and intelligent of us fall prey to the fallacies taught to us through out our childhood.
In this case I have removed the name of the original poster, not because I think this might offend them or be considered a slight on them, but rather because I want to address the kinds of arguments they have made rather than the quality of their person.
With that I present to you their arguments:
If mankind is the pinnacle of life in the universe, what a sad, sad universe it would be. Man will always entertain the imagining that he is the most knowledgable, advanced being in the universe.
1) Miracles: How could God have stopped the sun? It's a miracle (which means it defies the natural laws) and could probably be compared to a parlor trick for someone who created a universe in 6 days.
2) There is no evidence of : We often tell fundamentalists that they can't use the argument "Science can't explain X" because it might in the future. The same holds true with their argument. Archeology or science may prove that actually did exist.
3) Look at all the bad things that have come from religion (genocide, slavery, racism, sexism, intolerance, holding back of science, etc.): The counter argument is to look at all the good things that have come from religion (aid to those in need, giving to the community, protection of the innocent, advancement of morality, literature, etc.).
Too often we lump all religions or religious people into the same category and then we are bothered when it happens to us. Yes, many christians use the same arguments over and over, but so do many non-christians. In the end, we only have our on set of evidence and understanding of the world to fit that evidence into. Maybe we're all wrong, maybe we're all right, maybe some of us are right. There's only one way to find out, and if we atheists are right, we won't find out then either.
1) I'm sorry if my belief that the world would be a better place if we were all nice to each other for a change offends you.
2) The vast majority of things you accept as scientific fact, you believe merely because someone has told you they're true. You rely as much on faith as I do.
Basically, they both amount to: I don't really care what you think about my beliefs, but I also don't care what you believe. I'm not here to convert you, so stop trying to convert me.
Oh my! Lots going on here. I'm going to quote and address arguments. I would also like to address the term atheist:
Myself, I am a devout atheist.
By devout atheist I imagine you to mean someone who denies even the most remote possibility of some kind of supernatural force existing in this universe, and who would even go so far as to "dismiss things out of hand" when they don't fit this perfect world view. Well, I am not such a person. I wouldn't call myself an atheist because it is an unreasonable position. On the other hand I generally ignore the possibility of God when making day to day decisions because as yet no one has provided me with convincing evidence or even a convincing a priori argument that might coax me back into weighing the possibility. I am interested by this "perfect vision" of the world that you hold, and I wonder if you could qualify it. What is the "perfect atheist world view"?
Arguments:
1) Miracles: How could God have stopped the sun? It's a miracle (which means it defies the natural laws) and could probably be compared to a parlor trick for someone who created a universe in 6 days.
So, if god could do miracles then god could do miracles. That is what you are saying? Granted. However my position is that God doesn't exist. Things that God could or couldn't do if he did exist don't interest me. If you have evidence of miracles occurring and some way to connect those occurrences with God I would be very excited (actually, I would be understandably skeptical).
Secularists unconvinced of the possibility of miracles don't hold this belief based on circular logic. You imagine me thinking the following? "Miracles? Why that's impossible, they would be Miracles! And Miracles don't exist. Therefor God doesn't exist!" This is not what I think.
2) There is no evidence of : We often tell fundamentalists that they can't use the argument "Science can't explain X" because it might in the future. The same holds true with their argument. Archeology or science may prove that actually did exist.
2) OK. Listen. If there is not a plate on the table, and you say "there is a plate on the table" prompting me to demand evidence of this mysterious plate on the table, and you go on to say "well evolution isn't airtight either OK!!!" what do you expect.
There is a very important difference between "no evidence" and "little evidence". No evidence is the complete lack of any indication of the possibility of the truth of something. There are very few things for which there is no evidence. The existence of God is just one of those very few things.
In addition, to fling around the word "proof" is not safe. Proof has a definition in science, and it is nearly impossible to "prove" anything non-trivial. So no, secularists are not interested in proof they are interested in evidence. Any evidence. And when there is non, only hearsay, then that means there is as yet nothing to consider.
3) Another good one is to list good things that religion does for us. The underlying assumption is that secularists could not do these same things for us. Fortunately, since religiously motivated acts of kindness are often not accompanied by angels and halos, secular people also have access to the same sorts of acts of kindness (albeit their motivation is generally kindness and the betterment of society without regard to religion).
aid to those in need
If "aid to those in need" is referring to foreign aid, that activity is organized by secular governments. If it is referring to aid to those in need on a local level, I would like you to consider: would a christian community aid a homosexual in need? Would they aid a woman who wanted to get an abortion? Would they aid Muslims? In addition, is a secular person incapable of aiding or even less probably going to aid those in need?
giving to the community
What do they give to the community that the community would not otherwise have without them? Do they give this to the community indiscriminately without regard to race, sexual preference, or denomination? Couldn't a secularist with suitable motivations give the same things?
protecting the innocent
Innocent I imagine refers to children? Are the children of theists protected more thoroughly then the children of secularists? Does a secular government or a theocracy more effectively protect the innocent children of various religious groups? Would a Christian theocracy protect the rights of the children of Muslims?
Advances in morality
What advances in morality have theists made? It is my understanding that modern moral philosophers tend not to agree with theist understandings of morality.
literature the arts
Is modern literature not as good as classical literature? I think it common to worship and enshrine the art of the past without recognizing the merit of the art of the present. Also, are you suggesting that artists without religion would have produced less beautiful art? Is it really that simple?
And what is more wonderful is that this community oriented good spirit is meant to counter the bombing of the world trade center, the bombings in Madrid, the killings that resulted from the printing of caricatures of the prophet in Danish newspapers, the shooting of abortion doctors, the bombings in London, etc... all of which are (according to the convicted) religiously motivated. Would atheists bomb a subway for atheist reasons? Would secularists bomb a subway for secular reasons? Could you list some of those reasons?
1) I'm sorry if my belief that the world would be a better place if we were all nice to each other for a change offends you.
That isn't the belief that upsets me. I also hold that belief. I hold it without believing in any superfluous beings. Also, is that really honestly the only religious belief that you hold? If so I would like to point out that this makes you not a religious person. People who have no religious beliefs are not religious people.
2) The vast majority of things you accept as scientific fact, you believe merely because someone has told you they're true. You rely as much on faith as I do.
This one is the most important bad argument because it is the easiest to be convinced by. I can seriously see myself going "oh yeah, I guess that's true." very nice argument. Still fallacious, but the fallacy rests on such an easily misunderstood ambiguity that it often slips by unnoticed.
The most important thing to remember is that words have meanings. What does take on faith mean? What does believe mean? Why does the author use the two interchangeably instead of settling on one? What would the argument be like if it was:
The vast majority of things you accept as scientific fact, you believe merely because someone has told you they're true. You rely as much on your ability to hold beliefs as I do.
This statement would be completely true. If would be trivial, but hey! It's the ambiguity that makes the argument do the work that the author wanted it to do.
So,
It is true that I am no scientist. I am a youtube wikipedia layman and so most of what I know about science I have learned second hand.
But oh man can we just please agree that there are different kinds of knowledge going on here, and that we are being expected to react to them differently? Can you dig it:
A scientist says "listen, we have this great idea that explains a lot. It's called natural selection, and it goes like this. So actually, it is also the only explanation that we have come up with and there is a lot of evidence supporting it. Unfortunately it is very fragile... if a single fossil was found in the wrong place (like, say, a bunny in the Precambrian) the whole theory would have to be thrown out the window. So far no bunnies, so we are all holding our breath and continuing to work on the problem. It's pretty cool though, so... do you wanna hear about it?"
And that is all they ever say. That is what a responsible teacher would teach a student in high school, and that is what is written on the wiki article. If a scientist ever puts it more strongly than that it is because they are under attack by theists who are convinced that evolution requires just as much faith as God.
Scientists do not say "ok, there is this other idea: God just wished everything into existence. There is no evidence for it so far, and it cannot be disproved (which disqualifies it as a scientific hypothesis) but a whole heck of a lot of people believe it already so hey kids! Lets maybe believe it too OK? Or you know, believe it if your mommy and daddy tell you to?"
That's the difference. Got it? No one is telling me to believe in anything, I am not being pressured. I read wikipedia because I want to on my own time, and I only use the scientific world view to inform my daily decisions because it all fits together so snugly and because it consistently produces intelligible results. The predictions that I can make with my brain are often so close to the prediction that science makes with the scientific method. Religious thought has a long standing history of waffling back and forth between different ideas, committing crimes inspired by its ideas, and just generally not being worth my trust. In addition, even with this shady background of theirs... they just want me to believe it all without any kind of demonstration. Religious thought believes that doing this would be virtuous. That all seems kind of creepy.
So that is called an informed decision! And you you want to say "but what if evidence is not the proper way to proceed, after all you have to take it on faith that everything will not just change from moment to moment!" is just philosophical cowardice. Assert that no questions can be answered and, voila, yes you can believe whatever you want. But what would be the point? Reason is such an excellent system developed over the course of the history of our people and extended so far that now we can use it to make computers work and explain the origin of life.
***
The problem is not that theists use the same arguments over and over, it is the nature of the arguments. If you wake up every morning and argue the existence of God from first cause, or make the teleological argument, and then your girlfriend points out how silly those arguments seem considering what we know about causality and natural selection, but you insist on repeating the arguments daily anyway, then this is not a constructive way to think. I don't think it is OK to believe whatever you want in the face of evidence to the contrary.
z.
3) Look at all the bad things that have come from religion (genocide, slavery, racism, sexism, intolerance, holding back of science, etc.): The counter argument is to look at all the good things that have come from religion (aid to those in need, giving to the community, protection of the innocent, advancement of morality, literature, etc.).
We might also note that the greatest massacres of the 20th century (Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot) were secular in nature.
We might also note that the greatest massacres of the 20th century (Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot) were secular in nature.
None of the above mentioned dictators killed anyone in the name of their atheism.
Ok, after the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship, all protestant churches were unified under the "Protestant Reich Church". All other faiths then became targets of the holocaust. This is not atheist persecution of the religious...it is religious persecution of the religious.
As for Stalin and Pol Pot, both are leaders of the communist movement. The term state atheism is generally only applied to communist regimes. In a communist regime the state wants its people to have their highest loyalty placed with the state, and not with a deity.
In this regard, communism can be considered similar to a religion. Most major religions demand that one denounce other faiths. Thus, the persecution of the religious in these states is not based on atheism, but on communism
Hey, I never said my arguments were good ones. I'm actually surprised that one of them even slightly worked.
The point is, I don't see why I should have to defend my beliefs. I'm not using my beliefs as an excuse to discriminate or judge others, so they don't adversely affect other people, so why does it matter?
Also, in my personal experience, I've found that atheist/agnostics tend to be far more aggressive about their beliefs than religious people.
Live and let live.
Faith and Reason aren´t opposites. Two ares two diferents fields/spheres. Faith is where the Sciencie/Reason can not confirm nor refute. Faith is the decision if you risk believe something.
Reason is a great gift to unmask the false prophets, the wolfs with lumb skin, but not always it is enough to get the truth. Sometimes to have to do a decision.
Did Socrates exit? Sciencie can not prove it, but we have the ancient books (or scrolls) by Platon and Xenophon. But what if perhaps they lied? Then our one option is risking believe Platon and Xenophon.
Other example. Before a wedding the girlfriend hears his boyfriend has been unfaithful. Perhaps it´s the truth.... or a lie to made breaking the couple...(and get one of the two boyfriends). She has to choose who she are going to believe. The options is the same risk. Reason isn´t enough, and then it´s the moment you have to choose with the faith or confidence.
* Catholic Church has a lot, a lot of miracles what are officialy recogniced like scientificaly inexplicable.
* Atheist isn´t better people religious believers.
A good example is the reing of Terror in France 1793-94.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror
"O liberty! O liberty! What crimes are committed in thy name!"
[INDENT]Madam Roland before be executed by guillotine.[/INDENT]
And we have too the chekas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheka
the holodomor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
Or the Mao´s Cultural Revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution
Why Christians have a black legend but nobody speak in the media about the 100.000.000 deads by the comunism in the XX century?
Religious people arn´t necessarily the most fanatic ones.
By devout atheist I imagine you to mean someone who denies even the most remote possibility of some kind of supernatural force existing in this universe, and who would even go so far as to "dismiss things out of hand" when they don't fit this perfect world view. Well, I am not such a person. I wouldn't call myself an atheist because it is an unreasonable position. On the other hand I generally ignore the possibility of God when making day to day decisions because as yet no one has provided me with convincing evidence or even a convincing a priori argument that might coax me back into weighing the possibility. I am interested by this "perfect vision" of the world that you hold, and I wonder if you could qualify it. What is the "perfect atheist world view"?
By devout atheist, I mean that I am as steadfast in my view of gods as the religious folks are in their view of gods.
As for the "perfect world" view, we each have our own ideas on how certain spiritual aspects of the universe fit in. No two of us are going to be 100% in agreement. Most people are unwilling to entertain some ideas. That's what I mean by "perfect world." It's really only perfect in our own minds.
I also don't see atheist as an unreasonable position. Why should I assume that there is a possibility of gods when there is no reason to do so? It's the same as saying that believing in a god in an unreasonable position because it is possible that there are many gods.
So, if god could do miracles then god could do miracles. That is what you are saying? Granted. However my position is that God doesn't exist. Things that God could or couldn't do if he did exist don't interest me. If you have evidence of miracles occurring and some way to connect those occurrences with God I would be very excited (actually, I would be understandably skeptical).
Secularists unconvinced of the possibility of miracles don't hold this belief based on circular logic. You imagine me thinking the following? "Miracles? Why that's impossible, they would be Miracles! And Miracles don't exist. Therefor God doesn't exist!" This is not what I think.
The argument generally is used to disprove the existence of god which is unreasonable. If the biblical god does exist, then he can perform miracles. The miracle argument assumes that god does exist. I think we can all agree that if god does exist, then he can perform miracles. The other problem with the miracle argument is that too many things are considered miracles when they are really just amazing: Child birth, surviving catastrophes, wind falls of cash, etc. None of these actually require the existence of a god.
2) OK. Listen. If there is not a plate on the table, and you say "there is a plate on the table" prompting me to demand evidence of this mysterious plate on the table, and you go on to say "well evolution isn't airtight either OK!!!" what do you expect.
There is a very important difference between "no evidence" and "little evidence". No evidence is the complete lack of any indication of the possibility of the truth of something. There are very few things for which there is no evidence. The existence of God is just one of those very few things.
In addition, to fling around the word "proof" is not safe. Proof has a definition in science, and it is nearly impossible to "prove" anything non-trivial. So no, secularists are not interested in proof they are interested in evidence. Any evidence. And when there is non, only hearsay, then that means there is as yet nothing to consider.
I agree with you but too many atheists use the argument incorrectly. Just like too many christians use the term "theory" incorrectly. We often counter the evidence arguments by saying science may not have the answer now, but it will in the future. We then feel justified in telling christians that there is no evidence that Jesus actually walked the Earth (or any other significant biblical event) therefore the Bible is wrong. Evidence may appear in the future as well, which would mean that we were just as arrogant in our position as they were in theirs.
3) Another good one is to list good things that religion does for us. The underlying assumption is that secularists could not do these same things for us. Fortunately, since religiously motivated acts of kindness are often not accompanied by angels and halos, secular people also have access to the same sorts of acts of kindness (albeit their motivation is generally kindness and the betterment of society without regard to religion).
I didn't say that religion was needed, but rather that many people are motivated by their faith to do these things. I know many religious people who go out of their way to help others because they feel that their faith guides them. I think this is a good thing because they probably wouldn't do those things otherwise.
If "aid to those in need" is referring to foreign aid, that activity is organized by secular governments. If it is referring to aid to those in need on a local level, I would like you to consider: would a christian community aid a homosexual in need? Would they aid a woman who wanted to get an abortion? Would they aid Muslims? In addition, is a secular person incapable of aiding or even less probably going to aid those in need?
Aiding others need not be foreign aid. Here in Seattle, we have Tent City. It's a homeless community that often finds a church that will allow them to settle on their lot until the government tells the church that the homeless can't stay there.
I know many christians that help known homosexuals, those who need/want abortions, and aid those of other faiths. They are able to use the Bible as justification for those actions. They are commanded by Jesus to love their enemy; loving your neighbor is easy. They also tend to agree that they should live by setting the example. This means that they don't condone the actions, and will often make it known that there are other options. They will still help those who need the help. Note that not all christians agree on biblical interpretations.
What do they give to the community that the community would not otherwise have without them? Do they give this to the community indiscriminately without regard to race, sexual preference, or denomination? Couldn't a secularist with suitable motivations give the same things?
It doesn't matter what they could give that a secular community couldn't give. What matters is that many people are motivated by their faith to give back to the community. It's also easier for many religious organizations to give back to the community because the US government tends to favor the faithful with things like Faith-Based programs. Personally, I don't like this but it is true.
Innocent I imagine refers to children? Are the children of theists protected more thoroughly then the children of secularists? Does a secular government or a theocracy more effectively protect the innocent children of various religious groups? Would a Christian theocracy protect the rights of the children of Muslims?
When I say innocent, I don't necessarily mean children. Note that I am also not talking about a theocracy. I'm just discussing those of faith. I think a theocracy would be a bad form of government. It tends to push itself to the extremes and removes freedom from its citizens. I know many of faith who move to protect the innocent because they feel compelled by their faith. Sometimes this means they are sticking their noses where they don't belong, but sometimes this means that those who are being mistreated are protected. Many christians spoke out against the Abu Graib debacle. They feel the punishment should fit the crime. I know many christians who feel that Gitmo prisoners should be set free because we don't have much in the way of evidence that most of them should be there and they aren't given attorneys to help them (this is changing now that the Supreme Court as spoken up).
What advances in morality have theists made? It is my understanding that modern moral philosophers tend not to agree with theist understandings of morality.
Morality does not need faith, this is true. However, most faiths teach morality. One of the problems is trying to define morality. Most faiths teach about treating each other with respect in some way.
Is modern literature not as good as classical literature? I think it common to worship and enshrine the art of the past without recognizing the merit of the art of the present. Also, are you suggesting that artists without religion would have produced less beautiful art? Is it really that simple?
I didn't restrict myself to classical literature. There are many wonderful pieces of literature written by people of all walks of faith. Some of them are motivated by their faith to write (CS Lewis). Some are motivated by their faith to paint (Michelangelo). Those of faith have produced some beautiful works of art based on their faith. There are also plenty of examples of secular art that is just as beautiful. Without faith, I don't think we would have some of the most beautiful pieces of art we have today. This does not take away from what secular artists have produced.
And what is more wonderful is that this community oriented good spirit is meant to counter the bombing of the world trade center, the bombings in Madrid, the killings that resulted from the printing of caricatures of the prophet in Danish newspapers, the shooting of abortion doctors, the bombings in London, etc... all of which are (according to the convicted) religiously motivated. Would atheists bomb a subway for atheist reasons? Would secularists bomb a subway for secular reasons? Could you list some of those reasons?
There are plenty of secular terrorist attacks. The ELF is not religiously motivated. Greenpeace extremists (not the majority, just the extremists) are not religiously motivated. The Black Panthers were not a religious organization.
We might also note that the greatest massacres of the 20th century (Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot) were secular in nature.
Hitler was not involved in a secular war, at least according to his writings and speeches. The others did not commit atrocities because they were atheists. This is a common misconception.
And the simplest enzyme (most basic protien structure used to perform a single function of life) contains around 2,000 amino acids. Screw up even 1 and the enzyme will not function at all. And there is no known unit smaller than an enzyme that will perform a biological process.
My point could be that an enzyme therefore needs to come from somewhere, and then someone could counterpoint, etc. But my real point is people say incredibly stupid and inaccurate stuff, religious or not, just because they heard it somewhere. Regardless of your current views, open your mind, read up, and decide for yourself. You could try your local library, for example. Viva la Renaissance!
Fun Fact #2 for if you wanna see some stupid religion
"Giving glory to God" is commonly taken grossly out of context. It refers to eating meat that was sacrificed to idols, which is perfectly ok because the idolized gods don't really exist. But if it bothers someone you still shouldn't do it in front of them, since it might make some people's conscience callous when they see it (and then think it's no big deal to do something wrong every once in a while). "Therefore whether you eat, or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." Kinda reminds me of dnd...
"Giving glory to God" is commonly taken grossly out of context. It refers to eating meat that was sacrificed to idols, which is perfectly ok because the idolized gods don't really exist. But if it bothers someone you still shouldn't do it in front of them, since it might make some people's conscience callous when they see it (and then think it's no big deal to do something wrong every once in a while). "Therefore whether you eat, or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." Kinda reminds me of dnd...
I didn't say that religion was needed, but rather that many people are motivated by their faith to do these things. I know many religious people who go out of their way to help others because they feel that their faith guides them. I think this is a good thing because they probably wouldn't do those things otherwise.
If the only reason you act as a good person is because of your religion and faith, perhaps your fear of afterlife consequences, then you're not really a good person. The problem I have with religion is that it often causes people to believe they are good and righteous just because they believe a few writings or adhere to a few rules. If you are a good person, you don't need religion or faith to tell you to act like one and do good things; you will do them anyways because you are a good person. I, for one, am not religious, but I am polite to people because I empathize with them. I help people because I feel sympathy towards them.
Fun fact, it takes 26^39 or 1.5274273784216769021564085930704e+55 random keystrokes to finally get "to be or not to be that is the question". Allow capital letters and punctuation and it's a lot more. A trillion is 1e12. A billion years contains 4.09968e17 seconds. Multiply the two to get 4.09968e29. Not even close. Just for "to be or not to be that is the question". No, monkeys cannot type Shakespeare, this is a common myth.
You miss the point of the analogy. The universe works with bigger numbers than that, arbitrarily high numbers in fact. An arbitrarily large number of monkeys given an arbitrarily large amount of time could, and indeed would, in fact reproduce Shakespeare simply by virtue of the fact that it's possible. The point is that enough chances given enough time eventually reproduces every possible result. The resulting argument the analogy represents is that we exist exactly because it's possible for us to exist.
God cannot be measured, quantified, or tested.
As such then God cannot either be proved or disproved.
If the only reason you act as a good person is because of your religion and faith, perhaps your fear of afterlife consequences, then you're not really a good person. The problem I have with religion is that it often causes people to believe they are good and righteous just because they believe a few writings or adhere to a few rules. If you are a good person, you don't need religion or faith to tell you to act like one and do good things; you will do them anyways because you are a good person. I, for one, am not religious, but I am polite to people because I empathize with them. I help people because I feel sympathy towards them.
That's not what I said (or at least not what I meant to say). I tried to make sure that I avoided that because I agree with you. Too often I hear christians say that they wouldn't kill anyone because God said murder is wrong. If that's what's holding them back, then they need to reevaluate their principles. Everyone has some sort of motivation for what they do. Many people are guided by their faith. This means that they when they work towards something good, they look to their faith for ways to do that. Just like I look to my own principles and those before me who have done great things. I don't use faith as my guide, but that doesn't mean I don't have a guide. Sometimes things are not black and white and we need to seek guidance from outside ourselves.
I have met plenty of people who are arrogant from all walks of faith, including atheists. Myself, I am a devout atheist. I don't think that all our arguments are perfect either. Too often we dismiss things out of hand because it doesn't fit our perfect vision of the world/universe. Arguments that are often used to dismiss Christianity include:
1) Miracles: How could God have stopped the sun? It's a miracle (which means it defies the natural laws) and could probably be compared to a parlor trick for someone who created a universe in 6 days.
2) There is no evidence of : We often tell fundamentalists that they can't use the argument "Science can't explain X" because it might in the future. The same holds true with their argument. Archeology or science may prove that actually did exist.
3) Look at all the bad things that have come from religion (genocide, slavery, racism, sexism, intolerance, holding back of science, etc.): The counter argument is to look at all the good things that have come from religion (aid to those in need, giving to the community, protection of the innocent, advancement of morality, literature, etc.).
Too often we lump all religions or religious people into the same category and then we are bothered when it happens to us. Yes, many christians use the same arguments over and over, but so do many non-christians. In the end, we only have our on set of evidence and understanding of the world to fit that evidence into. Maybe we're all wrong, maybe we're all right, maybe some of us are right. There's only one way to find out, and if we atheists are right, we won't find out then either.
Not sure I want to join a religous discussion today, I don't really have the time. This, however, is one of the best phrased and non-biased faith vs. non-faith posts I have read in a long time. Good on you, Bob. (And for the record, I am very much of the opposite view-point, so that's not just a 'Yeah, me too' reply.)
The “Christians and D&D” thread started great. It was a positive outlet for people to discuss religion and the game in positive ways, until it got derailed by some “grrr, I find your beliefs offense and illogical and want to play the victim” loudmouths.
No, that thread was not a personal slap in the face to all atheists, though it seems to have been interpreted as such, since it spawned so much aggressive debate and that it spilled over into another thread. Why is it that people have to wage this crusade against faith? Is the fact that it exists so offensive that people have to try and call Christians and other faithful out about it with such frequency? Did it somehow improve your day, and put a smile on your face, to go online and rag religious gamers in an underhanded way? Regardless of whether or not a person’s views are right or wrong, or whether or not there is a God, there is no difference between this kind of behavior and schoolyard politics that victimize the kid that’s different.
Bah.
Yes, we have all had experience with extremism. Yes, we have all had someone tell us the game we play is evil. Just like we have all had plenty of folks in our lives who have made things difficult. Get over it. If you do not realize that the fanatics you so despise are a (vocal) minority, then you are just charging forward with your blinders on.
There is no difference between people like Dawkins and his sort, and the crusaders and Spanish inquisition that they use to show off the evils of religion. Yes, they don’t kill people, but only because they are constrained by law and social convention, which the crusades and inquisition were not. The torture, the witch-hunts, these are all emotional now. However, the spirit of fanaticism, the sheer intolerance and self righteous pride is exactly the same. And it is this, this smugness, this inflexibility, this utter lack of moderation, that spawns evil. It is not the fault of religion. Religion, like all things, can be infected by the vileness that arises from people, and therefore be turned to vile ends. It’s not hard to see the same thing without religion. Hitler was a self righteous fanatic. Stalin was a self righteous fanatic. Robert Mugabe is a self righteous fanatic. Religion or no, this causes extremism, and often, evil. If there was no religion, these people would just find new things to corrupt in such ways to victimize others in their road to the top.
No matter what you believe, be it faith in God, science above all, flying spaghetti monsters, alien interlopers, or the unifying force; there will be folks who twist these things to suit their own agenda. As a human being, you need to learn to sort one from the other, and tell people from all walks of life apart. If you denounce religion because of a minority in its ranks, then you are no different from the religious people who denounce D&D because of a minority within our ranks.
However, if your only problem is that it is illogical, then get over it also. So much of life is illogical. Emotions, for instance. As human beings, we learn to live with things in our own lives that don’t make sense. If the idea is so offensive to you, then internalize it, talk to others who feel the same way, whatever, but don’t come into forums that are shared by many of the faithful and use it as an outlet to vent, even if you are disguising your vent as a rational debate.
The idea of God was here long before any of us were born, and will be long after all of us alive today die. Moaning and groaning about it, with no discernable goal other than the moaning and groaning in and of itself, serves no purpose other to serve the petty disaffection felt by some people, at the expense of others. As someone who comes into these boards, as a member of this community, I don’t consider this kind of thing welcome, and I’m sure there are many who share my sentiments. Moving this topic from the general forum here to the tavern does not make it better. The tavern is where I come for lighthearted discussion and friendliness, not to see people try to disprove the beliefs of others.
I’m not making a judgment of atheism. I’m not saying religion is perfect. I’m saying that this hypocritical crusade is petty and that, if you can’t say anything nice, then don’t say it in public.
To the lurkers who are as disgusted as I was; I tried.
The big argument that this sort of discussion leads to is whether or not eye-witness testimony can be accepted as valid evidence, since much of religious evidence is in that form (such as whether or not a particular miracle occurred). Here's my argument for why testimony can be useful evidence:
Eye-witness testimony has proven itself to be reliable in the many cases where it can be verified. Say your friend gives you directions to his house. Now, before you go there, the only evidence you have to determine how to get to this place is this guy's word...and yet, that evidence is often more than sufficient to get you to his house. If testimony has been right so many times in the cases where we can verify it, each instance where it's right is support for the fact that we can rely on it. Now, does that mean that testimony is perfect evidence? Certainly not, but it is reliable enough that we use it every day for a huge variety of tasks. Directions is one example, but consider how many times you've tried something because someone recommended it, or formed an opinion (often accurate) of a person based simply on what other people say about them. What about those times you've listened to the traffic report and avoided huge delays because they told you about an accident ahead? Did you have to go through the delays to know that an accident had occurred? No, you just listened to the news announcer and took them at their testimony.
Now, of course you could have gone to the scene of the accident and confirmed it for yourself, but what about things that you can't verify? Is testimony only reliable because the thing it reports can be verified by other means? Well, what about this: say I know someone who knows a third party in China. My friend tells me all sorts of things about their Chinese friend, but because of security concerns can't tell me who this person is (perhaps they're a house-church leader), and even if they could I really can't afford to go to China just to meet this person. For all practical purposes the existence of this person is unverifiable by me. Is it reasonable for me to therefore conclude that this person does not exist? Certainly not! Even if no-one other than my friend can confirm this person's existence and report back to me, it's still reasonable to believe in this person, based solely on my friend's testimony. They have no reason to lie, I very much doubt they're just mistaken about having met this person and talked to them, and I know my friend well enough to be pretty sure he's not crazy. What reason, therefore, do I have to say that his testimony is invalid? Therefore, I believe in his friend from China, even though I cannot independently verify his claim that he has such a friend. What if three or four of my friends, all of whom visited China together, told me about this Chinese person?
So what about the testimony that supports religious claims? A lot of the basis for rejecting it is that it is unverifiable--no-one else can go and see that same event which the witness is testifying to. And yet, this is the same situation as with my friend's Chinese friend--the witness is claiming the truth of something that cannot be verified by any other means than their own testimony. If I can accept the existence of a friend of a friend in China, based solely on testimony, why is it unreasonable to accept that a particular event occurred? So, unless one is prepared to say that I should withhold belief in my friend's friend, and call my friend a liar/mistaken/delusional every time he tells me a funny story about the adventures he and his friend had in China, then one needs to present a really good reason why an unverifiable report (or collection of reports) of a particular event is any different from an unverifiable report (or collection of reports) of an individual.
How does one evaluate testimony? I submit that there are really only three possibilities: the person giving the testimony is either lying, mistaken, crazy, or telling the truth. If you can eliminate the first three, then their testimony can be accepted as valid evidence.
Now, the next most common objection is that the accounts we currently have are so far removed from the original testimony that they no longer accurately represent the original testimony--they've become legendary accounts and/or they've been corrupted over time. This is a defeater for a lot of claims, but trying to apply it to all such claims doesn't work because there are many claims that do have a good set of records establishing the original testimony. We can be very sure, based on the material we have now, that our current accounts accurately reflect the original accounts. Furthermore, archeology confirms many of the details of the accounts, and those areas which have been verified give reason to believe the rest of the testimony (such as if my friend told me that he and his friend visited a neat bistro in China, which I was able to look up on the internet and get satellite images of--thank you, Google Earth. This would help support the case that my friend was telling the truth about his Chinese friend). In any case, anyone claiming that the original accounts of a particular event are legendary or have been corrupted needs to examine the actual available manuscripts and look into the methods of textual reconstruction. It's actually a quite reasonable and reliable method of determining what was originally said.
Hitler was not involved in a secular war, at least according to his writings and speeches. The others did not commit atrocities because they were atheists. This is a common misconception.
Exactly. It is not just a common misconception but an outright logical fallacy. The fact that they may have been atheists and commited atrocoties <> they commited their atrocites because they were atheists or to advance atheism. They killed people out of fanaticims and sadism, which are traits that can affect the religious and non-religious alike.
That's not what I said (or at least not what I meant to say). I tried to make sure that I avoided that because I agree with you. Too often I hear christians say that they wouldn't kill anyone because God said murder is wrong. If that's what's holding them back, then they need to reevaluate their principles.
...
Sometimes things are not black and white and we need to seek guidance from outside ourselves.
Fair enough. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Eye-witness testimony has proven itself to be reliable in the many cases where it can be verified...
Eyewitness Accounts tend to be faulty amd considered unscientific due to cognitive bias.
Let's take a look at the universe. There is strong evidence stating that the universe was indeed created. The Laws of Thermodynamics state, in lamenz terms, that because of the amount of energy in the universe is limited, that it had to have a beginning. Logic tells us that something can not come from nothing. This also relates to us, as human beings. We are intelligent, therefore we have intelligence. It would be arrogant to believe that we could have developed this intelligence on our own accord.
Next we look at the law of cause and effect.
Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
The universe has a beginning.
Therefore the universe has a cause.
If we deny the law of cause and effect, then all of science and history would collapse.
What about God? Who created God? God is outside of time. He is, by definition, the uncreated creator of the universe, and is outside of time. He is the Alpha, the Omega, the beginning and the end.
What if the cosmos was all there is? Then what would be our reason to behave morally? Sure, the benefit of mankind and the hope for the future is a good reason, but science tells us that the universe will not exist forever. Even if the universe continues on for billions of years, it is undeniable that this planet will not. The ecological problems that plague this planet are worsening at a pace that far exceeds any kind of solution. Nuclear weapons make even the smallest country a threat, and with the weapons that exist in the world, another world war will destroy it.
Another question: What sets us apart from the rest of the natural world? What makes us different from a hippo or a lion, or any other unintelligent species? Freak mutations in our DNA? An unlikelihood that exceeds all other unlikelihoods, except that of the big bang?
This planet is the only planet in our solar system capable of sustaining life. In the five billion years that it took for our universe to expand to the point to which earth was created; just the right amount of gases and atoms would have had to come together to give our planet the core materials necessary for sustaining life. In the five million years that it took for the earth to cool enough to sustain life after it had been formed; just the right amount of resources would have to be present to sustain life. The point being that if the big bang were not enough of a chance occurrence, then the rest would surely be the biggest "miracle" of all time.
You may wonder why I am using scientific reason to express reasons to believe in intelligent design. If you believe everything that science tells us about the formation of the universe, then you believe in the most extreme of extreme accidents. My belief is that the universe truly was a miracle. Our planet was custom made for us, with everything we need to exist. Something that no other planet has.
Whenever the topic of existence and the existence of God is discussed, people are going to be offended. This is unavoidable. All we can do is listen to each other with an open heart and an open mind.
I am still not attributing my quotes (with a few noteworthy exceptions) and this is now because there were too many quotes and attributing them all is finicky work…
Though I suppose its too much to think that people will be mature enough not to post threads solely intended to provoke a negative reaction from a subset of the community, its still not something I like to see.
I didn't post this thread to provoke a negative reaction; I posted this thread to provoke a positive reaction. I have tried not to say anything negative, and I think that until your post this thread had not contained negativity.
I also wasn't a part of the original D&D related thread, and I would like to say with the greatest honesty that I would never side-track a thread like that one was. That's why I added this thread to the off-topic chat area. Here it is only a bother to people who want to be involved in it (unless the mere idea of your ideas being questioned somewhere drives you into a rage...).
I would like to restate my reason for wanting to discuss and address a few of the arguments being used to defend theist positions: it is important.
My feeling is that important things are worth discussing. It is unfortunate that religion has the privileged position as being something we "don't discuss at the dinner table" because it is one of the most important psychological and philosophical questions we can discuss. Not "does God exist," which has been done to death, but "why do you believe God exists?"
And on that note!
The point is, I don't see why I should have to defend my beliefs. I'm not using my beliefs as an excuse to discriminate or judge others, so they don't adversely affect other people, so why does it matter?
This is another very important point (high five Timelord).
You should see the importance not of having to, but of being able to defend your beliefs reasonably. I was, for a short time, vegetarian. As a vegetarian I often did not want to defend my beliefs, because I felt that in general people pressing me about my vegetarianism (now abandoned) were not interested in my reasons. They were just being aggressive because vegetarianism is still not as popular as diets that include meat, and is inconvenient in a group of non-vegetarians.
The key is that I did have reasons, and that I arrived at those reasons intentionally: I was not raised by vegetarians, did not have a vegetarian peer group, and was not privy to any vegetarian literature (the analogy here is to theists raised (indoctrinated*) by theists). I came to my decisions reasonably, though I admit that I abandoned them as a result of social pressures.
I would also like to raise the point, quietly, that it might not be safe to assume that there are beliefs which need not be defended. The only beliefs (aside from very fundamental ones that are probably built into our biology*) that our culture permits to go undefended are religious beliefs, and they are afforded this position for historical reasons rather than logical ones.
The existence of beliefs that do not need or allow themselves to be argued or arrived at reasonably, I think, allows for the existence of extremists.
Yes, we have all had experience with extremism. Yes, we have all had someone tell us the game we play is evil.
No matter what you believe, be it faith in God, science above all, flying spaghetti monsters, alien interlopers, or the unifying force; there will be folks who twist these things to suit their own agenda.
Religion, like all things, can be infected by the vileness that arises from people, and therefore be turned to vile ends.
People love to turn extremism into an all purveying force of evil that strikes at the heart of every faculty equally. There are supposedly extremist D&D players who actually make blood sacrifices. Extremist capitalists exploit low wages around the world, bring suffering to millions. Extremist nationalists go to war with other countries over perceived slights or differences in economic ideals. The idea seems to be that there are a few bad apples spoiling the whole bunch.
But what is an extremist? Are they psychopaths? Well, no, interviews with extremists of all kinds reveal them to be well adjusted for the most part. An extremist is someone who believes something so completely that they are willing to kill a possibly unlimited number of people in order that the belief is not questioned. How can a well adjusted person hold such a belief? You might ask. Someone can only believe something that strongly if they have been taught that some things are just that true; that some things are SO true, so very very true, that willingness to die or kill for them is a virtue. That view is only taught by theists and governments. Arguably governments have just cause to want the children of their nation indoctrinated into nationalism: if everyone just rolled over every time the Nazis tried to take over the world we would all be a little more sad. I think that religions, which profess a doctrine of happiness above and belief in a personal God, do not need such violent defenders. So why are children of theist parents being brought up believing that some ideas are so true that any evidence brought against them is nullified by their verity?
Mainstream non-fundamentalist non-extremist religion breeds that world-view into children, some very small number of whom grows up to commit violent crimes on a scale that very little else can claim to effect.
In a footnote below I mention that children of consumerist parents grow up to be just as married to consumerism. It is the same with personal freedom, or the idea that male children are worth more than female children, or democracy. Some ideas are just so mimetically powerful that they get worked into the next generation as truths worth dying for. Gravity is not such a truth, though you will find yourself quickly judged if you speak against it (judged, mind you: no one is going to hit you or tell you that you are offending them). One day perhaps science or atheism will have that privileged status as truths beyond reproach, but I sorely hope not (note: probably not guys, atheism defines negatively against another thing and science includes clauses to protect itself from becoming unquestionable).
Faith and Reason aren´t opposites. Two ares two diferents fields/spheres. Faith is where the Sciencie/Reason can not confirm nor refute. Faith is the decision if you risk believe something.
I want everyone to take a moment and learn an important lesson from Luis Carlos: define your terms. This is excellent excellent writing and I don't want the author to every doubt himself.
Luis presents two terms, faith and reason, and defines them very clearly. They are not opposites. They govern different spheres. Faith is an alternative to reason when reason is unable to discern the truth. Faith is the decision to "risk" believing in something.
I do not believe that faith in God is a good risk to take. It is not a fifty/fifty split as some will have us believe. If I sat you down in front of my window and pointed to a star, and said "there is life on a planet orbiting that star," you might be very excited. You might look at my evidence and see that actually I have none (except perhaps some testimony written by those aliens). You might take note of the large amount of written work about alien life, and in particular, about alien life orbiting that star. And finally you would have to make a decision. If you decided that alien life undeniably exists around that star, then you have made the wrong decision. Even if you chose that it most probably exists, then you have made the wrong decision.
If on the other hand, with only a tiny bit of evidence to support your decision, you choose to "risk" continuing to believe, perhaps you have made the right decision. If you are an astronomer, you can look in to the sky yourself and hope for some evidence to pop up and swing the scale. If you are not, then you can just hold this as an ideal in your heart. No one will get on your case about it, I think.
However, even if you do opt to make this kind of "leap of faith" (remembering that by Luis’ definition it is only made when there is not enough evidence to make a reasoned decision) you may still make some bad moves later on. If you, for instance, base important life decisions around the possibility of alien life around a distant star... say, in the form of a silly tinfoil hat... then you are taking your willingness to continue believing too far. If you raise your children telling them that there IS life revolving around that star, rather than asking them what they believe, you are not being reasonable.
To avoid ambiguity I would like to rename the word "faith" and instead use "curiosity". Now we have:
Two terms: curiosity* and reason. They are not opposites. They govern different spheres. Curiosity is an alternative to reason when reason is unable to discern the truth. Curiosity is the decision to "risk" believing in something.
Decisions made outside of the curiosity/reason dichotomy I will leave with the name “faith”. Now you can see: sometimes it is OK to make decisions based on little to no evidence, but you must measure the impact those decisions will have on your life. If you weigh your “curiosity” beliefs as though they were “reason” beliefs, then you have stumbled into the third category and are in trouble?
Thank you Luis!
Reason says that one follows the course best supported by the evidence. The main difference between a theist and an atheist is that they accept different evidence. So the discussion really needs to focus on how to evaluate evidence instead of jumping right to bashing someone's conclusion. That will get you nowhere, because a reasonable person knows they're right. The evidence they have supports their conclusion.
Right! I would like to read into the statement a little, though, and say that they accept "different kinds of evidence." I think it would be unreasonable to expect scientists with fossils and religious people with holy-books and testimony from other religious people to come to the table together and talk about this: I think that wouldn't bear fruit. A decision needs to be arrived at by the two parties about what constitutes evidence, and that decision will be based inevitably on what kinds of evidence are the most productive. What kinds of evidence most reliably predict or demonstrate potential truths and can be improved upon or fouled up by the later discovery of more evidence.
It is also true that reasonable people who have agreed upon the kind of evidence they will consider can come to the table bearing opposite opinions and evidence that does not fit together. However, it seems unlikely that they will conclude that there are two different truths to the matter and rather more likely that they will huff and puff for a while like reasonable people do, and then get down to the business of re-evaluating their evidence.
Did Socrates exit? Sciencie can not prove it, but we have the ancient books (or scrolls) by Platon and Xenophon. But what if perhaps they lied? Then our one option is risking believe Platon and Xenophon.
This is another common fallacy. We cannot prove that Jesus existed, nor Socrates, nor God: and yet somehow secularists believe in Socrates, and sometimes Jesus, but not God.
Another version: I claim to have a friend in China, but you can't prove it. (where did I get that!?)
Well there are two different things going on. The likelihood of an open minded person like a D&D player have a friend in China is not low. It is about as high as his likelihood of having a friend in any country, or most states. Six degrees of separation puts us pretty close to everyone, everywhere. God is not so close. Similarly, if I was REALLY REALLY pressed, I could organize with you a voice chat with the friend in China in which I would ask him some personal questions about your relationship. If such a chat could be arranged between myself and God I would most certainly be converted on the spot.
Jesus and Socrates are a little more difficult. They are both essentially people who were born, and many people have been born (not as many as have not been born, though). Jesus is attributed with extraordinary powers, which makes him slightly less likely to have existed, but you know what? Many people have been attributed with powers that they did not have. Many people think that Elvis is still alive, but that doesn't mean he is purely mythical and never existed. We have second hand evidence supporting his existence, and the same goes for Jesus and Socrates.
But here is the real kicker: I don't care whether Socrates or Jesus existed. Or even Elvis! It cannot affect my day to day decisions. The work that they are attributed with exists today, and I can read Socrates and I can work on the Sabbath without being executed: these are great things! So even if Jesus is only symbolic, or if Socrates is just an artefact of the imaginations of other Greek scholars! It don't matter a wit: whether it is true or not is trivial.
On the other hand the existence of a God, who (unless we are to trust the Germans) is not dead like Socrates and Elvis, would affect my decisions greatly. Daily I would make decisions based on the fact that God can see me. OK? We don't need evidence of trivialities, and God if he exists, would by your own admission not be trivial. We need more evidence for God than for Elvis.
Eye-witness testimony has proven itself to be reliable in the many cases where it can be verified.
Horatio at the Bridge says some excellent things about testimony and eye-witness evidence! I suggest you read it all if you haven't.
The problem is: all of your examples are extremely trivial. Sure you have a friend. OK there is an accident. In my day to day life I look at the evidence available to me and make my decisions based on whether I think that more evidence supports one course of action than another. However, in the case of deciding whether evolution should be taught in schools, or whether the universe was designed in any capacity by an intelligence of any kind, or if you are presented with a button that will (if pressed) kill a hypothetical Chinese person if he exists or not kill him if he doesn't but reward you in either case with a great deal of money (not enough to make you kill a person, but perhaps enough to make you consider killing a hypothetical person), you will find yourself - a reasonable person - wanting for more evidence. If I was being asked to weigh in on a decision about potentially killing a Chinese person I would want more than just testimonial evidence of their existence: I would want more evidence and of a variety of different kinds. Inevitably I would weigh photos and a blog higher than second hand testimony, but a plane ticket would really be the tipper.
If some of a person's testimony is complete nonsense and other parts are true, and we are being asked to judge the reliability of the person's testimony as a source, are we aloud to judge it just based on the parts that are true? We should probably get a second opinion. Well, what if that second opinion contradicts the first in almost every detail? Such is the case with holy books. Many cultures do have myths of great floods! So maybe there were, in the past, great floods! But then we also have had great floods in living memory that resulted in many deaths and much sadness. The fact that some parts of a holy book mirrored in other holy books might be demonstrably true does not lend credibility to the holy book as a whole (or at least it lends only a little tiny bit).
So much of life is illogical. Emotions, for instance. As human beings, we learn to live with things in our own lives that don’t make sense.
This is an attempt to dismiss the search for truth. It is a case where Luis Carlos' "curiosity" should come to mind. If the options were "believe" or "discard" it would be easier to fall victim to this idea that the illogical or enormously complex should be discarded. Fortunately we always have the option of remaining curious, not necessarily taking a stand but not dropping the hat either. In the case of emotions, there are psychologists and biologists trying to figure them out. No doubt love will always feel like love and dread like dread, but what's so wrong about remaining curious and wanting to figure it out.
On the other hand, remaining firm in ones beliefs even when those beliefs are unreasonable is not very cool.
The idea of God was here long before any of us were born, and will be long after all of us alive today die. Moaning and groaning about it, with no discernable goal other than the moaning and groaning in and of itself, serves no purpose other to serve the petty disaffection felt by some people, at the expense of others.
This is another attempt to dismiss the search for truth (and perhaps an attempt to have the thread closed?). The idea of God doesn't make sense, and like many other ideas that don't make sense it is being challenged. The difficulty, again, is religion's special power of being untouchable because it is supposedly so close to people’s hearts that even just talking about it hurts them. I personally think that there is little truth to that claim, and that it is actually just a powerful rhetorical tool. In any case, as I mentioned above, that power is also on the discussion table. Should any topic be above discussion?
But my real point is people say incredibly stupid and inaccurate stuff, religious or not, just because they heard it somewhere. Regardless of your current views, open your mind, read up, and decide for yourself. You could try your local library, for example. Viva la Renaissance!
I've left this to the end because it is more of a self-defence and clarification.
And it is a damn fine point! I try to stay away from facts and only address arguments, because not everyone is going to know every fact all the time. I would like to mention that I said of myself:
I am a youtube wikipedia layman and so most of what I know about science I have learned second hand.
I understand that you are not trying to dismiss the complexity of life as being only available by design, but I would still like to clarify my position.
As to the monkeys on the typewriters: clearly I should not have used an analogy. What I meant was, given 13.5 billion years in a universe ninety three billion light years across governed by a set of as yet not completely understood rules, one cannot dismiss the possibility of life coming around without a designer by saying,
You are a unique being, so complex that no amount of cosmic accident will explain that.
Arguments from design, complexity, etc... are not good arguments. You would like me to believe that an enzyme is the smallest known unit that will perform a biological process, but you are probably not willing to say that the enzyme is irreducibly complex or that a simpler enzyme could not have existed at a time in the past but was entirely replaced by the ones we see now. Tiny steps, over time, in an enormous universe.
Also, thank you to Crimson Concerto for giving me the confidence to answer in the face of so many numbers and weird words like "enzyme" (I mean, what the heck is an enzyme anyway!).
z.
PS
There is no difference between people like Dawkins and his sort, and the crusaders and Spanish inquisition that they use to show off the evils of religion.
Yes there is. (I didn't know what else to say... the scope of the argument I would have to make is blinding! Way to go!)
*I want to talk about the word indoctrination. It is not meant to sound negative; it is just the most accurate word to describe being raised from childhood by one in-group as a future member of that in-group. No decisions are made by the child. A child indoctrinated into consumerism will inevitably have an enormously hard time escaping the nonsense of consumerism, even knowing how crazy it is, even recognizing how much suffering it causes, even knowing how unhealthy it makes them: the now adult consumer would rather justify their actions to themselves and violently rebuke opposing opinions or philosophies.
*An argument that I often hear is, "what if gathering evidence is not the correct way to search for truth," or "what if the world is just an illusion," or "what if there is more than one truth that we do not necessarily share with each other." Biologically we all necessarily make the assumption that what we see is real, and that what I see is what you see. When more than one person sees the same thing, it strengthens the case for that thing. Over a very long time the definition of "see" and the definition of "more than one person" have changed, so that now "see" can no longer be replaced with various kinds of grape vines, and "more than one person" means hundreds or thousands of organized people being asked to see the thing in order to verify its verity.
*I chose the term Curiosity on a whim because of "scientific curiosity" but “bravery” or “perseverance” would have worked fine. Faith works fine too, don't get me wrong, but it just has so much baggage. And remember that the way Luis defines the concept it cannot be used to arrive at conclusions - only at temporary pit stops. We "faith" our way from the discovery that particles way down on the quantum scale don't make sense to the development of hypotheses that might account for the strangeness and then faith our way from one of those to somewhere closer to the truth. We cannot faith our way to God and just stop there and teach our children that this is OK. Even, and I say EVEN if we do settle on the word "faith".
Sorry, didn't see this one! Quickly now!
Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
The universe has a beginning.
Therefore the universe has a cause.
A three thousand year old thoroughly refuted argument.
He is, by definition, the uncreated creator of the universe, and is outside of time.
And there, inevitably, as if it is clockwork, is the failing of the argument. If you are going to say "it is impossible for a thing not to have a beginning" then you cannot say "except for this thing, because it BY DEFINITION has no beginning." The phrase "by definition" is not magical.
What if the cosmos was all there is? Then what would be our reason to behave morally?
If you would not act morally given the lack of an all seeing God, then you are not a moral person. Other people are moral, without an all seeing God. Biology can explain morality as an evolutionary tool for survival.
The ecological problems that plague this planet are worsening at a pace that far exceeds any kind of solution.
If there is a paradise and you are bound for it, then it is in your best interest to speed the process of decay. It is in my best interest to slow it.
Another question: What sets us apart from the rest of the natural world?
Arrogance.
An unlikelihood that exceeds all other unlikelihoods, except that of the big bang?
It is exceeded only by the unlikelihood of a necessarily more unlikely being.
Whenever the topic of existence and the existence of God is discussed, people are going to be offended. This is unavoidable. All we can do is listen to each other with an open heart and an open mind.
It isn't unavoidable that people are offended. The reaction to take offense is taught by our parents. On the other hand, we should all keep an open heart and an open mind.
z.
You miss the point of the analogy. The universe works with bigger numbers than that,
10^80 atoms, in theory anyway. We can hit that pretty fast with 2-3 lines from shakespeare instead of just 1. You can reach an arbitrarily high number without very much complexity required. The myth is still nonsense.
Anyhoo the main point was to using reading & research not rumour. I hope that helps someone; I'm finishing my lunch break and don't have time to skim the rest of the thread right now (and maybe not later either).
Hi
Recently in a thread about Christianity and D&D I read some arguments by a person of faith that I felt needed to be addressed. One of the problems that I have with faith is that the defenses of its validity as a form of thought are often not very cool. That is to say, not informed or particularly well thought through. This is not to say that the people making the arguments are themselve not intelligent people - I respect all D&D players as possessing a unique intelligence and creativity - but in matters of faith even the most critical and intelligent of us fall prey to the fallacies taught to us through out our childhood.
In this case I have removed the name of the original poster, not because I think this might offend them or be considered a slight on them, but rather because I want to address the kinds of arguments they have made rather than the quality of their person.
With that I present to you their arguments:
It would be arrogance for man (by which I imagine you to mean humans) to assume itself the pinnacle of life in the universe. The way that we define life is broad enough that even here on earth we can find examples of beings more complex and with more interesting life cycles. Regardless of what "man" will always believe, rational humans tend not to imagine themselves in terms of easily defined continuum such as "advanced/primitive" or "good/evil" or "person/non-person". Humans simply ARE, and the fact that we have access to faculties such as consciousness and morality rather than flight or a hive-mind is no mark of superiority - only of difference. Religiously minded people, on the other hand, love to reduce the universe into such dualities.
No one imagines that God could be found on a chart. The whole idea is that God has yet to be found on a chart and therefor aught not to be considered so heavily. God aught not to weigh in on political decisions, scientific considerations, important personal decisions, or the lives of young children until such a time as God's existence is more evident.
OK, so this is great stuff:
Measuring the background radiation of the universe gives us a fairly accurate idea of its age, 13.5 billion years (+/- less than 1%). More directly, the universe must be at least as old as the oldest things in it, which are stars. And they are very old indeed. It is at least 93 billion light years across (bear in mind that a light year is 9 and a half TRILLION* kilometers). That's a heck of a lot of time and space for accidents to occur. Given this amount of time and space, tying a thousand monkeys to a thousand typewriter will necessarily produce every work of Shakespeare. Everything that has happened has happened as a result of the accidence that you casually write off as "not enough"; whether it is the formation of stars or the evolution of consciousness the beauty of it is that it was not designed. It wasn't simply put there, and to deny this robs it of its value.
Arguments containing premises that rely on the truth of the argument are called circular. Religiously minded people often have cause to fall back on them. "Need proof of God? Look no further than your immortal SOUL!!!" We can see how that is ridiculous.
Wanting something to be true is not an argument. The truth is the truth regardless of how inconvenient it may be, and it certainly doesn't care about what you want. If your life is beautiful and you are static, then your life is beautiful (and you are static). Even without God you are still a beautiful and unique snowflake.
So... about that proof? Srsly though, if you come with some get on the phone and call me.
Remember, don't let anyone tell you anything. Regardless of what they may be able to demonstrate with evidence, regardless of the contributions they've made to society: don't let it get to you man. OK? Refuse to listen and of course you will not hear.
And I am so happy that has chosen to end his post by wondering whether maybe this topic has wandered to close to those truths he doesn't want to hear. Hey guys, are we off topic here?
OK I'm done now. Umm... FIRST POST!
z.
*I do not take this word lightly.
I don't really want to get dragged into this again, but I don't think any of the arguments you listed are the most common or the one's philsophers take seriously. I am an agnostic. I don't particularly care one way or the other how all this goes. But I do recognize that both sides make very valid points in this debate. The OP needs to be aware though, that there are two kinds of Atheists: atheist who have truly arrived at their position our of reason, and atheists who have arrived at their position out of anger. You appear to fall into the later category. There are also a great many strong logical arguments supporting the possibility of a god's existence. They are not proof, but they are good arguments. I think it would be foolish to dismiss the legiminate arguments by philosophers because you have heard a few too many Jerry Falwells pontificate on the subject. I would encourage you to take some philosophy courses on this subject at a college in your area. You sound like a person who needs some of his basic assumptions challenged. Not because you are wrong about there being no god (like I said, I don't care one way or the other), but because your reasons are shaky and you have built a straw man for yourself to take apart.
This is another very important point (high five Timelord).
I got a high five?
Go me.
You should see the importance not of having to, but of being able to defend your beliefs reasonably. I was, for a short time, vegetarian. As a vegetarian I often did not want to defend my beliefs, because I felt that in general people pressing me about my vegetarianism (now abandoned) were not interested in my reasons. They were just being aggressive because vegetarianism is still not as popular as diets that include meat, and is inconvenient in a group of non-vegetarians.
I entirely see the difference. However, I've generally found that, like you said, when people ask why, they don't actually want to know why, they just want to attack you. It gets annoying. Especially since I never go around attacking their atheism or trying to convert them.
The key is that I did have reasons, and that I arrived at those reasons intentionally: I was not raised by vegetarians, did not have a vegetarian peer group, and was not privy to any vegetarian literature (the analogy here is to theists raised (indoctrinated*) by theists). I came to my decisions reasonably, though I admit that I abandoned them as a result of social pressures.
I'd love to say the same. Unfortunately, I was taken to church as a child, and my mother is a preacher.
However...
My beliefs are actually incredibly vague these days.
I don't do good things because the Bible tells me to, or because God wants me to. I do good things because they're the right thing to do.
I find that the idea that the entire Universe 'fell' into place by itself strains credibility far more than the idea that some sort of higher being gave it a nudge in the right direction here and there.
So, pretty much, I believe in some sort of vague higher being, rather than specifically 'God'. I'm christian out of habit more than anything.
I still go to church, and I even help indoctrinate the children. ;)
I don't intend to ever become an official member of the church though. Since I think that draws a line between 'us' and 'them' which has no need to exist.
I would also like to raise the point, quietly, that it might not be safe to assume that there are beliefs which need not be defended. The only beliefs (aside from very fundamental ones that are probably built into our biology*) that our culture permits to go undefended are religious beliefs, and they are afforded this position for historical reasons rather than logical ones.
The existence of beliefs that do not need or allow themselves to be argued or arrived at reasonably, I think, allows for the existence of extremists.
Hmm, you could well be right.
However, I don't think asking extremists to sit down and think about their beliefs logically and rationalize them would work very well. :P
(I can't believe I made it this far in the discussion before I actually explained my beliefs.)
Eyewitness Accounts tend to be faulty amd considered unscientific due to cognitive bias.
And yet we use them all the time in our day to day life. Why are we so willing to trust testimony about, say, an unknown friend in China or the new Starbucks we've never been to before, but not about the miraculous?
There seem to be two main arguments:
1) Cognitive bias--it's a fact that people misremember, miscommunicate, and then misremember what was miscommunicated. I accept that all these things are true, and that this makes testimony less reliable then, say, a photograph. That does not make it unreliable. Despite the fact that people misremember and miscommunicate, testimony is still something that we use all the time in our day to day life, even for very important issues. It's a fact that testimony has enough evidenciary value that it's capable of convincing us of all sorts of things, on its own merit alone, and the many cases where those beliefs based on testimony have been validated by other evidence prove that we are justified in using testimony as valid evidence.
2) We can't believe tales of unlikely events, even though we believe tales of likely events. My response is: why do we think that the miraculous is so very unlikely? Just because we personally haven't experienced it? To come to the conclusion, before evaluating the evidence for miracles, that miracles are unlikely and that therefore any testimony regarding them should be dismissed because they portray unlikely things, is coming to a conclusion a priori then selectively pruning the evidence to support your preferred point of view. It's not a good intellectual practice. All reports of miraculous events should be judged on the same basis as reports of any other event, where we determine whether the witness is lying, crazy, or mistaken, and where we weigh evidence for other proposed solutions (and the supposed unlikeliness of one solution is not evidence for a differing solution--you need actual evidence supporting that alternative solution).
And yet we use them all the time in our day to day life. Why are we so willing to trust testimony about, say, an unknown friend in China or the new Starbucks we've never been to before, but not about the miraculous?
You having an unknown friend in China doesn't affect me, so I don't care if you do or don't.
You having a friend in China, therefore I have to live my life by how your friend dictates does affect me, so you have to prove to me that (a) Your friend exists, (b) the dictates that you present to me is actually from your friend, (c) your friend actually has power over me, and (d) you have to prove it to my satisfaction. Not that challenging if your friend actually exists.
There seem to be two main arguments:
1) Cognitive bias--it's a fact that people misremember, miscommunicate, and then misremember what was miscommunicated. I accept that all these things are true, and that this makes testimony less reliable then, say, a photograph. That does not make it unreliable. Despite the fact that people misremember and miscommunicate, testimony is still something that we use all the time in our day to day life, even for very important issues. It's a fact that testimony has enough evidenciary value that it's capable of convincing us of all sorts of things, on its own merit alone, and the many cases where those beliefs based on testimony have been validated by other evidence prove that we are justified in using testimony as valid evidence.
Which would be a valid arguement, if we were talking about the legal system. We're talking about Science. You, sadly, are held to a higher system.
2) We can't believe tales of unlikely events, even though we believe tales of likely events. My response is: why do we think that the miraculous is so very unlikely? Just because we personally haven't experienced it? To come to the conclusion, before evaluating the evidence for miracles, that miracles are unlikely and that therefore any testimony regarding them should be dismissed because they portray unlikely things, is coming to a conclusion a priori then selectively pruning the evidence to support your preferred point of view. It's not a good intellectual practice. All reports of miraculous events should be judged on the same basis as reports of any other event, where we determine whether the witness is lying, crazy, or mistaken, and where we weigh evidence for other proposed solutions (and the supposed unlikeliness of one solution is not evidence for a differing solution--you need actual evidence supporting that alternative solution).
A miracle would, by definition, be an event that cannot be explained by Science. Show me an event that cannot be explained by Science.
We are intelligent, therefore we have intelligence. It would be arrogant to believe that we could have developed this intelligence on our own accord.
Given what basis? Why would this be arrogant? Human beings learn and discover things all the time without divine aid. Our current level of intelligence is simply the piecing together of information we've gathered over a long period of time. Isn't it a little bit more arrogant to think that we humans, an insignificant speck on in the scale of the universe, would warrant special attention from some supreme sentience?
Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
The universe has a beginning.
Therefore the universe has a cause.
Why does the cause have to be "God" though? Furthermore, there are plenty of theories suggesting that time, space, and matter could easily have existed before the Big Bang.
What if the cosmos was all there is? Then what would be our reason to behave morally?
As I've already pointed out, if the only reason you behave morally is because of your religion, your hopes of reward or fear of punishment in the afterlife, then you are not a moral person. A moral person does not need such motivation in order to be moral.
Another question: What sets us apart from the rest of the natural world? What makes us different from a hippo or a lion, or any other unintelligent species? Freak mutations in our DNA?
Ironically, arrogant_gamer got it right: arrogance. Humans are very speciesist. We are set apart because of the way our brains developed to hold and learn information. Also, the opposable thumbs helped.
This planet is the only planet in our solar system capable of sustaining life.
False. A common misconception actually by those that know little of exobiology. Life as we know it is very common around us here on Earth, so we assume that must be the only way life could develop, but there is actually evidence to the contrary, especially in the Archaea bacteria, which tend to be extremophiles, proving the resilience, adaptability, and variety of life and how it can survive in conditions we never imagine possible for more common life.
In our own solar system, Mars and Europa have always been good candidates for life, whether life actually be present there or not (likely only single-celled, but that's all that would really be required...).
In the five billion years that it took for our universe to expand to the point to which earth was created; just the right amount of gases and atoms would have had to come together to give our planet the core materials necessary for sustaining life. In the five million years that it took for the earth to cool enough to sustain life after it had been formed; just the right amount of resources would have to be present to sustain life. The point being that if the big bang were not enough of a chance occurrence, then the rest would surely be the biggest "miracle" of all time.
Also false. You assume Earth's conditions are much more unlikely than they actually may be. Tell me, have you ever heard of the Drake Equation? It was devised by Dr. Frank Drake in order to determine the number of other civilizations in our galaxy (aka, not including all of the other galaxies out there) with which communication might be possible. Note that this is much more specific than a planet simply containing life or that have life we would not be able to communicate with because of unreasonable distance. Last I heard, the result was around 2. Doesn't sound like much but when you consider how big the universe is and what a small percentage of it we're sampling, well, the conclusion becomes obvious. Even if you use variables much smaller than Drake assumed, the chances of our being the only life in the universe are extremely slim compared to the chances of there being more life somewhere out there.
10^80 atoms, in theory anyway. We can hit that pretty fast with 2-3 lines from shakespeare instead of just 1. You can reach an arbitrarily high number without very much complexity required. The myth is still nonsense.
10^80 is not "arbitrarily high" enough. By "arbitrarily high" I mean numbers approaching infinity such that exponents are insufficient to describe. Also, the number of atoms means nothing if you don't consider the time.
If you would not act morally given the lack of an all seeing God, then you are not a moral person. Other people are moral, without an all seeing God. Biology can explain morality as an evolutionary tool for survival.
We agree on a lot of point, but I really want to stress this. If one acts as a good person only because of one's religion, then one is not really a good person.
You may wonder why I am using scientific reason to express reasons to believe in intelligent design. If you believe everything that science tells us about the formation of the universe, then you believe in the most extreme of extreme accidents. My belief is that the universe truly was a miracle. Our planet was custom made for us, with everything we need to exist. Something that no other planet has.
With an understanding of evolution, you will see that science in no way claims it was an accident that our planet is so perfect for us...it is the other way around, we are perfect for our planet.
I would like to start by saying that for one thing there are many many (maybe billions) of planets in the universe. In all the time those planets have been around I would say it is not unimaginable to see that strange things can happen on those planets. In our case, single celled organisms formed, and we happen to be on that planet by virtue of the fact that we are here talking about it.
Everything past the formation of single celled organisms is those organisms adapting TO this planet over billions of years. Its a long time, and many strains of life have died out in the process. Many lifeforms died and many adapted so we can be here today, perfectly adapted to life on this planet. Had we developed on a planet with different properties (and assuming we did not become extinct) we would have totally different bodies that were perfectly adapted to THAT planet.
So that is why we have everything we need to exist.
Whenever the topic of existence and the existence of God is discussed, people are going to be offended. This is unavoidable. All we can do is listen to each other with an open heart and an open mind.
I am sorry to do this. Usually I just want to address the arguments not attack a person.
But if you are going to say we should listen to each other with an open heart and an open mind, don't use the same arguments for religion that have been rationally shown to be flawed over and over again. If you have never seen how these arguments are invalid before then I hope you have (with an open heart and mind) re-evaluated any beliefs you had based on those arguments after reading the responses in this thread.
1) Cognitive bias--it's a fact that people misremember, miscommunicate, and then misremember what was miscommunicated. I accept that all these things are true, and that this makes testimony less reliable then, say, a photograph. That does not make it unreliable. Despite the fact that people misremember and miscommunicate, testimony is still something that we use all the time in our day to day life, even for very important issues. It's a fact that testimony has enough evidenciary value that it's capable of convincing us of all sorts of things, on its own merit alone, and the many cases where those beliefs based on testimony have been validated by other evidence prove that we are justified in using testimony as valid evidence.
Ok, so you have said we use testimonial evidence all the time. This is true. And you also said testimonial evidence is even better when it is validated by other evidence.
So there is testimonial evidence for god (or miracles or prophets or whatever) but this testimony is not validated by any other evidence.
You also state that testimonial evidence is not as reliable as say a photograph. So testimonial evidence can be disproven by "hard" evidence according to you.
So in the bible there is lots of testimonial evidence for a god, and testimonial evidence for all the things he did in the past. And lots of stuff about how our world works
Well there is no evidence disproving god but there is lots of "hard" evidence disproving just about everything else in the bible.
So we are left with god, in some form of deism that science still tells us is unlikely. It is limited to some greater being that has absolutely no effect on our world and so should not be considered in our lives at all.
If your friend tells you there is a Starbucks on the corner of main street and 8th avenue in some city somewhere you could probably take him at his word. But if someone shows you a current photo of the street with no starbucks in sight, are you still going to believe him? or are you going to re-evaluate your belief that a Starbucks exists?
You having an unknown friend in China doesn't affect me, so I don't care if you do or don't.
You having a friend in China, therefore I have to live my life by how your friend dictates does affect me, so you have to prove to me that (a) Your friend exists, (b) the dictates that you present to me is actually from your friend, (c) your friend actually has power over me, and (d) you have to prove it to my satisfaction. Not that challenging if your friend actually exists.
This is really a seperate issue from whether testimony is valid evidence. Now we're talking about how much evidence is required to convince you to change your life. It's worth talking about, but I'm an hour overdue for bed (stupid internet, keeping me up late). Remind me, and I'll get back to this.
Which would be a valid arguement, if we were talking about the legal system. We're talking about Science. You, sadly, are held to a higher system.
Reeeeeally...you know, I don't buy it. Convince me why one should be held to such a higher standard. To me, it seems like both methods are ways to pursue truth. The standards by which we determine truth should be pretty constant, right? After all, a scientific pursuit only determines who wins $1 million at the Nobel Prizes. A court of law is determining who lives and dies. You'd think that would require pretty high standards for truth.
A miracle would, by definition, be an event that cannot be explained by Science. Show me an event that cannot be explained by Science.
I don't think that's a good definition for a miracle. It's the common definition, true, but it tends to reduce deity to a "God of the Gaps." There's a book called In Defence of Miracles that discusses this...I can't recall what definition they end up using, exactly, but the general idea is that one needs to put a bit more thought into what makes something miraculous than simply "well, it can't really be explained any other way."
Kaius--my multiquote doesn't work, but your statement that the Bible has been disproved on every point but that which discusses God is wrong. There are numerous archaeological finds that bear out the truth of the Bible. Heck, Napoleon won a big victory in the Middle East because something in the Bible provided him enough real data that he was able to use the same phenomena in his own battle (it had to do with geographical information and the flooding of a certain river).
This is really a seperate issue from whether testimony is valid evidence. Now we're talking about how much evidence is required to convince you to change your life. It's worth talking about, but I'm an hour overdue for bed (stupid internet, keeping me up late). Remind me, and I'll get back to this.
Testimony has been proved to be rather unreliable. Even when we can go back and look at the actual situations, we find that eyewitnesses tend to be wrong more often than they are right. Check out http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20010516.html for a good explanation. We are really bad at being good eyewitnesses. Our emotions tend to cloud our memories and we do not remember details nearly as well as we would like.
Reeeeeally...you know, I don't buy it. Convince me why one should be held to such a higher standard. To me, it seems like both methods are ways to pursue truth. The standards by which we determine truth should be pretty constant, right? After all, a scientific pursuit only determines who wins $1 million at the Nobel Prizes. A court of law is determining who lives and dies. You'd think that would require pretty high standards for truth.
Science is not about finding the truth. It's about explaining how the world functions, in other words: creating a functioning model of the universe. Truth is reserved for philosophy and religion.
Science is held to a higher standard because of what we are trying to accomplish. We need to know that our model is correct. We can't just believe it to be correct. This means that we need to constantly test that model. When we find part that does not work, we need to reevaluate our understanding and work on improving the model.
Religion is not about debunking itself. In fact, you are often required to avoid the hard questions lest you are considered a heathen. That's one of the problems I have with faith: it can't be questioned.
Science is not all about the Nobel Prize, and in fact most scientists don't even consider the prize. It should also be noted that there are Nobel Prizes for non-Science as well. There is one for Literature and one for Peace. The purpose of the Nobel Prize is to award those who have provided the most benefit to mankind within five specific areas (Peace, Literature, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, and Physics). The money comes from interest from a steady fund created originally with $9 million.
I think we should hold our courts to a higher standard than we do now. Too often we allow innocent people (not just "not-guilty") to be punished for crimes they did not commit. Death row has too many innocent people. Many of them ended up there due to eyewitness testimony and being coerced into believing that they did commit the crime even when they did not.
I don't think that's a good definition for a miracle. It's the common definition, true, but it tends to reduce deity to a "God of the Gaps." There's a book called In Defence of Miracles that discusses this...I can't recall what definition they end up using, exactly, but the general idea is that one needs to put a bit more thought into what makes something miraculous than simply "well, it can't really be explained any other way."
Miracles must be something that cannot be explained with science otherwise they aren't really all that miraculous. Stopping the Earth from moving so there would be more sunlight for a battle is a miracle. Childbirth is not, even though we often like to refer to it as the "miracle of childbirth." A miracle needs divine intervention otherwise it's not really a miracle.
Reeeeeally...you know, I don't buy it. Convince me why one should be held to such a higher standard. To me, it seems like both methods are ways to pursue truth. The standards by which we determine truth should be pretty constant, right? After all, a scientific pursuit only determines who wins $1 million at the Nobel Prizes. A court of law is determining who lives and dies. You'd think that would require pretty high standards for truth.
They are acually very different methods, one pursues truth, through the scientific method, the other must decide guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
But regardless of which is held to a higher standard, god would not hold up to the test of law or the test of science.
I don't think that's a good definition for a miracle. It's the common definition, true, but it tends to reduce deity to a "God of the Gaps." There's a book called In Defence of Miracles that discusses this...I can't recall what definition they end up using, exactly, but the general idea is that one needs to put a bit more thought into what makes something miraculous than simply "well, it can't really be explained any other way."
"Can't be explained anyother way" is about as clear a definition of a miracle as you can get. Unless you care to find what the book you suggest is saying.
If something happens that we cannot explain, we study it until it is explained, or we say we don't know the answer yet. There is generally no reason to associate god with the unexplainable event, people are always trying though - the sinking of the titanic (not really a miracle but a highly unlikely event) was attributed to an act of god.
Find me a miracle in recent history and I bet there is actually no direct reason to assume it was an act of god.
Kaius--my multiquote doesn't work, but your statement that the Bible has been disproved on every point but that which discusses God is wrong. There are numerous archaeological finds that bear out the truth of the Bible. Heck, Napoleon won a big victory in the Middle East because something in the Bible provided him enough real data that he was able to use the same phenomena in his own battle (it had to do with geographical information and the flooding of a certain river).
Your example is very vague but from what I understand your story about Napoleon in no way supports the idea that god exists.
I apologize I should have been more specific. Every claim made by the bible that "proves" the existence of god, and that can be disproved by current science, has been. No scientific test for the existence of god according to the bible has passed.
If you removed all parts of the bible that were contrary to the way we know the world works there would not be much left.
A Christians faith is blind in that they ignore every piece of evidence that does not support their beliefs.
I apologize I should have been more specific. Every claim made by the bible that "proves" the existence of god, and that can be disproved by current science, has been. No scientific test for the existence of god according to the bible has passed.
If you removed all parts of the bible that were contrary to the way we know the world works there would not be much left.
A Christians faith is blind in that they ignore every piece of evidence that does not support their beliefs.
I disagree with this, can you provide me with an example from the Bible that is something that has been explicitly disproved by current scientific knowledge?
Oh, and also: not all faith is blind. That is grossly incorrect. My faith is anything but blind. I constantly question and wrestle with the validity of my faith, if I had blind faith that would not be the case. In fact, blind faith is against the tenants of Christianity, but that's another topic for another thread.
Dragon-san! I am most interested in hearing what a wise Togashi or Kitsuki has to say with regards to their faith.
Actually, I am curious about you. You say that you have wrestled with the validity of your faith? That's pretty cool. Can I ask what particular questions came up and how you overcame them? Could you give an example of the sort of thing you wrestle with?
z.
Hi
Dragon-san! I am most interested in hearing what a wise Togashi or Kitsuki has to say with regards to their faith.
Actually, I am curious about you. You say that you have wrestled with the validity of your faith? That's pretty cool. Can I ask what particular questions came up and how you overcame them? Could you give an example of the sort of thing you wrestle with?
z.
Well, I wrestle with various kinds of things, but I don't want to derail the thread, I'll send you a PM shortly.
I disagree with this, can you provide me with an example from the Bible that is something that has been explicitly disproved by current scientific knowledge?
The age of the Earth would be the first example that comes to mind.
The age of the Earth would be the first example that comes to mind.
This is a common one, I'm not surprised. I'm sorry to say that most Christians who adhere to that "EXACTLY 7 DAYS" crap are leading you astray to what the Bible says.
The original Hebrew word for "day" there is more accurately translated as "a period of time." It'd be more like saying "And after God did this, he rested for a while." (which allows for really any amount of time)
I apologize I should have been more specific. Every claim made by the bible that "proves" the existence of god, and that can be disproved by current science, has been. No scientific test for the existence of god according to the bible has passed.
This seems to be a common misconception. The Bible makes no claims attempting to prove the existence of God. Rather, the Bible accepts the existence of God as an axiom from which other claims are made. For example:
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." (Gen. 1:1-2)
or,
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)
If you removed all parts of the bible that were contrary to the way we know the world works there would not be much left.
Seeing as the majority of the Bible concerns itself with providing both an historical record of events and trying to establish a moral framework for personal interactions, I fail to see how removing "all the parts of the bible that [are] contrary to the way we know the world works" would significantly reduce the size of the Bible. I suppose you could remove all references to miracles, but we wouldn't necessarily need to if we thought of those miracles as "phenomena that a comparatively primitive people were unable to explain at that time in their consideration of 'know[ing] how the world works' due to them not having the benefit of our vastly advanced understanding of scientific processes and system interaction". The Bible makes very few actual scientific claims.
A Christians faith is blind in that they ignore every piece of evidence that does not support their beliefs.
IMO, this is an inflammatory and patently untrue statement. Certainly there are some Christians who do this, but there are just as many, if not more, who take the evidence presented and, since it does not explicitly or implicitly contradict their faith, weave that evidence into the tapestry of their belief, making it, for them, richer and more meaningful.
Faelar
The age of the Earth would be the first example that comes to mind.
Encara addressed this already, but I would like to elaborate. The Bible makes absolutely no claims as to the age of the earth. Considering that, according to the record of evention of the creation as described in Genesis 1, "day" and "night" were created before the sun and the moon, it would probably be safe to assume that the original author (or authors) of Genesis were not intending their use of the word "day" to be taken literally.
As such, the Bible makes no claims as to the actual period of time that passes between "Let there be light" and "Let us make man in our own image".
Faelar
This is a common one, I'm not surprised. I'm sorry to say that most Christians who adhere to that "EXACTLY 7 DAYS" crap are leading you astray to what the Bible says.
The original Hebrew word for "day" there is more accurately translated as "a period of time." It'd be more like saying "And after God did this, he rested for a while." (which allows for really any amount of time)
Except that in more modern translations of the bible, the word "Day" is still used in reference to Genesis. The New American Standard, for example. Every other reference to "Day" in the bible refers to a 24-Hour period of time.
But, lets continue with some other problems.
PI, according to the bible is 3, as per I Kings 7, 23 and II Chronicles 4, 2. We know this because in those verses state "circular in form...and its circumference thirty cubits." Cubits, of course being generally accepted as 18 inches.
Then there's Noah's Ark...
Except that in more modern translations of the bible, the word "Day" is still used in reference to Genesis. The New American Standard, for example. Every other reference to "Day" in the bible refers to a 24-Hour period of time.
Well, it is the traditional translation, and it's succinct, even if not the most accurate. If we want to understand the truth of the meaning though, you have to use the original version. Too much is lost in translation. What the translations end up saying is irrelevant to what the meaning of the scripture is.
But, lets continue with some other problems.
PI, according to the bible is 3, as per I Kings 7, 23 and II Chronicles 4, 2. We know this because in those verses state "circular in form...and its circumference thirty cubits." Cubits, of course being generally accepted as 18 inches.
I actually had to look this up since that quote doesn't mean anything without the diameter, but your right it gives the diameter as 10 cubits. However, there is an important part of that quote:
"He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it."
Now when I read this I see the word "line" to be refferencing a string, not an exact measurement.
Which really is the crux of that whole thing. When your writing literature (that's not a textbook) you don't give precise measurements. Heck that wasn't really even a concept at the time (at least not in that area of the world). No one was going to say "it measures 31.41592653589 cubits" They had no way of knowing that. They would write that it was 30 cubits, because it's close enough and it's a nice round number.
Then there's Noah's Ark...
Well this one is a little bit different. In my opinion, since we technically don't know how many species of animal actually existed at the time, we don't really know how improbable Noah's Ark is. I mean, this is very early in Earth's history, more than likely the wide array of species as we know them didn't exist. There may not have been all that many. Lions, Tigers, Cheetahs, Cougars, etc.? For all we know there was one species of big cat that eventually evolved into all those different ones.
That's my opinion on Noah's Ark, although I don't know how many Christians share that view point.
Well, it is the traditional translation, and it's succinct, even if not the most accurate. If we want to understand the truth of the meaning though, you have to use the original version. Too much is lost in translation. What the translations end up saying is irrelevant to what the meaning of the scripture is.
I don't speak Hebrew, so I have to rely on those who translate it to know more than I do, and translate it correctly.
I actually had to look this up since that quote doesn't mean anything without the diameter, but your right it gives the diameter as 10 cubits. However, there is an important part of that quote:
"He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it."
Now when I read this I see the word "line" to be refferencing a string, not an exact measurement.
Which really is the crux of that whole thing. When your writing literature (that's not a textbook) you don't give precise measurements. Heck that wasn't really even a concept at the time (at least not in that area of the world). No one was going to say "it measures 31.41592653589 cubits" They had no way of knowing that. They would write that it was 30 cubits, because it's close enough and it's a nice round number.
The bible is suppose to be the Inerrant Word of God. Any error, mistranslation, or cut corners, then it's not the Inerrant word of God, it's the writing of Man. So if the Bible is the Inerrant Word of God, and God is perfect, than Pi = 3.
Even if we're just talking English Translation. If it's not a perfect translation of the original text, then it's not the Inerrant Word of God.
Well this one is a little bit different. In my opinion, since we technically don't know how many species of animal actually existed at the time, we don't really know how improbable Noah's Ark is. I mean, this is very early in Earth's history, more than likely the wide array of species as we know them didn't exist. There may not have been all that many. Lions, Tigers, Cheetahs, Cougars, etc.? For all we know there was one species of big cat that eventually evolved into all those different ones.
That's my opinion on Noah's Ark, although I don't know how many Christians share that view point.
Actually, lets start at the beginning. Genesis 6, 15 states:
"This is how you shall make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. "
That means the Ark is 450 ft long, 75 ft wide, and 45 ft tall. 450 ft is also the length of the Wyoming, a American Ship, also constucted of wood.
It tended to flex in heavy seas, which would cause the long planks to twist and buckle, thereby allowing sea water to intrude into the hold. The Wyoming had to use pumps to keep its hold relatively free of water.
Testimony has been proved to be rather unreliable. Even when we can go back and look at the actual situations, we find that eyewitnesses tend to be wrong more often than they are right. Check out http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20010516.html for a good explanation. We are really bad at being good eyewitnesses. Our emotions tend to cloud our memories and we do not remember details nearly as well as we would like.
I agree that there are limits to the reliability of eyewitness testimony, just like there are limits to any other tool that we use to gather evidence. However, as long as we're using those tools appropriately, they can be very reliable.
So, a group of eyewitnesses might disagree about the color of the hat that the guy who mugged them was wearing, but they'd be very certain that a mugging had in fact occurred. Testimony is also impacted by a lot of circumstances--for instance, the better we know the subject we're testifying about, the more accurate our testimony (say, testifying about the identity of a robber when we know the robber, as opposed to the robber being a stranger). Also, the longer we're exposed to the thing we're testifying about, the more reliable that testimony becomes (say, testifying about a guy who comes into the bank, gets holed up there for hours by the police, and is finally taken down by the swat team, as opposed to a guy who runs in, grabs some cash, and runs out).
I'm not arguing that eye-witness testimony is infallible evidence. I'm just arguing that it's valid evidence when reasonable restrictions are imposed, just like any other form of evidence you care to mention.
Even speeding tickets can get thrown out if it turns out that the radar wasn't calibrated recently...
Science is not about finding the truth. It's about explaining how the world functions, in other words: creating a functioning model of the universe. Truth is reserved for philosophy and religion.
Okay, the Nobel Prize crack was a bit out of line. I apologize.
I really think that you're making a false distinction between "Truth" and "accurate model." In both cases, you're trying to figure out the universe as it actually is. It'd be great if we could distinguish between the two, since that'd give philosophy and religion a nice safe little place to chill out while science does everything important in life...but honestly, moving back from the rubber-hits-the-road issues of morality and practical applications (not that there's anything wrong with those two things, they're both valid discussions in their own right), religion, philosophy, and science all share the goal of, as I said, describing the universe as it actually is. There are a lot of things in science which aren't really aimed at practical results...they're just severely underfunded. :-p
In any case, the standard for "describing the universe as it actually is" is the same regardless of what discipline you're pursuing--your conclusions have to fit the evidence. The evidence is what we observe as "actually being," and our theories to explain how things got that way have to fit what "actually is." It just so happens that "hard" science pursues questions to which we have a lot more evidence that's a lot easier to access and repeat. The "soft" sciences, like psychology, have it a lot harder since the evidence that's available to them is a lot more difficult to obtain and repeat, but that doesn't make it any less "science," or any less an attempt to describe the universe as it actually is. Philosophy and religion are differentiated in that they tend to pursue questions for which the evidence is extremely limited and/or difficult to find/repeat, but it doesn't mean they have a lower standard to meet in order to describe the universe as it actually is. They're still constrained by what evidence they do have access to. So saying that "science has a higher standard of evidence" is a mischaracterization. It's just that science tends to concern itself with questions for which evidence is more abundant. You look at the paucity of evidence for the questions that concern religion and philosophy and say that they have "lower standards of truth" than science, and that they're somehow "less reasonable" than a scientist, when in fact they have the [i]same standards for truth and the same degree of reasonableness[i] as a scientist, but have less evidence to work with. So, if you're going to make a crack against religion and philosophy, let it be about the availability of evidence, not about the mental fiber of the people who have the courage to wrestle with those questions despite that lack of evidence.
And despite all that, I want to be clear that the evidence available for philosophers and theologians is only poor by comparison with the obscene glut of information available to a scientist when considering most of the questions they concern themselves with. There's still plenty of evidence with which to come to some very solid conclusions.
Miracles must be something that cannot be explained with science otherwise they aren't really all that miraculous. Stopping the Earth from moving so there would be more sunlight for a battle is a miracle. Childbirth is not, even though we often like to refer to it as the "miracle of childbirth." A miracle needs divine intervention otherwise it's not really a miracle.
I'd say that a good definition is "an event which does not have a natural cause," which of course requires us to define event, cause, and most importantly "natural." I'd say that natural is "by an act of man/other mortal free agent or by the cause and effect action of physical forces." Of course, this still leaves us in the difficult situation of having to prove a negative, and in the end that often comes down to "well, no act of man or interaction of physical forces that we're currently aware of and was present at the time is sufficient to cause what happened, so it has to be a miracle." But it still leaves room for an event which could be caused by man or a physical event to be miraculous, so long as it wasn't actually caused by such a thing. Also it leaves rooms for miracles which aren't caused by God, since there may be other non-mortal actors or non-physical forces out there (though we might need to broaden our definition of natural here).
In any case, I've run across a lot of claims of miraculous events, ranging from healings to things which were should have fallen but didn't to dramatic changes in personal behavior, and even saw a report of demonic possession on the very thread that spawned this one. Then there's more normal stuff like unexpected windfalls of money and help received from others...things which could be caused by man or by physical forces, but which just might have other causes. And of course there's the miracle testimony of most major religious traditions. Are these things actually miracles? Well, I find the evidence for several of them to be compelling, and for others not so much. I'm not very inclined to bring up specific examples here, since I'm more interested in establishing the possibility of miracles than debating over whether one particular instance is a miracle or not, but it seems to me that the main criterion is whether or not something is a miracle is whether it was caused by a non-mortal free-willed agent or by the interaction of physical forces.
Now, if we have a world-view that does not automatically preclude non-mortal free-willed agents or non-physical forces, i.e., that does not automatically define the "supernatural" out of existence from the get-go, then it is certainly possible that events can have non-"natural" causes. My main point is that one should be careful that one does not begin an investigation into a miracle with the assumption that no non-natural agents exist, otherwise you've eliminated the possibility of miracles by their very (proposed) definition.
The Bible makes very few actual scientific claims.
The existence of God, the human soul, and an afterlife are all scientific claims.
PI, according to the bible is 3, as per I Kings 7, 23 and II Chronicles 4, 2. We know this because in those verses state "circular in form...and its circumference thirty cubits." Cubits, of course being generally accepted as 18 inches.
Here is the full text:
"And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." (1 Kings 7:23)
Now I will explain why your argument is specious. The approximate value of the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter was historically first expressed by the Babylonians and then by the Egyptians in approximately 1800-1600 BCE. Given that the events described in this chapter of 1 Kings occurred around 950-850 BCE, it would probably be safe to assume that the Israelites knew the (approximate) value of pi.
So, how did the author get it so wrong? Well, probably because the author wasn't attempting to write an engineering or geometry textbook. Therefore, the author was not saying "The numerical value of the ratio between a circle's circumference and its diameter is three because of the sea that Solomon had Hyram build" but was rather merely describing it. We must also consider that pi is a theoretical ratio that cannot be replicated in the real world. So the sea could very well have been "round all about" with the measurements listed, but wouldn't be a perfect geometric circle. In fact, there simply isn't enough evidence to support your assertion, because the author did not provide a point by point breakdown of the diameter of the sea.
Faelar
The existence of God, the human soul, and an afterlife are all scientific claims.
This is the problem I was talking about with definitions of science and standards. The existence of God, the human soul, and the afterlife are certainly claims about the universe as it actually is, but are they scientific? Well, they don't fall under physics, biology, chemistry, psychology, etc, etc. Is there a branch of science that addresses these issues? How is that branch of science different from philosophy or theology? Once you make the existence of God a scientific claim, you destroy the distinction between philosophy, theology, and science. Which is fine. If you want to define any claim about the universe as it actually is as a scientific claim, that's fine, but be clear that you're doing so. The fact that another poster made the claim that science somehow has a higher "standard" than philosophy and religion, however, indicates that the definition of science is neither clear nor universally accepted. Buyer beware.
The existence of God, the human soul, and an afterlife are all scientific claims.
Ummm...how exactly? These are metaphysical claims, not scientific claims. I have found no place in the Bible where it says "Yea, verily, thou didst form a hypothesis concerning the existence of God, and subjected that hypothesis to many trials and tribulations, and thine peers did review the conclusions and subjected them to many more toils and troubles, and sought therefore to replicate the trials and tribulations of the original hypothesis, and then didst a great shout go up amongst the multitude, for thou didst prove the existence of God, forever and ever, amen."
These authors viewed God, the soul, and the afterlife as axioms upon which their epistemology was based. Therefore, the claims are not scientific.
Faelar
Now I will explain why your argument is specious. The approximate value of the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter was historically first expressed by the Babylonians and then by the Egyptians in approximately 1800-1600 BCE. Given that the events described in this chapter of 1 Kings occurred around 950-850 BCE, it would probably be safe to assume that the Israelites knew the (approximate) value of pi.
So, how did the author get it so wrong? Well, probably because the author wasn't attempting to write an engineering or geometry textbook. Therefore, the author was not saying "The numerical value of the ratio between a circle's circumference and its diameter is three because of the sea that Solomon had Hyram build" but was rather merely describing it. We must also consider that pi is a theoretical ratio that cannot be replicated in the real world. So the sea could very well have been "round all about" with the measurements listed, but wouldn't be a perfect geometric circle. In fact, there simply isn't enough evidence to support your assertion, because the author did not provide a point by point breakdown of the diameter of the sea.
Faelar
The particular quote was actually from II Chronicles 4, 2:
"Also he made the cast metal sea, ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height was five cubits and its circumference thirty cubits"
But we still come back to the crux of the discussion.
The Bible makes very few actual scientific claims.
The value of Pi, the creation of the universe, the existance of Noah's Ark. These are all Scientific Claims (i.e. Claims about the physical nature of the Universe). The Bible makes specific claims about each, and each claim can be proven false under the scrutiny of Science. If the Bible is the Inerrant Word of God, and God is perfect, than each and every claim made in the Bible should very easily stand up to the Evidence. They don't.
And these are just three items that a schmuck like me can find.
As I've already pointed out, if the only reason you behave morally is because of your religion, your hopes of reward or fear of punishment in the afterlife, then you are not a moral person. A moral person does not need such motivation in order to be moral.
This argument doesn't really fly. I'd like to be shown that a person who acts morally only because of hope of reward or fear of punishment in the afterlife actually exists.
If that can be shown to me, then I would like to know why, if there is not a universal definition for moral, or good, then why is there suddenly a universal consensus that anyone acting moral for only those reasons listed cannot possibly be moral, but must be immoral or amoral.
Faelar
I don't speak Hebrew, so I have to rely on those who translate it to know more than I do, and translate it correctly.
And neither do I, I've only heard what I know from scholars who do, of course that applies to any and all scientific knowledge as well, so I guess that's really the same thing.
Just because it's all you have to rely on doesn't make it correct. If all you had to rely on for scientific knowledge was a science textbook from the 17th Century, that wouldn't make all of its claims true.
The bible is suppose to be the Inerrant Word of God. Any error, mistranslation, or cut corners, then it's not the Inerrant word of God, it's the writing of Man. So if the Bible is the Inerrant Word of God, and God is perfect, than Pi = 3.
Even if we're just talking English Translation. If it's not a perfect translation of the original text, then it's not the Inerrant Word of God.
Well, this is again where I think a bit differently than most Christians might (at least to my knowledge). I don't believe that the Bible is completely Inerrant. The Bible was written by men, compiled by men, and is given to men to guide them through their lives, and as a result I'm sure it has some errors. Pi = 3 included. (I use the word "men" in the sense Tolkien does, meaning "humanity")
Actually, lets start at the beginning. Genesis 6, 15 states:
"This is how you shall make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. "
That means the Ark is 450 ft long, 75 ft wide, and 45 ft tall. 450 ft is also the length of the Wyoming, a American Ship, also constucted of wood.
It tended to flex in heavy seas, which would cause the long planks to twist and buckle, thereby allowing sea water to intrude into the hold. The Wyoming had to use pumps to keep its hold relatively free of water.
Well besides the fact that a cubit was not a consistent unit of measurement...
That may have been true for the Wyoming but that's only a single case. Just because the Wyoming is like that doesn't mean that every large wooden ship suffers the same problems.
And neither do I, I've only heard what I know from scholars who do, of course that applies to any and all scientific knowledge as well, so I guess that's really the same thing.
Just because it's all you have to rely on doesn't make it correct. If all you had to rely on for scientific knowledge was a science textbook from the 17th Century, that wouldn't make all of its claims true.
Certainly true. But because we have better knowledge than what a 17th Century Science Textbook can provide us, we've thrown them away, and now use a 21st Century Science Textbook.
Well, this is again where I think a bit differently than most Christians might (at least to my knowledge). I don't believe that the Bible is completely Inerrant. The Bible was written by men, compiled by men, and is given to men to guide them through their lives, and as a result I'm sure it has some errors. Pi = 3 included. (I use the word "men" in the sense Tolkien does, meaning "humanity")
Then it's not Inerrant Word of God, and thats a completely different discussion. If the Bible isn't perfect, than it should have no place in society beyond any other historical document of the time. The problem comes from those who claim that the Bible is the Inerrant Word of God, and as such, it documents on how Society should be goverened (Homosexuality, as an example).
That said, the current debate is Scientific Claims of the Bible and how accurate they are.
Well besides the fact that a cubit was not a consistent unit of measurement...
That may have been true for the Wyoming but that's only a single case. Just because the Wyoming is like that doesn't mean that every large wooden ship suffers the same problems.
18-inch cubit is one of the smallest types of cubits. If you want to get into a discussion of what Cubit the bible references, than we could go alot larger, and Noah's Ark becomes even more unattanable.
The Wyoming is the only ship made using wood to reach the size the Ark is estimated to be at that we have. There are wood ships of near the same size, but they had metal components to help stabilize them, and even then they were not very sea worthy.
If, however, you know of another ship of similiar size that was sea worthy, than I'd be happy to take a look.
The value of Pi, the creation of the universe, the existance of Noah's Ark. These are all Scientific Claims (i.e. Claims about the physical nature of the Universe). The Bible makes specific claims about each, and each claim can be proven false under the scrutiny of Science. If the Bible is the Inerrant Word of God, and God is perfect, than each and every claim made in the Bible should very easily stand up to the Evidence. They don't.
Okay, since you obviously didn't read my post, let me give an example.
"The ball fell."
Now, scientifically, did the ball really "fall"? No, because we know what actually happened is the gravitational force of the earth exerted a force on the ball that caused it to accelerate at a speed of 9.8 m/s/s.
So am I really making a scientific claim when I say the ball fell? No, I am just making an observation that the vast majority of people would be able to relate to. Such is my argument relating to the Biblical "pi".
The same goes for the creation of the universe. The Bible is not making a claim as to the processes involved during the creation. It merely accepts the creation as an axiom for the epistemology of the Biblical authors.
Noah's Ark is the closest you could come to a scientific claim (did it actually exists, if it did exist, was it possible to build it to those dimensions) but then you would have to show that metric designated as a cubit never changed between Noah's time and the time those scriptures were written.
Faelar
Okay, since you obviously didn't read my post, let me give an example.
I did, but it's possible that I didn't get what your saying.
"The ball fell."
And we can prove it scientifically.
One of the definitions of Fall, and specifically in referense to your statement is "Movement due to gravity".Or more specifically:
"Falling is descent under gravity. All objects have mass and in the presence of sufficiently massive objects such as planets or moons they experience a strong attraction due to gravity. This is known as weight. If the force of gravity is not equalized by an opposite force directed away from the planet, the object will start to fall towards the center of mass of the system--in effect, towards the center of the planet. The acceleration of gravity is directly proportional to the mass of the planet. The planet will also fall towards the center of the system but, if the object is much less massive than the planet, this motion is imperceptible.
The way in which an object moves under gravity (not necessarily a descent), in the absence of other forces, is known as free fall, and is described by a conic section whose parameters are dependent on the object's initial velocity. If the speed is above the escape velocity, and the object has no downward vertical component, the force of gravity is not enough to reverse the motion away from the planet and it will continue indefinitely on its path away from the planet. Otherwise it will fall back towards the planet and may go into orbit around it or collide with it.
In the presence of an atmosphere, the conditions for free fall are broken and the object will experience atmospheric drag, and the speed at which it falls towards the planet is subject to a terminal velocity when the force due to drag equalizes the force of gravity. Note that in common usage the term free fall does not take account of atmospheric drag."
If the Bible is the Inerrant Word of God, and as such is a perfect document on how we should live our lives, than any statement made in it should be able to withstand any and all scrutiny, including scientific.
If you can claim that when the Bible references the value of Pi, and that reference isn't able to withstand real world consideration (or in this case known mathimatical formulas), that Noah's Ark was isn't of specific dimensions, and those dimensions cannot hold up to real world examples (when said dimensions are translated using what I could find as the smallest example of said dimension), and the creation of the universe doesn't measure up, the entire document has to be questioned.
It would be equivalent of someone writing a book on the history of the United States and denying slavery, or the WWII Internment Camps for Japenese Citizens, and people demanding that book be taught in schools.
Certainly true. But because we have better knowledge than what a 17th Century Science Textbook can provide us, we've thrown them away, and now use a 21st Century Science Textbook.
Well that's exactly my point. We have scholars and books which can describe for us the original words, hense we can take translations with a grain of salt. I'm glad we can agree on that. (At least I think we do)
EDIT: I had forgotten that the Latin word for with is a pornographic word in English, ah well...I just wrote it in english. How bland...
Then it's not Inerrant Word of God, and thats a completely different discussion. If the Bible isn't perfect, than it should have no place in society beyond any other historical document of the time. The problem comes from those who claim that the Bible is the Inerrant Word of God, and as such, it documents on how Society should be goverened (Homosexuality, as an example).
That said, the current debate is Scientific Claims of the Bible and how accurate they are.
Well I'll agree it has no place in the government. I believe Christianity and all religion has no place in the government. Where Christianity does belong is in a moral argument, because it is a foundation for a moral code. If following that moral code affect your actions or views of society, it's a byproduct, not the code's intent.
But your right this would be an interesting topic, but is not necessarily in the scope of this thread. (Although I'd be happy to start a PM or another thread for it, although we might not want to flood the Off Topic Tavern with these)
18-inch cubit is one of the smallest types of cubits. If you want to get into a discussion of what Cubit the bible references, than we could go alot larger, and Noah's Ark becomes even more unattanable.
The Wyoming is the only ship made using wood to reach the size the Ark is estimated to be at that we have. There are wood ships of near the same size, but they had metal components to help stabilize them, and even then they were not very sea worthy.
If, however, you know of another ship of similiar size that was sea worthy, than I'd be happy to take a look.
Well, as you have pointed out (rather sardonically ;) ), I don't have an example of a similar, yet seaworthy, ship. My point was that one example does not constitute a pattern, and that without further examples, it's really not accurate to say, "Well, this ship wasn't seaworthy, so no ships similar could be seaworthy."
We don't really know anything about the construction of the Ark other than it was made of wood and its size. An unfortunate lack of information
As a result, it's going to be almost pure speculation and theory at this point which makes the argument more or less a standstill around the Ark.
Okay, these passages make no assertions about the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. Rather, they are describing one particular bath and are giving its measurements and are not intending this particular bath which is "round all about" or "circular in form" to be considered an actual geometric circle that is representative of all circles.
Basically, you are committing a fallacy of hasty induction when you claim that the Bible states the value of pi is three.
Faelar
Well that's exactly my point. We have scholars and books which can describe for us the original words, hense we can take translations *** granis salis (I believe I spelled that right) I'm glad we can agree on that. (At least I think we do)
I think we do. We could look it up, but I'm way too lazy.
Well I'll agree it has no place in the government. I believe Christianity and all religion has no place in the government. Where Christianity does belong is in a moral argument, because it is a foundation for a moral code. If following that moral code affect your actions or views of society, it's a byproduct, not the code's intent.
But your right this would be an interesting topic, but is not necessarily in the scope of this thread. (Although I'd be happy to start a PM or another thread for it, although we might not want to flood the Off Topic Tavern with these)
I do have to say part of my ferver comes from the debates I've had with people who completely disagree. It's really gotten me in a "Attack Dog" mode of debate. It's a shame really. But we agree about the religions place in Govement, so pizza for everyone.
Well, as you have pointed out (rather sardonically ;) ), I don't have an example of a similar, yet seaworthy, ship. My point was that one example does not constitute a pattern, and that without further examples, it's really not accurate to say, "Well, this ship wasn't seaworthy, so no ships similar could be seaworthy."
We don't really know anything about the construction of the Ark other than it was made of wood and its size. An unfortunate lack of information
My example with the Wyoming, is merely anecdotal, and in no way 100% proof of anything. I'm just wanting to use it simply as an example of "A Boat of Supposed Equal Size". We could go smaller, but then space becomes more of an issue. We do have a specific on the number of each type of animal taken, and no, it's not 2 of each.
I think we do. We could look it up, but I'm way too lazy.
Yay agreement and laziness! I wouldn't make a good programmer if I wasn't lazy as heck.
I do have to say part of my ferver comes from the debates I've had with people who completely disagree. It's really gotten me in a "Attack Dog" mode of debate. It's a shame really. But we agree about the religions place in Govement, so pizza for everyone.
Man, and pizza! This just gets better and better. I do know what you mean. I've had my share of debates with hardheads, gets me riled up too.
My example with the Wyoming, is merely anecdotal, and in no way 100% proof of anything. I'm just wanting to use it simply as an example of "A Boat of Supposed Equal Size". We could go smaller, but then space becomes more of an issue. We do have a specific on the number of each type of animal taken, and no, it's not 2 of each.
Fair enough, and true. I can't remember the number, and as I'm at work, I'm not good for looking it up. Still, it stands that as the Bible provides limited details to the story, it makes it difficult to pass beyond speculation.
Any other qualms? (This is fun an interesting, I've never managed to debate with an atheist who doesn't insult my intelligence or me personally mid-debate )
Basically, you are committing a fallacy of hasty induction when you claim that the Bible states the value of pi is three.
The Indiana bill
The "Indiana Pi Bill" of 1897, which never passed out of committee, has been claimed to imply a number of different values for π, although the closest it comes to explicitly asserting one is the wording "the ratio of the diameter and circumference is as five-fourths to four", which would make π = 16⁄5 = 3.2.
So I was off by .2.
You shouldn't do that. Your going to hurt your head. ;)
I've too many "The Bible is the Inerrant Word of God" debates.
For more info on the Indiana Pi Bill:
"The Indiana Pi Bill is the popular name for bill #246 of the 1897 sitting of the Indiana General Assembly, which is one of the most famous attempts to establish scientific truth by legislative fiat. Despite its popular name, the main result claimed by the bill is a method to square the circle, rather than the establishment of the value of π. Nevertheless, the bill does contain text that appears to dictate various incorrect values of π, such as 3.2.
The bill never became law, thanks to the speedy intervention of a mathematics professor from Purdue University who was incidentally present in the legislature.
It is sometimes wrongly said that this bill would have defined π with a specific incorrect value, often 3."
I do, however, still stand by the assertion that there are statements in the bible that can be taken by people as scientific fact, and in those incidents that they can be proven as scientifically wrong.
If we are to give the Bible special consideration, then it has to be held a higher standard than "it's simply stories or allegories".
If the Bible is the Inerrant Word of God, and as such is a perfect document on how we should live our lives, than any statement made in it should be able to withstand any and all scrutiny, including scientific.
If you can claim that when the Bible references the value of Pi, and that reference isn't able to withstand real world consideration (or in this case known mathimatical formulas), that Noah's Ark was isn't of specific dimensions, and those dimensions cannot hold up to real world examples (when said dimensions are translated using what I could find as the smallest example of said dimension), and the creation of the universe doesn't measure up, the entire document has to be questioned.
It would be equivalent of someone writing a book on the history of the United States and denying slavery, or the WWII Internment Camps for Japenese Citizens, and people demanding that book be taught in schools.
**sigh** The Bible is neither The Innerant Word of God, nor is it simply "stories and allegories." You're making a false dichotomy to insist that it has to be one or the other. Most people don't. Most believers claim that it's a very reliable source for the subjects that it's intending to portray, and that the main subject is the being, nature, and expectations of God. There's some things in there that just so happen to be useful for other subjects, like history and wisdom tales and stuff, but mostly it's there to tell us something about who God is. Most of it is stuff like "this is some experience I've had that tells me something about God. This is what He is like. This is what He wants us to do. This is what He thinks about the current situation." It's not meant to be a treatise on the physical processes of the world around us, nor is it strictly intended as a historical work. If one must put the whole work in a genre, it's most closely akin to a biography. Even at that, it's kind of a mistake to lump the whole Bible into one genre. It's actually a collection of many other books, and those books sometimes belong to different genres. Trying to read Psalms the same way you read Deuteronomy or Acts is, well, kind of silly. All three, however, can be read to get a view of who God is.
And by the way, it is expected that a work with a specific purpose won't be very careful about details unrelated to that purpose. Expecting it to do so is giving the Bible special consideration, but in a way that gives it a disadvantage instead of an advantage. Neither types of special consideration are particularly conducive to an intellectually honest consideration of what it has to say.
If the Bible is the Inerrant Word of God, and as such is a perfect document on how we should live our lives, than any statement made in it should be able to withstand any and all scrutiny, including scientific.
This. This is what you're missing. You are applying a scientific viewpoint on writings that are not meant to be scientific tretises, and then are saying it has no value because it gets the science wrong (despite the fact that I have continually tried to explain that the Bible isn't making scientific claims).
It would be like me looking at a mathematical proof and saying "From a grammatical standpoint, they obviously used their punctuational symbols erroneously. We'll have to chuck the whole thing." All you are doing is imposing a false paradigm on the Bible, and then using that false paradigm to argue that it is wrong.
Faelar
P.S. Lest it be thought that I am personally invested in the inerrancy of the Bible, I'm not. I'd just like to see better arguments
EDIT: "Not the only Christian," I mean
Most believers claim that it's a very reliable source for the subjects that it's intending to portray, and that the main subject is the being, nature, and expectations of God.
And this would be a problem. Your making two false assumptions of your own.
1) God Exists,
and
2) The Bible is represents Gods Views (however directly or indirectly).
These are two very distinct issues. Even if God did exist, that in no way concludes that the Bible is his Views. There's The Torah and The Koran as just too examples of Books that can be taken as his View. It's very possible if God existed, that no religous document is correct.
This. This is what you're missing. You are applying a scientific viewpoint on writings that are not meant to be scientific tretises, and then are saying it has no value because it gets the science wrong (despite the fact that I have continually tried to explain that the Bible isn't making scientific claims).
It would be like me looking at a mathematical proof and saying "From a grammatical standpoint, they obviously used their punctuational symbols erroneously. We'll have to chuck the whole thing." All you are doing is imposing a false paradigm on the Bible, and then using that false paradigm to argue that it is wrong.
Faelar
P.S. Lest it be thought that I am personally invested in the inerrancy of the Bible, I'm not. I'd just like to see better arguments
This is what happens when I spent too much time arguing with people who believe in the Inerrancy of the Bible. (Which tends to be more than I like).
Obviously my arguments don't apply to people I'm debating with, since you don't believe in the Inerrancy of the Bible.
And this would be the problem. Your making two false assumptions of your own.
1) God Exists
Alright, come now. We both know that this is inflammatory. There is no proof that God exists, and there is no proof that God does not exist. Being able to explain scientific phenomena is not proof against God, just as Scripture is not proof for God.
2) The Bible is represents Gods Views (however directly or indirectly).
These are two very distinct issues. Even if God did exist, that in no way concludes that the Bible is his Views. There's the Torah, the Koran as just too examples of Books that can be taken as his View. It's very possible if God existed, that no religous document is correct.
Actually, you are darn right. Which of course is the whole thing about faith. Since we can't prove God exists, and we can't prove what his views are, there is no way to be certain. However, we take a stab at it and put our faith that we get close enough to his actual views. The Bible is a reference and guideline for helping one figure that out, even if it's imperfect at doing so. It's not a great system, but it's the best we've got.
Alright, come now. We both know that this is inflammatory. There is no proof that God exists, and there is no proof that God does not exist. Being able to explain scientific phenomena is not proof against God, just as Scripture is not proof for God.
Thats true, it's inflammatory. However, given that my views on religion are just as valid as everyone else, I've as much right to express it as everyone else. If we're going to have a discussion about the nature of God, and worshipping God, and you can state that God does exists, than I have as much right to make the opposite claim and say that God does not exist.
If one of us can't make a basic statement on our views of the nature of God, then the entire debate is meaningless.
Actually, you are darn right. Which of course is the whole thing about faith. Since we can't prove God exists, and we can't prove what his views are, there is no way to be certain. However, we take a stab at it and put our faith that we get close enough to his actual views. The Bible is a reference and guideline for helping one figure that out, even if it's imperfect at doing so. It's not a great system, but it's the best we've got.
I completely agree.
Thats true, it's inflammatory. However, given that my views on religion are just as valid as everyone else, I've as much right to express it as everyone else. If we're going to have a discussion about the nature of God, and worshipping God, and you can state that God does exists, than I have as much right to make the opposite claim and say that God does not exist.
If one of us can't make a basic statement on our views of the nature of God, then the entire debate is meaningless.
Good point. I guess just flatly labeling it as a "false assumption" is just a bit of a pointed statement, if that makes any sense...
It could just be sensitivity, but saying like "I believe" or "I think" beforehand might take the fire out of the statement. But, you're right we do need to be able to make basic claims like that. So, in retort:
NUH UH!
(Just kidding, but hey you know my position: God exists and whatnot)
I completely agree.
Awesome.
Horatio, you have captured my position on the Bible with excellent accuracy. That's just about how I feel on the matter. I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who doesn't take the Bible as 100% accurate.
EDIT: "Not the only Christian," I mean
*waves* Me too.
I mean, even supposing the Bible is the 'Word of God', it's still been scribed, edited, produced, and translated by Man.
Hence, it can't help but not be perfect.
Good point. I guess just flatly labeling it as a "false assumption" is just a bit of a pointed statement, if that makes any sense...
Well, he was stating God existed. As I disagree, and he has presented no compelling evidence to support his statement, I felt I could be justified in calling it a false assumption.
It could just be sensitivity, but saying like "I believe" or "I think" beforehand might take the fire out of the statement. But, you're right we do need to be able to make basic claims like that. So, in retort:
NUH UH!
UH HU!!!
I'm curious if anyone else has run in to a nut on either side of the debate. (Aside from me of course, being that I'm pretty much an Nut on the Athiest Side).
*waves* Me too.
I mean, even supposing the Bible is the 'Word of God', it's still been scribed, edited, produced, and translated by Man.
Hence, it can't help but not be perfect.
Wow that's uplifting, I've felt really alone on that for a long time. I'm glad to know I'm not just freakin crazy amongst my own people.
You know I sort of find the whole thing about discussing these things over the internet. I have yet to see anyone ever post:
You know, that's really got me for a loop. I'll have to think about that. Maybe God does/doesn't exist!
Yet both sides will fervently (and sometimes, thankfully not here just yet, hatefully) demand the correctness of their side with increasingly bad points on a topic on which, IMO, reasonable minds can differ.
I mean, we never see the results of these conversations, so you never really know, but still it's fascinating how often and in how many places this kind of discussion pops up even though there have been no clear results from any of them.
I'm curious if anyone else has run in to a nut on either side of the debate. (Aside from me of course, being that I'm pretty much an Nut on the Athiest Side).
Ooh, when I was at school, this kid in my year was very 'holier than thou'. The way he went on, I think he believed that he was the only person who'd get into Heaven.
I also met a girl at church who didn't believe in dinosaurs because they aren't mentioned in the Bible.
I'm curious. i've had dealing with people who believe in the Inerrancy of the Bible (as you might be able to tell). I've even seen two Inerrancy Believers argue over which version of the Bible is correct.
I'm curious if anyone else has run in to a nut on either side of the debate. (Aside from me of course, being that I'm pretty much an Nut on the Athiest Side).
Heh, oh man. Looking back I wish I had written some down so that I could post them here.
I've had people throw random scientific jargon at me thinking that I'm a Christian so I must not know any science. I've seen some hillarious (and frustrating) combinations of Ochim's Razor (I'm never sure that I spell that right), The Laws of Thermodynamics, Realtivity, etc.
What really gets me is the ones (on both sides really) that feel the need to belittle, insult, and personally attack those that disagree. I mean, come on, for Christians that's directly against the kind of behavior our belief system calls for. For Atheists, regardless of where your moral compass lies or what your moral code is, it's not a good way to get someone to listen to your argument. I'm baffled every time a see some infuriated debater say:
"YOU STUPID ****, HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE SOMETHING SO ******* STUPID, OMG"
I also met a girl at church who didn't believe in dinosaurs because they aren't mentioned in the Bible.
Strangely enough I've seen people argue that Dinosaurs are in the Bible. Young Earth Creationists will use this specific pasage:
"Behold now, Behemoth, which I made as well as you; He eats grass like an ox. And his power in the muscles of his belly. He bends his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are knit together. His bones are tubes of bronze; His limbs are like bars of iron. He is the (S)first of the ways of God." - Job 40:15-19.
Strangely enough I've seen people argue that Dinosaurs are in the Bible. Young Earth Creationists will use this specific pasage:
"Behold now, Behemoth, which I made as well as you; He eats grass like an ox. And his power in the muscles of his belly. He bends his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are knit together. His bones are tubes of bronze; His limbs are like bars of iron. He is the (S)first of the ways of God." - Job 40:15-19.
Huh, you know what, Job is my most favorite book in the Bible, and I never read that carefully with dinosaurs in mind. Wow, that's actually pretty awesome.
Heh, oh man. Looking back I wish I had written some down so that I could post them here.
I've had people throw random scientific jargon at me thinking that I'm a Christian so I must not know any science. I've seen some hillarious (and frustrating) combinations of Ochim's Razor (I'm never sure that I spell that right), The Laws of Thermodynamics, Realtivity, etc.
What really gets me is the ones (on both sides really) that feel the need to belittle, insult, and personally attack those that disagree.
The Occam's Razor aguements are fun. I've actually had someone laugh in my face when discussing evolution.
The Occam's Razor aguements are fun.
Oh let me tell you...
(although I'm sure you're aware)
The existence of God, the human soul, and the afterlife are certainly claims about the universe as it actually is, but are they scientific?
Yes, that's what science is. Science is the knowledge (or pursuit thereof) of facts and truths of the state of the universe. When you say that god exists, you are making a scientific claim about the universe. After all, a universe in which god does exist is scientifically different than a universe in which god does not exist. Furthermore, when you claim that the soul exists, you are making a scientific claim about the nature of life, that it is composed of more than just matter. Likewise, when you claim that an afterlife exists, you are making a scientific claim about what happens to that soul once it is separated from the matter to which it was once bound. With the appropriate tools, all of these claims could be observed, measured and studied.
Well, they don't fall under physics, biology, chemistry, psychology, etc, etc. Is there a branch of science that addresses these issues?
There's no reason for there to be one yet, as we aren't currently scientifically advanced enough to measure such things. However, that doesn't mean that there won't be one if it turns out there's a need for there to be... Of course, there may not be a need.
How is that branch of science different from philosophy or theology?
Because Philosophy and Theology are not sciences. Philosophy is actually above science in a way, in that it governs scientific process, but I don't think philosophy itself is considered to be a science. Theology is in no way scientific, so... Well I guess if we do eventually get to a point in which we can actually scientifically observe or measure such things (if such a point exists), then it may become a science, much like alchemy became chemistry or astrology became astronomy... But as of now, theology is more like literature or art. There's nothing really particularly scientific about it...
Once you make the existence of God a scientific claim, you destroy the distinction between philosophy, theology, and science.
No I don't. Philosophy plays a completely different role here than you think. Philosophy does not directly deal with the question of god's existence. It does, however, deal with how to question it and what would constitute proof one way or the other.
Theology doesn't do what you think it does either. See above...
If you want to define any claim about the universe as it actually is as a scientific claim, that's fine, but be clear that you're doing so.
That's the default definition of what science is, so I don't actually have to be any clearer about that than I was.
(EDIT: Reading back on that sentence, I sound a lot more like a prick than I intended to, but I can't figure out how to fix it, so I'm just gonna write this here as an apology about that tone of that sentence: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to sound like a prick just there...)
Ummm...how exactly? These are metaphysical claims, not scientific claims.
It's actually both, depending on context. I am personally referring to the scientific context of existence, not the metaphysical one.
I have found no place in the Bible where it says "Yea, verily, thou didst form a hypothesis concerning the existence of God, and subjected that hypothesis to many trials and tribulations, and thine peers did review the conclusions and subjected them to many more toils and troubles, and sought therefore to replicate the trials and tribulations of the original hypothesis, and then didst a great shout go up amongst the multitude, for thou didst prove the existence of God, forever and ever, amen."
That was cute.It's also funny because it's true; that bible doesn't prove that god exists. :D
These authors viewed God, the soul, and the afterlife as axioms upon which their epistemology was based. Therefore, the claims are not scientific.
If that were true and that's what they had stated, that would have been slightly more scientifically acceptable (though not less wrong), but that's not what it claimed. The claim is that god, the soul, and the after life exist, not that we're going to assume they exist for purposes of the following...
This argument doesn't really fly. I'd like to be shown that a person who acts morally only because of hope of reward or fear of punishment in the afterlife actually exists.
Oh, you'd be surprised such horrible people really do exist.
If that can be shown to me, then I would like to know why, if there is not a universal definition for moral, or good, then why is there suddenly a universal consensus that anyone acting moral for only those reasons listed cannot possibly be moral, but must be immoral or amoral.
Because acting contrary to your nature does not change what your nature is.
Children are biologically predisposed towards listening to their mommies and daddies. Their mommies and daddies teach them that some things people say are not true (such as Santa Clause) but some mommies and daddies also teach them that similar entities that people imagine do exist and are so true that they must be invoked before eating, and that speaking their names in vein is something to be ashamed of.
The Occam's Razor aguements are fun.
Occam's razor is a tool for selecting between hypothesis of equal explanatory power. For example we have some event that is highly improbable and two explanations for it: in one we say "This highly improbably event occurred, as highly improbable events tend to" and in the other we say "This highly improbably event could not have occurred. There is an inexplicable intelligence motivating the universe. The inexplicable intelligence caused this event to occur." Occam's razor isn't an argument on its own, it is a principle of philosophical elegance and informs our decision given these two (admittedly equally explanatory) hypothesis. We will prefer the one that introduces the fewest new entities.
I propose that if you had been born in Saudi Arabia you would be Islamic, and we would be having this argument about the Qur'an. Personally I am disappointed that this thread stumbled into discussions about the truth of the bible, when it began as a discussion of the reasons individual have for their theism. There just doesn't seem to be any point in discussing π as it appears in the bible or even the bible at all. For any reasonable person the bible cannot be anything more than a myth generously sprinkled with exaggerated accounts of history. One might as well cleave to the words of Kafka or Ovid.
z.
The age of the Earth would be the first example that comes to mind.
Can you find me a specific quote in the Bible that actually states the age of the Earth? I've read it many times and there doesn't actually seem to be such a passage. I know that people tried the "counting generations" method but that fails when you take into account how people are referred to such as Jesus often being called the Son of David (17 times in the Bible) when we know that is not true, he is a descendant (and a prophetic fulfillment) not a son.
One might as well cleave to the words of Kafka or Ovid.
z.
People do.
Can you find me a specific quote in the Bible that actually states the age of the Earth? I've read it many times and there doesn't actually seem to be such a passage. I know that people tried the "counting generations" method but that fails when you take into account how people are referred to such as Jesus often being called the Son of David (17 times in the Bible) when we know that is not true, he is a descendant (and a prophetic fulfillment) not a son.
I wasn't referencing the "Counting Generations" method, even through there are plenty of people who do believe in that method (though no one on this board seems to). I was referencing that Genesis states the word was created in Six Days, plus the Light and Dark coming before the creation of the Sun and Moon, the evolution of the species, ect, ect. However, since no one has stated they believe the Bible is the Inerrant Word of God, it's a moot arguement.
Except that in more modern translations of the bible, the word "Day" is still used in reference to Genesis. The New American Standard, for example. Every other reference to "Day" in the bible refers to a 24-Hour period of time.
Not entirely true. This holds true only with more recent translations. Note also that a day is as a year to god.
PI, according to the bible is 3, as per I Kings 7, 23 and II Chronicles 4, 2. We know this because in those verses state "circular in form...and its circumference thirty cubits." Cubits, of course being generally accepted as 18 inches.
When you take into account a few things, this is only a problem for those who wish it to be so. First, when you take significant digits into account, there is no problem. Second, remember that the ancient Hebrews most likely did not use decimal places and instead rounded things to the nearest whole unit. Third, when converting units from different systems, we often round them to the nearest relevant value. For example, a yard is roughly 0.9 meters, but not exactly.
1 inch = 2.54 centimeters. 12 inches = 30.48 centimeters. 36 inches = 91.44 centimeters.
1 centimeter = 0.394 inches. 100 centimeters = 39.4 inches.
So if I want to check if this is accurate, I would create a simple equation:
36 in/91.44 cm = 39.4 in/100cm
3600 =? 3602.7
The two are not equal. The same holds true when we try to convert cubits to inches. The conversion is not perfect so we end up with problems.
Then there's Noah's Ark...
We can't use Noah's Ark because it is actually a miracle. Miracles require divine intervention to accomplish the scientifically impossible. If we start with the assumption that god created the Earth and everything in it in only a few days, with animals being two days (and nothing says it needed to be two days, only that he took two days), then managing to get predator and prey onto a boat too small would be a mere parlor trick.
Occam's razor is a tool for selecting between hypothesis of equal explanatory power. For example we have some event that is highly improbable and two explanations for it: in one we say "This highly improbably event occurred, as highly improbable events tend to" and in the other we say "This highly improbably event could not have occurred. There is an inexplicable intelligence motivating the universe. The inexplicable intelligence caused this event to occur." Occam's razor isn't an argument on its own, it is a principle of philosophical elegance and informs our decision given these two (admittedly equally explanatory) hypothesis. We will prefer the one that introduces the fewest new entities.
Thats all true. The fun part comes in when people who don't understand Occam's Razor using to defend their arguements.
I propose that if you had been born in Saudi Arabia you would be Islamic, and we would be having this argument about the Qur'an. Personally I am disappointed that this thread stumbled into discussions about the truth of the bible, when it began as a discussion of the reasons individual have for their theism. There just doesn't seem to be any point in discussing π as it appears in the bible or even the bible at all. For any reasonable person the bible cannot be anything more than a myth generously sprinkled with exaggerated accounts of history. One might as well cleave to the words of Kafka or Ovid.
If the Bible is the basis of ones faith and belief in what God wants (in what ever sense that person believes), then the Bible must be examined for how accurate a document it is.
Sadly, alot of people don't take a reasonable view of religion in regards to today society. Attempts by certain religious sects to get Creationism taught in Public Schools in a clear example. Trying to prevent anyone holding a religious view from serve in a public office is another.
I don't speak Hebrew, so I have to rely on those who translate it to know more than I do, and translate it correctly.
I don't speak Hebrew either, but I do speak enough Spanish and English to know that there is no such thing as a perfect translation. For example, in Spanish you cannot say "I like potatoes." You can say "Potatoes are liking to me." Not exactly the same thing. We run into problems with languages that had far fewer words than we have now. Did you know that there is an entire part of translation considered to be Linguistic Untranslatability? Some things just can't be translated properly such as idioms. Calling someone a bastard in America is an insult but it carries more weight with matriarchal cultures such as Latin-America.
The bible is suppose to be the Inerrant Word of God. Any error, mistranslation, or cut corners, then it's not the Inerrant word of God, it's the writing of Man. So if the Bible is the Inerrant Word of God, and God is perfect, than Pi = 3.
Authors often only focus on important details. The value of Pi (which I addressed) is not one of those important details. There are many times, even with science, details are truncated for brevity and importance. Sometimes the math ends up appearing wrong because we don't have all the details because those details didn't matter. In the passages you are mentioning, the importance is not the exact size of the vessel. The importance is that it was very large. Dimensions are given so that you can get a general idea of the size, not a perfect idea. The Bible is not a science book. Any scientific inferences are going to be problematic.
Actually, lets start at the beginning. Genesis 6, 15 states:
"This is how you shall make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. "
That means the Ark is 450 ft long, 75 ft wide, and 45 ft tall. 450 ft is also the length of the Wyoming, a American Ship, also constucted of wood.
It tended to flex in heavy seas, which would cause the long planks to twist and buckle, thereby allowing sea water to intrude into the hold. The Wyoming had to use pumps to keep its hold relatively free of water.
So you are saying that a being that can create an entire universe in less than a week couldn't have provided a bit of divine power into keeping a craft like that afloat? The assumption with this story, is that god had a hand in the events. God could have simply just removed the evil people from the world and prevented this "problem." God could have been more proactive and prevented all of this in the first place. However, it could be that there was another purpose to what he was doing besides just wiping out the evil. No one questions why god would have even told Noah to make a boat supposedly too small when there was a much more efficient and humane way of handling the situation. Instead, we atheists end up focusing on the wrong details. The size of the boat isn't the problem.
Not entirely true. This holds true only with more recent translations. Note also that a day is as a year to god.
When you take into account a few things, this is only a problem for those who wish it to be so. First, when you take significant digits into account, there is no problem. Second, remember that the ancient Hebrews most likely did not use decimal places and instead rounded things to the nearest whole unit. Third, when converting units from different systems, we often round them to the nearest relevant value. For example, a yard is roughly 0.9 meters, but not exactly.
1 inch = 2.54 centimeters. 12 inches = 30.48 centimeters. 36 inches = 91.44 centimeters.
1 centimeter = 0.394 inches. 100 centimeters = 39.4 inches.
So if I want to check if this is accurate, I would create a simple equation:
36 in/91.44 cm = 39.4 in/100cm
3600 =? 3602.7
The two are not equal. The same holds true when we try to convert cubits to inches. The conversion is not perfect so we end up with problems.
I refer you back to the Indiana Pi Bill that I posted a few posts back.
We can't use Noah's Ark because it is actually a miracle. Miracles require divine intervention to accomplish the scientifically impossible. If we start with the assumption that god created the Earth and everything in it in only a few days, with animals being two days (and nothing says it needed to be two days, only that he took two days), then managing to get predator and prey onto a boat too small would be a mere parlor trick.
The problem with that is that I'm not willing to grant you that it was a miracle, when there are more likely explanations.
Lets start with a some simple questions. Do you believe Noah's Ark happened exactly as written? If you don't believe it happened exactly as written, then what do you believe actually happened?
If you do believe it happened exatly as written, when did the Flood happen, and how long after it happened was it written about?
If the Noah's Ark happened exactly as written, then what evidence do we have that support it?
I don't speak Hebrew either, but I do speak enough Spanish and English to know that there is no such thing as a perfect translation. For example, in Spanish you cannot say "I like potatoes." You can say "Potatoes are liking to me." Not exactly the same thing. We run into problems with languages that had far fewer words than we have now. Did you know that there is an entire part of translation considered to be Linguistic Untranslatability? Some things just can't be translated properly such as idioms. Calling someone a bastard in America is an insult but it carries more weight with matriarchal cultures such as Latin-America.
As true as that all is, but modern translations still use "Day" instead of "Age" for example. If we know that the Hebrew word for Day can also mean Age, and the translators are still using Day and not Age, then we have to ask outselves why.
Authors often only focus on important details. The value of Pi (which I addressed) is not one of those important details. There are many times, even with science, details are truncated for brevity and importance. Sometimes the math ends up appearing wrong because we don't have all the details because those details didn't matter. In the passages you are mentioning, the importance is not the exact size of the vessel. The importance is that it was very large. Dimensions are given so that you can get a general idea of the size, not a perfect idea. The Bible is not a science book. Any scientific inferences are going to be problematic.
If you don't consider the Bible to be the Inerrant Word of God, then my arguement is moot, as it doesn't apply to your beliefs. Without knowing your specific beliefs, I had to made some guesses, and those guesses are wrong.
So you are saying that a being that can create an entire universe in less than a week couldn't have provided a bit of divine power into keeping a craft like that afloat? The assumption with this story, is that god had a hand in the events. God could have simply just removed the evil people from the world and prevented this "problem." God could have been more proactive and prevented all of this in the first place. However, it could be that there was another purpose to what he was doing besides just wiping out the evil. No one questions why god would have even told Noah to make a boat supposedly too small when there was a much more efficient and humane way of handling the situation. Instead, we atheists end up focusing on the wrong details. The size of the boat isn't the problem.
I'm not willing to grant the assumption that God exists. If God existed, then the entire discussion would be moot as God, by definition, is beyond any Scientific Laws. If I granted the assumption that God existed, we've moved out of a Scientific Discussion and into a Theological one.
If you want to have a Theological discussion, then it becomes "Why is the Bible better than the Koran or Torah, or even whatever book(s) the Scientologists use?"
To even start to prove God exists, you have to provide evidence of events of Miracles, i.e. that which cannot be explained scientifically.
I agree that there are limits to the reliability of eyewitness testimony, just like there are limits to any other tool that we use to gather evidence. However, as long as we're using those tools appropriately, they can be very reliable.
Eyewitness testimony is very unreliable. It is should be used with caution and only as a supplement to actual evidence.
So, a group of eyewitnesses might disagree about the color of the hat that the guy who mugged them was wearing, but they'd be very certain that a mugging had in fact occurred. Testimony is also impacted by a lot of circumstances--for instance, the better we know the subject we're testifying about, the more accurate our testimony (say, testifying about the identity of a robber when we know the robber, as opposed to the robber being a stranger). Also, the longer we're exposed to the thing we're testifying about, the more reliable that testimony becomes (say, testifying about a guy who comes into the bank, gets holed up there for hours by the police, and is finally taken down by the swat team, as opposed to a guy who runs in, grabs some cash, and runs out).
The color of the hat of a mugger is very important. Too many people are wrongfully identified by victims. Did you know that not all **** victims can correctly identify the face of the rapist even when looking right into his/her eyes? Check out this article or these onesfrom the Innocence Project.
I'm not arguing that eye-witness testimony is infallible evidence. I'm just arguing that it's valid evidence when reasonable restrictions are imposed, just like any other form of evidence you care to mention.
The problem is that religious canons do not have anything other than eyewitness testimony. Even science and archeology are having a difficult time supporting the facts given in the various legends.
Okay, the Nobel Prize crack was a bit out of line. I apologize.
I honestly thought that you didn't know. If I came across as defensive that was not my intent. Too often I hear or read things like that and I was trying to be informative.
I really think that you're making a false distinction between "Truth" and "accurate model." In both cases, you're trying to figure out the universe as it actually is. It'd be great if we could distinguish between the two, since that'd give philosophy and religion a nice safe little place to chill out while science does everything important in life...but honestly, moving back from the rubber-hits-the-road issues of morality and practical applications (not that there's anything wrong with those two things, they're both valid discussions in their own right), religion, philosophy, and science all share the goal of, as I said, describing the universe as it actually is. There are a lot of things in science which aren't really aimed at practical results...they're just severely underfunded. :-p
Truth is more philosophical than anything else. Truth is subjective. Science is supposed to be objective, or as objective as possible when we move away from the hard sciences. Religion is not really concerned with how the universe functions. Rather is is concerned with why it functions. Science doesn't concern itself so much with the why it functions, instead being focused on how it all works.
In any case, the standard for "describing the universe as it actually is" is the same regardless of what discipline you're pursuing--your conclusions have to fit the evidence. The evidence is what we observe as "actually being," and our theories to explain how things got that way have to fit what "actually is." It just so happens that "hard" science pursues questions to which we have a lot more evidence that's a lot easier to access and repeat. The "soft" sciences, like psychology, have it a lot harder since the evidence that's available to them is a lot more difficult to obtain and repeat, but that doesn't make it any less "science," or any less an attempt to describe the universe as it actually is.
I was about to say pretty much the same thing but then you beat me to it.
Philosophy and religion are differentiated in that they tend to pursue questions for which the evidence is extremely limited and/or difficult to find/repeat, but it doesn't mean they have a lower standard to meet in order to describe the universe as it actually is. They're still constrained by what evidence they do have access to.
They actually have a different standard for evaluation. "Higher" is probably a poor term.
So saying that "science has a higher standard of evidence" is a mischaracterization. It's just that science tends to concern itself with questions for which evidence is more abundant. You look at the paucity of evidence for the questions that concern religion and philosophy and say that they have "lower standards of truth" than science, and that they're somehow "less reasonable" than a scientist, when in fact they have the [i]same standards for truth and the same degree of reasonableness[i] as a scientist, but have less evidence to work with. So, if you're going to make a crack against religion and philosophy, let it be about the availability of evidence, not about the mental fiber of the people who have the courage to wrestle with those questions despite that lack of evidence.
Science is all about being questioned. Of course no one wants to be told that they were wrong but it happens quite often with science. What we thought was valid turns out to be invalid. This is the whole point of putting the research up to review. Religion does what it can to avoid peer review. Science has set up more strict standards when it comes to evaluation.
And despite all that, I want to be clear that the evidence available for philosophers and theologians is only poor by comparison with the obscene glut of information available to a scientist when considering most of the questions they concern themselves with. There's still plenty of evidence with which to come to some very solid conclusions.
No matter how much evidence one has with religion, in the end you still need to make that leap of faith. Hebrews 11:1 gives a wonderful definition of faith: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
I'd say that a good definition is "an event which does not have a natural cause," which of course requires us to define event, cause, and most importantly "natural." I'd say that natural is "by an act of man/other mortal free agent or by the cause and effect action of physical forces." Of course, this still leaves us in the difficult situation of having to prove a negative, and in the end that often comes down to "well, no act of man or interaction of physical forces that we're currently aware of and was present at the time is sufficient to cause what happened, so it has to be a miracle." But it still leaves room for an event which could be caused by man or a physical event to be miraculous, so long as it wasn't actually caused by such a thing. Also it leaves rooms for miracles which aren't caused by God, since there may be other non-mortal actors or non-physical forces out there (though we might need to broaden our definition of natural here).
There are all kinds of problems with this definition, some of which you mentioned. Baker's Dictionary of the Bible defines a miracle as "an event in the external world brought about by the immediate agency or the simple volition of God." It goes on to add that a miracle occurs to show that the power behind it is not limited to the laws of matter or mind as it interrupts fixed natural laws. So the term supernatural applies quite accurately..
In any case, I've run across a lot of claims of miraculous events, ranging from healings to things which were should have fallen but didn't to dramatic changes in personal behavior, and even saw a report of demonic possession on the very thread that spawned this one. Then there's more normal stuff like unexpected windfalls of money and help received from others...things which could be caused by man or by physical forces, but which just might have other causes. And of course there's the miracle testimony of most major religious traditions. Are these things actually miracles? Well, I find the evidence for several of them to be compelling, and for others not so much. I'm not very inclined to bring up specific examples here, since I'm more interested in establishing the possibility of miracles than debating over whether one particular instance is a miracle or not, but it seems to me that the main criterion is whether or not something is a miracle is whether it was caused by a non-mortal free-willed agent or by the interaction of physical forces.
The problem with identifying something as a miracle is that too often just because we don't know why something happened, we find it necessary to assume miracle rather than seek out the answer. Humans seem to be inherently lazy in this regard.
Now, if we have a world-view that does not automatically preclude non-mortal free-willed agents or non-physical forces, i.e., that does not automatically define the "supernatural" out of existence from the get-go, then it is certainly possible that events can have non-"natural" causes. My main point is that one should be careful that one does not begin an investigation into a miracle with the assumption that no non-natural agents exist, otherwise you've eliminated the possibility of miracles by their very (proposed) definition.
The best way to prove that something is a miracle is to remove all possible natural explanations. If there is no possible natural way for an event to occur, then it must have been a miracle.
I wasn't referencing the "Counting Generations" method, even through there are plenty of people who do believe in that method (though no one on this board seems to). I was referencing that Genesis states the word was created in Six Days, plus the Light and Dark coming before the creation of the Sun and Moon, the evolution of the species, ect, ect. However, since no one has stated they believe the Bible is the Inerrant Word of God, it's a moot arguement.
I've only seen the generations method for determining the age of the Earth. If you want to see a way for the world to be created in 6 days as well as billions of years with equal validity, pick up a copy of The Science of God by Gerald L. Schroeder. Amazon has used copies at less than $4. It's actually a pretty good read regardless of your position on religion.
I refer you back to the Indiana Pi Bill that I posted a few posts back.
The Indiana Pi Bill doesn't address anything I mentioned though. Pi has been revisited many times with a wide variety of approximate values being used. In the end, what matters is that the passages you mention do not make any claims about the value of Pi and a simple understanding of measurements and conversions makes the entire argument invalid.
The problem with that is that I'm not willing to grant you that it was a miracle, when there are more likely explanations.
I don't even believe that the ark did exist. I don't believe much of what happened in the Bible is actually even remotely accurate. The authors of the Gospels, supposed witnesses, couldn't even agree on when Jesus was born or what was happening at the time. These books were written with only a century of his time on Earth and couldn't even get those details right.
Lets start with a some simple questions. Do you believe Noah's Ark happened exactly as written? If you don't believe it happened exactly as written, then what do you believe actually happened?
If you do believe it happened exatly as written, when did the Flood happen, and how long after it happened was it written about?
If the Noah's Ark happened exactly as written, then what evidence do we have that support it?
I'm actually an atheist and I don't believe much of what I read. Since I don't believe that there is a god, then I can't believe that the Ark was possible. However, for those that do believe, the Ark would need to fit the definition of miracle.
As true as that all is, but modern translations still use "Day" instead of "Age" for example. If we know that the Hebrew word for Day can also mean Age, and the translators are still using Day and not Age, then we have to ask outselves why.
Stubbornness? Human arrogance? Lies? Lack of care? Other definition of the word "day?"
From Merriam Webster:
1 a: the time of light between one night and the next b: daylight 1 c: daytime
2: the period of rotation of a planet (as earth) or a moon on its axis
3: the mean solar day of 24 hours beginning at mean midnight
4: a specified day or date
5: a specified time or period : age —often used in plural
6: the conflict or contention of the day
7: the time established by usage or law for work, school, or business
Definition 5 fits.
If you don't consider the Bible to be the Inerrant Word of God, then my arguement is moot, as it doesn't apply to your beliefs. Without knowing your specific beliefs, I had to made some guesses, and those guesses are wrong.
I'm actually an atheist. I enjoy discussing the Bible with believers and non-believers.
I'm not willing to grant the assumption that God exists. If God existed, then the entire discussion would be moot as God, by definition, is beyond any Scientific Laws. If I granted the assumption that God existed, we've moved out of a Scientific Discussion and into a Theological one.
God is not really part of a scientific discussion. I don't think he exists either. I just think that we should discuss the material at hand with the same assumptions the authors made otherwise we end up making too many mistakes.
If you want to have a Theological discussion, then it becomes "Why is the Bible better than the Koran or Torah, or even whatever book(s) the Scientologists use?"
I find that all canons are faulty and cannot be given much credence. This holds even more for Scientology since it was created by someone who wrote a psychology book and now the religion states that psychology is bunk. They can't have it both ways but certainly try.
To even start to prove God exists, you have to provide evidence of events of Miracles, i.e. that which cannot be explained scientifically.
I agree with this. I would also have to add that you would have to prove that no other gods exist since the god of the Bible is a loner.
Stubbornness? Human arrogance? Lies? Lack of care? Other definition of the word "day?"
5: a specified time or period : age —often used in plural
I cry laziness on my part!!!!
That does deflate my arguement. I'm actually an atheist. I enjoy discussing the Bible with believers and non-believers.
It is fun.
God is not really part of a scientific discussion. I don't think he exists either. I just think that we should discuss the material at hand with the same assumptions the authors made otherwise we end up making too many mistakes.
I would argue that depends on what the point of the discussion is. I'd also argue against allowing for the existance of God's hand in any discussion outside of a theological one.
I find that all canons are faulty and cannot be given much credence. This holds even more for Scientology since it was created by someone who wrote a psychology book and now the religion states that psychology is bunk. They can't have it both ways but certainly try.
I don't have any disagreement with that. People are too reasonable on this thread. We need a nut...
I agree with this. I would also have to add that you would have to prove that no other gods exist since the god of the Bible is a loner.
Tru dat.
I cry laziness on my part!!!!
To be fair, in almost 10 years of discussing the word "day," with christians and Jews, I have never heard them bring up that exact definition. They always use either "the mean solar day of 24 hours beginning at mean midnight" or that a day is the same as a year to god, meaning that we can't know exactly how much time it really means. Close to definition 5, but they changed it to suit their needs with a conversion that is supposed to be taken literally and figuratively at the same time. Often the same person will switch definitions depending on what is needed at the time while still being on the same topic.
I don't have any disagreement with that. People are too reasonable on this thread. We need a nut...
I could find one, but then that would get the thread locked and we wouldn't be able to have reasonable religious discussions anymore.
I don't think that's a good definition for a miracle. It's the common definition, true, but it tends to reduce deity to a "God of the Gaps."
The reality is that is exactly what God HAS TO BE. That's the problem with religion; its faith, not knowledge. When knowledge explains something, faith loses ground. Thus over time, religion gets smaller.
You can either reject reality (which is what ID proponents, for instance, do) or you can accept this shrinking of "God's power". As it turns out, atheists simply skip to the end.
God isn't hiding in any of the gaps. He doesn't exist at all, and there's no reason to believe one DOES exist.
I disagree with this, can you provide me with an example from the Bible that is something that has been explicitly disproved by current scientific knowledge?
The Great Flood. The Plagues in Egypt. The creation myth itself (both of them! Both the first one, and the contradicting Garden of Eden myth). The geneology going back to the "first man". Jesus's miracles.
If you say "But this is all supposed to be metaphorical", then I say "Well, its just mythology then. If you don't believe in Norse mythology, why do you believe in Christian mythology, as it is demonstrably no different."
This is very similar to the "You're an atheist, you just believe in one more god than I do. Since you disbelieve all the others, why are you so surprised I don't believe in yours?" argument.
And you cannot claim that religion and science are seperate if you claim religion has any bearing on the real world, because if something IS real, it can be demonstrated to be such via science.
The reality is that is exactly what God HAS TO BE. That's the problem with religion; its faith, not knowledge. When knowledge explains something, faith loses ground. Thus over time, religion gets smaller.
You can either reject reality (which is what ID proponents, for instance, do) or you can accept this shrinking of "God's power". As it turns out, atheists simply skip to the end.
God isn't hiding in any of the gaps. He doesn't exist at all, and there's no reason to believe one DOES exist.
Even assuming you're correct, in that anything claimed to be a miracle will eventually be explained through the normal actions of natural law, thats not really evidence against a deity.
At best, it would be evidence that if there is a deity they only effect the flow of events by playing within the rules, that they find a way to do what they need/want without causing unexplainable events.
Fun part about that, though, is that if God only plays within the rules then it is essentially impossible to prove that God exists. But the lack of evidence doesn't actually disprove either.
Sort of like the invisible, unsmellable, intangible, silent unicorn problem.
The world itself is built on fundamentals of Geometry, Math, and an Equal amount of Magic. You read it right: MAGIC.
What alchemist were doing thousands of years ago, CHEMIST are doing now. The Aspirin you take, is the Elixer of Pain Relieving someone took to the King.
What we see as Mundane they, back then, saw as Wonderful. I know it may be hard for all those who claim to be devout Atheist, to accept that every scientific fact provided in this world, is information passed down by Sorcerers, Wizards, and people we would call crazy today.
Time and Space. Something only the human mind is capable of understanding. Why? Because we created the idea. You can't see the 4th Demension, which exists if you believe in the theory of relativity, because the Human eyes are a weird arrangement of 2d arrays that simulate the third Demension.
If science has relativity in everything. IF everything relies on somethings else then imagine this.
God created Man in his image. What if that image is consciousness? Not the physical vessel which means nothing to God. The flesh isn't his domain.
Mother Earth supplied the egg. Father God supplied the sperm. And this LIFE is Birth into another state of Being.
Angels are Aliens. They were banished from the seven Heavens because of King Anu's wrong doing against HIS creator. Even Aliens have stories of the creators.
With all the Lore this World has how can one deny the existence of something Larger.
I am partly joking, but think about the this Idea:
You are a caveman that see's large "Chariots" and Angels fighting in the sky. What do you think they were?
Yes, yes, I'm sciziophrenic. Obviously just another voice in my head.
Except, you know, they've never had real-world results that I can see.
You want my blunt opinion? Too bad, you're getting it :P . Athiests stretch coincidence waaay to far. The universe practically has a big 'For Humans!' sign in it's design, down to the convenience of getting conveniences.
And you call it random? Tell me, what do you get when you throw sticks at the ground? A big mess.
Yes, yes, we only have Earth, so, you know, we obviously got really, really, really, really, really, really...etc, lucky. No, I'm not exaggerating on those chances. I do pay attention to science; if anything, I`m vastly understating them.
Thing is, Occams` razor. You look at something that came together so well and say `coincidence`...Get my point yet
Good to be back!
The reality is that is exactly what God HAS TO BE. That's the problem with religion; its faith, not knowledge. When knowledge explains something, faith loses ground. Thus over time, religion gets smaller.
You can either reject reality (which is what ID proponents, for instance, do) or you can accept this shrinking of "God's power". As it turns out, atheists simply skip to the end.
God isn't hiding in any of the gaps. He doesn't exist at all, and there's no reason to believe one DOES exist.
This isn't accurate. To say God's works can only be explained through inexplicable, magic events is not correct. Given, for the moment, the existence of God, God is equally able to work "miracles" though scientifically explicable events as inexplicable ones, and IMO, God's works are always explicable, if very very complicated at times.
Can you explain to me exactly how knowledge deflates faith? I hear this all the time and it is the most baffling position I have ever heard.
The Great Flood. The Plagues in Egypt. The creation myth itself (both of them! Both the first one, and the contradicting Garden of Eden myth). The geneology going back to the "first man". Jesus's miracles.
Well, I'd like you to explain Big Bang theory to someone with no scientific understanding, bet you'd be using a few terms that sound like magic. That doesn't make it magic, it makes it a simplifies explanation. Just because they sound like magic in writing doesn't mean they were magic at the time.
And you cannot claim that religion and science are seperate if you claim religion has any bearing on the real world, because if something IS real, it can be demonstrated to be such via science.
Ah, how true, yet incomplete that is. Yes, you are right, if something is real it can be demonstrated to be such via science. What you left out is this:
"If something is real, it can eventually be demonstrated to be such via science"
Ancient people had no concept of chemistry as we know it, but that didn't make water any less H2O than it is now. Just because something can't be demonstrated at this moment doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it means that we can't detect it with our current level of technology and scientific knowledge.
I am a Believer in a being far greater than us. Just like those who choose not to believe.
The world itself is built on fundamentals of Geometry, Math, and an Equal amount of Magic. You read it right: MAGIC.
What alchemist were doing thousands of years ago, CHEMIST are doing now. The Aspirin you take, is the Elixer of Pain Relieving someone took to the King.
What we see as Mundane they, back then, saw as Wonderful. I know it may be hard for all those who claim to be devout Atheist, to accept that every scientific fact provided in this world, is information passed down by Sorcerers, Wizards, and people we would call crazy today.
Time and Space. Something only the human mind is capable of understanding. Why? Because we created the idea. You can't see the 4th Demension, which exists if you believe in the theory of relativity, because the Human eyes are a weird arrangement of 2d arrays that simulate the third Demension.
If science has relativity in everything. IF everything relies on somethings else then imagine this.
God created Man in his image. What if that image is consciousness? Not the physical vessel which means nothing to God. The flesh isn't his domain.
Mother Earth supplied the egg. Father God supplied the sperm. And this LIFE is Birth into another state of Being.
Angels are Aliens. They were banished from the seven Heavens because of King Anu's wrong doing against HIS creator. Even Aliens have stories of the creators.
With all the Lore this World has how can one deny the existence of something Larger.
I am partly joking, but think about the this Idea:
You are a caveman that see's large "Chariots" and Angels fighting in the sky. What do you think they were?
I was starting to get a headache until you said you are partly joking. What part are you joking about? I really hope it is the whole thing.
We can deny something larger because all this "lore" (science) shows us that not only is there no observable evidence of something larger, but it is very unlikely.
God is evident to me. I have my own, personal experience, including prayer getting a years-old Amiga 500 disk to work - After I had tried twice.
Yes, yes, I'm sciziophrenic. Obviously just another voice in my head.
Except, you know, they've never had real-world results that I can see.
You want my blunt opinion? Too bad, you're getting it :P . Athiests stretch coincidence waaay to far. The universe practically has a big 'For Humans!' sign in it's design, down to the convenience of getting conveniences.
And you call it random? Tell me, what do you get when you throw sticks at the ground? A big mess.
Yes, yes, we only have Earth, so, you know, we obviously got really, really, really, really, really, really...etc, lucky. No, I'm not exaggerating on those chances. I do pay attention to science; if anything, I`m vastly understating them.
Thing is, Occams` razor. You look at something that came together so well and say `coincidence`...Get my point yet
You want my blunt opinion? Too bad, you're getting it :P . Athiests stretch coincidence waaay to far. The universe practically has a big 'For Humans!' sign in it's design, down to the convenience of getting conveniences.
By "universe" do you mean "Earth?" Mercury certainly isn't made for humans. Creatures evolve based on their environment not the other way around. You may notice that even here on Earth, there are bacteria that can survive deep within lava caves or in the ocean at depths that would crush a human. We have adapted to our environment, and have actually changed the environment a bit for us. There is nothing to suggest that the world is perfectly made for humans.
And you call it random? Tell me, what do you get when you throw sticks at the ground? A big mess.
Actually, many creatures are poorly developed. Just look at the human body and see how poorly and strangely things are organized. We have organs we don't use. We have parts in weird places. It does seem like life is a big mess. It's not too difficult for two amino acids to join when you've got billions floating together in a pool. Remember that evolution isn't about a bunch of sticks being thrown together. It's more like two sticks being thrown and then more coming only a few at time.
Yes, yes, we only have Earth, so, you know, we obviously got really, really, really, really, really, really...etc, lucky. No, I'm not exaggerating on those chances. I do pay attention to science; if anything, I`m vastly understating them.
Doesn't matter how "lucky" it seems we were. Simply because there is a change that something could occur is enough. That's the whole point of probability: the odds of an event occurring.
Thing is, Occams` razor. You look at something that came together so well and say `coincidence`...Get my point yet?
Occam's Razor is often misused in this case. Occam's Razor removes god from the equation because god is not needed. The idea is to remove unnecessary concepts or ideas that clutter the original idea. The problem is that just because something was not needed doesn't mean that it wasn't part of the situation anyway. Occam's Razor really shouldn't be used because it assumes too much. It's why I try to avoid it with these discussions.
Or...*Gasp*...Could it be that I have considered all of that and come to a different conclusion?
Nah, athiests are always right about religion.
I'll argue with you when you can stop sounding arrogant and condescending.
That's also the point when I'll stop being sarcastic.
In fact, that sort of thinking has been the pattern for every single athiest I've argued religion with.
So I do have some excuse. So maybe try seeing it from my point of view? Consider that I may just have a different view of things? The scientific method is, in the end, infallable. You are not.
*Sigh* Sorry for the excessive sarcasm. However, every single atheist I've tried that arguement with has assumed I am ignorant of basic scientific facts.
In fact, that sort of thinking has been the pattern for every single athiest I've argued religion with.
So I do have some excuse. So maybe try seeing it from my point of view? Consider that I may just have a different view of things? The scientific method is, in the end, infallable. You are not.
First you said that science stretches coincidence too far, and in the same post you say that you really understand science. What we are saying is that you have your understanding of science wrong, so if you are going to use science to justify your belief in God, then you need clarify your understanding of science: do you believe in evolution, the statements you made in the previous post would seem to contradict it. You seem to believe that science says we are really really lucky to have such a great planet for sustaining life. Evolution explains that the view that this world is perfect for us is backwards: it is us who are (almost) perfect for this world. No coincidence involved.
You have observed a pattern: when you make that argument (that there is too much coincidence) with an atheist you find them quick to question your understanding of science. There is an easy explanation for this: the premise of your argument contradicts basic scientific facts.
If you want these sorts of conversations to go better in the future it would help if you could explain in more detail your version of evolution. Your analogy of sticks being thrown together and not forming houses is interesting, but it bares elaboration. If you think that someone’s understanding of evolution is wrong and that your own understanding is right, you should try to locate and explain the difference (because you’re not both right, definitely at least one of you is wrong).
What has not been proven is that life arose out of randomness.
Ok, to explain my viewpoint. In billions of years and billions of planets, we exist.
According to the odds I have read, multiplying those billions of years and billions of planets still doesn't match the odds of us existing, on a planet like this, in a universe in which our continued existance is a trivial challenge.
I say 'trivial', not because I am ignorant of history, but because the same factors which make our continued existance a trivial challenge also make the continued existance of more variety of diseases than we can count a trivial challenge.
Yes, we may all be wiped away by a supernova. Or a rather large comet.
But how easy would it be, given the difficulties and time needed for heavy elements to form, for us to end up on a planet with insufficient stores of uranium to build thousands of nuclear missiles, which, if correctly employed and designed, could end that problem - Trivially?
I see so many coincidences like that.
You must understand SCIENCE is what people use to call Black Magic.
Why? Because it leads thoughts from the Godly.
Atheist are so bound to the flesh they might as well have no souls.
That is the fundamentals of Satanism. Live for the Flesh. Don't worry about punishment, because there is no heaven or hell. When in reality there is but one consciousness. The one we are all attached to. One heartbeat.
Again Imagine the Planet as being a cell. With the Membrane(Ozone), Nucleus(Core), and Us(Little things that make it work. We are small and insignificant as individuals, but as a whole we are ENTIRE.)
No imagine a vessel that constantly adapts to its environment. It adapts and evolves because it has to keep someone's consciousness alive. The vessel of flesh will not transcend with our minds. The vessel serves it's purpose it is the black, yin, while the spirit, soul, or consciousness is the white, yang.
The left and right brain battle it out. As do our Bodies and Minds.
Take some Advil for your headache.
We think like God. That is why we question. We try to create, but we are too stupid to understand it all. We still try. We are successful at taking life, but we can't give it. When we do is when the World will come crashing down.
Is there any other reason behind Atheism other than "Logic proves God isn't real."?
If all the science in the world was correct, and we can predict anything using Science(Black Magic). Why don't Atheist give me clear shot scientific evidence on Why someone dreams of people they have never even met before. Or How somebody can have deja Vu of an event that never happened to them. Or scientifically explain how bacteria, and single cell organisms got it in their head to grow into trees, and convert Carbon Dioxide into Oxygen.
If dreams are just images from your day, or life played in your head, how can I meet someone I have never seen before?
Scientifically we know stages exist. Many stages of life, and even stages of the human concept of time. You can only be immortal when you are not BOUND by time.
The Binding happens at birth, like a spell, or Ritual(4E). We are bound here until we can transcend.
All the eill in this world is here to mislead you. The idea that religion causes wars cannot be blamed on GOD, but on Man. We created religion to control.
I am sure all you well rounded, and educated Atheist will have a field day with my ignorant rant. But I care not. You will be happy in the end. You get what you want. And what ye want is a body with out a soul. So when your flesh perishes, so does your soul. Non of your questions will be answered, and your essence will be recycled into the Maelstrom(lol). You may even become a wraith, or ghost, or something.
Also, I have no idea what religious tradition that last post came from.
But it's all crap, all those monkeys, all those typewriters, but nobody ever remembers the paper!
2) Where was it proven or disproven that a causal chain of events has a beginning which exists outside that chain of events? I agree that this gets really dicey with the beginning of the universe, as if the Big Bang happened, it created not just space but time also... but the philosophical proof doesn't exist as far as I know.
If it did, the argument for free will would be on much better standing!
3) Finally, who really cares what faith another person has... especially on the Internet?
I think this interests me most of all, the evangelizing by athiests. Some might say educating... but really? It may be my fond memories of being an undergrad Physics student, but I recall educating someone in the ways of science requiring scientific training, mathematical rigor, experiments, and data. Not the ability to use Wikipedia really, really well.
Fascinating!
...I apologize. It seems that some religious people are arrogant.
Also, I have no idea what religious tradition that last post came from.
Please tell me How I am Arrogant. I was merely telling my feelings on life.
Like everyone else here.
I believe what makes sense to me. Scientifically GOD can be explained.
I guess my thoughts and Words aren't that important because MY Religious tradition isn't Atheist, or Christian, or any other famous Concept of God.
I believe in God. I believe in Life. I believe God is all caring, and not some vengeful piece of **** who gets mad at his children. And sentences them to eternity in flames because they were misguided.
I am sorry. In my hometown an Atheist joined our school. He had no friends, and everyone tried to convert him to Christianity. I didn't, even though I care for everyone it is his choice, I befriended.
You see I have had problems with religion, and God since I was six years old. It is when religion is forced down somebodies throat they grow to hate it. This happened to my ex-catholic friend. Now he is an Atheist. I am spiritual.
I love everyone and don't look down on anyone, like most of the people from my town. They judge when they should check their own houses first. They blame their kids friends for actions their kids took. Or get mad when you smoke a little halfling leaf, but their kids are doing coke, meth, etc.
That is why I don't claim Christianity. Or at least not THEIR Christianity.
The arrogant part comes when you consign their soul to destruction or undeath.
And then say you believe in a merciful god.
I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see the connection and I'm trying not to be sarcastic.
I didn't mean it in a bad way, but in God Gives you what you want in the end.
If you don't believe even after death, you slip from existence peacefully.
Or if rules and things do exist. God cannot be blamed for their binding of Flesh and Soul. This makes it hard to transcend the Vessel, and essentially traps you.
Think of the Magic Circle ritual.(lol)
A merciful god would not consign anyone to complete destruction. I cannot see any reconciliation between the two concepts.
I suggest you take some theology courses, or look into serious academic work on this subject. There is a great variety of opinion on the subject. The problem of evil existing in a world with an all powerful, all loving, all knowing, creator god is one that has been addressed in many different ways. Medieval Catholics adapted the Greek Hierarchy of being (I cannot remember what name the Christians gave to it) to explain this. It basically says that God is not responsible for the evil in the world, that evil is explained as a lack of good, not as an active force itself. It is the absence of God's presence. In terms of hell and how it relates to this, here is the Catholic Definition of it:
The place and state of eternal punishment for the fallen angels and human beings who die deliberately estranged from the love of God. There is a twofold punishment in hell: the pain of loss, which consists in the deprivation of the vision of God, and the pain of sense, which consists in the suffering caused by outside material things. The punishment of hell is eternal, as declared by Christ in his prediction of the last day (Matthew 25:46), and as defined by the Fourth Lateran Council, stating that the wicked will "receive a perpetual punishment with the devil" (Denzinger 801). The existence of hell is consistent with divine justice, since God respects human freedom and those who are lost actually condemn themselves by their resistance to the grace of God.
Note that God is not the one condemning people. People are choosing to be removed from God on their own.
Evil exists because there must be opposition in all things.
I'm not catholic.
That is my opinion.
I kindly suggest that any further replies do not assume ignorance on my part, or I may loose my temper and resort to sarcasm - And contention is of the devil.
God is the judge of humanity.
Evil exists because there must be opposition in all things.
I'm not catholic.
That is my opinion.
I kindly suggest that any further replies do not assume ignorance on my part, or I may loose my temper and resort to sarcasm - And contention is of the devil.
So what is your argument? God isn't merciful? Maybe I missed your point. I thought you were saying that you don't believe in Hell because it would be unmerciful for God to allow to exist. So I provided the text book Catholic explanation of the problem.
Hell is a state of mind; the state of a mind which can no longer comprehend remorse or guilt and seeks nothing but harm towards its fellows and cares about nothing but itself.
Thus, the judgement one recieves is the natural restoration of what one is, for good or evil.
God is Just as well as Merciful; it is a fallacy to argue that, because God punishes to match the crime that God is evil. Justice is not evil; it is simply Just.
Mercy cannot rob Justice; Justice cannot rob Mercy. If a person has neither guilt nor remorse, then mercy can have no claim on that person.
I suggest that, if you are unsure if I do indeed know what I am talking about, that you simply say so and include why.
I found it offensive because it does not address my point; rather, it says that I need to gather more knowledge. In other words, 'Come back when you know more'. This is the attitude of a teacher to an erring student. It is that attitude that I percieve on your part to which I object.
*waves* Me too.
I mean, even supposing the Bible is the 'Word of God', it's still been scribed, edited, produced, and translated by Man.
Hence, it can't help but not be perfect.
Another with this viewpoint. :D
We don't have the Bible as originally written. (Mistranslation, pride, misunderstanding, politics...)
And this would be a problem. Your making two false assumptions of your own.
1) God Exists,
and
2) The Bible is represents Gods Views (however directly or indirectly).
These are two very distinct issues. Even if God did exist, that in no way concludes that the Bible is his Views. There's The Torah and The Koran as just too examples of Books that can be taken as his View. It's very possible if God existed, that no religous document is correct.
Honestly, I'm just trying to meet people where the discussion is happening. Discussing what the Bible means presumes that these other questions are settled. If they are not settled, than we need to set aside the discussion of what the Bible means and address the underlying assumptions. If you make a long series of arguments about something based in certain assumptions, then in my reply I accept those assumptions, but then you challenge those assumptions, well...we'll just say that it makes my job difficult. If what you really want to argue is the existence of God, don't start with the question of whether the Bible is the Inerrant Word of God. Just by asking the question you've made the assumption that God exists. It would be really helpful if people would just pick a topic and follow it. It really muddles communication when we try to answer each others questions, but then someone comes along and says "but that doesn't make any sense!" Of course it doesn't make any sense to you, it wasn't meant to answer your question or the assumptions you're making. Play fair.
Yes, that's what science is. Science is the knowledge (or pursuit thereof) of facts and truths of the state of the universe.
...
Because Philosophy and Theology are not sciences. Philosophy is actually above science in a way, in that it governs scientific process, but I don't think philosophy itself is considered to be a science. Theology is in no way scientific, so... Well I guess if we do eventually get to a point in which we can actually scientifically observe or measure such things (if such a point exists), then it may become a science, much like alchemy became chemistry or astrology became astronomy... But as of now, theology is more like literature or art. There's nothing really particularly scientific about it...
Clearly we have different definitions of philosophy and theology. To reiterate my view, science, philosophy, and theology all fall under the broad umbrella of "describing the universe as it actually is." The distinctions I make between them relate to the kinds of questions they ask. The methods they use are dictated by those questions, and it's pretty obvious that some methods just won't work for some questions. One does not use an oscilloscope to measure the number of bacteria in a colony on a petri dish, etc. Under this definition, the methods used for "scientific" questions just aren't that suitable for answering "philosophical" or "theological" questions. Scientific methods can be applied when philosophy and theology get to asking such questions as can be addressed by those methods, but it's a mistake to say that only questions that can be addressed by scientific methods are valid and knowable questions.
Eyewitness testimony is very unreliable. It is should be used with caution and only as a supplement to actual evidence.
...
The color of the hat of a mugger is very important. Too many people are wrongfully identified by victims. Did you know that not all **** victims can correctly identify the face of the rapist even when looking right into his/her eyes? Check out this article or these onesfrom the Innocence Project.
The color of the hat is important for certain questions. It's completely immaterial when asking, say, "did you get mugged?" Miracle reports tend to be of the "did you get mugged" variety. "Did you used to not be able to walk? Can you walk now? Did somebody come and pray for you, and is that the time at which you went from not being able to walk to being able to walk?" These sorts of questions are general enough that a method which tends to drop details can still give reliable information about the answers.
Eyewitness testimony is only "unreliable" in the context of the question you're asking. One could say that an oscilloscope is an "unreliable" way to measure bacteria in a Petri dish, and one would be completely correct. That does not mean that it's an unreliable tool when applied to appropriate questions.
The problem is that religious canons do not have anything other than eyewitness testimony. Even science and archeology are having a difficult time supporting the facts given in the various legends.
From what I've read, there are several archaeological digs that have confirmed details mentioned in the Bible, such as Roman artifacts bearing the names of rulers mentioned in Acts, confirmation that a certain pool was where it was described in John, the names of kings mentioned in Genesis, etc, etc, etc. One famous non-Christian example is the discovery of Troy, and some recent discoveries in England indicating that there may have been a historical King Arthur.
Perhaps you're referring to archaeological evidence for specific miracles? Well, they found the walls of Jericho, and "fire and brimstone" in the area where Sodom and Gomorrah were supposed to be, IIRC.
Truth is more philosophical than anything else. Truth is subjective. Science is supposed to be objective, or as objective as possible when we move away from the hard sciences. Religion is not really concerned with how the universe functions. Rather is is concerned with why it functions. Science doesn't concern itself so much with the why it functions, instead being focused on how it all works.
We have very different definitions of "Truth." To me, Truth is emphatically objective, from what I'm reading on my oscilloscopes all the way to the existence or non-existence of God. Only one thing can be true. I'm willing to cede that we might not know what the Truth is, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Science is all about being questioned. Of course no one wants to be told that they were wrong but it happens quite often with science. What we thought was valid turns out to be invalid. This is the whole point of putting the research up to review. Religion does what it can to avoid peer review. Science has set up more strict standards when it comes to evaluation.
Not my religion. From my point of view, God is very open to being questioned. I get the impression that He doesn't like it when people deny evidence. For example, when the Pharisees ask Jesus for a sign right after he was described as healing a bunch of blind and sick people, he refuses. I suspect he was facepalming the whole time. It's like, "guys, I just healed a bunch of blind people, what more do you want?" At that point, God is just acknowledging that nothing He can do is going to have an impact on these people, and He stops wasting His time with them.
No matter how much evidence one has with religion, in the end you still need to make that leap of faith. Hebrews 11:1 gives a wonderful definition of faith: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
This is taken a bit out of context, but I can see where one would reach the conclusion that religion is about believing without evidence from that quote. If you look at the rest of Hebrews 11, you'll see the pattern that all these acts of faith are performed in the context of the person's relationship with God. It's not like Enoch went out there and said "I have faith that I'm not going to die," or Abraham suddenly decided "I have faith that I can pick up and leave everything I know for some strange country." These acts were carried out because they had a relationship with God and God said "go." So, faith isn't "believing in (anything) without evidence." It's "believing (what God says) without (other) evidence." It's a sign of trust in God. In much the same way as one might trust one's best friend when they say that they're going to do something, the list of the faithful believed God when He said that He was going to do something. That faith is not blind--it's rooted in an understanding of the fact that God can be trusted, and that comes from our ongoing relationship with Him, much like one's trust for one's best friend comes from one's ongoing relationship with that person.
There are all kinds of problems with this definition, some of which you mentioned. Baker's Dictionary of the Bible defines a miracle as "an event in the external world brought about by the immediate agency or the simple volition of God." It goes on to add that a miracle occurs to show that the power behind it is not limited to the laws of matter or mind as it interrupts fixed natural laws. So the term supernatural applies quite accurately..
The problem with identifying something as a miracle is that too often just because we don't know why something happened, we find it necessary to assume miracle rather than seek out the answer. Humans seem to be inherently lazy in this regard.
The best way to prove that something is a miracle is to remove all possible natural explanations. If there is no possible natural way for an event to occur, then it must have been a miracle.
Generally agreed. I was attempting to turn one poster's challenge of "show me an event which can't be explained by science!" into a productive discussion and get at some root issues of what a miracle is and why people have difficulty accepting them on principle. My main point was that it's impossible to show someone a miracle if they refuse to believe that miracles are even possible, and that we need to start with defining the miraculous and showing that they're at least possible before we can really discuss whether one particular incident is a miracle or not.
Perhaps I'd have been better off with Jesus's answer to the Pharisees. I'm not going to try to argue whether specific incidents are miracles, since the poster isn't really at a place where such a discussion can be fruitful. These sorts of discussions aren't really about whether a particular incident is a miracle, anyway. That's usually obvious--the blind being healed, the lame walking, the dead rising. The real question is whether the miracle being claimed actually happened or not, and I've already spent a lot of time discussing eye-witness testimony, epistemology, etc.
Honestly, I'm just trying to meet people where the discussion is happening. Discussing what the Bible means presumes that these other questions are settled. If they are not settled, than we need to set aside the discussion of what the Bible means and address the underlying assumptions. If you make a long series of arguments about something based in certain assumptions, then in my reply I accept those assumptions, but then you challenge those assumptions, well...we'll just say that it makes my job difficult. If what you really want to argue is the existence of God, don't start with the question of whether the Bible is the Inerrant Word of God. Just by asking the question you've made the assumption that God exists. It would be really helpful if people would just pick a topic and follow it. It really muddles communication when we try to answer each others questions, but then someone comes along and says "but that doesn't make any sense!" Of course it doesn't make any sense to you, it wasn't meant to answer your question or the assumptions you're making. Play fair.
I believe I am playing fair. The discussion was at the point I came in was about scientific accuracy of the Bible. It has moved beyond that (mostly), 'specially since I haven't come accross anyone who believes in the Inerrancy of the Bible.
But to address the point again.
Originally Posted by HoratioAtTheBridge
Most believers claim that it's a very reliable source for the subjects that it's intending to portray, and that the main subject is the being, nature, and expectations of God.
What evidence do you have of this? I'm not talking belief, I'm talking facts, my entire point was about facts, not beliefs.
An equivalent of this would be someone who has a belief in the Healing Power of Crystals. It's nice that they believe in such a thing, but if you want to have a discussion about it, you have to first provide evidence that it works beyond "I feel it works".
I found your suggestion to do research offensive; the implication is that I do not know what I am talking about.
I suggest that, if you are unsure if I do indeed know what I am talking about, that you simply say so and include why.
I found it offensive because it does not address my point; rather, it says that I need to gather more knowledge. In other words, 'Come back when you know more'. This is the attitude of a teacher to an erring student. It is that attitude that I percieve on your part to which I object.
I don't mean to be harsh, but your original statement sounded like it lacked perspective. I was merely suggestion that the area you are concerned about has been covered by theologians and philsophers.
According to the odds I have read, multiplying those billions of years and billions of planets still doesn't match the odds of us existing, on a planet like this, in a universe in which our continued existance is a trivial challenge.
I feel obligated to point out that probability is not exactly perfect for describing the situation.
Flip a coin. Before you flip it, there's ideally a 50% chance for you to get heads and ideally a 50% chance for you to get tails. Let's say you get heads; after you've flip it, thanks to the unidirectional nature of time, there is a 100% chance that it landed heads and a 0% chance that it landed tails. However slight the probability is that a few molecules of DNA worked their way up to the human species over billions of years, the fact remains that it could and did happen.
Regarding your dislike of coincidences: A hypothetical experiment, if you will. Take 30,000 people of your choice, place them in individual vehicles, drive them out to lots of different places (the Amazon, a mall, the top of Mt. Everest, etc.), lock them in, and leave them there with no equipment for a month. At the end of that month, explain the experiment and let them know the results. I'm sure the one in the mall will be thinking "Wow, what a major coincidence! Of all the places I could have been driven, I arrived in the perfect place to sustain me! Food, water, clothes, everything I needed was there!"
Of course, the reason the situation was so fortunate for them is not that some outside force (i.e., you) arranged it for them--the choice of location was random, and you could easily have left them at home--but that if they had not survived, they would not currently be thinking about the major coincidences. Obviously, evolution is not literally driving macromolecules to Earth, but the example still stands: We are in the position to be asking the question, therefore such an incredible coincidence must be possible at least once.
From what I've read, there are several archaeological digs that have confirmed details mentioned in the Bible, such as Roman artifacts bearing the names of rulers mentioned in Acts, confirmation that a certain pool was where it was described in John, the names of kings mentioned in Genesis, etc, etc, etc. One famous non-Christian example is the discovery of Troy, and some recent discoveries in England indicating that there may have been a historical King Arthur.
Perhaps you're referring to archaeological evidence for specific miracles? Well, they found the walls of Jericho, and "fire and brimstone" in the area where Sodom and Gomorrah were supposed to be, IIRC.
I believe what he's getting at is that there are details that have been confirmed (by archaeology, historical records, etc.) but that there is most often a scientific explanation for the causes behind them. For instance, the Discovery channel had a special feature a while back wherein a European scientist went through the Plagues in Egypt and showed that, given what we know of the geography/climate/events/etc. of the area at the time, the plagues as well as the parting of the Red Sea could be explained by purely natural events.
The supporting of facts in his post would then refer to facts as the ancients believed them, not necessarily facts as we can show them to be; taking the plagues example above, they can prove that there are ways for the Nile to be turned completely red for an arbitrary amount of time, but not that for the Nile to be turned completely into blood by the will of God for an arbitrary amount of time. The former can be done by analyzing the soil composition around the Nile, ancient flooding patterns, and so forth, but the latter would seem to be too difficult due to lack of evidence.
I don't mean to be harsh, but your original statement sounded like it lacked perspective. I was merely suggestion that the area you are concerned about has been covered by theologians and philsophers.
I was not expressing concern; I was expressing an opinion. I think things are explained enough now.
Anyway, I'm now too tired to discuss this further without sleep.
What evidence do you have of this? I'm not talking belief, I'm talking facts, my entire point was about facts, not beliefs.
You asked for it...
About 2000 years ago, a man came and taught with great authority. He was heir to a tradition many thousands of years older than him, which had laid out many prophecies which were fulfilled in his life. He provided clarification and teaching that appealed to his own authority, rather than that of prior revelation, which set him equal to God. Later statements he made confirmed that He was claiming equality with God as the Son of God. This was confirmed by a variety of miracles which were seen by thousands of witnesses. The greatest miracle was the man's resurrection after being slain on the cross, which happened as he predicted, making a double miracle which also confirms the rest of what he taught.
Several of these witnesses recorded what they saw, and we have fragments of those records--a lot of fragments, dating from very close to when the writings were first put down. This wealth of evidence gives me a reason to believe that the records we have now are consistent with the original records.
I believe that the original records were what was actually seen because those records were put into written form within living memory of the events they recorded, so there were many witnesses who could have opposed the record. This would have seriously retarded the growth of any movement based on the challenged testimony, but instead we have evidence indicating that this was a period of rapid growth of that movement, even in the face of severe opposition.
I believe that what was seen is what actually happened because it was seen by a large number of witnesses (upwards of 500 for the resurrection itself, with many more for the other miracles which occurred to confirm the man's testimony). The surviving writings of these witnesses indicate that they were of sound mind, eliminating the possibility that they were crazy, and furthermore it's difficult to claim that all the witnesses were crazy. The witnesses showed a willingness to suffer and die for their testimony, not to mention preached and lived a lifestyle of service which is quite contradictory to what most charlatans do, which is strong evidence that they were not lying. The strongest such evidence is that the testimony was able to change the mind of a man who was staunchly opposed to the movement, even going so far as to kill those who followed it, to the point where this man was willing to suffer and die for the movement. Paul's surviving writings indicate that he's a lucid individual, of sound mind and formidable intellect, so I don't think he was crazy. As for the possibility that these witnesses were mistaken, that deserves its own paragraph.
It is my experience that eyewitnesses are most often mistaken when they are exposed to something over a short period of time and/or during a period of great stress. The eyewitnesses to the resurrection of this man did not see him for a short time, but rather spent weeks with him discussing theology, eating, and drinking, across numerous incidents. This does not include the three years they spent together during which the other miraculous events occurred. Thus, it may be disputed how many lepers this man may have cured on one particular occasion, a three year pattern indicates that he did in fact cure leprosy, among other diseases and problems. This entire period was not marked by high stress, but had its highs and lows, whether we're talking about the several weeks which confirmed the resurrection or the several years that confirmed this man's miracle working power. The nature of the events that these people are reporting, then, fall into the realm of situations where eye-witness testimony is reliable.
That man's name was Jesus, the Christ. Given that we have tested and reliable records of tested and reliable testimony, dating from the time of the event, of a historical and not legendary nature, it gives weight to Jesus's good news--that not only does God exist, but that He loves us and desires a close, personal relationship with us, not just for our earthly span of 70 or 80 years, but for eternity. To have life, and to have it to the full.
To give a personal record, I did not regularly attend church from the time I was in kindergarten to my Junior year of college. During that time, my mother was atheist, Muslim, and eventually Christian again. My father and stepmother were Christian while I lived with them, but we did not go to church nor did they spend much time preaching to me. They converted to Wicca around my freshman year of college. My religious growth came primarily through personal prayer and study. I say this not to try to show how great I am, but to establish that I did not arrive at my views by indoctrination and later tried to come to some sort of rationalization. I had ample opportunities to walk away and was under no pressure to continue to be Christian. My views are my own, as much as anyone can claim such.
Does this answer the question as to what facts and reason led to my beliefs?
I am not concerned with the bible. If you are interested in making some broad statements about French literature, you had best read broadly. Similarly if you believe that the universe was created by some being, and believe that some information about that being can be garnered from investigating the human subconcious - that is to say by reading holy books - you would be better off reading broadly and comparing. If, on the other hand, you want the Christian God to be the creater of the universe, and believe that questions can be answered by wanting really badly for a particular answer, then perhaps you will have the most success arguing about the bible.
I am concerned with how people answer certain questions. With the procedures that go on in their brains to produce possible explanations and then with their decision between possible explanations. In particular right here today I am concerned with the way people answer questions like:
How did the universe come to be. or How did life occur in the universe.
I'm not entirely concerned with who is right about what. I am entirely concerned with how people make and/or accept decisions with regards to questions and answers.
Here is my side of a PM with Encara.
Hi
Actually, I was just about to adress as similar question in the thread! I think that given those two options (the God hypothesis vs the multiple worlds hypothesis) one might not find Occam's razor helpful. One of them possits an infinite number of finite beings, and one possits a finite number of infinite beings, both intended to explain the origin of the universe. My argument will be that your method for arriving at that set of explanations is your mistake, and not your decision between those two explanations.
To begin with I would like to elaborate that there are other possible explanations that belong in the set you possit. Here is one of them:
Instead of positing an infinite number of universes in parallel, we say that the big bang and potential big crunch are not the beginnings or ends of anything: they are part of a continuum of oscilations that, governed by some constants, produce universes with different sets of physical laws. Some of them are capable of planet formation, some are capable of sustaining life. It's like a universe factory! Some of the universe never even make it off the ground, they collapse on themselves within seconds of the big bang, some of them continue for a long time and yield fruit. The longer one of these factory made universes continues, the more likely some kind of self-replicating molecules will begin to contain information.
So now we have 1) an infinie chain of universes with different stats, some of which generate life; 2) an infinite deity influencing the creation of the universe; 3) an infinite number of universes in parallel, some of which support life.
I'm sure you could come up with more possible solutions if you wanted to. Occam's razor favors the ones that possit the introduction of the least new entities, but that doesn't make them the right answers: it just makes them the best explanations. The best explanation is not always the right one. Occam's razor is a guideline for prefering some explanations, it's a procedure for decision making persons.
So your set of explanations is bigger now, but they all have something in common. In trying to solve the beginning of the universe they end up positing an earlier entity. I possit chains of finite entities stretching back forever or across a grid, and you possit a single infinite entity.
We're both wrong! The problem occurs when we ask ourselves "how could the universe have come to exist in it's complexity" we asnwer the question thusly:
1. Nothing could have always existed.
2. The cause of the universe must therefor be outside of the universe.
3. It could be God. It could be a chain or grid of universes.
4. If it is God... etc!
But if you are willing to accept 2, then I see a problem with 1. If your basis for believing in God is that such a belief is necessary for the universe to make sense, then your decision procedure is magical and not logical. Initially you are choosing between an infinite set of world views that looks like this:
1. There is some kind of infinite universe
2. There is some kind of infinite cause of a finite universe
3. There is some kind of infinite cause of a finite cause of a finite universe
4. ad nauseum
You accept explanation number 2 because you want there to be a God and you want science to support it. I accept explanation 1 because it requires the least creativity, the least new entities.
So where Occam's razor gets you is at your earliest assumptions. The universe can't be infinite, and it must have an infinite cause. Well what if it can be infinite?
1. The universe has always existed in some form or another.
We humans have trouble with this, because we live and die and because everything around us lives and dies: even the stars, even the Gods that we thought would always protect us. Think of poor Thor and where his folowers are now. Have you ever read American Gods? It's a good book.
It is hard wired into our biology! Everything was born and everything dies. So we have a hard time imagining an infinite continuum with no original cause. But just because we have trouble imagining it doesn't make it wrong.
When we were young we had trouble imagining how a river could gush with water all year round. We imagined a great dragon, or a wellspring, or a God of the river up in the mountains. The fact that it is all just glacial thaw and rain water is baffling! When we were young we imagined that the stars and the sun spun around our little earth, and when you look up there today you can't help but think the same thing. It just LOOKS that way, right? The things that we have evolved to believe, such as that every event has a cause, might not work when we get down to the very tiniest particles (where events occur seemingly without causes) or the very very biggest sets (where probability becomes harshly counter intuitive).
Maybe? Anyway, it's a possibility that I want you to consider.
z.
The last paragraph there is Richard Dawkinsey middle world stuff. When we start looking at things that were not necessary for our survival during the early years of our evolution, we have trouble. It is only rarely that a solution is so beautiful and intuitive that it is able to slip in there so perfectly. Once we can imagine our planet as a little thing moving between big things, then it makes sense to us: we have broken the illusions. I had a very hard time with Evolution when I was a kid, and I even catch myself shaking my head sometimes and laughing because it is all so crazy. But when I look at the very simplest statement of what it explains, "no the world is not perfect for us, it is us who are (almost) perfect for the world," I cannot help but to be warmed to my very core by its explanator power!
So, what if there is a similar very simple and aesthetically brilliant explanation for the existance of life instead of no life, or universe instead of no universe? That's what I am interested in. I have learned from our continual fight with "God did it!" explanations. They follow a pattern, and so far God has never "done it".
z.
*Sigh* Sorry for the excessive sarcasm. However, every single atheist I've tried that arguement with has assumed I am ignorant of basic scientific facts.
In fact, that sort of thinking has been the pattern for every single athiest I've argued religion with.
So I do have some excuse. So maybe try seeing it from my point of view? Consider that I may just have a different view of things? The scientific method is, in the end, infallable. You are not.
It is possible that some of us did look at from your point of view and, after years of study came to a different conclusion. I spent many years studying both science and christianity. My conclusion isn't based on anything other than a decent understanding of science and math just as yours comes from a different set of circumstances and what you feel is important. Personally, I think that there are many people who think they understand what they are talking about but are really just regurgitating "facts" they learned. This holds true for both believers and non-believers. I do this quite a bit myself with quotes, it's much easier for me to have someone else explain something much better than I could have.
You must understand SCIENCE is what people use to call Black Magic.
And some still do, which is very sad for all of us.
Atheist are so bound to the flesh they might as well have no souls.
Strange, but I don't believe I have a soul either.
That is the fundamentals of Satanism. Live for the Flesh. Don't worry about punishment, because there is no heaven or hell. When in reality there is but one consciousness. The one we are all attached to. One heartbeat.
Not the same thing. Which type of Satanism are you referring to? There are two general types and both are very different from each other. I would also like to point out that most atheists don't live for the flesh. Most of us just live our lives trying to be good people. There are consequences to our actions and very few of us actually think that we can do whatever we want. I have never met any atheists that don't worry about punishment but I assume that there are probably some.
Is there any other reason behind Atheism other than "Logic proves God isn't real."?
Logic does not prove that god isn't real. Logic proves that god isn't needed. If he isn't needed, why should I assume he is real? You can't prove that god does not exist, just like you can't prove that he does exist.
If all the science in the world was correct, and we can predict anything using Science(Black Magic). Why don't Atheist give me clear shot scientific evidence on Why someone dreams of people they have never even met before. Or How somebody can have deja Vu of an event that never happened to them. Or scientifically explain how bacteria, and single cell organisms got it in their head to grow into trees, and convert Carbon Dioxide into Oxygen.
First, science does not have all the answers. That's one of the coolest things about science.
Second, not everything that occurs gets the same attention. Did you know that there are more scientists working on finding a cure for breast cancer than there are trying to figure out why the shower curtain floats inward while you shower? Not everything carries the same intellectual weight. Also, not everything can be researched with the same level of skill. Trying to find out why rattlesnake venom is changing is going to be a lot easier than figuring out which planets in the Andromeda system have water on them.
Third, science is working on explaining how bacteria (and I assume you mean single-celled organism rather than bacteria) managed to grow into trees and convert CO2 into O2. Check out thisinteresting article for some insight on how amoebas work as a collective.
If dreams are just images from your day, or life played in your head, how can I meet someone I have never seen before?
First, dreams are not necessarily images from your day. I have had dreams that are most certainly not part of my day. I'm sure you can think of dozens that you had as well that we not part of your day. Second, memory is notoriously unreliable especially as it pertains to remember details from a dream. You are most likely just taking the parts you subconsciously remember and imposing them on a real world subject.
Scientifically we know stages exist. Many stages of life, and even stages of the human concept of time. You can only be immortal when you are not BOUND by time.
Physicists are wondering if we should drop the concept of time all together.
All the eill in this world is here to mislead you. The idea that religion causes wars cannot be blamed on GOD, but on Man. We created religion to control.
So when god commanded Moses to slay the non-believers that was our own doing? You may want to read up on your Deuteronomy, or even a good amount of Kings and Chronicles. Even Exodus has some interesting things like god hardening the heart of the pharoah. Maybe check out Matthew 10:34.
You are right though, religion does not cause wars. People who misunderstand religion cause wars. Just like people who want to invade a sovereign nation will find whatever justification they want. Wise people seek for ways to avoid wars, regardless of faith. Too bad that there are too many leaders with weapons and low wisdom scores.
The color of the hat is important for certain questions. It's completely immaterial when asking, say, "did you get mugged?" Miracle reports tend to be of the "did you get mugged" variety. "Did you used to not be able to walk? Can you walk now? Did somebody come and pray for you, and is that the time at which you went from not being able to walk to being able to walk?" These sorts of questions are general enough that a method which tends to drop details can still give reliable information about the answers.
Eyewitness testimony is only "unreliable" in the context of the question you're asking. One could say that an oscilloscope is an "unreliable" way to measure bacteria in a Petri dish, and one would be completely correct. That does not mean that it's an unreliable tool when applied to appropriate questions.
When we are trying to discuss events that are attributed to a creator of the universe and who has complete control over whether I burn for eternity or bask in glory, the color of the hat is very important. While I don't have a problem with Jesus wearing two different colored robes when he was being escorted to the cross (easily explained), I do have a problem with one book discussing an earthquake while the others don't mention it at all.
From what I've read, there are several archaeological digs that have confirmed details mentioned in the Bible, such as Roman artifacts bearing the names of rulers mentioned in Acts, confirmation that a certain pool was where it was described in John, the names of kings mentioned in Genesis, etc, etc, etc. One famous non-Christian example is the discovery of Troy, and some recent discoveries in England indicating that there may have been a historical King Arthur.
There is also quite a bit of evidence that demonstrates things did not occur as the Bible mentions them. For example, David was not the king of such a great nation. He was definitely a leader and even had his own crest, but the Jewish nation was not as the Bible describes. Many of the weapons described did not exist during the time the stories are told. Even the stories of Jesus' birth are inconsistent with the time and place.
Perhaps you're referring to archaeological evidence for specific miracles? Well, they found the walls of Jericho, and "fire and brimstone" in the area where Sodom and Gomorrah were supposed to be, IIRC.
The jury is still out on whether the walls of Jericho were found or even came tumbling down. As for both Sodom and Gomorrah, the jury is also still out on those cities as well. It is difficult to identify the any specific cities from that time (if only they used street signs or a "Now Entering Sodom, Population X" sign, they could have made our jobs so much easier). From what I have managed to find, the most likely two locations are two burned cities, most likely destroyed by a an explosive fissure.
We have very different definitions of "Truth." To me, Truth is emphatically objective, from what I'm reading on my oscilloscopes all the way to the existence or non-existence of God. Only one thing can be true. I'm willing to cede that we might not know what the Truth is, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
I like to separate "truth" from "fact." Truth is subjective while facts are supposed to be objective. It is possible for there to be multiple truths for the same subject. The facts are meant to be consistent regardless.
Not my religion. From my point of view, God is very open to being questioned. I get the impression that He doesn't like it when people deny evidence. For example, when the Pharisees ask Jesus for a sign right after he was described as healing a bunch of blind and sick people, he refuses. I suspect he was facepalming the whole time. It's like, "guys, I just healed a bunch of blind people, what more do you want?" At that point, God is just acknowledging that nothing He can do is going to have an impact on these people, and He stops wasting His time with them.
This is one of the reasons I have always enjoyed reading your posts. You are not afraid to tackle questions and are not offended when someone has a different point of view. Too often people think that if you have a question about their faith that you are questioning their faith. It doesn't matter what their faith is.
This is taken a bit out of context, but I can see where one would reach the conclusion that religion is about believing without evidence from that quote.
What I meant was that eventually you need to take a leap of faith one way or the other. In the end, you don't really know so you need to just accept. I wasn't trying to imply that one should be blind with their faith. I feel that if the faith is valid and true, then it should be open to questions. Even the disciples asked questions. Moses asked questions. I don't think that should be a problem. The Bible even says that god wants you to come and reason with him (Isiah 1:18).
Does anyone know why theological discussions almost always come down to Christians versus atheists rather than Buddhists versus Muslims versus Jews versus...?
You asked for it...
About 2000 years ago, a man came and taught with great authority. He was heir to a tradition many thousands of years older than him, which had laid out many prophecies which were fulfilled in his life. He provided clarification and teaching that appealed to his own authority, rather than that of prior revelation, which set him equal to God. Later statements he made confirmed that He was claiming equality with God as the Son of God. This was confirmed by a variety of miracles which were seen by thousands of witnesses. The greatest miracle was the man's resurrection after being slain on the cross, which happened as he predicted, making a double miracle which also confirms the rest of what he taught.
Several of these witnesses recorded what they saw, and we have fragments of those records--a lot of fragments, dating from very close to when the writings were first put down. This wealth of evidence gives me a reason to believe that the records we have now are consistent with the original records.
I believe that the original records were what was actually seen because those records were put into written form within living memory of the events they recorded, so there were many witnesses who could have opposed the record. This would have seriously retarded the growth of any movement based on the challenged testimony, but instead we have evidence indicating that this was a period of rapid growth of that movement, even in the face of severe opposition.
I believe that what was seen is what actually happened because it was seen by a large number of witnesses (upwards of 500 for the resurrection itself, with many more for the other miracles which occurred to confirm the man's testimony). The surviving writings of these witnesses indicate that they were of sound mind, eliminating the possibility that they were crazy, and furthermore it's difficult to claim that all the witnesses were crazy. The witnesses showed a willingness to suffer and die for their testimony, not to mention preached and lived a lifestyle of service which is quite contradictory to what most charlatans do, which is strong evidence that they were not lying. The strongest such evidence is that the testimony was able to change the mind of a man who was staunchly opposed to the movement, even going so far as to kill those who followed it, to the point where this man was willing to suffer and die for the movement. Paul's surviving writings indicate that he's a lucid individual, of sound mind and formidable intellect, so I don't think he was crazy. As for the possibility that these witnesses were mistaken, that deserves its own paragraph.
It is my experience that eyewitnesses are most often mistaken when they are exposed to something over a short period of time and/or during a period of great stress. The eyewitnesses to the resurrection of this man did not see him for a short time, but rather spent weeks with him discussing theology, eating, and drinking, across numerous incidents. This does not include the three years they spent together during which the other miraculous events occurred. Thus, it may be disputed how many lepers this man may have cured on one particular occasion, a three year pattern indicates that he did in fact cure leprosy, among other diseases and problems. This entire period was not marked by high stress, but had its highs and lows, whether we're talking about the several weeks which confirmed the resurrection or the several years that confirmed this man's miracle working power. The nature of the events that these people are reporting, then, fall into the realm of situations where eye-witness testimony is reliable.
That man's name was Jesus, the Christ. Given that we have tested and reliable records of tested and reliable testimony, dating from the time of the event, of a historical and not legendary nature, it gives weight to Jesus's good news--that not only does God exist, but that He loves us and desires a close, personal relationship with us, not just for our earthly span of 70 or 80 years, but for eternity. To have life, and to have it to the full.
To give a personal record, I did not regularly attend church from the time I was in kindergarten to my Junior year of college. During that time, my mother was atheist, Muslim, and eventually Christian again. My father and stepmother were Christian while I lived with them, but we did not go to church nor did they spend much time preaching to me. They converted to Wicca around my freshman year of college. My religious growth came primarily through personal prayer and study. I say this not to try to show how great I am, but to establish that I did not arrive at my views by indoctrination and later tried to come to some sort of rationalization. I had ample opportunities to walk away and was under no pressure to continue to be Christian. My views are my own, as much as anyone can claim such.
Does this answer the question as to what facts and reason led to my beliefs?
Amen
Logic does not prove that god isn't real. Logic proves that god isn't needed. If he isn't needed, why should I assume he is real? You can't prove that god does not exist, just like you can't prove that he does exist.
Hmm, I'm fascinated by this quote. I'll even grant you Logic does indeed reason the lack of a need for "God" for an explanation for scientific phenomena. What I question is this: Why does something have to be needed to exist?
Almost all of the arguments here center around the need for a God. It's a nice topic for religious people as if they can prove the need for God, then they have won the argument, so to speak. Sadly, what I think religious people (like myself) often fail to realize is that we know that we can't prove God's existence, so proving the need for God is equally impossible, as that would prove his existence.
Look, I'll grant you that it is conceivably possible that there is no God. You're right, he's not absolutely required to explain how the universe works. Just because He isn't required, doesn't mean He's not real.
Hmm, I'm fascinated by this quote. I'll even grant you Logic does indeed reason the lack of a need for "God" for an explanation for scientific phenomena. What I question is this: Why does something have to be needed to exist?
If something is not needed, it may or may not exist. However, several arguments for the existence of God boil down to "Given arbitrary postulate X, God must exist, therefore he does, QED." I believe he was trying to counter that sort of argument rather than to state the converse, that because he isn't needed, God doesn't exist.
If something is not needed, it may or may not exist. However, several arguments for the existence of God boil down to "Given arbitrary postulate X, God must exist, therefore he does, QED." I believe he was trying to counter that sort of argument rather than to state the converse, that because he isn't needed, God doesn't exist.
Fair enough, taking a look at that quote a second time, I can see that.
Eldritch_Lord explained it pretty well. Note that I don't think that logic disproves the existence of god either. Logical arguments are only going to take us so far.
I agree, but what do you see as the issue once logical arguments hit their ceiling?
I agree, but what do you see as the issue once logical arguments hit their ceiling?
For myself, I have never seen anything that can't be explained without the need for god. Since there is no need, then I don't believe that he exists, at least not in the way that he is presumed by the Bible and those who follow the teachings.
Some things make no sense to me. I don't see how god can be all knowing including knowing the future while I can have free will. In fact, if god knows the future he already knows whether or not I will be one of his chosen or not. This means he knew before the world was created that he was going to condemn me to an eternity of burning because he created and allowed for evil to exist in this world. There is no way for an all-knowing being to also allow for free will. Our actions are already determined.
I have a problem with a being that is all powerful and all knowing that didn't see some events happening and then condemning everyone for the actions of a few. For example, god placed the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden. He knew that the serpent would tempt Eve and that Adam would follow. He decided that the best course of action was to punish people more than 6000 years later for their actions. Seems a bit petty for someone who is supposed to love me.
Why was god so angry with the world that he felt the need to wipe out everyone except 8 people? Why did so many innocent animals need to die for the actions of a species unrelated to them? Why did children need to die for the actions of their parents. If god can harden the hearts of those he dislikes (the pharaoh and others), why couldn't he just soften the hearts of everyone else?
Why does god get so angry at our decisions when he already knows what we are going to do? He chose this path for us and he seems to want to punish us for his decision. This is not the act of a loving god.
Also, why did god feel the need to send his son to take on the sins of humanity when he could have just fixed the problem. He knew that having his son killed wasn't going to change anything about how we behave.
None of these, and many others, make any sense. The god of the Bible does not make any sense. He cannot exist in the way the Bible describes. He cannot be loving and caring while condemning those who did not have the chance to believe.
I see no need to believe in a god that doesn't fit into the world he created. I see no reason to believe in a god that can't even keep the religion dedicated to him consistent. Even among his followers, what and how they believe is so broad that you can almost say that each person is his own denomination. The lack of care from a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent being makes me question his very existence.
Hi
Recently in a thread about Christianity and D&D I read some arguments by a person of faith that I felt needed to be addressed. One of the problems that I have with faith is that the defenses of its validity as a form of thought are often not very cool. That is to say, not informed or particularly well thought through. This is not to say that the people making the arguments are themselve not intelligent people - I respect all D&D players as possessing a unique intelligence and creativity - but in matters of faith even the most critical and intelligent of us fall prey to the fallacies taught to us through out our childhood.
In this case I have removed the name of the original poster, not because I think this might offend them or be considered a slight on them, but rather because I want to address the kinds of arguments they have made rather than the quality of their person.
With that I present to you their arguments:
It would be arrogance for man (by which I imagine you to mean humans) to assume itself the pinnacle of life in the universe. The way that we define life is broad enough that even here on earth we can find examples of beings more complex and with more interesting life cycles. Regardless of what "man" will always believe, rational humans tend not to imagine themselves in terms of easily defined continuum such as "advanced/primitive" or "good/evil" or "person/non-person". Humans simply ARE, and the fact that we have access to faculties such as consciousness and morality rather than flight or a hive-mind is no mark of superiority - only of difference. Religiously minded people, on the other hand, love to reduce the universe into such dualities.
No one imagines that God could be found on a chart. The whole idea is that God has yet to be found on a chart and therefor aught not to be considered so heavily. God aught not to weigh in on political decisions, scientific considerations, important personal decisions, or the lives of young children until such a time as God's existence is more evident.
OK, so this is great stuff:
Measuring the background radiation of the universe gives us a fairly accurate idea of its age, 13.5 billion years (+/- less than 1%). More directly, the universe must be at least as old as the oldest things in it, which are stars. And they are very old indeed. It is at least 93 billion light years across (bear in mind that a light year is 9 and a half TRILLION* kilometers). That's a heck of a lot of time and space for accidents to occur. Given this amount of time and space, tying a thousand monkeys to a thousand typewriter will necessarily produce every work of Shakespeare. Everything that has happened has happened as a result of the accidence that you casually write off as "not enough"; whether it is the formation of stars or the evolution of consciousness the beauty of it is that it was not designed. It wasn't simply put there, and to deny this robs it of its value.
Arguments containing premises that rely on the truth of the argument are called circular. Religiously minded people often have cause to fall back on them. "Need proof of God? Look no further than your immortal SOUL!!!" We can see how that is ridiculous.
Wanting something to be true is not an argument. The truth is the truth regardless of how inconvenient it may be, and it certainly doesn't care about what you want. If your life is beautiful and you are static, then your life is beautiful (and you are static). Even without God you are still a beautiful and unique snowflake.
So... about that proof? Srsly though, if you come with some get on the phone and call me.
Remember, don't let anyone tell you anything. Regardless of what they may be able to demonstrate with evidence, regardless of the contributions they've made to society: don't let it get to you man. OK? Refuse to listen and of course you will not hear.
And I am so happy that has chosen to end his post by wondering whether maybe this topic has wandered to close to those truths he doesn't want to hear. Hey guys, are we off topic here?
OK I'm done now. Umm... FIRST POST!
z.
*I do not take this word lightly.
Ok so your first post is a post on a dnd board about christianity lol. Granted its a off topic board but come on man this is a gaming website you shouldn't worry about offending a bunch of people and starting flame wars until later.
Whats the point of your post?
To make Christians see the light and convert them to the nonbeliever?
or
To make people mad and start a "discussion" which is really an argument in which no one wins?
Ok if its the first one...not a chance that someone on a dnd board is going to destroy someones faith unless that person didnt have any faith anyway.
As to the second, arguing just to be arguing is a waste of time it will not go anywhere and you will just get people siding with you are against you. If you need this to measure your own beliefs then you have some serious issues out there. It sounds like you are not so sure of your own beliefs. In fact most people who post these kinds of discussions on here are either a.)blinded by there own beliefs (whatever they are religious or political) or b.)they have severe self esteem issues and what people to agree with them
I don't agree with you and your arguments that you have been making attacking faiths of all backgrounds. People with faith are just that people with faith. I am a Christian and as much as i would like to see you and all these others converted I am not about to attempt to convert people on a message board, because no one is going to switch their beliefs and faiths by participating in flame wars. So i ask you again why start a religious or political thread? To show how we Christians are stupid and how you an atheist are so smart? That reeks of elitism to me. I do not think you are stupid sir, but i think these types of threads are stupid. Religious or political threads just start arguments that no side will win or recognize the other side as winning anyway.
P.s. pick up the book "The case for Christ" by Lee strobel (former athiest proving Jesus was not divine and ends up believing the otherway) You won't like it and it won't change your mind
Pick up a Holy Bible and attempt to read it...as just a mythical story if you want...just read it.
And if you want a good discussion about God and Evolution telling both sides of the argument then
Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski & Michael Ruse in Dialogue
It tells both sides and it isn't written degrading one or the other. Nice book for either the atheist or the Christian. At the very least give it a shot you will like it alot at least the chapters on why Intelligent design is wrong. I liked the other ones but thats the way it goes....
I live in the USA where freedom of religion still exists. We can agree to disagree but why try to shove your beliefs down mine and others throats. Many people have died because of religions and that is the difference between faith and religion. Faith is in your heart and your mind religion is a man made. (taken from kingdom of heaven directors cut lol...i like the sentiment though) Don't forget many people have died from antireligious beliefs in communist countries and elsewhere as well. In china the government hates Christianity as well as other religions and doesn't want people practicing them. I guess you agree with China...no freedom of religion? anyway i know nothing i said will effect you in anyway...thats why posting on message boards about this sort of thing is a big waste of time. I'm done wasting time now. Bye.
Then there is the rest of us who don't particularly care because being happy with your own ideas and feelings is enough for us without having to convince other people your mental wing-wang is bigger than the other guys :P or that your personal imaginary omni-presence is more awesome than them so you win
Like i said, preparing to be juiced for opinion :D
Does anyone know why theological discussions almost always come down to Christians versus atheists rather than Buddhists versus Muslims versus Jews versus...?
I had been thinking about this as well and have come up with the following:
I would say they come down to Christians and Atheists, as opposed to Muslims and atheists on these boards because we are in North America, and Christianity happens to be very popular here, and its followers are very vocal about defending their beliefs.
Maybe if we were in Saudi Arabia (and questioning Islam wasn't punishable by death) then we would be having this debate between atheists and Muslims.
Warning:
The following is going to make me sound arrogant and I am making a stab here that won't be appreciated by those of religion. I am saying this as an atheist mainly to the other atheists here and it is my point of view on religious discussion.
The underlines and bold are so this post doesn't get deleted by a moderator.
The discussion comes up between those of religion and atheists more then between believers of one religion and another religion because atheists seem to be the only ones with a rational argument for their viewpoints that is comparable to religion in general, to which the religious person attempts to counter with attempts at rationality justifying their religious beliefs.
When a religious person argues with an atheist, the atheist argues using science, and the religious person attempts to counter by also defining their arguments through science.
Thus the common ground between the two sides here is science.
No such common ground exists between, for example, Muslims and Christians. They are arguing on completely different grounds, basically one says their beliefs are true, the other says that his own beliefs are true, and it goes nowhere.
It might sound like this:
Christian: Jesus was the son of god, this is why I am a Christian, the bible says all other faiths are false therefore your faith is false...heathen.
Muslim: Mohammed was a prophet of God, that is why I am Muslim, the Qur'an says all other faiths are false therefore your faith is false...heathen.
(I apologize in advance if I have somehow misrepresented some detail of either of the above faith, my specific knowledge about them is limited but my point stands)
My point is that it is difficult to have a reasoned debate between people of two religions because their belief systems are not based on rules that are consistent between them.
Arguments between people of science and people of faith seem to work in the beginning because atheists argue with science, and religious people try to argue with science.
Of course scientific theory supports science and doesn't support religion. That's why we so often hear the same old flawed arguments from religious people. But hey, if us atheists were trying to argue for science using religious ideas then I'm sure we would be the ones losing ;)
Ok so your first post is a post on a dnd board about christianity lol. Granted its a off topic board but come on man this is a gaming website you shouldn't worry about offending a bunch of people and starting flame wars until later.
Whats the point of your post?
To make Christians see the light and convert them to the nonbeliever?
or
To make people mad and start a "discussion" which is really an argument in which no one wins?
Ok if its the first one...not a chance that someone on a dnd board is going to destroy someones faith unless that person didnt have any faith anyway.
As to the second, arguing just to be arguing is a waste of time it will not go anywhere and you will just get people siding with you are against you. If you need this to measure your own beliefs then you have some serious issues out there. It sounds like you are not so sure of your own beliefs. In fact most people who post these kinds of discussions on here are either a.)blinded by there own beliefs (whatever they are religious or political) or b.)they have severe self esteem issues and what people to agree with them
I don't agree with you and your arguments that you have been making attacking faiths of all backgrounds. People with faith are just that people with faith. I am a Christian and as much as i would like to see you and all these others converted I am not about to attempt to convert people on a message board, because no one is going to switch their beliefs and faiths by participating in flame wars. So i ask you again why start a religious or political thread? To show how we Christians are stupid and how you an atheist are so smart? That reeks of elitism to me. I do not think you are stupid sir, but i think these types of threads are stupid. Religious or political threads just start arguments that no side will win or recognize the other side as winning anyway.
P.s. pick up the book "The case for Christ" by Lee strobel (former athiest proving Jesus was not divine and ends up believing the otherway) You won't like it and it won't change your mind
Pick up a Holy Bible and attempt to read it...as just a mythical story if you want...just read it.
And if you want a good discussion about God and Evolution telling both sides of the argument then
Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski & Michael Ruse in Dialogue
It tells both sides and it isn't written degrading one or the other. Nice book for either the atheist or the Christian. At the very least give it a shot you will like it alot at least the chapters on why Intelligent design is wrong. I liked the other ones but thats the way it goes....
I live in the USA where freedom of religion still exists. We can agree to disagree but why try to shove your beliefs down mine and others throats. Many people have died because of religions and that is the difference between faith and religion. Faith is in your heart and your mind religion is a man made. (taken from kingdom of heaven directors cut lol...i like the sentiment though) Don't forget many people have died from antireligious beliefs in communist countries and elsewhere as well. In china the government hates Christianity as well as other religions and doesn't want people practicing them. I guess you agree with China...no freedom of religion? anyway i know nothing i said will effect you in anyway...thats why posting on message boards about this sort of thing is a big waste of time. I'm done wasting time now. Bye.
Ill start with your last statement and go from there. Nice of you to come in here, dump a post and say your leaving. If you didn't care then why post? If you did then why leave? are you afraid of the response?
Next I'll jump to the beginning, I don't think its productive to attack somebody for making their first post.
If religion really had no effect on us non-believers then we could "agree to disagree". But things like intelligent design and 9/11 show us that religion does have an effect. When something has an effect on me that I don't agree with, I question it.
If were suggesting books then check out Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion.
And this wasn't a flame war until you brought it up.
Oh one more thing..this was my favorite part: "not a chance that someone on a dnd board is going to destroy someones faith unless that person didn't have any faith anyway." Yes of course, this is because if you have absolute faith you don't listen to reason, of course a message board full of reasoned arguments wont change your mind.
Of course, if you look at the history that quickly turns from 'amusing' to 'disturbing' and perhaps even 'frightening'.
But that's a side point.
My general stance on religion
First, I'll admit I'm not a great theologian. I've never done more then casually read about religious theory, and occasionally listen to long-winded gas bags rant about their view on the matter (from various sides).
Myself, I used to be an atheist. Mostly because I wasn't raised with religion. It just wasn't important to my family. I used to be one of those people that got bitter and angry when religious students did something as a group. And of course the fact that I believe in gender equality makes a bunch of religious pills hard to swallow.
But after a point I realized something. There are so many people claiming 'miracles' and that their faith is the 'one true faith' and all that jazz, while a (substantially smaller group) is up in arms about how everyone is worshipping Santa Claus in the sky.
And I decided "Why the heck do I care? If there's a god, and he's merciful, then he'll have mercy on me and understand why I was a wee bit confused on what religion I should put my trust in. And if he's not merciful, then it's like Russian roulette in finding the right faith, got a 1 in far too many chance! And if he's not there, then it doesn't matter anyway."
So that's why I'm agnostic. I haven't seen any conclusive proof of miracles, or heard any sound logical reasoning for why there must be a god. So instead of worrying about it, I'm going to live my life as the best damn person I can, and trust that if there is some deity that actually cares that they'll care enough to look at my life and not just what name is on the 'deity' line in my character sheet. And if they dont' care, or if there isn't, then at least I did my best to improve the lives of those around me, and that's worth the effort I think.
My specific stance on religion
Now, as long as people keep their faith to themselves, that's dandy. But far too many people want to push *their* faith and *their* ideals on others. And that's when I have to get some straight pins and poke holes into their balloons. There's too much uncertainty to make religious dogma public policy (otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion) and quite frankly I'd like to get married sometime this quarter-century, so kindly bug-off and keep your dogma to yourself and let me live my life, away from your life, as I like.
Edit: Thought I should make it clear. This isn't a dig at anyone here, as most people seem to be fairly reasonable here and no one's screaming theirs is the one true faith and all others are dirty heathens. Yet. This is more of a general statement about special interest groups trying to get a hand in politics and dictating my life.
I do not agree with everything in the Bible, just some things.
MY Genesis:
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Then he created Angels to guard the Seven Heavens. Anu the greatest angel, and God's right hand man, grew envious of God.
Now God created Anu. If Anu was from God, then why would he turn on him. Negative energy. When creating the most beautiful angel, God essentially created his opposite.
Did he know what he was doing? Yes. He needed this balance, until ragnarok, to keep things in order.
When the world is full of Lawful Good personalities, then Chaotic Evil will rise.
Then he created, or had created ADAM(Advanced Destroyer And Multiplier) to obey him and dwell in the Garden(Earth).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us say God was an extremely benevolent and intelligent Alien being, like E.T.
Now lets say that his right hand man grew jealous, and wanted to exploit him by revealing the truth to ADAM, and his production unit EVE.
Lilith was made from the earth just has Adam was. But she turned against both God, and Adam. She went into the heavens, and became the worlds first Demon. Did they take her to their spaceship.
(There was a War, and humans saw it. )This would explain our knack for Space Adventures. Anu and his people. (Serpents without Scales) Were banished after the War. TO the Material Plane. Our realm, as well as Anu's.
We exist in the same realm as the proverbial hell.
All I seek in belief is transcendence. Shake off the Mortal Coil, and become Godly yourself.
It is like achieving DemiGod-hood.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have Atheist friends I do not judge, and they don't judge me, or try to change me. I have never tried to convert anyone, ever. It is their own choice, and people are rewarded in death, regardless of their beliefs.
If God exist's then Sweet.
If he Doesn't then how will anyone know?
Sweet black void.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did not mean to seem like a Crusader on a mission. It is just my goal to take the world's Mythology, and combine it with elements of Science, and the supernatural to get an Understanding of how Young Man might have seen certain things.
Aliens could very well be the creators. Or we could be an accident. Or there could be the Supreme consciousness that grew lonely in his head, so he created a story, through a thought process.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also have friends who loose touch with their spiritualism based on the Ideas of some local religious nazi's(Christians). You were created the way you are for a reason. You will not be punished.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again I will apologize for coming off as a fanatic. I love God, I love Life, and I thank Jesus. Because he may be the only way to the Father.
How can you be mad at the man, or Idea of him, for being peaceful. He knew not what the Kings of this World would do to his message. He sought peace, and love just like I do.
It is just My experiences with Atheist are: When they are lying on teir deathbeds, it seems they instinctually call out for God.
I have had Atheist friends, and I still do. Rebecca was one her whole life, until the day she died.
I know it sounds like a long shot, but she was scared of death. She told me she was sorry for trying to change me when we first met. I said it was okay. Just to relax, and she will be fine. She just laid there in pain, asking for it to stop. She prayed for God to take her, and I balled my heart out.
She left 10 minutes later.(Died.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pardon my Rant I haven't had any coffee this morning.
Did he know what he was doing? Yes. He needed this balance, until ragnarok, to keep things in order.
To me, this is a huge sticking point. If he knew what he was doing, then this 100% benevolent being intentionally condemned millions to burn for eternity. This doesn't sound benevolent to me.
Now lets say that his right hand man grew jealous, and wanted to exploit him by revealing the truth to ADAM, and his production unit EVE.
This continues the problem that I mentioned. His right-hand man didn't grow jealous, he was created with jealousy in his heart. This must be true because the all-knowing being, the one who knows what we will do, created his right-hand man anyway knowing the consequences.
How can you be mad at the man, or Idea of him, for being peaceful. He knew not what the Kings of this World would do to his message. He sought peace, and love just like I do.
He did know because he knows everything. I'm certainly not mad at someone I don't believe exists or existed. I question the rationale that he could have existed in the manner described. Jesus also was not a peace seeker, at least not according to the Bible. He didn't think that war was the first course of action, but he certainly had no problem with it. He was ready and willing to do some of the dirty work himself.
I have had Atheist friends, and I still do. Rebecca was one her whole life, until the day she died.
I know it sounds like a long shot, but she was scared of death. She told me she was sorry for trying to change me when we first met. I said it was okay. Just to relax, and she will be fine. She just laid there in pain, asking for it to stop. She prayed for God to take her, and I balled my heart out.
She left 10 minutes later.(Died.)
For every one of these anecdotes, there is another opposing anecdote. Not to take away from the experience you had, but I knew several people who didn't truly believe in god either and have made it clear when they died. It's unfortunate that they still wrestle with their faith even moments before their death.
For myself, I have never seen anything that can't be explained without the need for god. Since there is no need, then I don't believe that he exists, at least not in the way that he is presumed by the Bible and those who follow the teachings.
I don't understand why him being "necessary" for explaining the universe somehow leads to that conclusion, can you expand on this for me?
Some things make no sense to me. I don't see how god can be all knowing including knowing the future while I can have free will. In fact, if god knows the future he already knows whether or not I will be one of his chosen or not. This means he knew before the world was created that he was going to condemn me to an eternity of burning because he created and allowed for evil to exist in this world. There is no way for an all-knowing being to also allow for free will. Our actions are already determined.
Let me put it to you this way: If I understood you to a point at which I understood every minutiae of your psyche, I'd be able to predict your reaction to absolutely anything. I could then extrapolate your entire life if I was given the entire set of life event for you. This isn't about "knowing the future" its about humanity being predictable enough that, if you had the understanding, you could simply figure out what would happen. Does that mean you have no free will? No, it just means you're predictable.
I have a problem with a being that is all powerful and all knowing that didn't see some events happening and then condemning everyone for the actions of a few. For example, god placed the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden. He knew that the serpent would tempt Eve and that Adam would follow. He decided that the best course of action was to punish people more than 6000 years later for their actions. Seems a bit petty for someone who is supposed to love me.
If I programmed (as I am wanton to do as a programmer) a robot to come in every morning and say, "Good morning , I love you. Have a good day." And that was the only choice it had, it could never do anything else, you wouldn't feel loved by that robot. You would know it's just doing that because it doesn't have another choice. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was put there so that humanity's expressions of dedication to God and his commands would have meaning, because they could choose something else (which they did).
Why was god so angry with the world that he felt the need to wipe out everyone except 8 people? Why did so many innocent animals need to die for the actions of a species unrelated to them? Why did children need to die for the actions of their parents. If god can harden the hearts of those he dislikes (the pharaoh and others), why couldn't he just soften the hearts of everyone else?
Why does god get so angry at our decisions when he already knows what we are going to do? He chose this path for us and he seems to want to punish us for his decision. This is not the act of a loving god.
This all goes back to the predictability of humanity. He may know your going to do it, but he isn't forcing you to do it. There is a big difference between being predictable and being forced to behave a certain way.
Also, why did god feel the need to send his son to take on the sins of humanity when he could have just fixed the problem. He knew that having his son killed wasn't going to change anything about how we behave.
God is perfect, and therefore can't be mixed with impurity. As such, he required sacrifices of animals and such to purify the people who worshiped him. He sent his Son so that we could have a way to be pure without the constant sacrifice of animals to keep ourselves pure (a nearly impossible task). Through Jesus' sacrifice, we are constantly purified.
None of these, and many others, make any sense. The god of the Bible does not make any sense. He cannot exist in the way the Bible describes. He cannot be loving and caring while condemning those who did not have the chance to believe.
Well, I've already addressed this in part. If your arguing people were "predestined" to not believe, then I point you back to the predictability argument I presented above.
If your talking about those who genuinely never heard of Christianity, then I don't believe those people are necessarily condemned, but I can't guarantee they aren't either. It's not my decision to make.
I see no need to believe in a god that doesn't fit into the world he created. I see no reason to believe in a god that can't even keep the religion dedicated to him consistent. Even among his followers, what and how they believe is so broad that you can almost say that each person is his own denomination. The lack of care from a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent being makes me question his very existence.
Well this makes two false assumptions:
1) God wants all his followers to worship him in the same way
Which I don't this is true at all. I find the universe a enormous tribute to God appreciation for things that are all similar still with great variety. Snowflakes for instance.
2) All of God followers are acting according to his will
Which is definately not true. I apologize for my own and all of my Christian brothers' and sisters' imperfections. Please don't mistake our flawed behavior for the truth of the way Christianity presents.
Hope that wasn't too long, I hope that at least sheds some light on the Christian viewpoint of things.
Oh, I wasn't asking for facts which led to you beliefs. I'm asking for facts that support it being true.
I must have misunderstood your question, because except for the part about my personal background I don't see how my post doesn't give you the "facts that support it being true." Fact: Jesus preached a lot of things about how to live, who He is, and what God wants from us (which implies that God exists). Fact: Jesus predicted his death and said it had to happen that way, and that he would rise again. Fact: Jesus died. Fact: Jesus rose again, just as he said he would. Inference: Jesus's resurrection is a confirmation of everything else he said. Conclusion: God exists, and is as described in the Bible.
Now, you can dispute those facts (and many have), but once you do you are engaging in a debate over things which can be proven or disproven, at least theoretically. This shows that belief can be, and in this case is, a result of reason. And that's what I'm trying to show.
Some things make no sense to me. I don't see how god can be all knowing including knowing the future while I can have free will. In fact, if god knows the future he already knows whether or not I will be one of his chosen or not. This means he knew before the world was created that he was going to condemn me to an eternity of burning because he created and allowed for evil to exist in this world. There is no way for an all-knowing being to also allow for free will. Our actions are already determined.
I have a problem with a being that is all powerful and all knowing that didn't see some events happening and then condemning everyone for the actions of a few. For example, god placed the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden. He knew that the serpent would tempt Eve and that Adam would follow. He decided that the best course of action was to punish people more than 6000 years later for their actions. Seems a bit petty for someone who is supposed to love me.
Why was god so angry with the world that he felt the need to wipe out everyone except 8 people? Why did so many innocent animals need to die for the actions of a species unrelated to them? Why did children need to die for the actions of their parents. If god can harden the hearts of those he dislikes (the pharaoh and others), why couldn't he just soften the hearts of everyone else?
Why does god get so angry at our decisions when he already knows what we are going to do? He chose this path for us and he seems to want to punish us for his decision. This is not the act of a loving god.
Also, why did god feel the need to send his son to take on the sins of humanity when he could have just fixed the problem. He knew that having his son killed wasn't going to change anything about how we behave.
None of these, and many others, make any sense. The god of the Bible does not make any sense. He cannot exist in the way the Bible describes. He cannot be loving and caring while condemning those who did not have the chance to believe.
I see no need to believe in a god that doesn't fit into the world he created. I see no reason to believe in a god that can't even keep the religion dedicated to him consistent. Even among his followers, what and how they believe is so broad that you can almost say that each person is his own denomination. The lack of care from a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent being makes me question his very existence.
If you will grant, for the moment, that God exists and that the Christian Bible accurately describes Him (and since you seem to be directing a criticism at the Loving Christian God, I think this is a reasonable thing to ask), then I can give an answer to this question.
The basic premise here is that God is neither Just nor Loving if He will condemn us for something that is not our fault. I will accept this premise. It would be hard to say that someone is Just/Loving if they behaved that way.
You claim that sin is not our fault if we did not control the action wherein we sinned. I will accept this premise too. We are not responsible for things we can't control, otherwise it's my fault that some dude in China stubbed his toe.
You claim that we do not control our actions if they are decided by another force. That's also something I can accept. This goes to the definition of what "control" means.
You claim that if God is omniscient, He knows what we will do in the future. That's a definition of omniscience that can be supported, but alternative definitions do exist.
Finally, you claim that if something is known, then it is determined. This is where you and I must part ways.
You conclude that since an omniscient God must know the future, than that future is determined, and we are therefore not responsible for what happens in it.
There are two places where your logic can be addressed. First, one can address the definition of "omniscient." It has been argued that "knowing everything" only means "knowing everything that can be known." This still gives God considerable predictive powers--consider that He knows all circumstances, has a complete mastery of psychology, and can easily predict what we are most likely to do just like any competent and well informed psychologist (or, frankly, anyone who is good at reading people). God is also very powerful, so the many prophetic statements in the Bible can be recast as declarations of what God is going to do, rather than true predictions of the future. So, for example, the prophecy that Isaiah gave Hezekiah about Hezekiah's illness being fatal might not be that God looked into the future and saw Hezekiah dying, but rather a result of God's expert medical knowledge and His decision not to intercede and save Hezekiah. When God changed the prophecy and gave Hezekiah ten more years of life, then, it's not God saying "I'll cure the disease, then I look into the future and see that you'll survive for ten more years," but rather it's God saying "I'll cure the disease, and then I'll guarantee by my incredible power that you will live for ten more years. After that, you're on your own and will die."
Even if one accepts your definition of omniscience, that does not automatically mean that the future is determined. This gets into what it means for something to be "determined." It seems that you define "determined" as "can have only one result." But consider this: we know the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo. At this point, it had only one result. Does that mean that, due to our knowledge of the past, the Battle of Waterloo is determined from before it was fought? If so, then you accept that the mere act of memory, which we know exists, destroys Free Will without any need for God! I don't accept that, and I assume you don't either. So, that means that the previous definition of "determined" needs to be amended to take into account the flow of time. Thus, something is "determined" if there is only one possible result before it happens. You drop an egg in Earth's gravitational field, it deterministically falls to the ground. This definition is very important, since it nowhere mentions whether something being known or not deciding whether something is determined. As long as something has multiple possible outcomes before it happens, it is by definition undetermined. Acceptance of this definition is key to my argument, but I think it's a good definition.
This is where we have to engage in some mental gymnastics. I think there's only been one person who's even begun to understand what I'm about to propose, so if it sounds odd to you then you're in good company. I'll try a different approach to see if it clears things up.
Let's consider a non-determined event in the near future. In the present, that event has any number of possible outcomes (at least two, in order to not be determined). However, from our example with memory, we know that a person in the future could know what the outcome is without making that event determined. God is with us in the present, but let us say that He has some sort of sensor that is in the future, looking back on the event. That sensor can record what the outcome of that event is, and then relay that information back to God. Thus God, in the present, knows what will happen in the near future, but He received that information from a source which does not cause the event to be determined. Thus, that knowledge does not determine the outcome of the event--it simply records it. In the flow of time, that near-future even still has multiple possible outcomes, thus meeting the definition of non-determined. With me so far?
Now then, that is an adequate explanation for God's Omniscience and Free Will, but it doesn't quite explain True Prophecy. If the outcome of an event is known to the person who'd going to perform the event before they perform it, can it happen any other way? I would submit that it can. How, then, does Prophecy work? If another result can happen, and does happen, wouldn't that make the prophecy untrue? I would respond by saying that while any number of things could happen, only one will. Consider an observer at the end of time. That observer would remember everything that ever happened (well, they could if they were very well informed, but assume they are). That memory, though, as previously argued, does not determine the outcome of events. It's merely knowledge of the outcome. Posit, for now, that only one universe/timeline exists. If that is the case, than any given action can only have one outcome. In other words, after the event only one thing happened, even though before the event any number of things could have happened. By the definition of determined, that means that those events are undetermined since before they happened there were multiple possible outcomes, even though after they happen only one outcome remains. Someone in the future of that event truly knows what that one outcome is. Now, going back to the idea that God has some way of observing the future, then God also truly knows what the one outcome of a near-future event is, even though that event is, by definition, non-determined. Thus, it is possible for God to truly know a singular outcome, and tell a person (through prophecy), without that event being determined. Of course, the thing that'll really bake your noodle later on is, would you still have broken the vase if God hadn’t said anything?
__________
I want to address the Problem of Pain, or, How can a Loving God allow suffering? There's a lot to be said about that, but I just want to make one point. There have been many times in my life where someone I love has been suffering, and I had it in my power to do something to alleviate that suffering, but did not do so. It's not because I was lazy, or because I enjoyed watching them suffer. Sometimes it's because the suffering teaches a lesson, and I think they'll be a better person if they deal with it on their own. I think that sometimes, as loving people, letting our loved ones grow is more important than alleviating their pain. Sometimes it's because the person did something wrong, and the suffering was fairly earned as punishment. Sometimes it's because, in order to take away the suffering, I'd have to do something worse, either to the person or to someone else. So, there are many reasons why a person who loves someone and can alleviate their suffering might choose not to. This does not make the person unloving or unjust. This is evident from our own experience.
I think I need to go back to the point where I said that letting someone grow is more important than alleviating their suffering. This is, I think, a key point and a stumbling block for many. It may be helpful to consider an example.
I've got a friend who hates math. Doing it causes them a lot of mental anguish, mostly because they're afraid of failure and the consequences of failure, but they just can't get past the class. Now, I might be able to do their math homework for them, which would temporarily relieve their stress...but would do them very little good on the test. They'd end up suffering more in that case, since by doing their homework I've taken away the preparation that would have helped them do better on their test.
Now, hypothetically, if I had enough power I could talk to the school board and get a special waver for my friend so that they don't have to take math. However, is that really what is best for my friend? To start with, they'll never learn the material, but more than that they'll never have overcome this obstacle for themselves. what kind of person does that make them? I think it makes them a poorer, weaker person, and takes away something good and valuable from them. Now, they might not care (they just want out of the math), but nevertheless, making them take the math course is what's best for them.
That's a lot of what I think goes on with God and suffering. He could take it all away, but if He did we'd never have the opportunity to grow or to achieve anything meaningful. He would be robbing us of something essential to our value as human beings. It's important that we struggle and overcome--it's part of what makes us human.
If you don't like that...well, that's probably good. It means you're a sensitive and caring person. Still, I think it's the truth.
My general stance on religion
First, I'll admit I'm not a great theologian. I've never done more then casually read about religious theory, and occasionally listen to long-winded gas bags rant about their view on the matter (from various sides).
Myself, I used to be an atheist. Mostly because I wasn't raised with religion. It just wasn't important to my family. I used to be one of those people that got bitter and angry when religious students did something as a group. And of course the fact that I believe in gender equality makes a bunch of religious pills hard to swallow.
But after a point I realized something. There are so many people claiming 'miracles' and that their faith is the 'one true faith' and all that jazz, while a (substantially smaller group) is up in arms about how everyone is worshipping Santa Claus in the sky.
And I decided "Why the heck do I care? If there's a god, and he's merciful, then he'll have mercy on me and understand why I was a wee bit confused on what religion I should put my trust in. And if he's not merciful, then it's like Russian roulette in finding the right faith, got a 1 in far too many chance! And if he's not there, then it doesn't matter anyway."
So that's why I'm agnostic. I haven't seen any conclusive proof of miracles, or heard any sound logical reasoning for why there must be a god. So instead of worrying about it, I'm going to live my life as the best damn person I can, and trust that if there is some deity that actually cares that they'll care enough to look at my life and not just what name is on the 'deity' line in my character sheet. And if they dont' care, or if there isn't, then at least I did my best to improve the lives of those around me, and that's worth the effort I think.
I just posted, but I wanted to say that I think you're definitely on the right track. I agree that people shouldn't worry so much about "getting it exactly right." The fact of the matter is we won't, since God is so much bigger than us that we almost can't help but having a flawed and incomplete view of Him! The important thing, I think, is to honestly seek Him.
In my religion, we are quite confident that God is merciful. We're also pretty confident that what He desires from us is a personal relationship. He loves us, and wants to express that love to us...and it'd be pretty nice if we'd love Him back. Now, one doesn't need to know everything about a person in order to love them. Just love them! There may be few awkward moments in there where you do something you'd intended to be nice for them, but turns out to be pretty bad, but if you truly love them, listen to them, and are willing to change for them, that'll get sorted out (think of it in terms of a marriage--you might really upset your partner from time to time, but they know you love them, and your love will cause you to seek to rectify your mistake, get to know them better, and avoid similar mistakes in the future). It's a self-correcting problem. If you just keep loving the person, and let that love continue to drive you toward them, you'll get there eventually!
This may sound a bit odd considering my previous posts on this thread, but to clarify, the reason that I apply so much reason to this question is because I want to know God more. My love for Him propels me, and it's important, in the way I express my love, that my reason by driven towards Him. Even if that means that eventually I have to start calling Him Her. :-p
This is not to say that I think I'm wrong. I'm confident in my reasoned understanding of the evidence. I'm just willing to change, since love is always willing to change for its object.
Mainly, that even if we accept your explanation about free will and prophecy (which sounds spot on to me, btw) you still have the basic problem of an all powerful supposedly-loving God sitting down and deciding to make a flawed race that would kill, ****, pillage, murder, massacre, desecrate, hate, etc. This God created humankind knowing full well what his children would do, and at every step he just helped them along. Sure, we had free will, it could have happened differently. But it's really only different in scope from getting your friend drunk as a skunk, giving them the keys to a fully loaded semi, and pointing them towards a busy highway.
And with how little learning we really pass on from generation to generation, I don't think I can even accept that all this strife is for our 'betterment'. That can work on an individual level, but we're playing in a different ballgame here, and moral and ethical lessons don't transfer well.
That's some nice rhetoric you got going there Horatio, but I do have a few beefs with it.
Mainly, that even if we accept your explanation about free will and prophecy (which sounds spot on to me, btw) you still have the basic problem of an all powerful supposedly-loving God sitting down and deciding to make a flawed race that would kill, ****, pillage, murder, massacre, desecrate, hate, etc. This God created humankind knowing full well what his children would do, and at every step he just helped them along. Sure, we had free will, it could have happened differently. But it's really only different in scope from getting your friend drunk as a skunk, giving them the keys to a fully loaded semi, and pointing them towards a busy highway.
And with how little learning we really pass on from generation to generation, I don't think I can even accept that all this strife is for our 'betterment'. That can work on an individual level, but we're playing in a different ballgame here, and moral and ethical lessons don't transfer well.
God didn't create a race that would kill, ****, pillage, etc. He created a race that could do those things. We didn't have to do them. We chose to do them. And we can choose, at any time, to stop. It's just that most people aren't willing to be the first one to stop, since as soon as they do they'll get crushed by all those people out there who will rush to take advantage of them. That is, by the way, the choice of all those other people. God doesn't make them behave that way--He simply allows them to. It's not His fault that people abuse the privilege of choice. He has given indication, however, that He will put a stop to that kind of behavior eventually (see Revelations). He has just chosen, in the mean time, to give us the opportunity to choose for ourselves the better option, thus saving ourselves from the just punishment for our choices. And also giving us the chance to earn just rewards, too! Judgment runs both ways, to punishment and reward.
Edit--Reread the drunk semi argument.
I think you're underestimating how much power we actually have over our own actions. Your analogy makes it seem like our judgment is impaired and we're not really capable of doing anything other than what we're told to do. The fact of the matter is that we have a huge ability to choose our own path, with a correspondingly huge responsibility for where that path goes. That's what Free Will is all about--the power to choose our own actions, and the responsibility for those same actions.
That's some nice rhetoric you got going there Horatio, but I do have a few beefs with it.
Mainly, that even if we accept your explanation about free will and prophecy (which sounds spot on to me, btw) you still have the basic problem of an all powerful supposedly-loving God sitting down and deciding to make a flawed race that would kill, ****, pillage, murder, massacre, desecrate, hate, etc. This God created humankind knowing full well what his children would do, and at every step he just helped them along. Sure, we had free will, it could have happened differently. But it's really only different in scope from getting your friend drunk as a skunk, giving them the keys to a fully loaded semi, and pointing them towards a busy highway.
And with how little learning we really pass on from generation to generation, I don't think I can even accept that all this strife is for our 'betterment'. That can work on an individual level, but we're playing in a different ballgame here, and moral and ethical lessons don't transfer well.
Well, like I mentioned earlier, there's no meaning to taking a certain action if you don't have a choice. Our ability to kill, ****, pillage, etc. gives meaning to our decision not to do those things.
Even if Anu wasn't physically created in that moment, just this emotion and Idea was born.
Built in his Image, to me represents his thought process. Not the actual physical body of Man. Though it evolves and changes, it still remains static. So if we think like God, but just on a smaller scale. Are Idea's don't physically manifest themselves.(Yet.)
The Mind is eternal.
I must have misunderstood your question, because except for the part about my personal background I don't see how my post doesn't give you the "facts that support it being true." Fact: Jesus preached a lot of things about how to live, who He is, and what God wants from us (which implies that God exists). Fact: Jesus predicted his death and said it had to happen that way, and that he would rise again. Fact: Jesus died. Fact: Jesus rose again, just as he said he would. Inference: Jesus's resurrection is a confirmation of everything else he said. Conclusion: God exists, and is as described in the Bible.
Now, you can dispute those facts (and many have), but once you do you are engaging in a debate over things which can be proven or disproven, at least theoretically. This shows that belief can be, and in this case is, a result of reason. And that's what I'm trying to show.
I think at this point, we're just debating in circles. My next question would be "How do you know that they are facts, or even happened exactly as described, or even that the interpertation by the author is correct?"
Also, the Koran (I should learn the correct spelling, but I'm too lazy), gives a different spin on the same events. The Koran explains the events as Jesus being a Prophet, and of the Muslim faith, from my limited understanding of Islam. This doesn't bring up the Buddhist and Hindu interpertation of Christ (which I know even less about) Why is the Christian interpertation of Jesus is the correct one?
Let me also ask you a different question. Do you believe in any type of alternative medicine? If you don't, why not? If you do, why?
I think you're underestimating how much power we actually have over our own actions. Your analogy makes it seem like our judgment is impaired and we're not really capable of doing anything other than what we're told to do. The fact of the matter is that we have a huge ability to choose our own path, with a correspondingly huge responsibility for where that path goes. That's what Free Will is all about--the power to choose our own actions, and the responsibility for those same actions.
It might be a bad metaphor, so I'll try to explain again.
I really don't have a problem with free will or responsibility, I fully accept that part. We have free will, and we are responsible for our own actions. What I take issue with is that God carefully crafted each piece of life, knowing what would happen. Yes, it *could* have happened differently. But being omniscient, He knew that it wouldn't, that our own nature, which He gave us, would cause it to happen.
I don't feel this in any way absolves any of humanity from responsibility for our actions, but I also don't think you can just say 'free will' and absolve God of His responsibility either.
What it comes down to, for me, is that if He created us, and He knew (with a fairly large degree of certainty) what we would do, then He basically set us up from the get-go to be knocked down, just to see if we would rebel against our nature which was given to us by Him.
Is that a bit clearer?
I think at this point, we're just debating in circles.
Let me ask you a different question. Do you believe in any type of alternative medicine? If you don't, why not? If you do, why?
Ah, I think I see the problem. Let me try again
Fact: We have records of the things Jesus did. Fact: We have sufficient fragments from early sources to be confident that our modern record matches the original record. Fact: The original record is close enough to the actual event to be recorded in living memory by actual eyewitnesses. Fact: The type of report that the eyewitnesses provide is within the standards where eyewitness testimony is valid (it's reporting something that happened repeatedly and/or over a long period of time where the witnesses had the opportunity to verify what they saw). Conclusion: What the witnesses reported is true.
Does that answer your question? Because if not, I have no idea what you're trying to get at.
Edit: Reply to Escher
You're assuming that our decisions are caused by our nature. "Given circumstances A and personality B, X decision will be made." That's not what is generally meant by Free Will. Free Will states that we can make any decision we want to make, regardless of whether it fits our previous patterns or not. This is how someone loses 300 lbs, or goes from a "Good Pastor's Kid" to a party animal in college. We are free to change our decisions at any time, regardless of our nature. Thus, God giving us particular proclivities does not dictate our decisions. We are free to act differently than the way that we have a natural tendency to act. It's called "growth," and it is even capable of changing that God-given nature we are born with.
Ah, I think I see the problem. Let me try again
Fact: We have records of the things Jesus did. Fact: We have sufficient fragments from early sources to be confident that our modern record matches the original record. Fact: The original record is close enough to the actual event to be recorded in living memory by actual eyewitnesses. Fact: The type of report that the eyewitnesses provide is within the standards where eyewitness testimony is valid (it's reporting something that happened repeatedly and/or over a long period of time where the witnesses had the opportunity to verify what they saw). Conclusion: What the witnesses reported is true.
Does that answer your question? Because if not, I have no idea what you're trying to get at.
Restating my edits in my previous post, in case you missed them:
The Koran (I should learn the correct spelling, but I'm too lazy), gives a different spin on the same events. The Koran explains the events as Jesus being a Prophet, and of the Muslim faith, from my limited understanding of Islam. This doesn't bring up the Buddhist and Hindu interpertation of Christ (which I know even less about) Why is the Christian interpertation of Jesus is the correct one?
Does that answer your question? Because if not, I have no idea what you're trying to get at.
My point with bringing up Alternative Medicine (Reflexology, Healing Crystals, Homeopathy, ect), is that i'm trying to find out, if you don't believe in any of it, why not, given it has the same type of evidence as you believe in for the Bible. (Eyewitness Testimony).
If you do believe in Alt. Med, then thats a different can of worms.
Restating my edits in my previous post, in case you missed them:
The Koran (I should learn the correct spelling, but I'm too lazy), gives a different spin on the same events. The Koran explains the events as Jesus being a Prophet, and of the Muslim faith, from my limited understanding of Islam. This doesn't bring up the Buddhist and Hindu interpertation of Christ (which I know even less about) Why is the Christian interpertation of Jesus is the correct one?
Generally speaking...because it's best supported by the testimony of the people who were actually there. Islam was founded 600 years later. Why would they have a better idea of what happened than the people who actually spent 3 years walking around with Jesus while he had his earthly ministry? Just sayin'
As for Alternative Medicine--I see no reason to reject those proposed methods immediately. I'd have to familiarize myself with the people who are proposing them before determining if they are trustworthy, not to mention examine their claims. There's a big difference between saying "hey, I used this crystal and I got better one time out of 100" and saying "this guy I know really well died, but came back to life, and we met several times over the next few weeks to have breakfast and discuss theology."
We also accept that this in no way negates free will. Just because God knows what we're going to do doesn't mean we didn't have a choice.
Take those together, and we have a God that plants the Tree of Knowledge knowing, from the beginning, what our free-willed forebear would choose. And *that* is what I have a problem with.
... I think I'm sliding in ranting territory, but this is one of the items on my list of why I'll never accept the Bible (or any of it's related documents, including the Torah, Koran, and those funny gold plates that Mormons have) as Truth without a personal miracle. And I'm pretty sure that I really shouldn't bring up the rest of my list outside of PMs.
Okay, if we first accept that God is all-knowing, and has some rather amazing predictive abilities in some way or another.
We also accept that this in no way negates free will. Just because God knows what we're going to do doesn't mean we didn't have a choice.
Take those together, and we have a God that plants the Tree of Knowledge knowing, from the beginning, what our free-willed forebear would choose. And *that* is what I have a problem with.
... I think I'm sliding in ranting territory, but this is one of the items on my list of why I'll never accept the Bible (or any of it's related documents, including the Torah, Koran, and those funny gold plates that Mormons have) as Truth without a personal miracle. And I'm pretty sure that I really shouldn't bring up the rest of my list outside of PMs.
*Sigh* (Sorry, but this is the 3rd time I think I've said this and been ignored)
He put the tree there, because without it our decisions to follow his will would be completely meaningless, like a robot programmed to say he loves you. If we weren't actually given the choice, then our choices wouldn't mean anything.
Yeah, he knew we'd screw it up, but it was necessary for the creation to have any meaning.
Yeah, he knew we'd screw it up, but it was necessary for the creation to have any meaning.
It might be a personal quibble, but it really grates me the wrong way that there has to be so much 'evil' for our existence to have meaning.
So it might just be a philosophical difference, but I find that basic distilled truth, that God felt our lives were meaningless without evil in the world, to be very troubling.
Generally speaking...because it's best supported by the testimony of the people who were actually there. Islam was founded 600 years later. Why would they have a better idea of what happened than the people who actually spent 3 years walking around with Jesus while he had his earthly ministry? Just sayin'
I have two problem with this.
First, my understanding is that the eyewitness accounts of the events in question (the 4 gospels) were written decades after the events were to have happened.
"It is thought that memory degrades over time, some researchers state that the rate at which eyewitness memory declines is swift, and the drop-off is sharp, in contrast to the more common view that memory degrades slowly and consistently as time passes. The "forgetting curve" of eyewitness memory has been shown to be "Ebbinghausian" in nature: it begins to drop off sharply within 20 minutes following the initial encoding, and continues to do so exponentially until it begins to level off around the second day at a dramatically reduced level of accuracy. And as noted above, eyewitness memory is increasingly susceptible to contamination as time passes." - 'The "General Acceptance" of Eyewitness Testimony Research: A New Survey of the Experts'
Memory gets worse over time. The longer the time between the event happening, and it being written down, the less reliable that testimony is.
As for Alternative Medicine--I see no reason to reject those proposed methods immediately. I'd have to familiarize myself with the people who are proposing them before determining if they are trustworthy, not to mention examine their claims. There's a big difference between saying "hey, I used this crystal and I got better one time out of 100" and saying "this guy I know really well died, but came back to life, and we met several times over the next few weeks to have breakfast and discuss theology."
This would be my second issue with the eyewitness testimony, and why I brought up Alt. Med. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable. Bob, I believe, provided a link for an article that discusses that.
Eyewitness Testimony also leans towards what we believe. Unbiased double-blind studies have shown that which falls under the Alt. Med. does not work. That there is no benefits from their treatments beyond the Placebo Effect. Yet, the eyewitness testimony again and again make glowing claims about the treatments.
If the Apostles believed that Jesus was the Son of God, then there will be bias in their writings toward that belief. The saying "History is written by the winners" also reflects that. If Germany would have won World War II, then the history books would have reflected them being on the side of right, and their opponents (us), as being evil. Whats being said about Iraq is another example.
Eyewitness Testimony is also being shown to be unreliable in court case, since you previously brought up our judicial system. The Innocence Project alone has cleared 214 convicted on Eyewitness Testimony. Thats 214 innocent men who were locked away, in some case for decades, because of eyewitness testimony.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history
Historicity of Christian beliefs
The historicity, teachings, and nature of Jesus are currently debated among Biblical scholars. The earliest New Testament texts which refer to him, Paul's letters, are usually dated in the 50s CE. Paul himself had never met Jesus during his lifetime, but he claimed his visions of Jesus were divine revelations and hence authoritative. Since Paul records very little of Jesus' life and activities, these are of little help in determining facts about Jesus.[16]
Most modern scholars hold that the canonical Gospel accounts were not written until 70 to 110 CE, four to six decades after the crucifixion, although they may have been based on earlier traditions and texts. These accounts were likely to have been written by non-witnesses,[17] and the exact level of the historical accuracy contained in these texts is hotly debated. There are very few non-Christian references to the life of Jesus, and most of these are quite late. Almost all scholars agree, however, that a historical figure named Jesus taught throughout the Galilean countryside c. 30 CE, was believed by his followers to have performed supernatural acts, and was sentenced to death by the Romans possibly for insurrection.[18]
Edit: Actually I just realized this topic has its own article in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
God didn't create a race that would kill, ****, pillage, etc.
Yes it did. If your god if really omniscient, then it knew it was creating a species that would do all of these things. If your god is not omniscient, there's no reason to claim it a god.
I never said God was 100% perfect.
Then why do you call it God?
Yeah, he knew we'd screw it up, but it was necessary for the creation to have any meaning.
If your god is really perfect, then there is nothing it could need, so why would it need for its creation to have any meaning? If your god is not perfect, there's no reason to claim it a god.
I don't understand why him being "necessary" for explaining the universe somehow leads to that conclusion, can you expand on this for me?
It's hard to explain but basically I was taught in church, and many churches still teach this, that god is necessary. Without god, we are nothing except empty shells. We are taught that you cannot have true happiness without god. You cannot have true morality without god. You cannot have anything without god allowing for it. This is simply not true though. Thisarticle explains it better than I.
Let me put it to you this way: If I understood you to a point at which I understood every minutiae of your psyche, I'd be able to predict your reaction to absolutely anything. I could then extrapolate your entire life if I was given the entire set of life event for you. This isn't about "knowing the future" its about humanity being predictable enough that, if you had the understanding, you could simply figure out what would happen. Does that mean you have no free will? No, it just means you're predictable.
The Bible does not say that I am predictable. It says that god knows the future. Not potential outcomes or most likely scenarios, but the exact future. Nothing is hidden from him. 1 John 3:20 is very clear on this. Many other passages make it clear that god knows everything. These are not about deduction but absolute knowledge. The only way for that to happen is if the future is set.
If I programmed (as I am wanton to do as a programmer) a robot to come in every morning and say, "Good morning , I love you. Have a good day." And that was the only choice it had, it could never do anything else, you wouldn't feel loved by that robot. You would know it's just doing that because it doesn't have another choice. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was put there so that humanity's expressions of dedication to God and his commands would have meaning, because they could choose something else (which they did).
However, god knew, before he placed the tree there that we would fall from grace. He also took it upon himself to punish you personally for the crimes of two people who died before you were even thought of. This certainly doesn't sound like a moral way to handle the situation. He did make us with these flaws intentionally. He could have very easily decided that the tree should not be placed there since he knew that it would cause him to punish millions who were not involved.
This all goes back to the predictability of humanity. He may know your going to do it, but he isn't forcing you to do it. There is a big difference between being predictable and being forced to behave a certain way.
I don't believe that we are forced to make certain choices. If the future is known with 100% certainty, then the future must be set. There is no other way for that to be true. If the future is not set then you cannot know with 100% certainty what will happen. Either god knows with 100% certainty everything or he doesn't. The Bible claims he knows with 100% certainty.
God is perfect, and therefore can't be mixed with impurity. As such, he required sacrifices of animals and such to purify the people who worshiped him. He sent his Son so that we could have a way to be pure without the constant sacrifice of animals to keep ourselves pure (a nearly impossible task). Through Jesus' sacrifice, we are constantly purified.
Sounds like a complicated way to handle a problem that could have be resolved with foresight (which he has). God did not need to make us impure beings. He is perfect after all.
Well, I've already addressed this in part. If your arguing people were "predestined" to not believe, then I point you back to the predictability argument I presented above.
That is my argument, and I rebutted above.
If your talking about those who genuinely never heard of Christianity, then I don't believe those people are necessarily condemned, but I can't guarantee they aren't either. It's not my decision to make.
This is one of the sticky points that is not really addressed well. I have heard many different attempts at explaining it and few actually make any sense. Your answer is actually the best I have seen. You don't know and you don't make up a bunch of stuff to make yourself seem smart. A truly smart man knows when he doesn't have the answer.
Well this makes two false assumptions:
1) God wants all his followers to worship him in the same way
Which I don't this is true at all. I find the universe a enormous tribute to God appreciation for things that are all similar still with great variety. Snowflakes for instance.
2) All of God followers are acting according to his will
Which is definately not true.
God does want all his followers to worship in the same way. He actually lays out guidelines for how and when to worship. Those who do not follow are subject to some rather harsh punishments.
I have always suspected that some followers are not acting according to his will. I won't mention Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Kent Hovind, Benny Hinn, and many others are just in it for the money.
I apologize for my own and all of my Christian brothers' and sisters' imperfections. Please don't mistake our flawed behavior for the truth of the way Christianity presents.
No need to apologize. I don't expect perfection; I'm about as far from it as anyone else. I do expect a perfect being to be able to avoid flaws though.
Hope that wasn't too long, I hope that at least sheds some light on the Christian viewpoint of things.
I already know many of the christian viewpoints. I grew up in a christian family. I spent many Sundays in church. One of my roommates actually was studying to be a pastor. He's one of the best sources of information I have ever encountered. It's nice to see your own personal look though. I'm glad you haven't felt the need to assault me with faith. You can't imagine how many times I have been cornered. It's not a good time for anyone involved. I am always open to reasonable discussion.
I must have misunderstood your question, because except for the part about my personal background I don't see how my post doesn't give you the "facts that support it being true." Fact: Jesus preached a lot of things about how to live, who He is, and what God wants from us (which implies that God exists). Fact: Jesus predicted his death and said it had to happen that way, and that he would rise again. Fact: Jesus died. Fact: Jesus rose again, just as he said he would. Inference: Jesus's resurrection is a confirmation of everything else he said. Conclusion: God exists, and is as described in the Bible.
Something I always try to remind people is that whether or not Jesus existed, the teachings were revolutionary at the time and still feel that way now. Love your enemy? That's something many of us have a difficult time with. Turn the other cheek? It's hard even when we know there are no consequences. There are others as well, but in the end the teachings really were revolutionary.
If you will grant, for the moment, that God exists and that the Christian Bible accurately describes Him (and since you seem to be directing a criticism at the Loving Christian God, I think this is a reasonable thing to ask), then I can give an answer to this question.
The basic premise here is that God is neither Just nor Loving if He will condemn us for something that is not our fault. I will accept this premise. It would be hard to say that someone is Just/Loving if they behaved that way.
You claim that sin is not our fault if we did not control the action wherein we sinned. I will accept this premise too. We are not responsible for things we can't control, otherwise it's my fault that some dude in China stubbed his toe.
You claim that we do not control our actions if they are decided by another force. That's also something I can accept. This goes to the definition of what "control" means.
You claim that if God is omniscient, He knows what we will do in the future. That's a definition of omniscience that can be supported, but alternative definitions do exist.
This is mostly accurate. Note that I did not say that our actions are controlled. They are predetermined. Not exactly the same thing.
Finally, you claim that if something is known, then it is determined. This is where you and I must part ways.
You conclude that since an omniscient God must know the future, than that future is determined, and we are therefore not responsible for what happens in it.
I only conclude what the Bible teaches. It is clear that god knows everything. That's a rather encompassing word. Everything includes the future. In fact several times god mentions what will happen in the future and it comes true. He definitely knows the future with certainty.
There are two places where your logic can be addressed. First, one can address the definition of "omniscient." It has been argued that "knowing everything" only means "knowing everything that can be known." This still gives God considerable predictive powers--consider that He knows all circumstances, has a complete mastery of psychology, and can easily predict what we are most likely to do just like any competent and well informed psychologist (or, frankly, anyone who is good at reading people).
God created everything and he knows everything about his creation. He is perfect, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. This does not leave much room for missing details. Either he is all those things or he is not. John 1-14 explains this very well. The logos of god (the Word of God) is how he designed the universe. He knows with certainty how things will play out.
God is also very powerful, so the many prophetic statements in the Bible can be recast as declarations of what God is going to do, rather than true predictions of the future. So, for example, the prophecy that Isaiah gave Hezekiah about Hezekiah's illness...[shortened for brevity]
What about the times when god made absolute claims about the future? Samuel 23:10-12 for just one example.
Even if one accepts your definition of omniscience, that does not automatically mean that the future is determined. This gets into what it means for something to be "determined." It seems that you define "determined" as "can have only one result." But consider this: we know the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo. At this point, it had only one result. Does that mean that, due to our knowledge of the past, the Battle of Waterloo is determined from before it was fought? If so, then you accept that the mere act of memory, which we know exists, destroys Free Will without any need for God! I don't accept that, and I assume you don't either. So, that means that the previous definition of "determined" needs to be amended to take into account the flow of time. Thus, something is "determined" if there is only one possible result before it happens. You drop an egg in Earth's gravitational field, it deterministically falls to the ground. This definition is very important, since it nowhere mentions whether something being known or not deciding whether something is determined. As long as something has multiple possible outcomes before it happens, it is by definition undetermined. Acceptance of this definition is key to my argument, but I think it's a good definition.
It's not my definition though. Omniscient (from Merriam-Webster):
1 : having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight
2 : possessed of universal or complete knowledge
That's pretty clear. It's not "very smart" or "knows lots of stuff." It's "infinitely aware" and "complete knowledge."
The problem with your Waterloo example is you are discussing hindsight and I am discussing foresight. It's more like watching Star Wars and knowing that Vader is Luke's father because you've already seen it. There is no way for the movie to change, it's set.
long explanation of how to see the non-determined future
The problem with your explanation is that the events are being relayed by someone with hindsight. Also, god is everywhere and all knowing. He does not have hindsight nor does he have foresight. Time doesn't flow the same for him (it at all since he is often declared to be timeless as well). He does not rely on a future version of himself to relay information to his past self. That works for Dr Who, but it isn't a good enough explanation for god.
I want to address the Problem of Pain, or, How can a Loving God allow suffering?
I wasn't arguing that god allows suffering. I was arguing that god caused it. There is also a significant difference between some suffering on Earth for a couple of decades and an eternity of torment because I made the wrong choice.
Ah, sorry. I did miss your post in all the blocks of text.
It might be a personal quibble, but it really grates me the wrong way that there has to be so much 'evil' for our existence to have meaning.
So it might just be a philosophical difference, but I find that basic distilled truth, that God felt our lives were meaningless without evil in the world, to be very troubling.
It's not the earth requires evil, it's that it requires choice, which due to satan's influence, allows for the spawning of evil. Also a significant difference.
It's hard to explain but basically I was taught in church, and many churches still teach this, that god is necessary. Without god, we are nothing except empty shells. We are taught that you cannot have true happiness without god. You cannot have true morality without god. You cannot have anything without god allowing for it. This is simply not true though. Thisarticle explains it better than I.
Well whether or not we can have happiness or morality with God is a whole other story.
Not every Christian adheres to the teaching that every little event in the world is under God's direct influence. I don't, and honestly I think that's sort of a laughable position.
My point was that even if he isn't logically necessary to explain the universe, that doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
The Bible does not say that I am predictable. It says that god knows the future. Not potential outcomes or most likely scenarios, but the exact future. Nothing is hidden from him. 1 John 3:20 is very clear on this. Many other passages make it clear that god knows everything. These are not about deduction but absolute knowledge. The only way for that to happen is if the future is set.
However, god knew, before he placed the tree there that we would fall from grace. He also took it upon himself to punish you personally for the crimes of two people who died before you were even thought of. This certainly doesn't sound like a moral way to handle the situation. He did make us with these flaws intentionally. He could have very easily decided that the tree should not be placed there since he knew that it would cause him to punish millions who were not involved.
I don't believe that we are forced to make certain choices. If the future is known with 100% certainty, then the future must be set. There is no other way for that to be true. If the future is not set then you cannot know with 100% certainty what will happen. Either god knows with 100% certainty everything or he doesn't. The Bible claims he knows with 100% certainty.
I don't think I made my point clear. I was saying that God knows you well enough and how you think well enough that he can predict with 100% accuracy what you will do, along with anything and everything in the universe. That doesn't mean the future is set, it means it's predictable.
So yes, God knows everything because for him the future is obviously predictable.
Sounds like a complicated way to handle a problem that could have be resolved with foresight (which he has). God did not need to make us impure beings. He is perfect after all.
Well as a mentioned in a post above, he didn't exactly make us impure. He gave us the ability to choose, and then satan exploited that to create impurity in us, and as I explained, choice is necessary for creation to have meaning.
This is one of the sticky points that is not really addressed well. I have heard many different attempts at explaining it and few actually make any sense. Your answer is actually the best I have seen. You don't know and you don't make up a bunch of stuff to make yourself seem smart. A truly smart man knows when he doesn't have the answer.
Trust me, I think we are both fed up with these "representatives" of Christianity.
God does want all his followers to worship in the same way. He actually lays out guidelines for how and when to worship. Those who do not follow are subject to some rather harsh punishments.
Hmm, to my knowledge this is blatantly false. If your talking about "honoring the Sabbath" that's a completely different story. That's not Christianity and we are not required to honor the Sabbath anymore.
Can you show me what passages say this kind of thing? Because I'm not aware of anything like you are describing.
No need to apologize. I don't expect perfection; I'm about as far from it as anyone else. I do expect a perfect being to be able to avoid flaws though.
Well, if you want my opinion, and I would be completely shocked if anyone else here shared it: I don't think God thinks he is perfect.
Genesis 6:6
"The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain"
God regrets that he had made mankind. Regret is not an emotion of one who never makes mistakes. Someone experiences regret when they feel like they've made a mistake that had poor results. Sounds like God himself isn't on the "perfection bandwagon" that a lot of Christians like to throw him on.
I already know many of the christian viewpoints. I grew up in a christian family. I spent many Sundays in church. One of my roommates actually was studying to be a pastor. He's one of the best sources of information I have ever encountered. It's nice to see your own personal look though. I'm glad you haven't felt the need to assault me with faith. You can't imagine how many times I have been cornered. It's not a good time for anyone involved. I am always open to reasonable discussion.
Trust me, I've often felt like if I could just get all the Christians that act like that and shove them in a room, get on a stage and say:
"*Ahem*
...
Shut up."
Then discussions like this could be more common and maybe we could get some serious communication going. I'm terribly sorry you have to suffer through that, and I'm glad you find our conversation to be worthwhile.
Not every Christian adheres to the teaching that every little event in the world is under God's direct influence. I don't, and honestly I think that's sort of a laughable position.
I think this is one of the problems with religions in general. No two people interpret their faith the same way. Shouldn't a universal constant be constant? I'm not questioning your position so much as questioning everyone else's. I know many who don't agree with you. For the life of me, I can't remember what my last pastor's beliefs were called but he believed that god had already determined who was going to heaven and hell. We could still make basic choices, but when it came to the afterlife god already knew who was going there. I know he followed the teachings of someone who's name started with a D.
My point was that even if he isn't logically necessary to explain the universe, that doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
That is true. It isn't an either-or type of proof which I don't think we could establish.
I don't think I made my point clear. I was saying that God knows you well enough and how you think well enough that he can predict with 100% accuracy what you will do, along with anything and everything in the universe. That doesn't mean the future is set, it means it's predictable.
So yes, God knows everything because for him the future is obviously predictable.
It's a matter of semantics. Either god knows or he doesn't know. If we set the chance of predicting the future at 100%, then he knows the future. Besides, even if we take out everything in the universe that isn't me, he still knew what my decision would be and that I would be condemned to burn for eternity. A loving being would do what he can to be just and caring. Condemning billions to torment for eternity for a decision they made in a very short amount of time is not just. The punishment definitely does not fit the crime. I'm not sure if it is really tantamount to being considered a crime.
Well as a mentioned in a post above, he didn't exactly make us impure. He gave us the ability to choose, and then satan exploited that to create impurity in us, and as I explained, choice is necessary for creation to have meaning.
He did make us impure. If he didn't make us pure, then the only other option is to be made impure. He also created the angels did he not? He knew that satan was going to fall from grace and take humanity with him. By god's own actions, he condemned billions to eternal torment. This certainly doesn't sound like the actions of a caring, loving being. God knew the consequences of putting the tree in the garden. He knew that Eve would make the choice to eat from the tree. He knew that Adam would follow. God knew, from the beginning, that we would fall from grace. He added temptation. He knew that his creation could not avoid giving in to that temptation.
Trust me, I think we are both fed up with these "representatives" of Christianity.
There are a great many that I respect. My closest friend is a die hard christian and we get along wonderfully. One of my roommates was going to be a pastor and we get along great. I think that they represent christianity far better than any of the ones who get air time. For some reason when you get someone to talk about their faith (or lack thereof) in front of a microphone of camera they decide it's time to be the worst representative they can be. This isn't 100% true, but it certainly seems like a decent wager.
Hmm, to my knowledge this is blatantly false. If your talking about "honoring the Sabbath" that's a completely different story. That's not Christianity and we are not required to honor the Sabbath anymore.
Can you show me what passages say this kind of thing? Because I'm not aware of anything like you are describing.
Deuteronomy 12:32
Proverbs 30:5-6
Leviticus 10:1-3 describes the punishment he gave for two followers that did not follow his instructions explicitly and goes on to imply that the fate should be the same for anyone else who does the same.
1 Corinthians 14:26 makes it clear that all christians should be worshiping the same way.
I'm sure I can find more if I look hard enough. I have even heard some people say that the only acceptable prayer is the Lord's Prayer. Of course they are taking it out of context because there are many prayers given throughout the Bible and god seems to accept most of them.
Well, if you want my opinion, and I would be completely shocked if anyone else here shared it: I don't think God thinks he is perfect.
Many believe that Psalms 18:30 and 19:7 demonstrate that god makes the claim that he is perfect. II Samuel 22:31 is another example. Psalm 33:4 is another.
God cannot be perfect if he had to reorganize the church because he made a mistake (Hebrews 8:6-7). He cannot be perfect if he needed to kill everyone except 8 people so he could start over with humanity. He cannot be perfect if he needed to send his son to take on the sins of humanity because initial choice failed and the reset with Noah failed. He will need to send his son a second time because he knows that his mistakes are going to be the end of everything.
Genesis 6:6
"The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain"
God regrets that he had made mankind. Regret is not an emotion of one who never makes mistakes. Someone experiences regret when they feel like they've made a mistake that had poor results. Sounds like God himself isn't on the "perfection bandwagon" that a lot of Christians like to throw him on.
I was going to mention that as well. I like discussing christianity with someone who has actually read his Bible and makes an attempt to understand it. Too many people think that they can simply regurgitate what they are told. This holds true for everything: religion, politics, science, etc. If people would actually do some homework, they'd find that the people they listen to might be wrong.
Trust me, I've often felt like if I could just get all the Christians that act like that and shove them in a room, get on a stage and say:
"*Ahem*
...
Shut up."
Then discussions like this could be more common and maybe we could get some serious communication going. I'm terribly sorry you have to suffer through that, and I'm glad you find our conversation to be worthwhile.
Wouldn't that be nice. I would like to do that with many atheists as well. I don't think I have all the answers, in fact I think I have very few. I do think that there are too many that give the rest of us a bad name.
I'm always up for learning something new. Sometimes I think I understand something and then someone puts a new twist on it and it takes on a whole new meaning. I remember that I had a hard time understanding John 1:1 until someone explained that the word "Word" in this case was from the Greek "logos," which means something much different. I had been told that "Word" simply meant "God." That is very confusing and makes the passage completely meaningless. "Logos" makes much more sense and explains everything clearly. I spent many years seeking that answer.
The problem with your Waterloo example is you are discussing hindsight and I am discussing foresight. It's more like watching Star Wars and knowing that Vader is Luke's father because you've already seen it. There is no way for the movie to change, it's set.
The problem with your explanation is that the events are being relayed by someone with hindsight. Also, god is everywhere and all knowing. He does not have hindsight nor does he have foresight. Time doesn't flow the same for him (it at all since he is often declared to be timeless as well). He does not rely on a future version of himself to relay information to his past self. That works for Dr Who, but it isn't a good enough explanation for god.
The main point I was trying to make is that it is possible for something to be known without it being predetermined. I then went on to make an argument for how the future might be known without it being predetermined. Your statement that God is effectively "outside time" is another such argument--if God is outside time, then His knowledge isn't really predictive. He's just observing events from a perspective we don't have access to.
I wasn't arguing that god allows suffering. I was arguing that god caused it. There is also a significant difference between some suffering on Earth for a couple of decades and an eternity of torment because I made the wrong choice.
Would you make the argument that a parent is responsible for the harmful acts of their child? If that's the case, no-one should ever have children, since it is guaranteed that at some point every child will do something to harm another person. The mere act of procreating is an assault on every other person in existence, or so it would seem.
If a parent is not responsible for the harmful acts of their child (I mean, responsible solely because they created that child), because, say, they did everything they could to raise the child responsibly, provide for them, teach them the difference between right and wrong, but the kid still did something bad (and hey, guess what, every child which such an upbringing will cause harm at one point or another--that's a fact of life), then one can see God in the same light. He created us because it is good that we had life, even if He knows in advance that we're not perfect. Imperfect beings deserve to exist, too. That's a loving response to an unlovable world, and frankly I'm glad for it. I'm not perfect, and if God demanded perfection for existence, I wouldn't be here. I think it is much more loving for God to allow me to exist, even though I mess up from time to time, than for Him to just decide I'm not worth existing.
Now, is it right to punish us for the sins that He knows we're going to commit? Well, again, I ask if it's right for a parent to punish their child for their acts of wrongdoing? After all, a parent knows that at some point their child is going to misbehave. The parent could have prevented that misbehavior by never having the child. Is it therefore unjust for the parent to punish the child, simply because the parent had it within their power to prevent the behavior that it being punished?
I think the key point is that God did not create us for punishment, in the same way that a parent did not have a child to punish the child. Punishment will occur, and both God and the parent know this going in, but that is a side-effect of creation, not the purpose. The child (and we) were created because the parent (and God) wanted the child (the world), because the parent already loved the child (the world). Disclaimer--I assume that the parent is a good, loving parent, and that they deliberately set out to have a child, since we are assuming that God is a good, loving God, and deliberately set out to create the world.
To continue, a parent doesn't go into having a child with the thought "I'm doing this so I can whup this kid when he gets out of line." No, the parent goes into it with the idea of "I'm going to love and cherish this life, teach it about the world, watch it grow, mature, and become something beautiful, and nurture a loving relationship with it for our mutual joy." Of course, any reasonable parent will also consider that they will at some point need to punish this child, and they need to accept that burden (it is hard to punish something you love) if they're going to go ahead and have a kid, but that does not mean in any way that they caused the harm that the child will do! The same thing applies to God. Yes, He knew going in that we would sin, but He didn't need omniscience to know that! It was going to happen eventually, and He accepted the burden of having to punish what He loves--but that does not mean He caused the evil that He must punish, any more than it's a parent's fault that the child pulled their playmate's hair, and now the parent must put the child in the corner. Despite the fact that the parent knows that, at some point, the child is going to do something of the sort (they might not pull their playmate's hair, but they will misbehave), that doesn't mean that they're responsible for that misbehavior.
I think this is one of the problems with religions in general. No two people interpret their faith the same way. Shouldn't a universal constant be constant? I'm not questioning your position so much as questioning everyone else's. I know many who don't agree with you. For the life of me, I can't remember what my last pastor's beliefs were called but he believed that god had already determined who was going to heaven and hell. We could still make basic choices, but when it came to the afterlife god already knew who was going there. I know he followed the teachings of someone who's name started with a D.
I believe your thinking of the term "predestination." Also, just because the universal is a constant, doesn't mean that the interpreters are. Something as complicated as God can't possibly be understood the same way by different people, that doesn't mean he's not consistent.
It's a matter of semantics. Either god knows or he doesn't know. If we set the chance of predicting the future at 100%, then he knows the future. Besides, even if we take out everything in the universe that isn't me, he still knew what my decision would be and that I would be condemned to burn for eternity. A loving being would do what he can to be just and caring. Condemning billions to torment for eternity for a decision they made in a very short amount of time is not just. The punishment definitely does not fit the crime. I'm not sure if it is really tantamount to being considered a crime.
Well, I'll agree it is semantics. But, unlike what some like to believe, semantics can be a very important factor. In this case it is. There is a vast difference between predictability and destiny.
Destiny means that no matter what decision you make, what path you walk, it all ends in the same way. "All roads lead to Rome."
Predictability means that various paths lead to various conclusions. Just because which path you choose is obvious to someone else doesn't mean that you are doomed to a certain conclusion.
As far as punishment fitting the crime. I don't take that asinine traditional viewpoint of hell. All that hellfire and brimstone stuff is fine and dandy for symbolic meanings in prophecy, but when it comes down to reality, here's what I think:
God can't be in the presence of sin. Therefore, there must be an eternal place for unrepentant sinners to reside away from God. In my opinion, merely being completely without the presence of God is the torment. You don't need to be tortured or any of that crap. It's not about "getting punished." That's the wrong way of thinking about it that Christians have perpetuated for way too long. Those people aren't being "punished" they are being put where they have to go because they can't be in the presence of God. They aren't being intentionally tormented, the suffering is a byproduct of being separated from God.
He did make us impure. If he didn't make us pure, then the only other option is to be made impure. He also created the angels did he not? He knew that satan was going to fall from grace and take humanity with him. By god's own actions, he condemned billions to eternal torment. This certainly doesn't sound like the actions of a caring, loving being. God knew the consequences of putting the tree in the garden. He knew that Eve would make the choice to eat from the tree. He knew that Adam would follow. God knew, from the beginning, that we would fall from grace. He added temptation. He knew that his creation could not avoid giving in to that temptation.
I won't really argue here. I agree with most of what you said, but I'll reiterate there is a critical difference between Destiny and Predictability.
There are a great many that I respect. My closest friend is a die hard christian and we get along wonderfully. One of my roommates was going to be a pastor and we get along great. I think that they represent christianity far better than any of the ones who get air time. For some reason when you get someone to talk about their faith (or lack thereof) in front of a microphone of camera they decide it's time to be the worst representative they can be. This isn't 100% true, but it certainly seems like a decent wager.
Amen to this. Sad how the world works like this.
Deuteronomy 12:32
Proverbs 30:5-6
Leviticus 10:1-3 describes the punishment he gave for two followers that did not follow his instructions explicitly and goes on to imply that the fate should be the same for anyone else who does the same.
1 Corinthians 14:26 makes it clear that all christians should be worshiping the same way.
I'm sure I can find more if I look hard enough. I have even heard some people say that the only acceptable prayer is the Lord's Prayer. Of course they are taking it out of context because there are many prayers given throughout the Bible and god seems to accept most of them.
Well, interesting verses, but that's not accurate. The first two simply warn about adding to the teachings of God, not really commands on how to worship.
The Leviticus scripture deals with Old Testament worship which is a completely different story. Christianity doesn't function like that, that's Ancient Judaism.
Finally, in the 1 Corinthians scripture, I think you're missing the keyword: or.
It's a list of possibilities, suggestions if you will, not requirements.
As far as the "rules of Christianity" goes. I'd suggest Matthew 22: 36-40 Pretty much all of Christianity can be extrapolated from these two commandments.
Many believe that Psalms 18:30 and 19:7 demonstrate that god makes the claim that he is perfect. II Samuel 22:31 is another example. Psalm 33:4 is another.
God cannot be perfect if he had to reorganize the church because he made a mistake (Hebrews 8:6-7). He cannot be perfect if he needed to kill everyone except 8 people so he could start over with humanity. He cannot be perfect if he needed to send his son to take on the sins of humanity because initial choice failed and the reset with Noah failed. He will need to send his son a second time because he knows that his mistakes are going to be the end of everything.
Well, as you know you aren't going to get arguments from me. I don't know if he's going to need to do anything else after Jesus. Maybe he will, maybe not. I don't believe so, but if it turns out he does, than God knows what's going on with that way more than me.
I was going to mention that as well. I like discussing christianity with someone who has actually read his Bible and makes an attempt to understand it. Too many people think that they can simply regurgitate what they are told. This holds true for everything: religion, politics, science, etc. If people would actually do some homework, they'd find that the people they listen to might be wrong.
I am flattered and humbled by your compliments, thank you. I am impressed myself with the command you have of Scripture (especially as a non-believer)
Wouldn't that be nice. I would like to do that with many atheists as well. I don't think I have all the answers, in fact I think I have very few. I do think that there are too many that give the rest of us a bad name.
I think a truly wise man is one who first accepts that he knows nothing, then goes from there. I guarantee that anyone who has all the answers is wrong.
I'm always up for learning something new. Sometimes I think I understand something and then someone puts a new twist on it and it takes on a whole new meaning. I remember that I had a hard time understanding John 1:1 until someone explained that the word "Word" in this case was from the Greek "logos," which means something much different. I had been told that "Word" simply meant "God." That is very confusing and makes the passage completely meaningless. "Logos" makes much more sense and explains everything clearly. I spent many years seeking that answer.
Oh definitely. I really want to learn Hebrew/Biblical Greek. Those are the original languages of the Bible, and I believe that if anyone is to honestly and truly understand the meaning of the Bible, it'd have to be done in those languages. Way too much is lost in translation.
I am throughly enjoying our conversation, I hope you feel the same!
The main point I was trying to make is that it is possible for something to be known without it being predetermined. I then went on to make an argument for how the future might be known without it being predetermined. Your statement that God is effectively "outside time" is another such argument--if God is outside time, then His knowledge isn't really predictive. He's just observing events from a perspective we don't have access to.
Predicting the past is very easy. You made the claim that he can predict the future. The only way to know with 100% certainty what will happen is for it to be predetermined. The only way for something to not be predetermined is for anyone to not have 100% chance of predicting the outcome. Even if that chance is 99.999...% or higher, so long as it never reaches 100% then the future would not be set.
The claim that god is outside of time is an argument made by christains. It alleviates the problem of answering the question: "What was before god?"
Would you make the argument that a parent is responsible for the harmful acts of their child? If that's the case, no-one should ever have children, since it is guaranteed that at some point every child will do something to harm another person. The mere act of procreating is an assault on every other person in existence, or so it would seem.
I would make the argument that a parent that gives their child two choices, one of which will kill him (and that is the stated outcome of eating from the tree), and the parent knows with 100% certainty that the child will choose the path of self-destruction then the parent is at fault.
This isn't an "at sometime" argument. God knew full well what would happen. He predicted with 100% certainty that Eve would take from the tree. He could have simply not placed the tree there. He could have altered his punishment, knowing what would be most effective.
If a parent is not responsible for the harmful acts of their child (I mean, responsible solely because they created that child), because, say, they did everything they could to raise the child responsibly, provide for them, teach them the difference between right and wrong, but the kid still did something bad (and hey, guess what, every child which such an upbringing will cause harm at one point or another--that's a fact of life), then one can see God in the same light. He created us because it is good that we had life, even if He knows in advance that we're not perfect. Imperfect beings deserve to exist, too. That's a loving response to an unlovable world, and frankly I'm glad for it. I'm not perfect, and if God demanded perfection for existence, I wouldn't be here. I think it is much more loving for God to allow me to exist, even though I mess up from time to time, than for Him to just decide I'm not worth existing.
The reason why this doesn't hold up is because parents cannot predict or know with 100% certainty what their children will do or be exposed to. The parents can only do the best they can with what they've got. Parents that are neglectful are held accountable for their actions. Most societies allow parents some leeway when it comes to making mistakes even when those mistakes might endanger the children. When the parents know with a reasonable amount of certainty that allowing their children to do somethings that will be harmful, the parent is held accountable.
Now, is it right to punish us for the sins that He knows we're going to commit? Well, again, I ask if it's right for a parent to punish their child for their acts of wrongdoing? After all, a parent knows that at some point their child is going to misbehave. The parent could have prevented that misbehavior by never having the child. Is it therefore unjust for the parent to punish the child, simply because the parent had it within their power to prevent the behavior that it being punished?
The difference here is two-fold. First, the Bible states that we are all punished for the sins of two people. Two examples are painful childbirth and death. Second, since god already knows what we are going to do, he already knows if the punishment is worth it. Punishment is meant to be a deterrent to further crimes. If the punishment isn't going to work, then why use it at all. For example, we don't tell murderers to write "I will not kill" on the blackboard 100 times. That punishment is just going to work. We try to remove them from society in one way or another. Think about the punishment the serpent got. It is condemned to crawl on its belly. What kind of serpent doesn't crawl on its belly? Not really a fitting punishment for bringing down the entire human race.
I believe your thinking of the term "predestination." Also, just because the universal is a constant, doesn't mean that the interpreters are. Something as complicated as God can't possibly be understood the same way by different people, that doesn't mean he's not consistent.
It's hard to argue god's consistency because we don't have all the information on how and why he makes his decisions. The same would hold true for any humans as well. I was referring to a Universal Constant which is an unchanging thing. This means that there shouldn't be millions of different interpretations on The Word. There should be one interpretation. It's okay if a messenger comes forth and adds to or changes things (and Jesus would have been that messenger). It's not okay when people think they speak for god and make adjustments based on their desires. There should be no question on what is being told. Even the disciples had a difficult time with Jesus' parables (sometimes I wonder if they had a collective IQ of 6). Some of the parables require some thought, but most really don't. The blind leading the blind parable is easy enough to understand. Going the extra mile (Matthew 5:41) is probably a bit harder.
Well, I'll agree it is semantics. But, unlike what some like to believe, semantics can be a very important factor. In this case it is. There is a vast difference between predictability and destiny.
True, but once you hit 100%, the two become synonymous.
Destiny means that no matter what decision you make, what path you walk, it all ends in the same way. "All roads lead to Rome."
Predictability means that various paths lead to various conclusions. Just because which path you choose is obvious to someone else doesn't mean that you are doomed to a certain conclusion.
When something is 100% predictable, it means that your decisions are already determined.
My roommate, the almost-pastor, also doesn't believe that god knows everything. He believes that god can see all possible outcomes and he knows the most likely choices you will make. He can be wrong, and the Bible supports this, but he is usually right. I can accept this as it still gives me free will and allows for god to be nearly omniscient.
As far as punishment fitting the crime. I don't take that asinine traditional viewpoint of hell. All that hellfire and brimstone stuff is fine and dandy for symbolic meanings in prophecy, but when it comes down to reality...
I think that the example Jesus gave may have been another parable that many decided should be taken literally.
...here's what I think:
God can't be in the presence of sin. Therefore, there must be an eternal place for unrepentant sinners to reside away from God. In my opinion, merely being completely without the presence of God is the torment. You don't need to be tortured or any of that crap. It's not about "getting punished." That's the wrong way of thinking about it that Christians have perpetuated for way too long. Those people aren't being "punished" they are being put where they have to go because they can't be in the presence of God. They aren't being intentionally tormented, the suffering is a byproduct of being separated from God.
The pastor I mentioned before says pretty much the same thing. You may not be literally burning with fire, but you are burning without god's glory. This explanation is much better but unfortunately it doesn't fit very well with what it taught.
Well, interesting verses, but that's not accurate. The first two simply warn about adding to the teachings of God, not really commands on how to worship.
They do say that you shouldn't change what god has commanded. God gave some very clear instructions on worship in Leviticus.
The Leviticus scripture deals with Old Testament worship which is a completely different story. Christianity doesn't function like that, that's Ancient Judaism.
The rules weren't changed though. There is some debate over Paul's words and exactly who they were directed to. If the rules were changed, then why didn't Jesus just make it clear. The closest we have is Jesus saying that what goes into the mouth isn't what makes us unclean, it's what comes out.
Finally, in the 1 Corinthians scripture, I think you're missing the keyword: or.
It's a list of possibilities, suggestions if you will, not requirements.
When I read it, and all of Paul's writings, he is trying to unify the church into a single way of worship. He speaks for god, or at least he believes he speaks for god. That's my take on it anyway.
As far as the "rules of Christianity" goes. I'd suggest Matthew 22: 36-40 Pretty much all of Christianity can be extrapolated from these two commandments.
If only everyone would at least attempt the second, I think this world would be a much better place.
Well, as you know you aren't going to get arguments from me. I don't know if he's going to need to do anything else after Jesus. Maybe he will, maybe not. I don't believe so, but if it turns out he does, than God knows what's going on with that way more than me.
I was referring to the Second Coming mentioned in Revelation.
I am flattered and humbled by your compliments, thank you. I am impressed myself with the command you have of Scripture (especially as a non-believer)
Like I mentioned earlier, I came to my decision after several years of trying to figure things out. My decision didn't come easy. I actually tried several times to become christian. When I finally made the decision to read the Bible, I read each book several times. Generally each one got at least 3 readings. The first was to get an overview of the topic. The second was to take notes and write questions. The third was to see if I could answer any of those questions or at least find reasonable answers to them. Anything left over was directed to several christian leaders I have a lot of respect for. I didn't read it with the intention of disproving anything. I read it to learn. I think that many people, especially christian, should take a similar approach. I remember one Sunday in church a few years ago, I was reading before services began. The pastor and I had talked a bit before he went up to begin services and he asked "How many of you have your Bibles?" Most hands went up. He then asked "How many of you have read them?" A few less hands went up. He then asked "Does anyone know why my resident non-believer is reading and taking notes while the rest of you probably can't tell me what Deuteronomy is about?" No one raised their hands. Nothing changed. The next week was the same story. I was reading while they were chit-chatting.
I think a truly wise man is one who first accepts that he knows nothing, then goes from there. I guarantee that anyone who has all the answers is wrong.
I try to remember that the more I know, the more I realize I don't know much.
Oh definitely. I really want to learn Hebrew/Biblical Greek. Those are the original languages of the Bible, and I believe that if anyone is to honestly and truly understand the meaning of the Bible, it'd have to be done in those languages. Way too much is lost in translation.
This reminds me of a funny story (it's funny to me anyway). We have a local celebrity pastor who claims to know Greek. Well pastor Mark, the one I keep talking about, decided one day that he would test this. Mark opened up a Greek Bible and asked the other pastor if he would lead them in services. Mark chose one of the Gospels. When they were done, Mark took the Bible back and said, "Oops, that's not one of the Gospels, that's a completely different book." Mark didn't out him in front of everyone and has since said that the tactic was wrong because he required him to lie. I find it kinda funny and sad at the same time.
I am throughly enjoying our conversation, I hope you feel the same!
I am. I always enjoy discussing the big three taboo topics (sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll; I mean sex, politics, and religion). I think that the topics should never be off limits, only certain people should.
It's hard to argue god's consistency because we don't have all the information on how and why he makes his decisions. The same would hold true for any humans as well. I was referring to a Universal Constant which is an unchanging thing. This means that there shouldn't be millions of different interpretations on The Word. There should be one interpretation. It's okay if a messenger comes forth and adds to or changes things (and Jesus would have been that messenger). It's not okay when people think they speak for god and make adjustments based on their desires. There should be no question on what is being told. Even the disciples had a difficult time with Jesus' parables (sometimes I wonder if they had a collective IQ of 6). Some of the parables require some thought, but most really don't. The blind leading the blind parable is easy enough to understand. Going the extra mile (Matthew 5:41) is probably a bit harder.
Well, I agree that there is only one correct interpretation. However, that doesn't stop there from being a bunch of incorrect ones. I would never even begin to entertain the thought that all of my interpretations are correct, but I've got to try.
True, but once you hit 100%, the two become synonymous.
When something is 100% predictable, it means that your decisions are already determined.
My roommate, the almost-pastor, also doesn't believe that god knows everything. He believes that god can see all possible outcomes and he knows the most likely choices you will make. He can be wrong, and the Bible supports this, but he is usually right. I can accept this as it still gives me free will and allows for god to be nearly omniscient.
Hmm, I still feel like there's a difference, but I don't really have a better way of explaining it, I suppose those semantics just mean more to me. However, I'd be willing to accept your roommate's explanation as well.
I think that the example Jesus gave may have been another parable that many decided should be taken literally.
The pastor I mentioned before says pretty much the same thing. You may not be literally burning with fire, but you are burning without god's glory. This explanation is much better but unfortunately it doesn't fit very well with what it taught.
I'm sorry, but it doesn't fit very well with what exactly?
They do say that you shouldn't change what god has commanded. God gave some very clear instructions on worship in Leviticus.
The rules weren't changed though. There is some debate over Paul's words and exactly who they were directed to. If the rules were changed, then why didn't Jesus just make it clear. The closest we have is Jesus saying that what goes into the mouth isn't what makes us unclean, it's what comes out.
When I read it, and all of Paul's writings, he is trying to unify the church into a single way of worship. He speaks for god, or at least he believes he speaks for god. That's my take on it anyway.
The rules weren't changed as much as just alleviated. I mean Jesus boiled down the entire religion to two rules. If everything extends from those it's a simple matter:
Does playing classical style music in worship to God show love for God? Yes. (It's okay)
Does playing rock style music in worship to God show love for God? Yes. (It's okay)
etc.
I really don't think we have specific, still applicable, instructions on how to worship God, just that we do it in a way which expresses a love and respect for God.
If only everyone would at least attempt the second, I think this world would be a much better place.
Wouldn't it though? Sadly, all we can do is hope to do our best for that and hope that others decide it's a good way to live.
I was referring to the Second Coming mentioned in Revelation.
Oh! I see, I had lumped that up with the first coming of Jesus as God's most recent "world patch"
Like I mentioned earlier, I came to my decision after several years of trying to figure things out. My decision didn't come easy. I actually tried several times to become christian. When I finally made the decision to read the Bible, I read each book several times. Generally each one got at least 3 readings. The first was to get an overview of the topic. The second was to take notes and write questions. The third was to see if I could answer any of those questions or at least find reasonable answers to them. Anything left over was directed to several christian leaders I have a lot of respect for. I didn't read it with the intention of disproving anything. I read it to learn. I think that many people, especially christian, should take a similar approach. I remember one Sunday in church a few years ago, I was reading before services began. The pastor and I had talked a bit before he went up to begin services and he asked "How many of you have your Bibles?" Most hands went up. He then asked "How many of you have read them?" A few less hands went up. He then asked "Does anyone know why my resident non-believer is reading and taking notes while the rest of you probably can't tell me what Deuteronomy is about?" No one raised their hands. Nothing changed. The next week was the same story. I was reading while they were chit-chatting.
Facinating! Well I'm glad you had the clarity of mind to at least explore the other side. Often there's too many misconceptions between these sides. This debate could use more people like you!
I try to remember that the more I know, the more I realize I don't know much.
Amen to that. (No pun intended)
This reminds me of a funny story (it's funny to me anyway). We have a local celebrity pastor who claims to know Greek. Well pastor Mark, the one I keep talking about, decided one day that he would test this. Mark opened up a Greek Bible and asked the other pastor if he would lead them in services. Mark chose one of the Gospels. When they were done, Mark took the Bible back and said, "Oops, that's not one of the Gospels, that's a completely different book." Mark didn't out him in front of everyone and has since said that the tactic was wrong because he required him to lie. I find it kinda funny and sad at the same time.
I lol'd. (I also /facepalmed)
I am. I always enjoy discussing the big three taboo topics (sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll; I mean sex, politics, and religion). I think that the topics should never be off limits, only certain people should.
Awesome! (What was that about drugs and rock 'n' roll? <.< jk) And I totally agree!
If you look at a 3d box you get a cube. A 4d box is another cube that is around the 3d cube. You keep adding d's and you get Infinite. The being that can exist solely in this #d will see and know all without any effort.
Mmm, I wouldn't try the dimension argument, not a good one. It's a massive problem, one that is even causing things like String Theory to become more and more questionable. There isn't even a conceptual possibility of anything past the 10th dimension.
etc
Well, I agree that there is only one correct interpretation. However, that doesn't stop there from being a bunch of incorrect ones. I would never even begin to entertain the thought that all of my interpretations are correct, but I've got to try.
So what happens if you failed to understand something, would you still get into heaven? What if you failed to keep the Sabbath holy because you misunderstood something Jesus said? Would god forgive you and allow you in? Is that any different than me misunderstanding the Bible and concluding that it is a bunch of fairy tales? Should I be punished for eternity because I have human failings that he instilled in me.
Hmm, I still feel like there's a difference, but I don't really have a better way of explaining it, I suppose those semantics just mean more to me. However, I'd be willing to accept your roommate's explanation as well.
You and I are not alone on this. Most christians have your view point and most atheists share mine. I like my roommates explanation because it covers just about everything. The only thing it doesn't address is the omniscience. He believes that the terminology needed at that time made omniscience seem valid because that's how things needed to be explained to the people at the time.
I'm sorry, but it doesn't fit very well with what exactly?
Hell is described in these passages:
Matthew 13:42
Matthew 25:41
Mark 9:46
Luke 16:24
Revelation 14:10
Revelation 20:15
I know there's more, but these passages make hell seem like a specific place of actual fire. I did find some that could have been interpreted differently. I know that there are several in the Old Testament and a few in the New that make Hell seem more as you described.
The rules weren't changed as much as just alleviated. I mean Jesus boiled down the entire religion to two rules. If everything extends from those it's a simple matter:
Does playing classical style music in worship to God show love for God? Yes. (It's okay)
Does playing rock style music in worship to God show love for God? Yes. (It's okay)
etc.
This would certainly make worshiping him easier. If you needed to stick to the Old Testament rules, you wouldn't be able to do much other than worship. If you are restricted to only worship then you are very much the automaton that you feel god does not want.
I really don't think we have specific, still applicable, instructions on how to worship God, just that we do it in a way which expresses a love and respect for God.
That does open up a can of worms though. What you find to be a valid way to worship may not be for someone else. Many people kill in the name of their god and they feel that this is one of the strongest forms of worship. Are they right or wrong?
Oh! I see, I had lumped that up with the first coming of Jesus as God's most recent "world patch"
There's a funny software joke in there but I never bothered to learn how they number software releases.
Facinating! Well I'm glad you had the clarity of mind to at least explore the other side. Often there's too many misconceptions between these sides. This debate could use more people like you!
I think christianity could use more people like me ;) Honestly, what I would like to see is that those of faith take time to understand the teachings and read their canons. I would like those who want to disagree with them to also take time to read and understand their canons. I don't generally debate muslims or buddhists because I don't understand what they are talking about so there is no way for me to understand what I'm talking about. I am going to be spending some time learning buddhism. My boss is buddhist and she thinks I have a buddhist mentality. I have been told that I would make a great christian, buddhist, and muslim so far. I wonder what qualities they are all seeing. I would think that the whole not believing would be a deterrent.
I lol'd. (I also /facepalmed)
I remember now the denomination of Pastor Mark: Calvinist (I know it doesn't start with a D or even have a D in it).
The Pastor that he was testing is Casey Treat. He is a televangelist through and through. I find that the smaller churches tend to have a better grasp on faith because they aren't focused on celebrity status and gathering more money.
Awesome! (What was that about drugs and rock 'n' roll? <.< jk) And I totally agree!
The only thing that I nave to keep in mind is that there is a time and place for everything including conversations. So long as I show respect, I have a great time and learn a lot. I also just like arguing. Sometimes I argue just because I can.
Good question, I assumed some of the bigger posters like Horatio, Bob Loblaw, and Dispaminite were either away or thinking, not sure exactly.
I tend to work long days sometimes. Right now my short days are 8 hours long while my long days are 12 hours. I also like to help one of my roommates with her two children (she's married but her husband doesn't help as much as he should). I also like to spend my free time reading up on diabetes (I have it), grilling (I love it), and playing other games like Munchkin and all its derivatives. I also spend about an hour or two every day working on my DnD campaign. When all that's done, I've got some Rock Band that needs attention. I'm practicing all the instruments so I can fill in any time. I'm getting good enough on medium to sing and guitar at the same time. Can't do that with drums yet but I will. Maybe if the release some Phil Collins I would have a role model.
So what happens if you failed to understand something, would you still get into heaven? What if you failed to keep the Sabbath holy because you misunderstood something Jesus said? Would god forgive you and allow you in? Is that any different than me misunderstanding the Bible and concluding that it is a bunch of fairy tales? Should I be punished for eternity because I have human failings that he instilled in me.
Sure you'd be forgiven and let in, assuming you had accepted the salvation offered by Jesus. There's only one thing that's not forgivable said in Matthew 12: 31-32.
"And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."
So blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which I'd imagine is a complete corruption of the soul. I think this is would be an incredible rarity, and this kind of person would probably never come to or even consider Christianity in the first place.
There is NO sin (bar that one above) which can't be forgiven.
You and I are not alone on this. Most christians have your view point and most atheists share mine. I like my roommates explanation because it covers just about everything. The only thing it doesn't address is the omniscience. He believes that the terminology needed at that time made omniscience seem valid because that's how things needed to be explained to the people at the time.
And I agree with that as well. Doesn't really matter if he's actually omniscient (infinitely perceiving) or just (as far as we're concerned) effectively omniscient, to me.
Hell is described in these passages:
Matthew 13:42
Matthew 25:41
Mark 9:46
Luke 16:24
Revelation 14:10
Revelation 20:15
I know there's more, but these passages make hell seem like a specific place of actual fire. I did find some that could have been interpreted differently. I know that there are several in the Old Testament and a few in the New that make Hell seem more as you described.
I always saw passages like that to be a more symbolic representation. It's impossible for us to really imagine being outside of the presence of God, given his existence which was accepted for the people this was originally written for, so it's easier to give a metaphor of something the people would understand as a horrible, painful experience. I don't think those are literal descriptions.
This would certainly make worshiping him easier. If you needed to stick to the Old Testament rules, you wouldn't be able to do much other than worship. If you are restricted to only worship then you are very much the automaton that you feel god does not want.
Yup, it would. Automation requirements like that don't fit in with the nature of God as I've seen Him.
That does open up a can of worms though. What you find to be a valid way to worship may not be for someone else. Many people kill in the name of their god and they feel that this is one of the strongest forms of worship. Are they right or wrong?
Well, that depends. If we're talking between varying religions, then we get into arguments about which religion is valid. I'll assume you meant within a single religion. In which case, that depends on the religions set of morals.
For instance, it's wrong for Christians to murder. Therefore, someone killing the the name of God or Jesus is not expressing a valid worship or service to God.
It's valid as long as it doesn't validate the principles of the religion.
There's a funny software joke in there but I never bothered to learn how they number software releases.
Eh, as a programmer: it's sort of by ear. You get your working version out and it's 1.0, from there if you release what would be considered minor bug fixes or minor new features, increase the fractional value (1.0 -> 1.1). Massive change to the software? New version number (2.0). All played by ear...
Completely off topic, but it's my field so I felt compelled to answer.
I think christianity could use more people like me ;) Honestly, what I would like to see is that those of faith take time to understand the teachings and read their canons. I would like those who want to disagree with them to also take time to read and understand their canons. I don't generally debate muslims or buddhists because I don't understand what they are talking about so there is no way for me to understand what I'm talking about. I am going to be spending some time learning buddhism. My boss is buddhist and she thinks I have a buddhist mentality. I have been told that I would make a great christian, buddhist, and muslim so far. I wonder what qualities they are all seeing. I would think that the whole not believing would be a deterrent.
Well, Christianity could use more people with your attitude toward religion, if not your conclusions ;)
The quality is that of being willing to explore and question without prejudice and consider the truth of the teachings, being willing to delve beyond the surface of Scripture, to work at getting to the true heart of the words. THAT'S what Christians need more of. (Doesn't say much about most of us that an atheist has better religious practices than most of us, eh?
)I remember now the denomination of Pastor Mark: Calvinist (I know it doesn't start with a D or even have a D in it).
Yeah, John Calvin. I didn't mention him because of the 'D' comment, but he's the founder of predestination. (A load of theological crap IMO) I figured you were thinking of someone else...*shrug*
The Pastor that he was testing is Casey Treat. He is a televangelist through and through. I find that the smaller churches tend to have a better grasp on faith because they aren't focused on celebrity status and gathering more money.
Heh, amen to that. I can't stand watching that crap. I come from a mid-sized church, but I had great parents who really encouraged me to open up my mind and explore religion for myself. They were always open to my ideas about the meaning of Scripture and they provided insight when I asked for it. I'd attribute most of my grasp on faith to my parents rather than my church.
The only thing that I nave to keep in mind is that there is a time and place for everything including conversations. So long as I show respect, I have a great time and learn a lot. I also just like arguing. Sometimes I argue just because I can.
I know what you mean, I've been known to have a hour(s) long debate with someone just to end it with, "Yeah, well I totally agree with you. Always have"
Fun to watch the reactions...
Sure you'd be forgiven and let in, assuming you had accepted the salvation offered by Jesus. There's only one thing that's not forgivable said in Matthew 12: 31-32.
"And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."
So blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which I'd imagine is a complete corruption of the soul. I think this is would be an incredible rarity, and this kind of person would probably never come to or even consider Christianity in the first place.
There is NO sin (bar that one above) which can't be forgiven.
So what about if I only repent when faced with meeting him? Doesn't that seem a bit cheap for those who believed from the beginning?
I'm also curious about the Holy Spirit. I have never understood what that is only that it's part of the Trinity.
I always saw passages like that to be a more symbolic representation. It's impossible for us to really imagine being outside of the presence of God, given his existence which was accepted for the people this was originally written for, so it's easier to give a metaphor of something the people would understand as a horrible, painful experience. I don't think those are literal descriptions.
That's what I was mentioning in the previous post. You can see how people would take it literally though. From what I've noticed, it's hard to tell when to take god or Jesus literally and when they speak in metaphors. This causes all kinds of problems for translators as well as for devoted followers.
For instance, it's wrong for Christians to murder. Therefore, someone killing the the name of God or Jesus is not expressing a valid worship or service to God.
Even when they get their ideas from the Bible (Deuteronomy 2:15, 7:25, 12:2-3, 12:30, 13:6-10, 13:12-16, 17:2-7, Acts 3:23, Romans 1:32, etc)? There are plenty more verses that I can find if I look hard enough.
The ones in Deuteronomy are very straight forward and don't leave much room for interpretation. Many believe that you need to take the Bible in its entirety and not selectively believe some parts while discounting others. How are people to know when it's acceptable to take god's demands into their own hands? I know that I read somewhere that god's laws supersede man's but I can't find the passage right now.
It's valid as long as it doesn't validate the principles of the religion.
That's where is gets to be difficult. With so many ways to interpret things, I can easily see people taking it upon themselves to violate the common interpretations of the Bible.
Eh, as a programmer: it's sort of by ear. You get your working version out and it's 1.0, from there if you release what would be considered minor bug fixes or minor new features, increase the fractional value (1.0 -> 1.1). Massive change to the software? New version number (2.0). All played by ear...
Completely off topic, but it's my field so I felt compelled to answer.
There's another punchline in there somewhere ;). I work with medications and insurance all day. When we see upgrades to drugs we see things like CR, XL, SR, etc. We even see things like "es" being added to the beginning of a drug name to signify that it's essentially the same drug but slightly different. For example Celexa (citalopram) and Lexapro (escitalopram). The are the same chemical (C20H21FN2O and C20H21FN2O respectively). The difference is that the escitalopram uses mostly right-hand molecules (molecules can come in right and left hand or no hand, it's called enantiomer and has to do with mirroring). The right-hand (+C20H21FN2O) seems to be more effective. I don't know why I felt the need to give a pharmacological lesson but there you go. How's that for off-topic?
Well, Christianity could use more people with your attitude toward religion, if not your conclusions ;)
I don't think christianity would do well with my conclusions; at least not my overall conclusion. It would bring the religion to a halt.
The quality is that of being willing to explore and question without prejudice and consider the truth of the teachings, being willing to delve beyond the surface of Scripture, to work at getting to the true heart of the words. THAT'S what Christians need more of. (Doesn't say much about most of us that an atheist has better religious practices than most of us, eh?
I have seen many christians delve deep into the scriptures and history. My roommate is one but so is the pastor I mentioned earlier. When I started talking to them I made it clear that I was seeking answers. One of the requirements for the faith to be valid was that it was open to question. I should be able to ask anything without the faith crumbling down. This doesn't mean that all questions must have answers (there are some questions that simply cannot be answered) but I should be able to ask anything. They agreed and that's how the journey began. I even helped them answer some of their questions with the Bible :D.
Yeah, John Calvin. I didn't mention him because of the 'D' comment, but he's the founder of predestination. (A load of theological crap IMO) I figured you were thinking of someone else...*shrug*
It's hard to know what I'm thinking when I give incorrect information. I'll try to be more accurate and precise when I give cryptic clues.
I know what you mean, I've been known to have a hour(s) long debate with someone just to end it with, "Yeah, well I totally agree with you. Always have"
Fun to watch the reactions...
Sometimes I do this as a Devil's Advocate. Sometimes I do it for fun. Sometimes I do it to learn. Depends on the topic, situation, and my mood.
So what about if I only repent when faced with meeting him? Doesn't that seem a bit cheap for those who believed from the beginning?
I recommend looking at the parable of the workers (Matthew 20:1-16). God will welcome everyone who comes to Him, whether early or late, and gives them all the same reward. It seems unfair, but honestly speaking, forgiveness of anyone is kind of unfair--to the victim, I mean. That's mercy--getting what we don't deserve, or not getting what we do deserve.
I'm also curious about the Holy Spirit. I have never understood what that is only that it's part of the Trinity.
The Trinity itself is something I'm currently wrestling with. As for the Holy Spirit, I kind of see it as the living presence of God within and beside us. God the Father and God the Son are in Heaven, but God the Holy Spirit is here on Earth with us every step of the way.
That's what I was mentioning in the previous post. You can see how people would take it literally though. From what I've noticed, it's hard to tell when to take god or Jesus literally and when they speak in metaphors. This causes all kinds of problems for translators as well as for devoted followers.
This is where I was going with the need to treat the Bible as a particular genre. It's not meant to be taken literally all the time (as in the case of what value pi has). It does contain literal elements, which can be confirmed (and I think it's that way in order to give us a reason to believe the rest of it), but there are large portions which are metaphor meant to convey some higher truth.
In the general view of Hell...that's a difficult one. In the sense of Revelations, Hell is kind of a relief--not for the people who go there, but for the people who were victimized by the people who go there. You see earlier that all the martyrs are imploring God "When, Lord, when will the blood of our deaths be avenged?" A loving God has a responsibility toward those He loves who are hurt. It's not a matter of purity or impurity, but pain and justice. There are so many people on this earth who never get justice for the times they were wronged. That's really not fair to them. From their perspective, Hell is a very comforting thing, since they know that even when the earth's justice has failed, God's justice will be certain.
This is why repentance is so very, very important. I think the only way for God to fairly let someone into heaven who has hurt one of his Beloved is if the person who did the hurting sincerely repents for their wrongdoing. That's a big part of accepting Jesus Christ. You've got to acknowledge the wrong you've done in the world and sincerely repent of it. Otherwise the blood of your victims cries out against you, and how can a loving God ignore that cry? A stronger blood must cover that over, so that everyone involved, including the victims, may be satisfied.
So, one may question if Hell is fair for the people who are sentenced to it, but the flip side of that coin is that would the lack of Hell be fair to the victims of the people that would be sentenced to it?
Once you're past that, I think Jesus Christ is important because if you've truly repented, how can you forgive yourself for the wrong you've done? Nothing we can do will undo that wrong, so I think Jesus is necessary so that we can move past it. We are insufficient to right our way, but the power of God...that's another story. If God has cleansed us, let no one declare us to be unclean! Including our own conscience. That's why divine forgiveness is needed; repentance is something that we can do for ourselves, but we cannot forgive ourselves...we don't have the right.
Predicting the past is very easy. You made the claim that he can predict the future. The only way to know with 100% certainty what will happen is for it to be predetermined. The only way for something to not be predetermined is for anyone to not have 100% chance of predicting the outcome. Even if that chance is 99.999...% or higher, so long as it never reaches 100% then the future would not be set.
The bolded part is the assumption I don't accept. I've proposed several systems by which something can be known a priori without it being determined. You'll need to show why this assumption should be accepted.
I would make the argument that a parent that gives their child two choices, one of which will kill him (and that is the stated outcome of eating from the tree), and the parent knows with 100% certainty that the child will choose the path of self-destruction then the parent is at fault.
This isn't an "at sometime" argument. God knew full well what would happen. He predicted with 100% certainty that Eve would take from the tree. He could have simply not placed the tree there. He could have altered his punishment, knowing what would be most effective.
The reason why this doesn't hold up is because parents cannot predict or know with 100% certainty what their children will do or be exposed to. The parents can only do the best they can with what they've got. Parents that are neglectful are held accountable for their actions. Most societies allow parents some leeway when it comes to making mistakes even when those mistakes might endanger the children. When the parents know with a reasonable amount of certainty that allowing their children to do somethings that will be harmful, the parent is held accountable.
The difference here is two-fold. First, the Bible states that we are all punished for the sins of two people. Two examples are painful childbirth and death. Second, since god already knows what we are going to do, he already knows if the punishment is worth it. Punishment is meant to be a deterrent to further crimes. If the punishment isn't going to work, then why use it at all. For example, we don't tell murderers to write "I will not kill" on the blackboard 100 times. That punishment is just going to work. We try to remove them from society in one way or another. Think about the punishment the serpent got. It is condemned to crawl on its belly. What kind of serpent doesn't crawl on its belly? Not really a fitting punishment for bringing down the entire human race.
A lot of this assumes that the Fall is literal. Consider this...even without the sin of Adam, there is no-one on Earth--no, not one--who has not sinned, and sinned gravely. We don't need Adam to condemn us. Given enough time, we will condemn ourselves.
So, if God hadn't put the Tree in the garden, eventually mankind would have done something to separate from Him. The Tree really just represents the choice: do we follow God and His will for our life (which is a will for our good and our glory), or do we follow our own passions and desires? Every one of us, to one extent or another, chooses the latter path. God doesn't force us to follow that path, though. We are entirely capable of following Him. It's just that, when the rubber hits the road, we don't. We want to be independent, we want to do it our own way, we want to be masters of ourselves the world around us. But that's not our place. We are meant for an exalted status, to be kings and rulers on the Earth, but we are meant to hold that rulership under God's authority, not in defiance of it. To be first, we must be last. To lead, we must serve. That's what Jesus taught.
Now, is God responsible for this independent streak in us? Did He put it there, and do we have no choice but to rebel against him since that's the way we are made? I don't think so--I think our independent streak is just a consequence of Free Will. We have the capability of choosing to walk away from God, since we are truly Free, and the only way to take that capability away is to remove that Freedom. Well, that's actually not the only way. We can be taught to accept responsibility for ourselves, to repent of our misdeeds, and to choose life over death. We can see the consequences of our actions and turn back. This option is before us, and many, many people take it. That is what accepting Jesus Christ means. The decision that was made (whether literally or symbolically) in the Garden can be unmade be each person, by their own free will. And the punishment is taken away, by our own choice. That is the Good News of the Gospel.
I recommend looking at the parable of the workers (Matthew 20:1-16). God will welcome everyone who comes to Him, whether early or late, and gives them all the same reward. It seems unfair, but honestly speaking, forgiveness of anyone is kind of unfair--to the victim, I mean. That's mercy--getting what we don't deserve, or not getting what we do deserve.
So begging for mercy while at his feet after you've died is acceptable? This is an honest question.
The Trinity itself is something I'm currently wrestling with. As for the Holy Spirit, I kind of see it as the living presence of God within and beside us. God the Father and God the Son are in Heaven, but God the Holy Spirit is here on Earth with us every step of the way.
Doesn't this just seem far more complex than it needs to be for an omnipotent being that can literally do anything?
This is where I was going with the need to treat the Bible as a particular genre. It's not meant to be taken literally all the time (as in the case of what value pi has). It does contain literal elements, which can be confirmed (and I think it's that way in order to give us a reason to believe the rest of it), but there are large portions which are metaphor meant to convey some higher truth.
My roommate believes the Bible is a collection of Truth Stories.
In the general view of Hell...that's a difficult one. In the sense of Revelations, Hell is kind of a relief--not for the people who go there, but for the people who were victimized by the people who go there. You see earlier that all the martyrs are imploring God "When, Lord, when will the blood of our deaths be avenged?" A loving God has a responsibility toward those He loves who are hurt. It's not a matter of purity or impurity, but pain and justice. There are so many people on this earth who never get justice for the times they were wronged. That's really not fair to them. From their perspective, Hell is a very comforting thing, since they know that even when the earth's justice has failed, God's justice will be certain.
What about those who did get their justice? Double jeopardy?
This is why repentance is so very, very important. I think the only way for God to fairly let someone into heaven who has hurt one of his Beloved is if the person who did the hurting sincerely repents for their wrongdoing. That's a big part of accepting Jesus Christ. You've got to acknowledge the wrong you've done in the world and sincerely repent of it. Otherwise the blood of your victims cries out against you, and how can a loving God ignore that cry? A stronger blood must cover that over, so that everyone involved, including the victims, may be satisfied.
How could a loving god not intervene to protect the innocent in the first place? He didn't have to allow evil into this world and things would have functioned just fine.
So, one may question if Hell is fair for the people who are sentenced to it, but the flip side of that coin is that would the lack of Hell be fair to the victims of the people that would be sentenced to it?
I don't question the effect of the punishment, just the duration.
Once you're past that, I think Jesus Christ is important because if you've truly repented, how can you forgive yourself for the wrong you've done? Nothing we can do will undo that wrong, so I think Jesus is necessary so that we can move past it. We are insufficient to right our way, but the power of God...that's another story. If God has cleansed us, let no one declare us to be unclean! Including our own conscience. That's why divine forgiveness is needed; repentance is something that we can do for ourselves, but we cannot forgive ourselves...we don't have the right.
I have needed to forgive myself for some very horrible things I've done. I nearly destroyed several people's lives with my actions. I managed to forgive myself. Once I was able to do that, I stopped trying to end the pain. What's very strange is that I was seeking god as one of those answers. During my study and affirmation that I am definitely an atheist, I was better able to deal with my own problems. I realized that I am in control of my actions and desires. I can choose how to deal with the situation. Now those people who's lives I nearly destroyed (two of them could have died) are very close friends again. We all managed to forgive. We will never forget, but it isn't going to interfere with our relationship anymore.
The bolded part is the assumption I don't accept. I've proposed several systems by which something can be known a priori without it being determined. You'll need to show why this assumption should be accepted.
The reason I say they are all wrong because you have set the value of predicting at 100% accuracy. You can only perfectly predict something that has no chance of being anything other than what you predict. With 100% accuracy, you are leaving no chance for error. You can only be right if there is only one possible answer. I really don't know how to explain it any other way. The very high majority of the faithful I speak to don't seem to understand either.
A lot of this assumes that the Fall is literal. Consider this...even without the sin of Adam, there is no-one on Earth--no, not one--who has not sinned, and sinned gravely. We don't need Adam to condemn us. Given enough time, we will condemn ourselves.
Adam and Eve brought original sin into the world. The only time they could sin was when they took from the tree. Even if we use your assumption, we are being punished for the crimes that Adam and Even committed. The Bible is very clear:
To the woman he said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return."
We are being punished for what two people did. I did not eat from the tree yet I am now sentenced to death. I'm not fully convinced that eating bread is a big punishment. I've had some really good bread (tomato basil is one of my favorites)
So, if God hadn't put the Tree in the garden, eventually mankind would have done something to separate from Him. The Tree really just represents the choice: do we follow God and His will for our life (which is a will for our good and our glory), or do we follow our own passions and desires? Every one of us, to one extent or another, chooses the latter path. God doesn't force us to follow that path, though. We are entirely capable of following Him. It's just that, when the rubber hits the road, we don't. We want to be independent, we want to do it our own way, we want to be masters of ourselves the world around us. But that's not our place. We are meant for an exalted status, to be kings and rulers on the Earth, but we are meant to hold that rulership under God's authority, not in defiance of it. To be first, we must be last. To lead, we must serve. That's what Jesus taught.
You may be right, but the only rule they had to follow was to not eat from the tree. If the tree wasn't there, they could not have sinned.
I have also always seen the tree more as a symbol rather than an actual tree. I have always interpreted the story as a story of choice. You can choose to follow god's ways and everything will be fine, or you can choose to follow someone else's but in both cases you will need to deal with the consequences of your actions/choices. Sometimes the consequences are good, sometimes they aren't.
Now, is God responsible for this independent streak in us? Did He put it there, and do we have no choice but to rebel against him since that's the way we are made? I don't think so--I think our independent streak is just a consequence of Free Will. We have the capability of choosing to walk away from God, since we are truly Free, and the only way to take that capability away is to remove that Freedom. Well, that's actually not the only way. We can be taught to accept responsibility for ourselves, to repent of our misdeeds, and to choose life over death. We can see the consequences of our actions and turn back. This option is before us, and many, many people take it. That is what accepting Jesus Christ means. The decision that was made (whether literally or symbolically) in the Garden can be unmade be each person, by their own free will. And the punishment is taken away, by our own choice. That is the Good News of the Gospel.
God would have to be responsible for our independence since he put it there. I think having independence is a great thing. I have a hard time with accepting that there is an infinite being out there that is upset with me because I have done exactly what he knew I would do and still created me to do just that. Then, just to show how powerful he is, I am condemned for eternity. All this because I exercised my free-will.
Yes, but everything in a higher dimension has visible cross sections in the lower dimensions, what are you suggesting are the cross sections of God in the 3 dimensions in which we can perceive?
Maybe. If we could percieve "Everything" in the 3rd dimension. We can't do to our eyes simulation of 3d.
We need to question things, it helps the mind grow. Like HIS greatest question: What will they do next?
So begging for mercy while at his feet after you've died is acceptable? This is an honest question.
Well, no one but God could answer whether or not that would get you saved. You'd sure be taking a heck of a risk though.
Doesn't this just seem far more complex than it needs to be for an omnipotent being that can literally do anything?
Well, God, as far as I can tell, has always been like that. Sure, he could change who he is, but if it a'int broke...
What about those who did get their justice? Double jeopardy?
Well, that's assuming that the justice that was received here on Earth was sufficient, which I'd venture to say for a lot of crimes, it isn't.
How could a loving god not intervene to protect the innocent in the first place? He didn't have to allow evil into this world and things would have functioned just fine.
Actually, I'd argue he did have to. It's a dichotomy. Any action is meaningless without something to oppose it. If there's no evil, there's no good. It's just...what is. God has to give us a choice in everything so that our commitments to have him mean anything. That, unfortunately, means allowing the existence of evil.
I don't question the effect of the punishment, just the duration.
Hmm, well not knowing exactly what hell is like, it's hard to know how unfair that would be. It might even be possible that the people who get sent there wouldn't want to be with God anyway. Foreign to me, but I don't really know.
I have needed to forgive myself for some very horrible things I've done. I nearly destroyed several people's lives with my actions. I managed to forgive myself. Once I was able to do that, I stopped trying to end the pain. What's very strange is that I was seeking god as one of those answers. During my study and affirmation that I am definitely an atheist, I was better able to deal with my own problems. I realized that I am in control of my actions and desires. I can choose how to deal with the situation. Now those people who's lives I nearly destroyed (two of them could have died) are very close friends again. We all managed to forgive. We will never forget, but it isn't going to interfere with our relationship anymore.
That's a powerful story. However, I would say to be cautious that you never stop questioning the validity of your beliefs (although I don't that you have). Stopping the questioning is the same basket (atheist version) of all the blind faith Christians that tick everyone off.
The reason I say they are all wrong because you have set the value of predicting at 100% accuracy. You can only perfectly predict something that has no chance of being anything other than what you predict. With 100% accuracy, you are leaving no chance for error. You can only be right if there is only one possible answer. I really don't know how to explain it any other way. The very high majority of the faithful I speak to don't seem to understand either.
Hmm, I'm afraid that's not true. I'd suggest reading up on Chaos Theory if you haven't already, Wikipedia has a pretty good introduction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
One of the big things about Chaos Theory is deterministic systems. This says that while the behavior of a system may seem random, in truth it becomes increasingly complicated, therefore making it harder to predict. If one could factor in all the variables in this super complex system, one could accurately predict (100% even) future events. Seems in support of your argument?
Think of it this way:
The world and everything that happens in it is a chaotic system. This means that the difficulty in predicting future events increases exponentially over time (probably really really fast). If one could factor in every variable, one could predict any and all behavior in the world. However, if any of those variables change, it changes the entire sequence of events in a ripple effect. There is a massive difference between predictability and destiny. Destiny means that no matter how many variables in the equation of the world change, the result is no different. That is not true. In this case, just because the end result of all behavior is predictable, that doesn't mean the equation doesn't contain the potential for a different result.
Adam and Eve brought original sin into the world. The only time they could sin was when they took from the tree. Even if we use your assumption, we are being punished for the crimes that Adam and Even committed. The Bible is very clear:
We are being punished for what two people did. I did not eat from the tree yet I am now sentenced to death. I'm not fully convinced that eating bread is a big punishment. I've had some really good bread (tomato basil is one of my favorites)
The thing I think he was trying to get across is this: There is no one living now or who has ever lived (bar Jesus) that would not have done the same thing. We all have the same fundamental flaw, and from the first sin we ever commit, we've earned and deserve the same punishment.
You may be right, but the only rule they had to follow was to not eat from the tree. If the tree wasn't there, they could not have sinned.
True, but if there wasn't the option to sin than there devotion to God is completely meaningless. They can't do anything else.
I have also always seen the tree more as a symbol rather than an actual tree. I have always interpreted the story as a story of choice. You can choose to follow god's ways and everything will be fine, or you can choose to follow someone else's but in both cases you will need to deal with the consequences of your actions/choices. Sometimes the consequences are good, sometimes they aren't.
Fair enough, it's the point of the Tree anyway.
God would have to be responsible for our independence since he put it there. I think having independence is a great thing. I have a hard time with accepting that there is an infinite being out there that is upset with me because I have done exactly what he knew I would do and still created me to do just that. Then, just to show how powerful he is, I am condemned for eternity. All this because I exercised my free-will.
God wants you to want him. This isn't a power trip as much as an extension of someones life choices. if you spend your whole like seperating yourself from God, it seems reasonable to then give you an eternal fate away from Him, giving you what you were seeking your whole life. Seems more like he's giving that person what he/she wanted. If that turns out to not be as great as they thought, well that's not God's fault.
So begging for mercy while at his feet after you've died is acceptable? This is an honest question.
That's something I honestly don't know. The parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16:19 and following) speaks of a great gulf between Heaven and Hell that cannot be crossed, and if we're speaking of justice, is it really fair for someone to sin their whole life, then after they die and realize their mistake, then get to go to Heaven too?
Of course, it's been argued that the parable of Lazarus isn't really about Hell at all, and I can't really think of much at the moment that specifically says "you have to decide here in this life!" And of course, we've already discussed the issue of fairness in whether we go to Heaven or not--if it were truly fair, none of us would go to Heaven! As a free gift, God is free to give it to whomever He chooses at whatever time He chooses, even if they're already dead. On the other hand, I can't really point to any scriptural points that say we will have a chance after we die to repent, so, yeah, you're taking a chance by waiting, as Encara said.
Here's something to keep in mind, though. If one has an anti-God attitude in life, is there any reason to think that attitude will change in death? Furthermore, if one has failed to recognize God in life, will one be able to recognize Him in death?
The first issue is one that addresses what it means to come to God in life. Even while we are alive, we cannot come to God except through repentance and a humble submission to His will. It is one thing to say that one doesn't believe in God because of lack of evidence. It is another to say what one would do if one did have sufficient evidence. There are quite a few people out there who may intellectually acknowledge God, but that is a far cry from submitting to Him. "Even the devils know that God exists...and tremble." So, there are people who may get that last evidence after death, but will still not go to Heaven because of pride.
The second issue is one of willing spiritual blindness. The parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man may or may not be about Hell, but it does make one point about the willingness to believe. In it, the Rich Man says to Abraham in Heaven "I have five brothers. Make sure they know that they know the truth, so that they don't suffer as I have suffered when they die." Abraham replies "They have the Law and the Prophets. Let them believe that, and live." The Rich Man replies "That's not enough. Send Lazarus. Surely if a dead man comes back to life, they'll believe and be saved." Abraham replies, sadly I think, that "If they do not believe the Law and the Prophets, not even the dead rising will convince them."
There comes a point where no evidence, no matter how convincing, can convince a person who just isn't willing to believe. Consider all that has been presented here, and all that you've seen elsewhere. If you're lying on your death bed, and all of the sudden there's a great light, and you see a loving figure coming toward you...are you going to believe it's Jesus and reach out to Him? Or will you, a reasonable person, simply conclude that it's lack of oxygen to your brain making you see something that you're expecting? Would you then turn away, never even knowing that what you're turning away from is the truth? And on the flip side, how can a believer know that what they are seeing isn't just a last few neurons firing blindly before the final darkness?
There comes a point where doubt is hardened, and one can come up with any number of arguments to deny whatever evidence one has.
Doesn't this just seem far more complex than it needs to be for an omnipotent being that can literally do anything?
That's what I'm struggling with about the Trinity. But leaving the Trinity aside, one could say that all three are really the same God, but that we just call God "The Holy Spirit" to refer to those experiences we have of Him in our daily lives. Thus it's not a real, actual truth of the universe, but rather a label we apply for convenience. Kind of like Newton's approximations of gravity.
What about those who did get their justice? Double jeopardy?
...
I don't question the effect of the punishment, just the duration.
...
I have needed to forgive myself for some very horrible things I've done. I nearly destroyed several people's lives with my actions. I managed to forgive myself. Once I was able to do that, I stopped trying to end the pain. What's very strange is that I was seeking god as one of those answers. During my study and affirmation that I am definitely an atheist, I was better able to deal with my own problems. I realized that I am in control of my actions and desires. I can choose how to deal with the situation. Now those people who's lives I nearly destroyed (two of them could have died) are very close friends again. We all managed to forgive. We will never forget, but it isn't going to interfere with our relationship anymore.
As Encara pointed out, there's a lot of sins which the perpetrator never pays for. I myself have a long list of them, from the banal to the horrifying. And honestly, there's a lot of people who just never repent. They don't see the need (since they don't think they did anything wrong), or they just don't care. I think we can all think of several examples of people for whom Hell--fire, brimstone, and all--is definitely justified. So there's a conceptual space for such things, especially since Revelations depicts Satan, the Anti-Christ, and the False Prophet as being the main people consigned to such a place. These are Bad Dudes who should be punished for their sins.
The question comes when you've got the great judgment at the end of time where "All who's names are not written in the Book of Life are thrown into the fiery pit, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth," etc, etc, etc. The question becomes, what is the basis for which someone's name gets added to the Book of Life? Jesus tells of a judgment where people will come to him and say "we performed great miracles and cast out devils in your name," but he'll say to them "away from me, you wicked sinners," so it's not just about intellectual assent to a given principle or set of beings existing, nor is it about the great works you've performed in life, of faith or otherwise. It's more about your fundamental attitude, I think. God sees into the hearts of men and knows what's truly there. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God," but there are some who have rejected that sin, and others who have embraced it. God knows the difference. More than that, God knows those who's hearts ache for His presence, and those who despise Him.
Now, is it just for God to consign those who have rejected both Him and sin to Hell? As Encara said, it doesn't make sense for God to pull someone into His presence who doesn't want to be there. But is the only alternative Hell, with the eternal torment and all that? Put that way, it's hard to say. That's the question of "What happens to good people that aren't Christians?"
In the Chronicles of Narnia, C.S. Lewis argued that anyone who's truly good is a servant of Christ, whether they know it or not, and he will claim his own when the time comes. He also described a winnowing process at the end--where all those who were good came to Aslan, loved him, and were saved at that moment, whereas those who were evil came, hated and feared him, and were doomed. Perhaps there's some last minute "get the people who are really good but didn't know me" thing as Lewis described. I can't really say whether this is true or not. I'd like it to be, but I just don't have the evidence to say one way or another.
I have this, though. God is Just and Loving. If people who reject Him are sentenced to Hell simply by that rejection, then there's a good reason for it (perhaps those people fall under the two warnings I mentioned above--a bad attitude or a willing blindness). However, if there's not a good reason for them to be condemned, I'm confident that God will not condemn those people. God may not allow them to come into Heaven, but I'm confident that He won't send them to Hell without a good reason. I don't know what he would do with them, but I'm sure He'll think of something.
The reason I say they are all wrong because you have set the value of predicting at 100% accuracy. You can only perfectly predict something that has no chance of being anything other than what you predict. With 100% accuracy, you are leaving no chance for error. You can only be right if there is only one possible answer. I really don't know how to explain it any other way. The very high majority of the faithful I speak to don't seem to understand either.
I'd say that it is sufficient for 100% accuracy as long as there is only one actual answer. One actual answer is not the same as one possible answer. There could be many, many possible solutions before something is decided, but there will only be one actual solution afterward. Like the Battle of Waterloo. One can know the actual solution with 100% accuracy, but that doesn't dictate which of the possible solutions becomes the actual solution. <--this is a very important statement for my viewpoint. To me, as indicated in that last sentence, Free Will lies in our ability to decide which of the possible outcomes becomes the actual outcome. God knowing the actual outcome in advance does not dictate our selection from among the possible outcomes. Think of it this way: our decisions determine what God knows, not the other way around.
It's this distinction between actual and possible that is where we're disagreeing. Why do you think there's no difference?
How could a loving god not intervene to protect the innocent in the first place? He didn't have to allow evil into this world and things would have functioned just fine.
...
Adam and Eve brought original sin into the world. The only time they could sin was when they took from the tree. Even if we use your assumption, we are being punished for the crimes that Adam and Even committed. The Bible is very clear:
We are being punished for what two people did. I did not eat from the tree yet I am now sentenced to death. I'm not fully convinced that eating bread is a big punishment. I've had some really good bread (tomato basil is one of my favorites)
You may be right, but the only rule they had to follow was to not eat from the tree. If the tree wasn't there, they could not have sinned.
I have also always seen the tree more as a symbol rather than an actual tree. I have always interpreted the story as a story of choice. You can choose to follow god's ways and everything will be fine, or you can choose to follow someone else's but in both cases you will need to deal with the consequences of your actions/choices. Sometimes the consequences are good, sometimes they aren't.
God would have to be responsible for our independence since he put it there. I think having independence is a great thing. I have a hard time with accepting that there is an infinite being out there that is upset with me because I have done exactly what he knew I would do and still created me to do just that. Then, just to show how powerful he is, I am condemned for eternity. All this because I exercised my free-will.
I think the simplest answer is that God did not allow evil into the world. He allowed choice, and choice produced evil. He could have prevented evil, but could only do so by removing choice. If you took away choice, we wouldn't be us anymore. We'd be something else. God would probably still love whatever that is, but it wouldn't be us. Heck, maybe that other thing exists out there somewhere, being loved by God in whatever utopian society it lives in.
However, God loves us too, and that includes the ability to choose. He created us out of love, since it is better for us to live, and evil to be in existence, than for evil to not exist, but that we don't live either. God permits evil so that we can exist. Removing evil requires removing us, if He is to do it by His power instead of by our choice. Rather than do that (well, technically the flood could be an attempt to do just that...), He has instituted a plan of teaching, experience, and relationship which is meant to bring us to a place where we will choose for ourselves to reject evil, so that we can exist and evil can not exist. Basically, it's out of God's hands (short of destroying us all). It's up to us to get rid of evil.
Put more simply--God loves beings who have evil in them, and so he created those beings despite the evil. God probably loves beings without evil, and they may exist (Angels?), but that doesn't reduce or change the love he feels for the beings that do have evil. Why limit the universe to only one type of being that He loves? Why not have both?
I think we can all think of several examples of people for whom Hell--fire, brimstone, and all--is definitely justified.
That's horrible. There is nothing anybody could do so bad as to warrant eternal punishment, especially not if that punishment is torture. It's appalling to suggest that anybody deserves hell.
This is one of those things that make me question the morality of Christians and those of other faiths that include eternal punishment in the afterlife... Or at least the morality of the religions themselves...
That's horrible. There is nothing anybody could do so bad as to warrant eternal punishment, especially not if that punishment is torture. It's appalling to suggest that anybody deserves hell.
This is one of those things that make me question the morality of Christians and those of other faiths that include eternal punishment in the afterlife... Or at least the morality of the religions themselves...
Not Stalin, Pol Pot, the current president of the Sudan, Ted Bundy, child molestors, or people who talk in theaters (sorry, couldn't resist)?
If you've got that much compassion for these people, how do you feel about their victims? Don't they deserve justice? What is sufficient punishment to deliver that justice?
Not Stalin, Pol Pot, the current president of the Sudan, Ted Bundy, child molestors, or people who talk in theaters (sorry, couldn't resist)?
Other than the people who talk in movie theaters, none of those people deserve torture for eternity, and only somebody with a very warped sense of justice could believe that.
If you've got that much compassion for these people, how do you feel about their victims? Don't they deserve justice? What is sufficient punishment to deliver that justice?
I didn't say bad people don't deserve punishment or that their victims don't deserve justice. I'm saying that they don't deserve a hell which is eternal punishment. There's nothing so bad you could do for 80 years of your life that warrants billions of years of torture. It's cruel and unusual punishment that in no way fits the crime, and we have laws against that in the real world for a reason.
Morally opposed to torture... check.
Realizing that eternity is a longer stretch of time then I can imagine... check.
Being morally opposed to torture for an eternity... check.
Let's see...
Morally opposed to torture... check.
Realizing that eternity is a longer stretch of time then I can imagine... check.
Being morally opposed to torture for an eternity... check.
Thank you.
When you die you are essentially a newborn. Life on this new and horrible plane of existence is hard. Especially when you have Demons, Angels, and the Elder Evils preying on your weak state of being.
SO Jesus wanting to protect everyone, or at least give them a Chance at Survival, performed a ritual.
This ritual Ascended Him to being the Lord of Heaven. Now, and it may be weird, think of Heaven as a starting zone for all 1st Level Spirits. He is just trying to help.
Through Magic, Prayer, and declaring His Name, you bind with him and gain a voucher for the Almighty.
Maybe it isn't eternity, but more along the lines of "Time drags when your being tortured."
Hell is just existence without God. Without being embraced by the Light from the Center of the Universe.
Going on no sleep for 26 hours so I will apologize, and say "Good Day".
Let's see...
Morally opposed to torture... check.
Realizing that eternity is a longer stretch of time then I can imagine... check.
Being morally opposed to torture for an eternity... check.
Hense, why I mentioned hell is not actually direct torture. (At least I don't believe so)
Hense, why I mentioned hell is not actually direct torture. (At least I don't believe so)
Doesn't matter. It's still punishment for eternity for something you did for about a maximum of 80 years...
I am just saying the Universe works within a set of rules. Magic, Nature, Physics, or whatever you want to call it.
It is The Ultimate DM's ruleset. God fudged the dice for Jesus, Moses, and others who performed "Miracles."
I think it is more like a Jail Sentence. There you go. You've learned your lesson, NOW COME HOME.
Blah Blah Blah
This thread stopped trying to make sense about 2 pages ago.
No that your Lost, maybe you'll be found.(Joking)
I am just saying the Universe works within a set of rules. Magic, Nature, Physics, or whatever you want to call it.
It is The Ultimate DM's ruleset. God fudged the dice for Jesus, Moses, and others who performed "Miracles."
I think it is more like a Jail Sentence. There you go. You've learned your lesson, NOW COME HOME.
Magic?
Well, no one but God could answer whether or not that would get you saved. You'd sure be taking a heck of a risk though.
That's a risk I'm willing to take. With so many choices for which god is real or better, I think I'll take my chances with none of them. The closest thing to me that makes any sense is Buddhism. I have some issues with the supernatural parts, but I like their doctrine the best - if I had to choose a faith.
Well, God, as far as I can tell, has always been like that. Sure, he could change who he is, but if it a'int broke...
I'd argue that it is broke.
Well, that's assuming that the justice that was received here on Earth was sufficient, which I'd venture to say for a lot of crimes, it isn't.
Name one that warrants eternal punishment. Most people are actually punished suitably for their crimes. Remember that capital crimes are actually a very small percentage of the crimes that are committed. I don't think that robbers should be crucified. That's a bit extreme. I certainly don't think that they should be punished for eternity.
Actually, I'd argue he did have to. It's a dichotomy. Any action is meaningless without something to oppose it. If there's no evil, there's no good. It's just...what is. God has to give us a choice in everything so that our commitments to have him mean anything. That, unfortunately, means allowing the existence of evil.
I don't think that every action needs an opposing action to have meaning. When I help others, it doesn't mean more because my neighbor didn't help. The person receiving the help only cares that he got the help. Good can exist without evil, but even if it couldn't does it really matter? Wouldn't it be better to only commit acts of good even if we didn't label them as such? If we didn't know that there was a way to harm each other, would that be a bad thing?
Hmm, well not knowing exactly what hell is like, it's hard to know how unfair that would be. It might even be possible that the people who get sent there wouldn't want to be with God anyway. Foreign to me, but I don't really know.
I'm sure there are some that would not want to be with god, and I'm sure I can find plenty of quotes from people who have said as much. However, I'm not sure if the potential consequences are clear enough. It's one thing to say that you'd be without his glory but another to say that you'd be willing to be tortured forever. Isn't it torture to not be in his glory? The problem may be with our understanding of terms like "torture" and "eternity." It is possible that the ancient texts didn't mean them the same way that we use them now.
That's a powerful story. However, I would say to be cautious that you never stop questioning the validity of your beliefs (although I don't that you have). Stopping the questioning is the same basket (atheist version) of all the blind faith Christians that tick everyone off.
I ask questions all the time. I find that asking questions is a great way to learn more. I doubt that anyone will be able to persuade me that my beliefs are wrong. They were actually solidified once I finished reading the Bible several times and digging for answers. While I didn't read up on any other religions with the same fervor, I am sure that I will come to the same conclusion. I do want to still read up on them though. There are some very interesting things in all faiths and I can always learn something new.
Hmm, I'm afraid that's not true. I'd suggest reading up on Chaos Theory if you haven't already, Wikipedia has a pretty good introduction:
I have a bit of understanding on Chaos Theory. It's not much, but it doesn't change what I was saying. What you have described god as doing is exercising Game Theory.
One of the big things about Chaos Theory is deterministic systems. This says that while the behavior of a system may seem random, in truth it becomes increasingly complicated, therefore making it harder to predict. If one could factor in all the variables in this super complex system, one could accurately predict (100% even) future events. Seems in support of your argument?
It would actually be in support of my argument since they are trying to predict the future. Remember that we will not be able to predict with 10)% certainty though. There is always some randomness in the math.
The world and everything that happens in it is a chaotic system. This means that the difficulty in predicting future events increases exponentially over time (probably really really fast). If one could factor in every variable, one could predict any and all behavior in the world. However, if any of those variables change, it changes the entire sequence of events in a ripple effect. There is a massive difference between predictability and destiny. Destiny means that no matter how many variables in the equation of the world change, the result is no different. That is not true. In this case, just because the end result of all behavior is predictable, that doesn't mean the equation doesn't contain the potential for a different result.
However, once you declare that you know with 100% certainty, then you have removed the randomness and settled into destiny. There is no way to get around this. There is no other possible result because you would know with 100% certainty that there is only one result.
The thing I think he was trying to get across is this: There is no one living now or who has ever lived (bar Jesus) that would not have done the same thing. We all have the same fundamental flaw, and from the first sin we ever commit, we've earned and deserve the same punishment.
Aren't we born into sin? We end up committing sin merely because we exist. We are punished for the sins of our fathers even though god has explicitly stated that he would not do such a thing (Ezekiel 18:20). However, we know that we will be punished for the sins of our fathers because of Exodus 20:5 (along with a few examples from Genesis that we've already discussed).
True, but if there wasn't the option to sin than there devotion to God is completely meaningless. They can't do anything else.
Why? Aren't the archangels devoted to god? Is he somehow displeased with their dedication?
God wants you to want him. This isn't a power trip as much as an extension of someones life choices. if you spend your whole like seperating yourself from God, it seems reasonable to then give you an eternal fate away from Him, giving you what you were seeking your whole life. Seems more like he's giving that person what he/she wanted. If that turns out to not be as great as they thought, well that's not God's fault.
It is a power trip though. He gives us two choices: Love him or be punished. Even if we love him, we can still be toyed with (Job). He could have come up with plenty of other options and yet he decided that there were only two and the severity of both.
That's something I honestly don't know. The parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16:19 and following) speaks of a great gulf between Heaven and Hell that cannot be crossed, and if we're speaking of justice, is it really fair for someone to sin their whole life, then after they die and realize their mistake, then get to go to Heaven too?
If god loves them, then yes. I sinned horribly against my family. I won't go into details but suffice it to say I was not welcome for more than 15 years. I am now welcomed with open arms. My family never stopped loving me and in the end, forgave me for my transgressions. This is not an isolated case. People do this all around the world every day. It is not easy, but it can be done by us mere mortals. If we can do it, then god should be more than willing and able to do this as well. That's what unconditional love is all about.
Of course, it's been argued that the parable of Lazarus isn't really about Hell at all, and I can't really think of much at the moment that specifically says "you have to decide here in this life!" And of course, we've already discussed the issue of fairness in whether we go to Heaven or not--if it were truly fair, none of us would go to Heaven! As a free gift, God is free to give it to whomever He chooses at whatever time He chooses, even if they're already dead. On the other hand, I can't really point to any scriptural points that say we will have a chance after we die to repent, so, yeah, you're taking a chance by waiting, as Encara said.
I would think that god would account for the fact that I had incomplete and incorrect information if he's been paying attention. This is another one of the problems: there is no margin for error for an imperfect being (us). What if you didn't understand everything that the Bible was teaching and you missed out on an important detail which keeps you out of heaven? Even with your faith you could still not be allowed in. Remember that Revelation gives a set number of people who will see the kingdom of god.
Here's something to keep in mind, though. If one has an anti-God attitude in life, is there any reason to think that attitude will change in death?
If we can change at all, and we assume that we do have souls that live on for eternity, then yes.
Furthermore, if one has failed to recognize God in life, will one be able to recognize Him in death?
If the information we are given is incomplete, contradictory, and sometimes just flat out lies, when given the absolute truth I would hope so. I would hope that an infinite being with infinite power could find a way to convince me.
The first issue is one that addresses what it means to come to God in life. Even while we are alive, we cannot come to God except through repentance and a humble submission to His will. It is one thing to say that one doesn't believe in God because of lack of evidence. It is another to say what one would do if one did have sufficient evidence. There are quite a few people out there who may intellectually acknowledge God, but that is a far cry from submitting to Him. "Even the devils know that God exists...and tremble." So, there are people who may get that last evidence after death, but will still not go to Heaven because of pride.
The reasons for my disbelief isn't really from a lack of evidence (which does come into play a bit) but more from a lack of consistency. The last time I saw so much inconsistency I was reading up on the presidential candidates. I would hope that god could be a bit more consistent than anyone running for public office.
The second issue is one of willing spiritual blindness. The parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man may or may not be about Hell, but it does make one point about the willingness to believe. In it, the Rich Man says to Abraham in Heaven "I have five brothers. Make sure they know that they know the truth, so that they don't suffer as I have suffered when they die." Abraham replies "They have the Law and the Prophets. Let them believe that, and live." The Rich Man replies "That's not enough. Send Lazarus. Surely if a dead man comes back to life, they'll believe and be saved." Abraham replies, sadly I think, that "If they do not believe the Law and the Prophets, not even the dead rising will convince them."
This only serves to demonstrate that people are stupid. If I saw the dead come back to life beyond the medical possibilities of the time, I would be more inclined to believe that there may be something more.
There comes a point where no evidence, no matter how convincing, can convince a person who just isn't willing to believe. Consider all that has been presented here, and all that you've seen elsewhere. If you're lying on your death bed, and all of the sudden there's a great light, and you see a loving figure coming toward you...are you going to believe it's Jesus and reach out to Him? Or will you, a reasonable person, simply conclude that it's lack of oxygen to your brain making you see something that you're expecting? Would you then turn away, never even knowing that what you're turning away from is the truth? And on the flip side, how can a believer know that what they are seeing isn't just a last few neurons firing blindly before the final darkness?
That wouldn't be sufficient evidence then. If god truly knows me, he would make himself more visible in that case. Seeing a light can be interpreted in so many different ways that it cannot be considered sufficient evidence. Now, if god (or Jesus) came down and pulled me to him so that I would know (remember that Jesus let Thomas see his wounds after the resurrection).
There comes a point where doubt is hardened, and one can come up with any number of arguments to deny whatever evidence one has.
This works both ways. There is a point where people's faith clouds their judgment and closes their minds. I know too many people that are so blinded by faith that they can't see reality anymore.
That's what I'm struggling with about the Trinity. But leaving the Trinity aside, one could say that all three are really the same God, but that we just call God "The Holy Spirit" to refer to those experiences we have of Him in our daily lives. Thus it's not a real, actual truth of the universe, but rather a label we apply for convenience. Kind of like Newton's approximations of gravity.
The Trinity is very confusing because the three are all the same god but also different beings altogether. I had someone try to liken it to Voltron once. I don't think he understood what he was talking about. It's still good for a laugh though.
As Encara pointed out, there's a lot of sins which the perpetrator never pays for. I myself have a long list of them, from the banal to the horrifying. And honestly, there's a lot of people who just never repent. They don't see the need (since they don't think they did anything wrong), or they just don't care. I think we can all think of several examples of people for whom Hell--fire, brimstone, and all--is definitely justified. So there's a conceptual space for such things, especially since Revelations depicts Satan, the Anti-Christ, and the False Prophet as being the main people consigned to such a place. These are Bad Dudes who should be punished for their sins.
What about those who were sufficiently punished for their sins? What sin is so great that 120 years of life on Earth (the maximum time the Bible gives) should equal eternity? We haven't seen any sins last more than a few generations beyond the individual that committed them. Let's assume 100 generations (around 2000 years, 4000 if we use Biblical generations), we are still at a finite amount of time less than the infinite amount of time of eternity.
The question comes when you've got the great judgment at the end of time where "All who's names are not written in the Book of Life are thrown into the fiery pit, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth," etc, etc, etc. The question becomes, what is the basis for which someone's name gets added to the Book of Life? Jesus tells of a judgment where people will come to him and say "we performed great miracles and cast out devils in your name," but he'll say to them "away from me, you wicked sinners," so it's not just about intellectual assent to a given principle or set of beings existing, nor is it about the great works you've performed in life, of faith or otherwise. It's more about your fundamental attitude, I think. God sees into the hearts of men and knows what's truly there. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God," but there are some who have rejected that sin, and others who have embraced it. God knows the difference. More than that, God knows those who's hearts ache for His presence, and those who despise Him.
Why couldn't we have a change of heart once we see him? If god can see into our hearts, he would see that it was a true conversion.
Now, is it just for God to consign those who have rejected both Him and sin to Hell? As Encara said, it doesn't make sense for God to pull someone into His presence who doesn't want to be there. But is the only alternative Hell, with the eternal torment and all that? Put that way, it's hard to say. That's the question of "What happens to good people that aren't Christians?"
People who aren't christians didn't come to the father through the son so they are condemned to hell. I can't find any passages that discuss what happens to those who were never given the opportunity.
I have this, though. God is Just and Loving. If people who reject Him are sentenced to Hell simply by that rejection, then there's a good reason for it (perhaps those people fall under the two warnings I mentioned above--a bad attitude or a willing blindness). However, if there's not a good reason for them to be condemned, I'm confident that God will not condemn those people. God may not allow them to come into Heaven, but I'm confident that He won't send them to Hell without a good reason. I don't know what he would do with them, but I'm sure He'll think of something.
I would argue that god is not just and loving. I know he makes the claim, but his actions demonstrate otherwise. Actions do speak louder than words.
I'd say that it is sufficient for 100% accuracy as long as there is only one actual answer. One actual answer is not the same as one possible answer. There could be many, many possible solutions before something is decided, but there will only be one actual solution afterward. Like the Battle of Waterloo. One can know the actual solution with 100% accuracy, but that doesn't dictate which of the possible solutions becomes the actual solution. <--this is a very important statement for my viewpoint. To me, as indicated in that last sentence, Free Will lies in our ability to decide which of the possible outcomes becomes the actual outcome. God knowing the actual outcome in advance does not dictate our selection from among the possible outcomes. Think of it this way: our decisions determine what God knows, not the other way around.
If you know with 100% certainty, then you know which actual solution or action is taken. This does not leave room for any other possibility. While there may have been tons of possibilities, only one is actually going to happen.
It's this distinction between actual and possible that is where we're disagreeing. Why do you think there's no difference?
Because there really is no difference. No matter how you spin it, once you set the value at 100%, then you remove free will.
I think the simplest answer is that God did not allow evil into the world. He allowed choice, and choice produced evil. He could have prevented evil, but could only do so by removing choice. If you took away choice, we wouldn't be us anymore. We'd be something else. God would probably still love whatever that is, but it wouldn't be us. Heck, maybe that other thing exists out there somewhere, being loved by God in whatever utopian society it lives in.
God created satan. When he created Lucifer, god knew that he would become satan (he predicted with 100% chance of being right).
However, God loves us too, and that includes the ability to choose. He created us out of love, since it is better for us to live, and evil to be in existence, than for evil to not exist, but that we don't live either. God permits evil so that we can exist. Removing evil requires removing us, if He is to do it by His power instead of by our choice. Rather than do that (well, technically the flood could be an attempt to do just that...), He has instituted a plan of teaching, experience, and relationship which is meant to bring us to a place where we will choose for ourselves to reject evil, so that we can exist and evil can not exist. Basically, it's out of God's hands (short of destroying us all). It's up to us to get rid of evil.
You brought up the flood which was something I was going to mention. The world does not require evil for us to love each other and love god. This is man's rationale. I would think that an all-powerful, infinitely intelligent being can find a way to allow for good actions to mean something without having evil actions as a counter.
Put more simply--God loves beings who have evil in them, and so he created those beings despite the evil. God probably loves beings without evil, and they may exist (Angels?), but that doesn't reduce or change the love he feels for the beings that do have evil. Why limit the universe to only one type of being that He loves? Why not have both?
He can certainly have both. There is no reason why he can't. However, he is taking out his frustration with our choices on us with death and torture. When he tells us to not murder and then tells us to kill each other, he shouldn't punish us for violating his commandments. He introduced evil. He condones evil when it suits him. He then gets angry with us when we, imperfect beings, can't tell the difference. This is part of the contradiction that is god. Also, angels can be evil. Lucifer is only one such example. Some believe that the Nephilim are also fallen angels.
Thanks.
Does anyone find the Jesus jokes in my sig offensive?
The only way anybody could find that joke offensive is if they were specifically looking to be offended by it.
That's a risk I'm willing to take. With so many choices for which god is real or better, I think I'll take my chances with none of them. The closest thing to me that makes any sense is Buddhism. I have some issues with the supernatural parts, but I like their doctrine the best - if I had to choose a faith.
Well, it's a risk you're certainly entitled to make.
I'd argue that it is broke.
Care to elaborate?
Name one that warrants eternal punishment. Most people are actually punished suitably for their crimes. Remember that capital crimes are actually a very small percentage of the crimes that are committed. I don't think that robbers should be crucified. That's a bit extreme. I certainly don't think that they should be punished for eternity.
It's not about punishment, it's about reality. God cannot be with imperfection. He sent Jesus so we could have a way to be cleaned of that imperfection. If you refuse to accept it, then you're in a condition that is incompatible with God. If it sucks to be without his glory, then that is terribly unfortunate, but the imperfect can't be with God.
I don't think that every action needs an opposing action to have meaning. When I help others, it doesn't mean more because my neighbor didn't help. The person receiving the help only cares that he got the help. Good can exist without evil, but even if it couldn't does it really matter? Wouldn't it be better to only commit acts of good even if we didn't label them as such? If we didn't know that there was a way to harm each other, would that be a bad thing?
That's not quite on point though. I'm not saying your actions have meaning only because your neighbor didn't help. I'm saying your actions have meaning because you could have chosen not to help.
I'm sure there are some that would not want to be with god, and I'm sure I can find plenty of quotes from people who have said as much. However, I'm not sure if the potential consequences are clear enough. It's one thing to say that you'd be without his glory but another to say that you'd be willing to be tortured forever. Isn't it torture to not be in his glory? The problem may be with our understanding of terms like "torture" and "eternity." It is possible that the ancient texts didn't mean them the same way that we use them now.
Like I said, I don't know if it's torture or not. But, it shouldn't be about avoiding punishment. Faith in God is about a relationship with him, not about a "Get Out of Hell Free" card.
I ask questions all the time. I find that asking questions is a great way to learn more. I doubt that anyone will be able to persuade me that my beliefs are wrong. They were actually solidified once I finished reading the Bible several times and digging for answers. While I didn't read up on any other religions with the same fervor, I am sure that I will come to the same conclusion. I do want to still read up on them though. There are some very interesting things in all faiths and I can always learn something new.
I figured you wouldn't have stopped, just saying more for others out there than for you.
I have a bit of understanding on Chaos Theory. It's not much, but it doesn't change what I was saying. What you have described god as doing is exercising Game Theory.
Exercising Game Theory in what way?
It would actually be in support of my argument since they are trying to predict the future. Remember that we will not be able to predict with 10)% certainty though. There is always some randomness in the math.
That's because the system is too complex, we lose the ability to factor in every variable, and so it appears random (without system or reason), even though it's merely chaotic (complicated but deterministic).
However, once you declare that you know with 100% certainty, then you have removed the randomness and settled into destiny. There is no way to get around this. There is no other possible result because you would know with 100% certainty that there is only one result.
The point is that if any variable changes, everything else down the line changes. It's not the only possible result, it's the only result that will occur, given that current variables don't change.
Aren't we born into sin? We end up committing sin merely because we exist. We are punished for the sins of our fathers even though god has explicitly stated that he would not do such a thing (Ezekiel 18:20). However, we know that we will be punished for the sins of our fathers because of Exodus 20:5 (along with a few examples from Genesis that we've already discussed).
I don't believe in original sin, like some do, so I'd say no.
Ah, but you're taking them out of context, look earlier in Ezekial 18:1-4:
"The word of the LORD came to me: 'What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:
' "The fathers eat sour grapes,
and the children's teeth are set on edge"?
'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son—both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die. '
Clearly, he decided later that he'd changed his mind about that.
Why? Aren't the archangels devoted to god? Is he somehow displeased with their dedication?
Apparently they aren't, considering Lucifer (the highest archangel) rebelled against Him, meaning that the archangels aren't forced to obey God either.
It is a power trip though. He gives us two choices: Love him or be punished. Even if we love him, we can still be toyed with (Job). He could have come up with plenty of other options and yet he decided that there were only two and the severity of both.
Well as Satan so clearly pointed out, Job's devotion didn't have a whole lot of meaning since he had been handed everything on a silver platter. So God allowed Satan to go after him (which isn't really God toying with Job, but anyway).
The choices he gives us are not like that, they are Love Him and accept the gift of salvation that His Son died for, or remain imperfect and therefore incompatible with God. It's not a punishment, it's just reality.
Hey, I never said my arguments were good ones. I'm actually surprised that one of them even slightly worked.
The point is, I don't see why I should have to defend my beliefs. I'm not using my beliefs as an excuse to discriminate or judge others, so they don't adversely affect other people, so why does it matter?
Also, in my personal experience, I've found that atheist/agnostics tend to be far more aggressive about their beliefs than religious people.
Live and let live.
Actually your stance in this post is fine, and I totally agree with this. Unfortunately its not the stance of most organized religions. Just about every organized religion doesn't have an inclusive,"Live and let live" policy, they are exclusionary. Christianity has heretics, Muslim has infidels, Judaism has gentiles. "Us vs. Them" mentality. This is fundamentally the problem that I have with organized religions on whole. They don't inherently allow anyone else to be able to believe what they want, in fact it is the law of the land that allows this, and organized religions often move to try to change it.
I don't think there would be a problem if all religions could adopt an attitude of "Live and let live" or even,"Agree to disagree", but this has not been the case in the entire history of religion, including up to today. My 2 cents.
Hell: I think discussing the legitimacy of torture or the length of the sentence isn't really the point that was being made in the Bible's description of the place. Could the time span be hyperbole? Could the flames be metaphor? Sure. Hyperbole and metaphor are all over the Bible.
Here's the important point--God will justly punish our sins in the afterlife. And that should be a pretty sobering concept for people. It should also be an encouraging concept for people, too; if one is being oppressed, then one can take comfort in the fact that God opposes the oppressor.
As for punishment for non-believers, upon reflection I actually think that's a separate issue. Again, descriptions of Hell are there for a particular reason, and that's to discuss the wages of sin. If one wants to posit a sin free person who's only "crime" is not believing in God, with the implication that this isn't really a sin, well...then those descriptions of Hell aren't talking about that hypothetical person. But that's really beside the point, since all have sinned. Such a person doesn't exist. All of us are subject to just punishment for the things we've done wrong. That doesn't need eternal fires and torture to be scary. Even if each of us gets exactly what we think is fair, that's still a lot of time and a lot of pain.
Honestly, I think that even once justice has been served, these people can't be let out. They need to at least be imprisoned until they repent...otherwise, they'll just keep doing what they've always done, and hurt people even more. God's power must keep them at bay.
But what does happen to the repentant non-believer? That is honestly not clear. I think the official Catholic answer is that such people are saved, and they're saved just like believers--through the power of Christ. It's just that they don't know it. I think the Biblical backup for such a stance is the "seek and ye shall find" passages in Matthew (7:7) and Luke (11:9). There may be other passages that give that kind of indication.
The key points for the above are repentance and love for God. Repentance is, I think, obvious. Love for God requires a bit more explanation. This doesn't mean necessarily that the person must believe in God, or one particular God. It's more of a...well, would you love Him if you met Him? That kind of question. This is more than a "well, I don't hate him" sort of thing. David (of Goliath fame) loved God. Rumi (the Islamic poet) loved God. I think it's clear that, in order to enter Heaven, one must at least have love like that. If there are any other requirements, well, I at least haven't resolved that, but I'm pretty confident that the kind of love that David and Rumi evidenced in their poetry is a minimum requirement. Maybe not to the extent that they went, but that kind of love needs to be there.
Of course, everyone has the option to walk away from God. The main downside to that is that you've put yourself outside God's protection. And there are all those other people out there who are also outside God's protection, and a lot of them have demonstrated the willingness and ability to amass power to inflict a lot of harm. Without God's power to keep them at bay, well...that's just not a comfortable place to be.
Predestination: I'm almost tempted to say that "well, we'll have to agree to disagree," but you're using this whole "God knew 100% and did X anyway" as an argument to say that God is morally responsible for the outcome of X.
The key point of my argument is to highlight who is responsible for the outcome of X. You argue that if only one outcome is actual, than somehow "fate" or "God" is responsible for that outcome. I'm asking, how did that actual result get plucked out from all the possible results? Did God pluck that result out? Did Fate decree it? No, a mortal actor arrived at the point of decision, and their choice determined which of the myriad possible outcomes became the actual outcome that God is capable of seeing. That's the essence of Free Will to me. God's foreknowledge (or lack thereof) is a completely separate question from who is responsible for the outcome of X. Moral responsibility comes down to who makes the choice...and it's clear that we do. The actual outcome is determined by our choice. Does God have a way to see what that actual outcome is? It seems that way. But He in no way determined what that outcome would be. The people that made the decisions that led to that outcome did.
The inconsistency of God--I don't think that God is inconsistent with Himself. He is inconsistent with our expectations of Him and our understanding of the world. That's not God's flaw--that's our flaw. Does the apparent cruelty of Hell bother you? Well, it may be that your understanding of Hell is wrong, rather than it being obvious that God is a cruel monster. Does it seem like predestination destroys free will? Well, it may be that your understanding of the interaction of predestination and free will (or the two component parts themselves) are wrong, rather than God unjustly punishing us for the horrible things we do "that we don't have any control over anyway."
Here's a question. If someone you love seems to do something cruel, do you automatically assume that they're cruel? If they've got a lot of other evidence saying that they're a kind, loving person who occasionally does cruel things, do you then assume that they're crazy (since their behavior is so incredibly erratic). Or do you give them the benefit of the doubt? Yeah, the behavior is odd from what you know of them, but maybe there are things they know that you don't which explain it all? Or do you have so little trust for your loved ones? Or so little experience with them that you can't really trust them, but have declared love for them anyway?
God has a lot of other evidence which indicates He's a good, loving being. He gave up His power, came to Earth, and died in a horrible manner, all for our sakes (since you're leveling accusations from the Bible, I'm assuming that the Bible is valid for the moment). That buys Him all manner of trust. Does that trust have limits? Sure, but as I've been trying to do here, there are a lot of proposed solutions for the things that bother you. People say "Occam's Razor" or whatever and nix half of them, but nevertheless, there exists the possibility that God is good and still all these things exist. Considering how much God has demonstrated His goodness elsewhere (see the whole dying thing), that adds a lot of weight to any argument that preserves that goodness.
The above may sound rather harsh, but the point I'm trying to make is that if God has some apparent contradictions, don't give up. Don't just accept them, but don't just decide that God must be wrong/be unjust/not exist. Probe deeper, challenge your other preconceptions (not just your preconception of Gods existence or not). Put them to the same test that you've put God to, and see if there's a way to reconcile things. It may be that we've underestimated how cruel God's opponents were, or maybe our idea of what is Just isn't (especially from the victim's point of view!). Perhaps we're taking something literally which isn't meant to be taken like that. Stop holding God to your standards, and try to understand what His standards are, and why He has them set there.
I was born and raised in the U.S.A and all I speak is English(Well a form of it at least.)
My only point is people from all walks of life battle with this dilemma everyday. We question. But the similarities from every religion, prove to ME, that there is something out there larger than us. Hundreds of cultures, and peoples couldn't just be wrong.
Though they may be single-minded, the peoples of this world are decent record keepers, and history tells of something larger. Granted humans are incredible beings, we aren't the highest ranking beings on a universal scale.
We may die, but our perception of death is something different than the reality of death.
Reason will never be able to attain perfect knowledge. There will always be some sort of ultimate given, even 2000 years from now. You can choose to merely accept this ultimate given, or you can embrace the concept of some sort of "god" to cover it. Neither one is more or less logical than the other; the ultimate given's mere status as an ultimate given ensures this ;) At one time, physical laws like gravity were ultimate givens with no understood mechanism behind them. In the far future, we may attain such deep knowledge of the universe that the only ultimate given is *existence itself*. Be that as it may, the ultimate given is by definition unknowable, and ultimate faith in logic is no more defensible than ultimate faith in god when it comes to explaining the ultimate given.
Religion exists for me to fill those segments of thought which are by their very nature illogical. Things like morals, and creation. I have chosen the Catholic tradition because
a.) It's what I was raised as, and the religion my family has kept for over a thousand years; this is important to me.
b.) When it comes to religion, I judge the tree by its fruit, and I like the values that Catholicism supports
That's it in a nut-shell. I don't have a problem with atheists or agnostics or buddhists or anything really, as long as they don't try to force their views on me. This applies to atheists as well; I've met almost as many "evangelizing atheists" as I have "evangelizing christians".
Add-In: Figured I'd throw in a critique of an argument against the concept of a Christian god that I used to find convincing.
One of my favorite thinkers, Ludwig von Mises, discounted the idea of the Christian god (or any similar god really) like this: if god is omniscient, then the future must be predetermined, and therefore he cannot by omnipotent. If god is omnipotent, he could have everything he ever wanted in an instant, and the universe as we know it would be pointless.
My argument against that is that god could have the *capacity* to have anything "he" ever wanted, but this assumes he even has human wants and desires. What if, despite his omnipotence, he specifically wants to let things run their course without or with minimal intervention on his part? What if omniscience in the case of god doesn't imply perfect knowledge of the future, because, through his omnipotence, he purposefully created a universe where the future is not knowable? The "omniscience of god" could merely mean he is aware of everything that is happening in the universe at any given moment.
...Long thread is long.
I meant Magic, Nature, or whatever you want to call it.
I was born and raised in the U.S.A and all I speak is English(Well a form of it at least.)
My only point is people from all walks of life battle with this dilemma everyday. We question. But the similarities from every religion, prove to ME, that there is something out there larger than us. Hundreds of cultures, and peoples couldn't just be wrong.
Though they may be single-minded, the peoples of this world are decent record keepers, and history tells of something larger. Granted humans are incredible beings, we aren't the highest ranking beings on a universal scale.
We may die, but our perception of death is something different than the reality of death.
I've seen some hypothesis that explains the Belief in God/Gods as an extension of the mechanism that lends us to form societies.
I'm going to take the time to respond to the various posts soon. I am just exhausted from work and feeling a bit stressed out about some personal issues so I want to take some time to rest my mind. I want to make sure my posts are well written and respectful at all times so we can continue our conversation. I'll try to post something on Thursday when I'm off and I've had some time to rest.
I look forward to it
I'm going to take the time to respond to the various posts soon. I am just exhausted from work and feeling a bit stressed out about some personal issues so I want to take some time to rest my mind. I want to make sure my posts are well written and respectful at all times so we can continue our conversation. I'll try to post something on Thursday when I'm off and I've had some time to rest.
I hear you. These debates take a suprisingly lot out of you.
Shouldn't we worry first about whether we have free will, and second about whether God exists or not? To be honest, I think the two questions are very closely related.
Well, it's a risk you're certainly entitled to make.
It's the same risk we all take when we don't worship another god.
Care to elaborate?
Sure. To summarize so you don't have too go back, we were discussing the complexity of the trinity and how I find it overly complex and unneeded for a being as omnipotent as god.
Basically, the judeo-christian god is one of the few gods that created a system where he is many beings that are also a single being. They are all god and yet only one is god. This has caused much confusion and makes it difficult for mere mortals to understand. While some can accept it, many others find this as a way to dismiss his existence. A being as powerful as god could have very easily avoided this foreseen problem by not creating it in the first place. Most people can't even tell me how the holy spirit interacts with anything or anyone. The best I can find is that it is a voice for god. Jesus is the only way to god. The problem here is that god could very easily have skipped these, and has many times yet there is still this insistence.
Throughout the Old Testament, devout followers have been accepted to sit at god's side. A few even ascended, going directly to heaven (Genesis 5:24, 2 Kings 2:11). Even though this is disputed by the son of god (John 3:13). If Jesus can't remember who has ascended, and he is god who is supposed to have a decent memory.
It's not about punishment, it's about reality. God cannot be with imperfection. He sent Jesus so we could have a way to be cleaned of that imperfection. If you refuse to accept it, then you're in a condition that is incompatible with God. If it sucks to be without his glory, then that is terribly unfortunate, but the imperfect can't be with God.
Why can't god be with imperfection? He created imperfect beings and then holds them accountable for that imperfection. God can set the rules and has chosen to set them against mankind. Also, god clearly can be with imperfect beings. Check out Elija and Enoch for just two examples. Abraham and David are also said to be next to god in heaven. They certainly could not have gotten there through Jesus.
That's not quite on point though. I'm not saying your actions have meaning only because your neighbor didn't help. I'm saying your actions have meaning because you could have chosen not to help.
Fair enough. I still am not convinced that there needs to be a dichotomy. The universe could have been created with a different set of rules. We don't have to know what evil is to know that we should be good to each other. Adam and Eve didn't know about evil until after their snack. They lived in Eden for quite some time I'm sure (no more than 130 years since Seth was born outside of Eden). Simply not putting the tree there would have been sufficient.
Like I said, I don't know if it's torture or not. But, it shouldn't be about avoiding punishment. Faith in God is about a relationship with him, not about a "Get Out of Hell Free" card.
The relationship is more of a "do as I say" relationship rather than a two-way one. For mortals, a two-way relationship is much more healthy. God really doesn't give a choice. He makes it clear that it's his way or the highway. The highway leads directly to hell. I know that I was distraught when my wife left me, but I wanted her to be happy anyway. I didn't make her life miserable. God doesn't have make our afterlives miserable. He can change the rules. He is omnipotent. This also does not address what happens to those who have never had the chance to know him.
I figured you wouldn't have stopped, just saying more for others out there than for you.
Fair enough. I also would like to say the same thing to those who are faithful. Of course, we are all convinced that our way is right so we are more likely on a course of learning rather than believing.
Exercising Game Theory in what way?
Game theory is about predicting the future by analyzing all the known data. While it originally was used for games, it is now used widely in social sciences to determine the most likely outcome. If you can hit 100%, you've mastered game theory. Of course it is more likely that an omniscient being uses both of those as well as many others to come to his conclusions; assuming that he doesn't simply see into the future.
The point is that if any variable changes, everything else down the line changes. It's not the only possible result, it's the only result that will occur, given that current variables don't change.
Your assumption is that god knows that the variable won't change because he has already determined this with 100% success. This means that there really are no variables, only constants.
I don't believe in original sin, like some do, so I'd say no.
Fair enough.
Ah, but you're taking them out of context, look earlier in Ezekial 18:1-4:
"The word of the LORD came to me: 'What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:
' "The fathers eat sour grapes,
and the children's teeth are set on edge"?
'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son—both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die. '
Clearly, he decided later that he'd changed his mind about that.
God can't change his mind. He is immutable. Hebrews 13:8 is often used as the passage to support this. I know that you did not make this claim in our discussion but can you see how confusing things get?
Apparently they aren't, considering Lucifer (the highest archangel) rebelled against Him, meaning that the archangels aren't forced to obey God either.
Psalm 103:20-21 is the verse I often see used as proof that the angels do not have free will. However, I am willing to concede that we misunderstand what is being said. Abraham, Moses, David, and many others did as god commanded and no one questions their free will.
As a side note, it is the non-christian that is accused of taking things out of context yet it seems to be the christian that does it more and then is upset when the same passages are used in counter-arguments. Thank you for not doing this. It is a refreshing discourse.
Well as Satan so clearly pointed out, Job's devotion didn't have a whole lot of meaning since he had been handed everything on a silver platter. So God allowed Satan to go after him (which isn't really God toying with Job, but anyway).
God told satan that he could do whatever he wanted so long as he didn't kill Job. For the record, god mentioned Job first, almost taunting satan. Since god knew what would happen if he mentioned Job to satan, we can easily see how god has no problem inflicting pain and suffering on his subjects.
The choices he gives us are not like that, they are Love Him and accept the gift of salvation that His Son died for, or remain imperfect and therefore incompatible with God. It's not a punishment, it's just reality.
What about those in the Old Testament or those who never had a chance to even of god or Jesus?
Hell: I think discussing the legitimacy of torture or the length of the sentence isn't really the point that was being made in the Bible's description of the place. Could the time span be hyperbole? Could the flames be metaphor? Sure. Hyperbole and metaphor are all over the Bible.
This is one of the reasons I enjoy our conversations. You are able to read with an open mind and don't simply accept the traditional teachings. I know that I was able to understand much more of the Bible once I got out of the literal reading and started asking myself what is really being said. I started with the assumption that Jesus is also god. Since Jesus taught with parables, it is not much of a leap to say that god would do the same. I can accept your definition much more than many others.
Here's the important point--God will justly punish our sins in the afterlife. And that should be a pretty sobering concept for people. It should also be an encouraging concept for people, too; if one is being oppressed, then one can take comfort in the fact that God opposes the oppressor.
Isn't this dangerously close to wishing harm on others? I know that Jesus taught against this (Matthew 5:43-44). I know many faithful ones who take your opinion and are actually pleased that someone else will suffer. Not be punished, but actually suffer.
As for punishment for non-believers, upon reflection I actually think that's a separate issue. Again, descriptions of Hell are there for a particular reason, and that's to discuss the wages of sin. If one wants to posit a sin free person who's only "crime" is not believing in God, with the implication that this isn't really a sin, well...then those descriptions of Hell aren't talking about that hypothetical person. But that's really beside the point, since all have sinned. Such a person doesn't exist. All of us are subject to just punishment for the things we've done wrong. That doesn't need eternal fires and torture to be scary. Even if each of us gets exactly what we think is fair, that's still a lot of time and a lot of pain.
I wouldn't use a hypothetical sin-free person. I break the 1st and 10th all the time with a little attention to the 7th (at least in my heart). I think it is reasonable to assume that someone who does not know of those commandments would still be breaking a few (at least the 1st). Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
I am more concerned with the individual that never had the chance to know of god and therefore could not have loved him or accepted him. This is not a hypothetical person. There are many who have not had the opportunity. If they were unaware that their actions were actually sins, should they be held accountable? What about those who are not mentally stable (Ed Gein comes immediately to mind, but I know there are many others)?
Honestly, I think that even once justice has been served, these people can't be let out. They need to at least be imprisoned until they repent...otherwise, they'll just keep doing what they've always done, and hurt people even more. God's power must keep them at bay.
How are they going to harm anyone else? They are dead and there is no interaction with our world anymore.
But what does happen to the repentant non-believer? That is honestly not clear. I think the official Catholic answer is that such people are saved, and they're saved just like believers--through the power of Christ. It's just that they don't know it. I think the Biblical backup for such a stance is the "seek and ye shall find" passages in Matthew (7:7) and Luke (11:9). There may be other passages that give that kind of indication.
Those are kinda flimsy though. It doesn't sound like you are fully convinced by those passages either. I'm sure that you believe that there is some way for god to remain fair and that we aren't privy to all the information.
The key points for the above are repentance and love for God. Repentance is, I think, obvious. Love for God requires a bit more explanation. This doesn't mean necessarily that the person must believe in God, or one particular God. It's more of a...well, would you love Him if you met Him? That kind of question. This is more than a "well, I don't hate him" sort of thing. David (of Goliath fame) loved God. Rumi (the Islamic poet) loved God. I think it's clear that, in order to enter Heaven, one must at least have love like that. If there are any other requirements, well, I at least haven't resolved that, but I'm pretty confident that the kind of love that David and Rumi evidenced in their poetry is a minimum requirement. Maybe not to the extent that they went, but that kind of love needs to be there.
So it's more of an unconditional love that you desire to show the world. Like when I am out with my girlfriend, I not only want to be with her but I want to show everyone how much she means to me. It's not just holding hands but an actual demonstration of my love in some way. It doesn't have to be obvious to the world (that would be similar to praying in public) but it does need to come from deep within.
Of course, everyone has the option to walk away from God. The main downside to that is that you've put yourself outside God's protection. And there are all those other people out there who are also outside God's protection, and a lot of them have demonstrated the willingness and ability to amass power to inflict a lot of harm. Without God's power to keep them at bay, well...that's just not a comfortable place to be.
And yet there are many others who do not walk with god and have done great things for humanity. They did not have god's power to keep them at bay and they are/were very comfortable to be with.
Predestination: I'm almost tempted to say that "well, we'll have to agree to disagree," but you're using this whole "God knew 100% and did X anyway" as an argument to say that God is morally responsible for the outcome of X.
Yup, that's pretty much it. I can agree to disagree since this isn't really going to go anywhere by continuing to bring up points. This isn't a 3.5 fighter debate...
...deleted so we could agree to disagree...
The inconsistency of God--I don't think that God is inconsistent with Himself. He is inconsistent with our expectations of Him and our understanding of the world. That's not God's flaw--that's our flaw. Does the apparent cruelty of Hell bother you? Well, it may be that your understanding of Hell is wrong, rather than it being obvious that God is a cruel monster. Does it seem like predestination destroys free will? Well, it may be that your understanding of the interaction of predestination and free will (or the two component parts themselves) are wrong, rather than God unjustly punishing us for the horrible things we do "that we don't have any control over anyway."
Those are all possible. However, god is definitely inconsistent. He gives contradicting commands. Take adultery as an example. We are to stone adulterers but Jesus said that only the sinless should do that. So for a few centuries, we were to stoning them and then we find out that we should not have been doing so. 2 Peter 3:9 makes it seem as if god wants us all to be saved and then we've got 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 where god goes out of his way to make it so that it just isn't going to be possible. Exodus 20:24 and Jeremiah 7:22 are also contradictions from god concerning burnt offerings. God is very much an inconsistent being, at least with the Biblical writings.
Here's a question. If someone you love seems to do something cruel, do you automatically assume that they're cruel? If they've got a lot of other evidence saying that they're a kind, loving person who occasionally does cruel things, do you then assume that they're crazy (since their behavior is so incredibly erratic). Or do you give them the benefit of the doubt? Yeah, the behavior is odd from what you know of them, but maybe there are things they know that you don't which explain it all? Or do you have so little trust for your loved ones? Or so little experience with them that you can't really trust them, but have declared love for them anyway?
I actually try to get to the bottom of things. I don't actually give the benefit of the doubt. Cruel actions are cruel regardless of how often they are committed. If they still wish to be cruel, I do not associate with them.
God has a lot of other evidence which indicates He's a good, loving being. He gave up His power, came to Earth, and died in a horrible manner, all for our sakes (since you're leveling accusations from the Bible, I'm assuming that the Bible is valid for the moment). That buys Him all manner of trust. Does that trust have limits? Sure, but as I've been trying to do here, there are a lot of proposed solutions for the things that bother you. People say "Occam's Razor" or whatever and nix half of them, but nevertheless, there exists the possibility that God is good and still all these things exist. Considering how much God has demonstrated His goodness elsewhere (see the whole dying thing), that adds a lot of weight to any argument that preserves that goodness.
Since we are discussing god, the Bible is always going to be valid for supporting arguments. It can't be the defining argument since that would be circular. I also don't like to use Occam's Razor since it is so poorly used and tends to cause confusion.
God has admitted to creating evil (2 Kings 6:33, Isaiah 45:7, and Amos 3:6) and causing many to commit evil acts (John 12:40, Exodus 4:21). He even created a woman's period and then holds her accountable for that by declaring her unclean. There are many others I'm sure I can come up with if I try hard enough. If we are using the only books available to understand god and his apparent goodness, it seems obvious that he is inconsistent. Of course we know that we don't have all the information and we never will but more care should have been taken with what he has decided we should know.
The above may sound rather harsh, but the point I'm trying to make is that if God has some apparent contradictions, don't give up. Don't just accept them, but don't just decide that God must be wrong/be unjust/not exist. Probe deeper, challenge your other preconceptions (not just your preconception of Gods existence or not). Put them to the same test that you've put God to, and see if there's a way to reconcile things. It may be that we've underestimated how cruel God's opponents were, or maybe our idea of what is Just isn't (especially from the victim's point of view!). Perhaps we're taking something literally which isn't meant to be taken like that. Stop holding God to your standards, and try to understand what His standards are, and why He has them set there.
I've done that probing. I spent many years probing and I came to the conclusion that the god of the Bible simply cannot exist as written. Becoming an atheist was not a short journey and wasn't something I took lightly. I spent many years actually trying to become a christian. I really wanted to find god and be welcome into his kingdom. After reading the Bible, asking questions, and spending quite a bit of time on research outside the text I have come to the conclusion that I was on the wrong path. I don't think it was a wasted journey. I learned a lot and made some good friends along the way. I just don't agree with many of them. What's really interesting is that I buy religious books and items for them and they help me procure some interesting atheist books and items for me. I have had them give me new Bibles, the Book of Mormon, the Bible on CD (read by Darth Vader!), and hopefully soon: The Bible in Klingon. I have not read the Book of Mormon yet. We have really helped each other solidify our own personal beliefs. One of my friends, a very devout christian, comes to me often with questions about the Bible. I tell her my opinion on what is going on and how it applies to her. I do my best to not interject my own opinion on god himself. I would not be a good friend if I did that.
Two people have actually become atheist by talking to me. I spent quite a bit of time encouraging them to read the Bible and ask questions. I told them that I would not try to convince them that their faith was wrong. I would question things they brought up if it seemed inconsistent or I didn't understand but I would not tell them they were wrong. I do not evangelize for atheism. I leave that to others.
*has one*
Okay, a few quotes I picked up along the way that I want to address. I had some catty things to say to some points toward the start of the thread, but Bob Loblaw, Encara, and HoratioAtTheBridge have done a fine job of elevating the discussion beyond typical threadfoo, so I won't be so rude. :D
Eldritch_Lord is hewn directly from a six-ton block of win for his 'survivor' metaphor describing the likelihood of our evolving on this planet, and EscherEnigma gets a cookie for 'eternity = long, torture = bad, eternity + torture = still bad'. I agree, which means I also agree with Crimson_Concerto.
Oh, and RazAl_Dazzle? Get a job, hippie! :D (I kid; I actually think we have very compatible views, and I spoke much as you do about a decade ago, around the time I discovered Discordianism and Gnosticism. ;))
Okay! *cracks knuckles* Let me get into it, and I'll disclaimer in advance that, though I intend to speak bluntly and irreverently, I nonetheless respect you and your right to your views. If you will trust that I am sharing my views in good faith, then I will trust you to keep that in mind should you take issue with my tone.
The thing I like about the parental analogy given one or two pages back is how well it throws the notion of a Loving Christian God into absurd relief if you spell out the entire arrangement in such terms.
Let's say a parent brings zir infant child into a room where there is broken glass on the floor. Not all over; just piled in one spot over there. The parent then puts the child down on the floor, near the pile of broken glass and says 'don't touch'. Being naturally inquisitive and having no idea what the glass is or what harm it could cause, the child picks up a shard of glass, puts it in its mouth, and swallows it. The parent does nothing to stop this. Not only does this cause the child indescribable pain, but the parent is angry at the child, and thus casts it out into the cold night to freeze as punishment. Sure, the parent knew that the child (being a child) would do exactly as it did, but the parent went through with the plan so that the child would have freely chosen to suffer and die, and thus any love it might feel in spite of this treatment would be genuine and born of free will.
I hope I'm not the only one who laughs bitterly at the notion that this parent is anything but a vicious sociopath.
No one would ever act this way toward someone they loved.
You say that we had to be allowed to fall so as to have had free choice for our worship of God to be meaningful and genuine? Sounds like a real jerkass to me, setting things up so that the majority of his creations would suffer for all eternity just so the ones who won the d20 toss and followed the right major religion would give him more satisfying praise!
I don't care if you feel that God didn't create Hell to punish, the point is that it is a punishing existence that, thanks to his rules, people go to. If he's the only source of life-giving warmth in the universe, then imprisoning the damned away from that warmth to freeze is just as bad as throwing them into a fiery pit that he lit himself.
If God had intended to love his creations, he'd have spared us suffering, sin, death, and all that stuff out of love. He'd have given us free will to choose between existences of unearthly delight and merely earthly delight, to choose between creamy and crunchy peanut butter.
And being omniscient, he knew the creatures he was creating would end up damned. Forget the idea that he could look at the circumstances then and estimate flawlessly how it would turn out; he could look at the future and see how it would turn out. That's omniscience. And then, if he'd loved us, he would have tweaked and tinkered until he created creatures with free will that wouldn't get brutally screwed by his rules. He could do that, because he's omnipotent too. Like any good DM, he could have given us free will and made sure things just so happened not to result in a TPK!
But he didn't.
So no, I don't believe in the Loving Christian God, because the guy Christians tell me about sounds like Anonymous on a particularly cruel day. If it turns out that he does exist, and I find myself standing before him at the gates of Heaven, I only hope he's not so tall I can't spit in his face. If he's the scum he seems to be, I'll get sent to Hell for not thanking him for being such a prick, but at least one of the two of us will have acted with some moral conviction.
If, somehow, the Loving Christian God does exist, is actually decent and kind, and that 6,000 years of bad publicity I based my opinion on was just plain wrong, then he won't mind my spitting in his face. If he really created me in his image, then he'll know that he'd have done the same if he thought someone had stacked such a raw deal against him, and my not groveling before him like a slave will please him so much more.
This is the chief issue which turned me away from Christianity so many years ago. Fundamental differences between what Christians say about God and what his actions say about him which I could never reconcile.
Damn, you are some long-winded bastiches! I just spent four gorram hours reading this thread! I need to have a lie-down!
And I even took a few days off so you could catch up
*has one*
It's good to feel refreshed. I like to have a beer or a whiskey drink (Lynchburg lemonade) after my afternoon nap. You should consider it. You can nap for less time and feel just as good.
Let's say a parent brings zir infant child into a room where there is broken glass on the floor. Not all over; just piled in one spot over there. The parent then puts the child down on the floor, near the pile of broken glass and says 'don't touch'. Being naturally inquisitive and having no idea what the glass is or what harm it could cause, the child picks up a shard of glass, puts it in its mouth, and swallows it. The parent does nothing to stop this. Not only does this cause the child indescribable pain, but the parent is angry at the child, and thus casts it out into the cold night to freeze as punishment. Sure, the parent knew that the child (being a child) would do exactly as it did, but the parent went through with the plan so that the child would have freely chosen to suffer and die, and thus any love it might feel in spite of this treatment would be genuine and born of free will.
I hope I'm not the only one who laughs bitterly at the notion that this parent is anything but a vicious sociopath.
No one would ever act this way toward someone they loved.
I was trying to come up with a good example. I think this is pretty good. Add in that the parent told zir (I like this term and may steal it) child to not touch the glass and you'd nail it.
And I even took a few days off so you could catch up
I admit it, I'm just out of shape. :embarrass
It's good to feel refreshed. I like to have a beer or a whiskey drink (Lynchburg lemonade) after my afternoon nap. You should consider it. You can nap for less time and feel just as good.
I'll have to give that one a try. Personally, I swear by (ironically) a nice God's Blessing. Bracing and soothing all at once, great preparation for excursions into the hellish world beyond the safety of one's eyelids. ;)
I was trying to come up with a good example. I think this is pretty good. Add in that the parent told zir (I like this term and may steal it) child to not touch the glass and you'd nail it.
If only I had!
The parent then puts the child down on the floor, near the pile of broken glass and says 'don't touch'.
:D
(And yes, I find 'zie/zir' very handy. It saves one from having to bend one's sentences in odd ways to accommodate fair speech. Of course, I still ended up calling the hypothetical child 'it', but I think I was trying to dehumanize it so as not to think of a real person being treated that way. :nonono
I admit it, I'm just out of shape. :embarrass
I just try to remember that "pear" is a shape
I'll have to give that one a try. Personally, I swear by (ironically) a nice God's Blessing. Bracing and soothing all at once, great preparation for excursions into the hellish world beyond the safety of one's eyelids. ;)
That would be good if I drank coffee. I haven't had caffeine in almost 4 years and I just don't like the taste of coffee. I do like the taste of the whiskey though. Maybe I'll just enjoy the "blessing" part.
If only I had!
One day I will learn to read every word. I can't believe I missed that.
I even went back and looked for it, twice. This only makes you even more right than I thought.Eldritch_Lord is hewn directly from a six-ton block of win for his 'survivor' metaphor describing the likelihood of our evolving on this planet,
Now that's an expression I haven't heard before. Thanks! :D
-------------------
I've also been taking a break from this thread, and I was going to get back into it until MrCelsius showed up. I think I'll keep just observing and see what new views--like the pile-o'-glass one--zie (;)) brings to the thread.
I'll try my best, here we go!
It's the same risk we all take when we don't worship another god.
Effectively, I suppose. But seeing as this seems to be an atheism vs theism issue, I don't think that's what we're dealing with.
Sure. To summarize so you don't have too go back, we were discussing the complexity of the trinity and how I find it overly complex and unneeded for a being as omnipotent as god.
Thanks for that, it was very convenient.
Basically, the judeo-christian god is one of the few gods that created a system where he is many beings that are also a single being. They are all god and yet only one is god. This has caused much confusion and makes it difficult for mere mortals to understand. While some can accept it, many others find this as a way to dismiss his existence. A being as powerful as god could have very easily avoided this foreseen problem by not creating it in the first place. Most people can't even tell me how the holy spirit interacts with anything or anyone. The best I can find is that it is a voice for god. Jesus is the only way to god. The problem here is that god could very easily have skipped these, and has many times yet there is still this insistence.
So, if I get you straight, what you're saying is that God can't be that way because it's too confusing for us?
The knowledge we have about God's existence and his nature is incredibly slim, and anyone would be remiss to claim that they had anything even closely resembling the whole picture. With no way to know how God works or the myriad of things he has to deal with, we aren't exactly in a position to say that he could have "very easily have skipped these."
Just cause it's confusing, counter-intuitive, and complicated doesn't mean it's not true or necessary. Just ask Quantum Mechanics.
Throughout the Old Testament, devout followers have been accepted to sit at god's side. A few even ascended, going directly to heaven (Genesis 5:24, 2 Kings 2:11). Even though this is disputed by the son of god (John 3:13). If Jesus can't remember who has ascended, and he is god who is supposed to have a decent memory.
Actually I've done a whole lot of research on this kind of thing, because I'm fascinated by it. I really wish I had all my notes with me to give the references. I'll do my best.
So if you look in Revelation 20:11-15 it talks about the final judgment and all that fun stuff. An interesting thing to note is that in that passage Hades is thrown into the "lake of fire."
Hell is thrown into Hell? What the...
Not quite. Turns out the word there translated as "Hades" is really known as Sheol from the Old Testament. It's a place where the dead go to await the resurrection, and they do not know they are dead.
One of the parables of Jesus seems to suggest that this waiting place is divided into two places, separated by some sort of chasm. One of comfort, and one of torture.
I, personally, don't believe that the people that wait there have already had their fate decided. After all, it says in 1 Peter 3:19 that Jesus preached to these people. Seems like a grand waste of time if it's set in stone.
Seems more than likely that these people who "ascended," ascended to Abraham's bosom (the nice side of Sheol).
Also, you might want to know that I'm not convinced that the people who get thrown into the "lake of fire" are tortured forever. Revelations refers to that fate as the "second death." Not really a death if your living in pain forever. Seems more likely that people condemned to that fate are destroyed forever.
Why can't god be with imperfection? He created imperfect beings and then holds them accountable for that imperfection. God can set the rules and has chosen to set them against mankind. Also, god clearly can be with imperfect beings. Check out Elija and Enoch for just two examples. Abraham and David are also said to be next to god in heaven. They certainly could not have gotten there through Jesus.
Well as far as these older Bible heroes, I'd refer back to Sheol.
To address your imperfection point:
Best answer I've got for you in "because." I apologize for that weak point, but there's not much I can tell you. God didn't give us the reasoning behind the rules, maybe that's just how things are, I don't know.
As far as "creating imperfect beings" goes, I know I've hashed this point probably to death, but without the potential to sin, devotion has no meaning. Sure, he could have been "nice" and not given us the potential to fail, but why? That would be totally meaningless, we'd be little more than a bunch of "I love you" programs running around.
Sure it sucks that there's a bunch of bad stuff, but without it, we'd never be able to appreciate the good stuff.
Fair enough. I still am not convinced that there needs to be a dichotomy. The universe could have been created with a different set of rules. We don't have to know what evil is to know that we should be good to each other. Adam and Eve didn't know about evil until after their snack. They lived in Eden for quite some time I'm sure (no more than 130 years since Seth was born outside of Eden). Simply not putting the tree there would have been sufficient.
Not to be overly picky, but how do you know that the universe could have been created with a different set of rules? Because you have a conceptual idea of a universe that works differently?
I'm not sure that anyone is in a position to make claims about how the universe "could have been" created. For all we really know, there's no way for there to be a functional universe like that.
I agree we don't need to know evil to be good. The tree isn't about creating evil or anything like that. It's about having a choice. It gave Adam and Eve's devotion to God meaning because they had the option not to (which they eventually took).
The relationship is more of a "do as I say" relationship rather than a two-way one. For mortals, a two-way relationship is much more healthy. God really doesn't give a choice. He makes it clear that it's his way or the highway. The highway leads directly to hell. I know that I was distraught when my wife left me, but I wanted her to be happy anyway. I didn't make her life miserable. God doesn't have make our afterlives miserable. He can change the rules. He is omnipotent. This also does not address what happens to those who have never had the chance to know him.
Yeah sounds like a parent/child relationship. I didn't say this was a relationship between equals. As much as one's parents might care about and love them, sometimes they bring out the authority stick, because it's better for the child in the long run, even if they don't see it.
As far as those who never know God:
Romans 7 is a great answer to this. Possibly my favorite quote from the Bible is here: "for apart from the law, sin is dead." Basically, if you don't know the rules you aren't held accountable for them.
One might argue, "then why evangelize and spread the law if you're really just putting their fate at risk."
I would argue that it's a risk not to do it. After all, who's to say they won't get taught a different set of rules and then hear of the Christian law off handedly and think "what a load of crap" due to bias or being set in their ways or any other myriad of reasons.
It's a pretty rare circumstance for someone to actually never have a chance to hear the law. But, for those that do, I'd say God gives them the benefit of the doubt.
Fair enough. I also would like to say the same thing to those who are faithful. Of course, we are all convinced that our way is right so we are more likely on a course of learning rather than believing.
True, and there are far too many faithful who stop.
We may be convinced that we are right, but if I actually heard an argument I didn't have (or couldn't find) an answer for, it would make me think twice (and a few more times after that).
Game theory is about predicting the future by analyzing all the known data. While it originally was used for games, it is now used widely in social sciences to determine the most likely outcome. If you can hit 100%, you've mastered game theory. Of course it is more likely that an omniscient being uses both of those as well as many others to come to his conclusions; assuming that he doesn't simply see into the future.
Yeah, but I'm not seeing the "game" that God is playing. Game Theory applies to behavioral choices within competition which offer varying pay offs.
I'm still not sure what you are trying to say about God and Game Theory/
Your assumption is that god knows that the variable won't change because he has already determined this with 100% success. This means that there really are no variables, only constants.
That's not true at all. If I say x + y = z and then tell you that x = 2 and y = 3, and you then conclude that, given that: z = 5. That doesn't make x + y = z the same as 2 + 3 = 5. x and y can change, which could result in a different z. 2, 3, and 5 do not change, nor do they have the potential to.
God can't change his mind. He is immutable. Hebrews 13:8 is often used as the passage to support this. I know that you did not make this claim in our discussion but can you see how confusing things get?
Well that scripture is talking about Jesus alone, and it doesn't really get into specifics. If I change my mind about something, that doesn't make me a different person than I was. I don't think that passage suggests immutability. Really, I think it's suggesting that Jesus (and depending on your view, God by extension) is who he is, and nothing will change that.
Psalm 103:20-21 is the verse I often see used as proof that the angels do not have free will. However, I am willing to concede that we misunderstand what is being said. Abraham, Moses, David, and many others did as god commanded and no one questions their free will.
Plus, as far as revealing truth about the universe, Psalms isn't a very good source. It's songs written by people, they probably took a lot of poetic license. ;)
As a side note, it is the non-christian that is accused of taking things out of context yet it seems to be the christian that does it more and then is upset when the same passages are used in counter-arguments. Thank you for not doing this. It is a refreshing discourse.
Believe it or not, my demands about "in context" are based in too many of my fellow believers arguing crap based on scriptures they are completely out of context. I got quite fed up with it all.
God told satan that he could do whatever he wanted so long as he didn't kill Job. For the record, god mentioned Job first, almost taunting satan. Since god knew what would happen if he mentioned Job to satan, we can easily see how god has no problem inflicting pain and suffering on his subjects.
Well, perhaps God realized that Job needed to be tested to prove he wasn't just riding the "faith gravy train" so to speak. It needed to be seen that Job's devotion was legitimate and not based on his good fortune, but based in a true devotion to God.
What about those in the Old Testament or those who never had a chance to even of god or Jesus?
Sheol, as mentioned above.
*phew*
I am more concerned with the individual that never had the chance to know of god and therefore could not have loved him or accepted him. This is not a hypothetical person. There are many who have not had the opportunity. If they were unaware that their actions were actually sins, should they be held accountable? What about those who are not mentally stable (Ed Gein comes immediately to mind, but I know there are many others)?
I.E., what happens to good people who are not believers?
An important point is that even good people who are believers won't go to Heaven unless they're also repentant, and they love God.
So, non-believers are at the very least subject to those two conditions. They've got to be repentant of their sins (else it's not safe to let them have eternal life, where they'll have the ability to keep hurting people), and they've got to love God (or at least, they've got to be able to love Him when they finally meet Him).
Now, we're told rather plainly that Jesus is the "Way, the Truth, and the Light. No-one gets to the Father accept through (him)." But what does it mean to go "through" Jesus? Obviously we're not literally passing through his body. Through means "via" or, I think more properly, "by the power of." We cannot get to God by our own power, so I think it's not too much of a stretch to accept that it's only by God's power (in this case, Jesus's sacrifice) that we can get to Him. So that statement isn't really so much talking about what we need to do, so much as it is telling us that there's nothing we can do. It's informing us that we have to be humble, and that we can't have an attitude of entitlement--so many good deeds and God has to let me in. It's not a contract. It's a gift.
So, what is required of us? I think it comes down to attitude. Repentance. Humility. Rejecting entitlement. Loving God with everything we've got.
Rejecting entitlement is a big one, because as I type this I realize that the question of who gets into Heaven or not isn't about being a good person or not, nor is it about believing or not. It's a free gift, from God, and it's not about what we do or don't do, what we believe or don't believe. And even if we don't go to Heaven, that's okay. It's not a reward, it's a gift, and failure to grant a gift is not a morally reprehensible action.
If you're concerned with justice, then what you want to know is, will someone who's a good non-believer be sentenced to Hell, by which we mean eternal suffering and torment forever and ever and ever.
As I've said before, I think that God is just. His punishment will be just. I need to study more to figure out exactly what that punishment will be, but setting aside the specifics, I think the main point that is being made with all the discussion of "outer darkness" and "weeping and gnashing of teeth" is that people will be punished for their sins. That we are responsible for our sins. And that God isn't going to let it just go. Whether that's a literal fiery torment, or whether that's for eternity or not...I don't think the passages are really trying to tell us what exactly waits for sinners. Their main goal is to tell us that sinners will be punished. Justice will be served. What happens after that...well, Encara's answer seems good. But personally, I don't know. I'm confident that it will not be unjust or cruel, however.
Those are all possible. However, god is definitely inconsistent. He gives contradicting commands. Take adultery as an example. We are to stone adulterers but Jesus said that only the sinless should do that. So for a few centuries, we were to stoning them and then we find out that we should not have been doing so. 2 Peter 3:9 makes it seem as if god wants us all to be saved and then we've got 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 where god goes out of his way to make it so that it just isn't going to be possible. Exodus 20:24 and Jeremiah 7:22 are also contradictions from god concerning burnt offerings. God is very much an inconsistent being, at least with the Biblical writings.
I.E., God, as presented in the Bible, is inconsistent. The short answer (and I have to be brief, since I'm running low on time), is that I don't think God has changed so much as we have. You don't treat a 2 year old the same way you treat a 14 year old. As a species and a people, I think we've matured. The abolition of slavery is a good indicator of this. God doesn't have to deal with us with the same strictness as He would have had to deal with a people who are less sensitive to their own conscience. The whole goal is to get us to consistently make the right decisions on our own, and as we come closer to doing that, He doesn't have to be quite so strict with the rules. Just like a parent has to be stricter with a 2 year old than with a 14 year old. You still need rules and regulations, but you don't have to stand over them and say "okay, pick up that train...then that toy car...now put them in the toybox." You can just tell them to clean their room. Eventually, you can trust them to keep the room clean on their own.
So it's more of an unconditional love that you desire to show the world. Like when I am out with my girlfriend, I not only want to be with her but I want to show everyone how much she means to me. It's not just holding hands but an actual demonstration of my love in some way. It doesn't have to be obvious to the world (that would be similar to praying in public) but it does need to come from deep within.
I just quoted this for truth. Deep and abiding love...that, I think, is the most important thing of all. Certainly much more important providing the correct answers on a fill-in-the-blank quiz.
That's because the system is too complex, we lose the ability to factor in every variable, and so it appears random (without system or reason), even though it's merely chaotic (complicated but deterministic).
Eh? The universe is not deterministic. The evidence is heavily stacked against hidden variables, meaning genuine randomness is a part of the universe.
Now, if you wish to argue that the cosmos was created by a being that also happens to know every little detail about it, sure, but then any meaningful concept of "choice" for us meager humans is obliterated, so if your religion is based on choice, I'm not sure you'd want to argue that, either.
Eh? The universe is not deterministic. The evidence is heavily stacked against hidden variables, meaning genuine randomness is a part of the universe.
Now, if you wish to argue that the cosmos was created by a being that also happens to know every little detail about it, sure, but then any meaningful concept of "choice" for us meager humans is obliterated, so if your religion is based on choice, I'm not sure you'd want to argue that, either.
I'm gonna need more than your claims for that. Where is this "evidence" that you mention?
I'm gonna need more than your claims for that. Where is this "evidence" that you mention?
I don't have any great resources on-hand for laypeople, but maybe you could start here.
Things like entaglement, wavefunction collapse, etc. haven't been (and probably cannot be) described in classical deterministic models.
I don't have any great resources on-hand for laypeople, but maybe you could start here.
Things like entaglement, wavefunction collapse, etc. haven't been (and probably cannot be) described in classical deterministic models.
Okay I took the time to read a lot of that article and a great deal of sub articles, very interesting.
Still, Bell's Theorem only disproves the "local variables" idea, not the possibility of "non local variables." I'd agree that we may not have a model now that can predict the apparent randomness of QM, but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist.
Classical models may not be able to deal with these things, but that doesn't mean there isn't a deterministic non-classical model that can.
Considering we don't even know where sub atomic particles stop being comprised of smaller pieces, there's a great possibility for deterministic systems that are working at levels we can't currently observe, causing there to appear to be randomness.
Over 600 different, yet slightly similiar Tales of God's Wrath exist all over the world.
Now I am not saying the story of Noah is proved by this, but look at the proof. Scientist have even stated that "The proof is there, we can't just ignore a catastophe like that."
Please do not harp on the lack of actual scientific fact. That isn't what I do. Search for it on the web, an archive, or your own books.
Also, there have been many tales of Sky-Gods, Angels, or whatever. If you take all the World's stories and analyze them, then Our History begins to make sense.
This World, our Eden, was also a gift from the Prime Creator. Why did we tell camp fire stories? Why do we play this fantastic game?
We are trying to go back like it use to be for us Humans.
Polytheism has lead to the building of this world's societies, but the number of tales of a Great Flood, or Catastrophe are spread throughout this world.
Over 600 different, yet slightly similiar Tales of God's Wrath exist all over the world.
Now I am not saying the story of Noah is proved by this, but look at the proof. Scientist have even stated that "The proof is there, we can't just ignore a catastophe like that."
Please do not harp on the lack of actual scientific fact. That isn't what I do. Search for it on the web, an archive, or your own books.
Also, there have been many tales of Sky-Gods, Angels, or whatever. If you take all the World's stories and analyze them, then Our History begins to make sense.
This World, our Eden, was also a gift from the Prime Creator. Why did we tell camp fire stories? Why do we play this fantastic game?
We are trying to go back like it use to be for us Humans.
I don't think anyone here is disputing that the flood happened, we were talking about Noah's Ark and it's viability. However, that discussion is over. Please keep up to date with the current topic of the thread if you're going to respond.
I'd agree that we may not have a model now that can predict the apparent randomness of QM, but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist.
Classical models may not be able to deal with these things, but that doesn't mean there isn't a deterministic non-classical model that can.
That's a long ways from being able to claim that the universe is deterministic. It's not obvious that even a viable non-local variable theory would yield predictive models.
Anyone can hand-wave and claim the existence of non-local vairables, but that's not science.
That's a long ways from being able to claim that the universe is deterministic. It's not obvious that even a viable non-local variable theory would yield predictive models.
Anyone can hand-wave and claim the existence of non-local vairables, but that's not science.
Okay, let's not get confrontational.
Look, its completely absurd to say "Yeah, there could be another explanation, but since we can't know that right now, it definitely doesn't exist."
Saying that it's theoretically possible for the universe to be deterministic isn't hand waving, it's reason. Scientific theories are always based on these conceptual ideas, and then later proven to be true or false when more is discovered.
Look, its completely absurd to say "Yeah, there could be another explanation, but since we can't know that right now, it definitely doesn't exist."
No, there's simply no evidence for it. All the evidence we have points to randomness.
Saying that it's theoretically possible for the universe to be deterministic isn't hand waving, it's reason.
Eh? You appeared to be stating it as fact.
I don't think anyone here is disputing that the flood happened, we were talking about Noah's Ark and it's viability. However, that discussion is over. Please keep up to date with the current topic of the thread if you're going to respond.
I was just replying to a Post that was related to mine.
The reason I no longer keep up with this Thread, except for comments relating to my post, is becuase of people like you.
Did I waste that much of your time that you are turned into a moderator of these boards?
Why does your life rely on the discussion of Reason and God so much? Have they convinced you of the lack of a God, so badly that you crave their next well-written, and well-researched post solely for reason of obtaining knowledge?
Or are you attempting to convert someone with your well-written, and well-researched post?
Futile. Nothing will change Man. Nothing will keep him from fighting. Not even the death of Godson. This world is horrible and corrupt, even so called Christian's excercise the "I am Human, I sin, it is okay that I sin."
Is His death really so trivial to His own followers. He died for the one's that will not know Him, cannot know Him. Not Us. The one's who know of Him.
God is the unreasonable reason. To be able to Work a masterpiece such as the Universe is proof enough.
I was just replying to a Post that was related to mine.
The reason I no longer keep up with this Thread, except for comments relating to my post, is becuase of people like you.
Did I waste that much of your time that you are turned into a moderator of these boards?
No, but you're derailing a perfectly good discussion that I'm a part of. That I don't appreciate.
Why does your life rely on the discussion of Reason and God so much? Have they convinced you of the lack of a God, so badly that you crave their next well-written, and well-researched post solely for reason of obtaining knowledge?
Oh please, you talk about people like me? It's comments like this that drive people away from faith. Look at your own book:
2 Peter 1:3-8:
"His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.
For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ."
(Emphasis mine)
Knowledge is a key step in spiritual growth? You reject reason, research, and information? You are rejecting your own spiritual growth, keeping yourself on step 3 on these 8 steps of spiritual growth.
Or are you attempting to convert someone with your well-written, and well-researched post?
Futile. Nothing will change Man. Nothing will keep him from fighting. Not even the death of Godson.
You know what? I'm not 100% sure what I'm doing. I don't hold an delusions that I will convert anyone via an internet forum, and I'm not particularly trying to. But, who are you to say what will happen as a result of these discussions? Do you have so little faith in God that you think that He is unable to work in the hearts of the people here? Please.
This world is horrible and corrupt, even so called Christian's excercise the "I am Human, I sin, it is okay that I sin."
Yeah, there are some pretty stupid Christians that think that, I don't deny. It flies right in the face of the Bible, but I don't think anyone here is saying that.
Is His death really so trivial to His own followers. He died for the one's that will not know Him, cannot know Him. Not Us. The one's who know of Him.
What are you talking about? Jesus died for everyone. Jesus died for those that are born into a Christian family, raised Christian, and never lose faith as much as the ones that live their whole life in opposition to God.
God is the unreasonable reason. To be able to Work a masterpiece such as the Universe is proof enough.
Yeah proof enough that God values reason. Look at the brilliance of the organization of the universe, and you're going to tell me that God is inherently unreasonable?
I hope I don't come off as overly hostile, but to reject reason, logic, and even (yes) science is completely against the principles of Christianity.
If you truly look at what Science, Logic, and Reason have done to this world you will know that is not what He is about.
Through Science : Atom Bomb, Nuclear Bomb, Chemical warfare, Biological warefare, and the Idea of a weapon. Two thousand years ago If I saw someone propell a piece of metal out of a tube, via a small explosion, into somebodies Body, and they died I would call him a Wizard.
Through Logic : The Universe created by God was determined, through theory and reason, to be nothing more than one big accident. I will paraphrase a qoute from the late George Carlin "Logic pretty much proves the inexistence of God."
Through Reason : Every Atheist I know is smart. High I.Q. Smart. They have reasoned that God is not needed, or didn't intervene during some horrible incident, so therefore He cannot exist.
I have had recent experiences with so-called "Christians" I apologize. I was Lashing out.
And granted we use Science, Logic, and Reason to further ourselves. We shouldn't. Why would we need Faith?
To love something blindly, without reason, without science, and without logic is true love. The love that He looks for.
The principles of Christianity are so far gone these days.
If you truly look at what Science, Logic, and Reason have done to this world you will know that is not what He is about.
I'm sorry that is patently wrong. You completely ignored the scripture from the Bible that I gave you that blatantly disagrees with you.
Through Science : Atom Bomb, Nuclear Bomb, Chemical warfare, Biological warefare, and the Idea of a weapon. Two thousand years ago If I saw someone propell a piece of metal out of a tube, via a small explosion, into somebodies Body, and they died I would call him a Wizard.
Oh please. Look we can play this game all day. Yeah Science has delivered us some pretty awful things, but it's delivered a heck of a ton of good things as well.
Same with Christianity mind you, or are in in favor of the exploitation and violence that was displayed during the Medieval era? (Crusades for example)
Through Logic : The Universe created by God was determined, through theory and reason, to be nothing more than one big accident. I will paraphrase a qoute from the late George Carlin "Logic pretty much proves the inexistence of God."
Yes, because George Carlin is an authority on all things logical and scientific.
Logic does not prove the inexistance of God, that's what the discussions here are addressing.
Through Reason : Every Atheist I know is smart. High I.Q. Smart. They have reasoned that God is not needed, or didn't intervene during some horrible incident, so therefore He cannot exist.
Are you telling me that Christians can't be intelligent? I sincerely hope not. It's not only patently false, but terribly insulting.
Just because someone uses reason to come to a conclusion that's incorrect doesn't mean that reason itself is broken. Otherwise reason would have been broken with the existence of the first toddler.
I have had recent experiences with so-called "Christians" I apologize. I was Lashing out.
It's ok, just take a minute to cool your jets next time
And granted we use Science, Logic, and Reason to further ourselves. We shouldn't. Why would we need Faith?
Because there's more to life than this world? I would think that would be obvious. There is nothing wrong with humanity furthering itself. I don't think God would have put all the potential for this great stuff like computers, architecture, etc. with the intent that we just ignore it and stick to farming. (which is really a product of science, so really just gathering since you can't hunt without the invention of weapons)
To love something blindly, without reason, without science, and without logic is true love. The love that He looks for.
No to love someone unconditionally is true love. To love someone blindly is foolish. To have faith blindly is foolish. Blind faith and blind love are untested faith and untested love. They are weak and do not stand up to pressure.
There is no reason to ever blindly do anything. (That I can think of at least)
They have reasoned that God is not needed, or didn't intervene during some horrible incident, so therefore He cannot exist.
That doesn't follow either. While it's true that some statements about god can be proven false, it doesn't follows that he/she/it doesn't exist. Again, there's simply no evidence for it. Strictly speaking they are two different propositions.
I do not disagree completely with the furthering of mankind. But I guess I am foolish in thinking that He will provide me with the right knowledge.
God took a chance and gave me Life. I will follow blindly behind Him. For I am foolsih Man, who will never be able to Fathom anything. There will never be a Time that I shall contest Him, or Question Him. No one but Him can teach me the Word, the true Word and Way. SO I will remain ignorant and blissful, until I meet Him.
I shall gather no knowledge of Him from a book, but from my Heart.
I will be foolish till the end.
I do not disagree completely with the furthering of mankind. But I guess I am foolish in thinking that He will provide me with the right knowledge.
God took a chance and gave me Life. I will follow blindly behind Him. For I am foolsih Man, who will never be able to Fathom anything. There will never be a Time that I shall contest Him, or Question Him. No one but Him can teach me the Word, the true Word and Way. SO I will remain ignorant and blissful, until I meet Him.
I shall gather no knowledge of Him from a book, but from my Heart.
You still fail to address 2 Peter 1:3-8. Or do you completely discount Scripture as well?
The classic discussion, in Jesus's own words, of what it takes to go to heaven is in John 3:1-21
"1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."
3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.[a]"
4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You[c] must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
9"How can this be?" Nicodemus asked.
10"You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? 11I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.[d] 14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.[e]
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[g] 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."[h]"
In this, we see that there are a few things that Jesus lists as requirements: we must be born again, be born "in the Spirit," must believe in the name of God's one and only Son, that we mush let go of darkness and enter into the light, that our deeds must be seen plainly so that it can be seen that what we have done has been done through God.
The passage references the event in Numbers where Moses lifts up the snake, so here is that passage (Num 21:7-9)
" 7Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.
8And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
9And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived. "
In this, we see that all a person needed to do in order to live was to look at the serpent of brass.
________________________________________________________________
The first thing to take from this is that there is nothing about merit in any of these. It's not about "being good" or "doing evil," or much of anything the person does other than turn to God. Throughout this, we see an emphasis on God's power. Looking to the bronze snake didn't do anything, by the person's power, to stop the venom. They turned to God, and then God's power healed them. So, the first thing to see is that it is not man's effort that saves us, but rather God's power. This is what I see as the "impossible" effect of being born again by the Spirit. That's God's power at work.
So, then, under what circumstance does God exercise His power to save us? I think verses 19-21 are key: "This is the verdict: light came into the world, but man turned away from the light and loved the darkness, because he did not want his evil deeds to be revealed."
It comes down to a choice, just like Adam's first choice in the Garden. We must turn toward the light--love it more than the darkness--live in honesty and humility before God, and we have the opportunity to reverse the decision Adam made. That decision becomes our decision. God puts it plainly before us--do we decide to be with Him, or against Him?
I don't think the specifics are really so important. It's about the choice we make--for God, or against. And then you live that out. You're born again by God's power...and of course, we must submit to that power. We've got to let God lead us, instead of trying to shoehorn God into our own expectations. Adam and Eve chose to disobey God and go their own way. We have the choice to reverse that--obey God and follow His way.
It's a matter of the choice--we follow God as best we can. God knows that we are flawed, that our knowledge is not perfect, that our self-control is not perfect, that we will fail from time to time. That is why we are saved by His power, not our own. But it really just comes down to the choice--light, or darkness? Following God, as fully as we know how, or rejecting Him?
I'll try my best, here we go!
"Your best? Losers always whine about doing their best. Winners go home and f-the prom queen."
Just trying to keep the conversation light...
Effectively, I suppose. But seeing as this seems to be an atheism vs theism issue, I don't think that's what we're dealing with.
Sure it is. To a point anyway. You have made your choice about god. What if you should have been bhuddist or muslim or something different? You have made your choice and you are willing to accept the consequences.
So, if I get you straight, what you're saying is that God can't be that way because it's too confusing for us?
No, I'm saying that god shouldn't be that way because it over complicates things and adds to the confusion that he knew would turn away followers. This doesn't sound like a wise decision if he wants us to follow him. He should have known about our limited intellectual capabilities.
The knowledge we have about God's existence and his nature is incredibly slim, and anyone would be remiss to claim that they had anything even closely resembling the whole picture. With no way to know how God works or the myriad of things he has to deal with, we aren't exactly in a position to say that he could have "very easily have skipped these."
What information we do have includes "omnipotent," "omniscient, "omnibenevolent," and "omnipresent." This means that he really is "all that and then some." If I, someone who is a far lesser being, can come up with ways that are much simpler for mortals to understand then there is no reason why he couldn't have. Just by adding in a "god-gene" into our DNA he could have avoided needing to add in the holy spirit and the son. Instead, we would have had an innate understanding. Easier and cleaner than what he has done.
Just cause it's confusing, counter-intuitive, and complicated doesn't mean it's not true or necessary. Just ask Quantum Mechanics.
Quantum mechanics still follows rules. If you know those rules, then confusion and counter-intuitiveness go away. As we gain more understanding of our universe, complicated also tends to fade.
Additionally, god actually made himself physically known to several people in the old testament. Many in Genesis who is mentioned by name actually sees god at some point. Not just in a burning bush but actually sees him. If god could do it then, there is no reason why he couldn't do that now. He allowed people into heaven before Jesus. He did not need to bring Jesus into the picture at all. He could have simply forgiven our sins because he is a just and forgiving god. Instead, he creates this convoluted system that is flawed because it does not include everyone (he has his chosen people).
Actually I've done a whole lot of research on this kind of thing, because I'm fascinated by it. I really wish I had all my notes with me to give the references. I'll do my best.
If you can find them, I'd be very interested in seeing more.
So if you look in Revelation 20:11-15 it talks about the final judgment and all that fun stuff. An interesting thing to note is that in that passage Hades is thrown into the "lake of fire."
Hell is thrown into Hell? What the...
Not quite. Turns out the word there translated as "Hades" is really known as Sheol from the Old Testament. It's a place where the dead go to await the resurrection, and they do not know they are dead.
One of the parables of Jesus seems to suggest that this waiting place is divided into two places, separated by some sort of chasm. One of comfort, and one of torture.
I, personally, don't believe that the people that wait there have already had their fate decided. After all, it says in 1 Peter 3:19 that Jesus preached to these people. Seems like a grand waste of time if it's set in stone.
Seems more than likely that these people who "ascended," ascended to Abraham's bosom (the nice side of Sheol).
Also, you might want to know that I'm not convinced that the people who get thrown into the "lake of fire" are tortured forever. Revelations refers to that fate as the "second death." Not really a death if your living in pain forever. Seems more likely that people condemned to that fate are destroyed forever.
The Hades/Sheol/Hell discussion gets very confusing. I have only read up on it a little bit and from what I can tell there are quite a few different takes on the subject. Can you expand on how you know how Hades is actually Sheol? When the Bible says that Enoch and Elijah ascended, there doesn't seem to be any hint that they are not with god and even seem to go out of their way to say that they are with god or in heaven.
As for Jesus wasting his time preaching, that is something I have asked many times of others. If god already knows what's in our hearts and he can predict/know the future, then preaching and praying are a waste of time. God already knows what you need/want and whether or not you are going to believe his prophets. A 'god-gene" would have given us all knowledge of him and still allow us to turn from him.
I don't really know much or understand Revelation. I have read it several times but there are so many things that are meant figuratively that it becomes difficult for me to separate the the reality from the fantasy.
To address your imperfection point:
Best answer I've got for you in "because." I apologize for that weak point, but there's not much I can tell you. God didn't give us the reasoning behind the rules, maybe that's just how things are, I don't know.
"I don't know" is my favorite answer because it is the most honest. I have stuck with pastors that have answered my questions with "I don't know" because I know that they aren't going to feed me a line of bovine scatology.
As far as "creating imperfect beings" goes, I know I've hashed this point probably to death, but without the potential to sin, devotion has no meaning. Sure, he could have been "nice" and not given us the potential to fail, but why? That would be totally meaningless, we'd be little more than a bunch of "I love you" programs running around.
Sure it sucks that there's a bunch of bad stuff, but without it, we'd never be able to appreciate the good stuff.
I just don't see this as a given. God could have added in innate knowledge and still allowed for us to fall from his grace. As it stands now, the biggest reason most people are the faith they are is because they were born into it. Consequences could very easily been addressed. As it stand now, there is really only one consequence that really matters and that is the one dealing with eternity and where you spend it.
Not to be overly picky, but how do you know that the universe could have been created with a different set of rules? Because you have a conceptual idea of a universe that works differently?
Actually yes. That doesn't meant that I would be better just that I could have done something different.
I'm not sure that anyone is in a position to make claims about how the universe "could have been" created. For all we really know, there's no way for there to be a functional universe like that.
So are you saying that god could not have done that? He is supposed to be omnipotent.
I agree we don't need to know evil to be good. The tree isn't about creating evil or anything like that. It's about having a choice. It gave Adam and Eve's devotion to God meaning because they had the option not to (which they eventually took).
From what I understand, they may not have even understood the consequences. There are many who claim that there was death until they ate from the tree. It's difficult to understand the concept of death when you have never been exposed. I can't find any passages that support this though. Also, god could have had different consequences. There is no need to threaten someone you love with death because they wanted to know more.
As far as those who never know God:
Romans 7 is a great answer to this. Possibly my favorite quote from the Bible is here: "for apart from the law, sin is dead." Basically, if you don't know the rules you aren't held accountable for them.
One might argue, "then why evangelize and spread the law if you're really just putting their fate at risk."
I would argue that it's a risk not to do it. After all, who's to say they won't get taught a different set of rules and then hear of the Christian law off handedly and think "what a load of crap" due to bias or being set in their ways or any other myriad of reasons.
It's a pretty rare circumstance for someone to actually never have a chance to hear the law. But, for those that do, I'd say God gives them the benefit of the doubt.
What about the children who die before they can even acknowledge who their parents are? What about those people who live in areas where preaching christianity is punishable by death? There are plenty of other scenarios that are very likely. What about the stillborn child?
True, and there are far too many faithful who stop.
We may be convinced that we are right, but if I actually heard an argument I didn't have (or couldn't find) an answer for, it would make me think twice (and a few more times after that).
Just so you know, I am not trying to convince you that I am right. I enjoy the discussion and look forward to learning more. I wish that some muslims, jews, and bhuddists would join in. I think that would add to the fun.
You are right though. Too many people stop asking questions. I don't think that we should ever stop asking. I do think we should make sure we ask the right questions and focus on the important details. Those who question the validity of the Bible because someone married a woman not mentioned or because light came before the sun are simply arguing with no intention on finding an actual answer. When people say that god could not have stopped the sun in the sky over Jericho because the sun doesn't rotate around the Earth but still use phrases like "sun up" ans "sun down," are wasting everyone's time.
The same is true for those who claim atheist have no morality while only representing less than 1% of the prison population or those who claim that atheists would believe if they actually read the book. Those people are not willing to engage in a meaningful discourse that would promote their faith to onlookers. Sometimes the best way to convert someone is to focus on someone else.
Yeah, but I'm not seeing the "game" that God is playing. Game Theory applies to behavioral choices within competition which offer varying pay offs.
I'm still not sure what you are trying to say about God and Game Theory/
Because I don't really understand either one as well as I would like I can only go with my instinct on this. Game Theory just seems to fit better than Chaos Theory. Both concepts are way over my head though.
That's not true at all. If I say x + y = z and then tell you that x = 2 and y = 3, and you then conclude that, given that: z = 5. That doesn't make x + y = z the same as 2 + 3 = 5. x and y can change, which could result in a different z. 2, 3, and 5 do not change, nor do they have the potential to.
The difference is that god already knows what X and Y are. This means that Z is set. Now if god did not know what you were going to choose for X and Y, then you'd have a point. However, A + B = X and C + D = Y. God already knows that you are going to choose 2 + 0 and -3 + 6 respectively. This now sets X and Y which sets Z. He predicted with 100% certainty which variables I was going to choose. Since they are chosen, they are constants now.
I think we are not going to come to a conclusion on this one. We may have to do as Horatio and I have done and simply agree to disagree.
Well that scripture is talking about Jesus alone, and it doesn't really get into specifics. If I change my mind about something, that doesn't make me a different person than I was. I don't think that passage suggests immutability. Really, I think it's suggesting that Jesus (and depending on your view, God by extension) is who he is, and nothing will change that.
Plus, as far as revealing truth about the universe, Psalms isn't a very good source. It's songs written by people, they probably took a lot of poetic license. ;)
I have tried to argue that same point, especially when it comes to Psalms. However these are a few of the passages that are used by christians to support the fact that god is immutable.
This is actually something I find interesting. So many christians disagree on how the Bible should be interpreted and yet they all think they have the right interpretation. This is another thing that could have easily been avoided by a forward looking god.
Believe it or not, my demands about "in context" are based in too many of my fellow believers arguing crap based on scriptures they are completely out of context. I got quite fed up with it all.
I believe you. It's one of the reasons that I don't quote the Bible often. I send you to passages so you can read the entire context and let me know your thoughts. I find it easier so that we are both on the same page and so that I am not quoting only half a sentence.
Well, perhaps God realized that Job needed to be tested to prove he wasn't just riding the "faith gravy train" so to speak. It needed to be seen that Job's devotion was legitimate and not based on his good fortune, but based in a true devotion to God.
But doesn't god already know what's in our hearts (Acts 1:24, Psalm 44:21, and Psalm 139:2-3)? I know that there are some passages that seem to say that god does not know (Deuteronomy 8:2, Deuteronomy 13:3, and 2 Chronicles 32:31). So if we go with the first three, it seems that god didn't need to test Job.
*phew*
Thank you for taking the time to answer/address many of my questions/concerns. It may seem like I'm arguing just to have an opposing view but I am getting a lot of information out of this.
Horatio, I need to head out to work. I'll try to take some time tonight or tomorrow morning to go over what you have said. These posts take me an hour or more to write as I read up on things and try to absorb everything that is said.
Take your time. I suspect that the entire reason that this discussion has had such high quality is precisely because we're taking the time to think through our arguments and try to convey them clearly. I won't begrudge a bit of time if clear communication of well thought out ideas is the result!
"Your best? Losers always whine about doing their best. Winners go home and f-the prom queen."
Just trying to keep the conversation light...
I lol'd. I also then realized I have no idea who the queens were for any prom I went to...
Sure it is. To a point anyway. You have made your choice about god. What if you should have been bhuddist or muslim or something different? You have made your choice and you are willing to accept the consequences.
Sure.
No, I'm saying that god shouldn't be that way because it over complicates things and adds to the confusion that he knew would turn away followers. This doesn't sound like a wise decision if he wants us to follow him. He should have known about our limited intellectual capabilities.
Assuming God has control over how he exists. But, I'll get more into that in a minute.
What information we do have includes "omnipotent," "omniscient, "omnibenevolent," and "omnipresent." This means that he really is "all that and then some." If I, someone who is a far lesser being, can come up with ways that are much simpler for mortals to understand then there is no reason why he couldn't have. Just by adding in a "god-gene" into our DNA he could have avoided needing to add in the holy spirit and the son. Instead, we would have had an innate understanding. Easier and cleaner than what he has done.
And I suddenly realized "a minute" meant "next paragraph." So here we go, gotta cast a quick Endure Elements: Fire for this one.
I do not think God is omnipotent.
*Red Alert, All Hands Brace For Impact*
Now, let me clarify. I think that these is a huge difference between truly infinite power and being omnipotent (yes I know what the dictionary says, i'm redefining it).
Take the Q from Star Trek. They do not have limitless power, they can even be killed. In absolute truth, they have limits. As far as humans are concerned, they are pretty much all powerful.
This is how I view God. He may not be able to do everything conceivable. But, he can sure do anything we can do and then some. He is, to me, effectively omnipotent within our universe, even if his power isn't truly limitless. This is a REALLY unorthodox view and I would be stunned if anyone else here agreed with me.
So given that position, no God can't change how he exists, and no he isn't all of those "omni"s.
Take that how you will.
Quantum mechanics still follows rules. If you know those rules, then confusion and counter-intuitiveness go away. As we gain more understanding of our universe, complicated also tends to fade.
Which is my point, in a sense. We aren't gaining more understanding of God, so the complication stays the same.
Additionally, god actually made himself physically known to several people in the old testament. Many in Genesis who is mentioned by name actually sees god at some point. Not just in a burning bush but actually sees him. If god could do it then, there is no reason why he couldn't do that now. He allowed people into heaven before Jesus. He did not need to bring Jesus into the picture at all. He could have simply forgiven our sins because he is a just and forgiving god. Instead, he creates this convoluted system that is flawed because it does not include everyone (he has his chosen people).
Well he had chosen people.
Of course, considering the ancient Israelites behavior, I'm not all that surprised that he stopped appearing. Look at it this way:
Appear directly to people and help them directly: Creates a few years or short era of peace and they eventually fall to worshiping idols and being totally corrupt.
Send Jesus: Creates a lot more long-term doubt and a great deal of debate, but you don't see very many people acting like the ancient Israelites did.
Sounds like the second one worked better.
If you can find them, I'd be very interested in seeing more.
I'll have to wait for my best friend to get back from his honeymoon, he helped me do the research.
The Hades/Sheol/Hell discussion gets very confusing. I have only read up on it a little bit and from what I can tell there are quite a few different takes on the subject. Can you expand on how you know how Hades is actually Sheol? When the Bible says that Enoch and Elijah ascended, there doesn't seem to be any hint that they are not with god and even seem to go out of their way to say that they are with god or in heaven.
Sorry I can't find where the Bible actually says they are in heaven. I don't have a great opportunity to look at the moment, however. If you know of any references I'd be glad to hear them.
Wikipedia gives a decent explanation about "Hades" in the Bible and how I know that in that particular Scripture, it's talking about Sheol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol
It also talks about where "Hell" comes from.
As for Jesus wasting his time preaching, that is something I have asked many times of others. If god already knows what's in our hearts and he can predict/know the future, then preaching and praying are a waste of time. God already knows what you need/want and whether or not you are going to believe his prophets. A 'god-gene" would have given us all knowledge of him and still allow us to turn from him.
Well, not to seem like I'm flipping sides, but I should be honest: I'm not 100% in the boat of "God knows the future."
Hard to believe any Christians get along with me. <.<
Still this is out "Chaos" problem, which I think we've beaten to death.
I don't really know much or understand Revelation. I have read it several times but there are so many things that are meant figuratively that it becomes difficult for me to separate the the reality from the fantasy.
Heck, I know what you mean. That book makes my head spin. I promise you any Christian who isn't kidding him or her self feels the same way.
"I don't know" is my favorite answer because it is the most honest. I have stuck with pastors that have answered my questions with "I don't know" because I know that they aren't going to feed me a line of bovine scatology.
Only a foolish man would try to answer a question to which the truth is "I don't know" with something else.
I just don't see this as a given. God could have added in innate knowledge and still allowed for us to fall from his grace. As it stands now, the biggest reason most people are the faith they are is because they were born into it. Consequences could very easily been addressed. As it stand now, there is really only one consequence that really matters and that is the one dealing with eternity and where you spend it.
But being created so that we would be "allowed...to fall from his grace" is being created "imperfect." Now I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
Actually yes. That doesn't meant that I would be better just that I could have done something different.
So are you saying that god could not have done that? He is supposed to be omnipotent.
See above and refresh Endure Elements.
From what I understand, they may not have even understood the consequences. There are many who claim that there was death until they ate from the tree. It's difficult to understand the concept of death when you have never been exposed. I can't find any passages that support this though. Also, god could have had different consequences. There is no need to threaten someone you love with death because they wanted to know more.
Well, admittedly he didn't actually kill them.
Also, he never said that they weren't allowed to know more, but they went about it the wrong way. They didn't ask God, "Hey Dad, what's Good and Evil?" He never said "Oh, and don't ask questions!"
The real sin wasn't seeking knowledge, it was attempting to be equal to God.
What about the children who die before they can even acknowledge who their parents are? What about those people who live in areas where preaching christianity is punishable by death? There are plenty of other scenarios that are very likely. What about the stillborn child?
Well considering Jesus used children as an example of who to be like in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, I'd venture to say they are going to heaven. "Apart from the law, sin is dead." These children can't comprehend the rules, so they don't apply.
Areas where Christianity is punishable by death is tricky. Although I would like to mention that Christianity started out punishable by death, so I wouldn't exactly say that's a great excuse, considering every single early Christian.
Still, I'm not the judge, only God can REALLY know these things, this is just my best guess.
Just so you know, I am not trying to convince you that I am right. I enjoy the discussion and look forward to learning more. I wish that some muslims, jews, and bhuddists would join in. I think that would add to the fun.
Yes, although it would make this thread really messy, maybe we should create a thread for EACH o.o
You are right though. Too many people stop asking questions. I don't think that we should ever stop asking. I do think we should make sure we ask the right questions and focus on the important details. Those who question the validity of the Bible because someone married a woman not mentioned or because light came before the sun are simply arguing with no intention on finding an actual answer. When people say that god could not have stopped the sun in the sky over Jericho because the sun doesn't rotate around the Earth but still use phrases like "sun up" ans "sun down," are wasting everyone's time.
Amen.
heh heh...Amen...heh heh
The same is true for those who claim atheist have no morality while only representing less than 1% of the prison population or those who claim that atheists would believe if they actually read the book. Those people are not willing to engage in a meaningful discourse that would promote their faith to onlookers. Sometimes the best way to convert someone is to focus on someone else.
Oh man, the morality issue belongs in it's own horrible thread
Because I don't really understand either one as well as I would like I can only go with my instinct on this. Game Theory just seems to fit better than Chaos Theory. Both concepts are way over my head though.
Heh I'm obsessed with math and so I read Chaos. I need to find a good book on Game Theory...
The difference is that god already knows what X and Y are. This means that Z is set. Now if god did not know what you were going to choose for X and Y, then you'd have a point. However, A + B = X and C + D = Y. God already knows that you are going to choose 2 + 0 and -3 + 6 respectively. This now sets X and Y which sets Z. He predicted with 100% certainty which variables I was going to choose. Since they are chosen, they are constants now.
Hmm, do you know any programming? I can't remember. I'll try to keep this in pure math for now:
Just because their chosen doesn't make them constants. 2 is ALWAYS 2, it can ONLY be 2, no matter the context. Nothing changes that.
X might be 2 right now. X might never change. X may be 2 for all time. But X CAN be something else. Just because it never is, doesn't mean it can't be.
I think we are not going to come to a conclusion on this one. We may have to do as Horatio and I have done and simply agree to disagree.
That's probably fair enough. Figured I'd give it one last go though (maybe last, we'll see, but probably <.< )
I have tried to argue that same point, especially when it comes to Psalms. However these are a few of the passages that are used by christians to support the fact that god is immutable.
Yeah well, you've seen how in line I am with most Christians.
This is actually something I find interesting. So many christians disagree on how the Bible should be interpreted and yet they all think they have the right interpretation. This is another thing that could have easily been avoided by a forward looking god.
Well, that's assuming God intended for us to have the New Testament in the first place, which I don't believe.
I believe you. It's one of the reasons that I don't quote the Bible often. I send you to passages so you can read the entire context and let me know your thoughts. I find it easier so that we are both on the same page and so that I am not quoting only half a sentence.
And I really, really, appreciate that.
But doesn't god already know what's in our hearts (Acts 1:24, Psalm 44:21, and Psalm 139:2-3)? I know that there are some passages that seem to say that god does not know (Deuteronomy 8:2, Deuteronomy 13:3, and 2 Chronicles 32:31). So if we go with the first three, it seems that god didn't need to test Job.
I always saw that "God knowing what is in our hearts" being that he understands how we feel and what we are going through. Not really a "I know what your thinking." Which seems to be what those first three are talking about.
Thank you for taking the time to answer/address many of my questions/concerns. It may seem like I'm arguing just to have an opposing view but I am getting a lot of information out of this.
Nah, I know that you are genuinely seeking information, and you are certainly welcome. Thanks for doing the same for me!
I lol'd. I also then realized I have no idea who the queens were for any prom I went to...
I blame the company that I keep, but I'm guessing I read that different then many people in this discussion. And it was hilarious.
*ahem* Anyway, back to the discussion, of which I have no real input. This is a real interesting read, but I'm not nearly well-read enough to actually engage beyond a general 'I find that pill hard to swallow'.
Best answer I've got for you in "because." I apologize for that weak point, but there's not much I can tell you.
"I don't know" is my favorite answer because it is the most honest. I have stuck with pastors that have answered my questions with "I don't know" because I know that they aren't going to feed me a line of bovine scatology.
I find this exchange particularly telling of the nature of faith. Faith calls for us to answer 'because' to questions we would honestly answer with 'I don't know'.
I was going to get back into it until MrCelsius showed up. I think I'll keep just observing and see what new views--like the pile-o'-glass one--zie (;)) brings to the thread.
It seems you're just about the only person who's interested in my perspective. Bob's the only other poster who even fluttered an eyelash at my post. I'm sorry if this is incendiary, but it's hard not to find it telling when people don't see fit to answer a post made in earnest with which they would theoretically disagree. Is it my ideology that they do not wish to challenge, or their own?
Of course, if my post was simply missed -- or there is some other honest reason for it being ignored for two days and 25+ posts -- then I apologize, retract the implication, and look forward to hearing from you.
RazAl_Dazzle, why do you capitalize random words?
Sorry, it just kind of bothered me while reading over your posts...
I CANNOT prove God. That's the point.
That's why religion is about faith. If God were provable, we wouldn't need faith, we'd have KNOWLEDGE.
As many great philosophers have said, nothing would hurt Faith and religion more than absolute knowledge of God.
I don't believe that religion, especially ultra-conservative King-James-Version-Only Bible litrialist religion, should control our government.
You shouldn't vote for people because of their proffessed faith or yours'. You should vote for them based on campatibilty of your morals and beliefs, and I don't mean things like the nature of God, I mean beliefs like how we should run medicine, teach our children, that sort of thing.
Why should you have faith?
That's for you to decide. If you don't feel faith, and if you don't feel its lack, then perhaps you don't need it.
I have my faith, and that will never change.
Just do me two favors.
1. Don't yell at me for having faith if you don't. In turn, I won't yell at you for not faith when I do. Fair is fair.
2. Don't assume that my faith is the same as that of every yahoo and moron who claims to share my faith. Most of these morons have never read their holy books, let alone someone elses, and almost noone goes to the trouble of actually examining thier own faith. So, when someone stands up, claims to speak for all Christians, and then waves around a banner that says "God hates gays!", DON'T BELIEVE HIM! He doesn't speak for me. My faith isn't about hate. And I'm ranting.
Anyway, the upshot of point two is this: Don't lump all Christians into one bucket, we don't all believe the same stuff, and we aren't all the same. And the people screaming the loudest are generally the smallest group.
Stuff...
See, you're the kind of religious person I like.
You still fail to address 2 Peter 1:3-8. Or do you completely discount Scripture as well?
I discount Scripture. I do not feel comfortable taking Idea's based on King Jame's translation of a book written 180 years After the death of Jesus.
That is what is meant by Him telling me the Word himself. Humans can't be trusted. We were giving a Gift and we exploited it. We were giving knowledge and we abused it.
I felt that Encara the Knowledgable feels like he/she is better than people here. Obviously this person is just like every other bible-thumper I know.
Knowing scripture doesn't get you into God's good graces. Knowing what you do is wrong and accepting that doesn't make it okay. Just believing in something that can't be proven is true belief.
Nothing in this world makes sense. We may think it makes sense, but we are so far off-base on what reality truly is.
A scientist thought he could create the catalyst for life, but was disproven after more research. But he thought he had it. 2000 years from now people will laugh at what we thought, through science, was correct.
The World will never have it right. There will always be different ways to solve equations has nothing is set in stone. Sure we use the equations now, but it is to get a number we already think we know.
Didn't God punish the serpent for tempting to us toward Knowledge.
Quintuple Post...
It was an accident. I am smart and use knowledge. This is what I have concluded about the World.
It seems that since I am downing Logic, Knowledge, and Reason people think they are of a Higher calibur.
Let us spend two-billion dollars studying how to cure every malignant form of cancer. Instead of building one time use JDAM bombs.
I find this exchange particularly telling of the nature of faith. Faith calls for us to answer 'because' to questions we would honestly answer with 'I don't know'.
If people would realize that it's okay to not know something I think we'd be better off as a society.
It seems you're just about the only person who's interested in my perspective. Bob's the only other poster who even fluttered an eyelash at my post. I'm sorry if this is incendiary, but it's hard not to find it telling when people don't see fit to answer a post made in earnest with which they would theoretically disagree. Is it my ideology that they do not wish to challenge, or their own?
I don't think they intentionally ignored you. I think that they were waiting for me and just got too focused. Of course, I could just be putting words into their mouths here but I like to give the benefit of the doubt.
I would like to see them respond though.
Of course, if my post was simply missed -- or there is some other honest reason for it being ignored for two days and 25+ posts -- then I apologize, retract the implication, and look forward to hearing from you.
If you want to mix things up a bit, add a new topic that I we aren't engaged in. Maybe they'll be stuck on two fronts and then be unable to win. We can crush them! Or maybe not but it could be fun since I can't be relied on to post every day.
I find this exchange particularly telling of the nature of faith. Faith calls for us to answer 'because' to questions we would honestly answer with 'I don't know'.
If you would have quoted my entire response, you would see that I did say I don't know.
It seems you're just about the only person who's interested in my perspective. Bob's the only other poster who even fluttered an eyelash at my post. I'm sorry if this is incendiary, but it's hard not to find it telling when people don't see fit to answer a post made in earnest with which they would theoretically disagree. Is it my ideology that they do not wish to challenge, or their own?
Of course, if my post was simply missed -- or there is some other honest reason for it being ignored for two days and 25+ posts -- then I apologize, retract the implication, and look forward to hearing from you.
I was interested in it, but it seemed like you and Bob were saying similar things, so I figured I could be responding to you as a side result.
If you want a reason why I'm not responding directly, is that I'm already in discussions with Halequin, Bob, and Raz, and it's a bit taxing. I can only do so much as but one man. I've been hoping the my responses to others have possibly seemed relevant to your posts, is there anything in particular you wanted me to address?
I've nothing really important to add to the discussion, so I'm sitting back and letting Bob, Encara, and Horatio do all the heavy lifting.
I discount Scripture. I do not feel comfortable taking Idea's based on King Jame's translation of a book written 180 years After the death of Jesus.
Hate to tell you this, but the books in the New Testament were written by the apostles, there is not a big separation between Jesus and the time of writing. If you honestly feel yourself a better judge of how to be a Christian than the Apostles, than I don't really have much else to say to you.
That is what is meant by Him telling me the Word himself. Humans can't be trusted. We were giving a Gift and we exploited it. We were giving knowledge and we abused it.
I'm not really sure what you are talking about here, can you speak less in generalities?
I felt that Encara the Knowledgable feels like he/she is better than people here. Obviously this person is just like every other bible-thumper I know.
Watch it with the personal attacks, friend. It's attacks like this that betray you and your argument. You don't know me or my position, so I don't think your really qualified to decided what I'm "like." Please, do not put this at a personal level.
Knowing scripture doesn't get you into God's good graces. Knowing what you do is wrong and accepting that doesn't make it okay. Just believing in something that can't be proven is true belief.
1) I know that knowing scripture doesn't get you into God's good graces. I never said that. I said it was an excellent guide and reference.
2) I get the impression you think that I'm validating sin and saying it's okay. If I did this somewhere, please show me.
3) I do believe in something that can't be proven, but blind faith is silly. It's weak and untested.
Nothing in this world makes sense. We may think it makes sense, but we are so far off-base on what reality truly is.
Oh really? And how do you know this? Has God revealed to you the secrets of the universe that you are able to judge how far off we are? You can't possibly know this unless you know the true nature of the world.
A scientist thought he could create the catalyst for life, but was disproven after more research. But he thought he had it. 2000 years from now people will laugh at what we thought, through science, was correct.
I can't say I've ever heard about that, but I'll grant it to you. Sure, there are things we thought were true that weren't, and in retrospect they're pretty silly. So?
What does it matter if we get things wrong? You honestly think that God put all this interesting and cool stuff in the world so that we could just ignore it?
The World will never have it right. There will always be different ways to solve equations has nothing is set in stone. Sure we use the equations now, but it is to get a number we already think we know.
I agree the world will never have it right, but huh?
Because there's more than one solution to a problem science is crap? How does that make any sense? If you are going to make broad statements like this, please provide examples, otherwise it sounds like you're making stuff up.
2000 years from now people will laugh at what we thought, through science, was correct.
Nonsense. 2,000 years ago, mankind had science, mathematics and an impressive knowledge of the physical world.
What is unfortunate is that about seven centuries thereafter, the world was blighted by mysticism and barbarism. Reason was forbidden until nearly another century after that.
2,000 years from now the world will be unrecognizable, unless of course the mystics resume control and reason becomes heresy again.
Reason was forbidden until nearly another century after that.
I mean millennium of course. Stupid edit feature not working for me atm...
The principles of Christianity are so far gone these days.
Depends on which principles you are referring to.
If you truly look at what Science, Logic, and Reason have done to this world you will know that is not what He is about.
That is not true even in the slightest. Some of the biggest advances in science have come from the very faithful. The Catholic church even has a science division. Yes, the church has made some grievous errors but so have many others. The reason we fixate on the church is because of their influence. It's the same reason why people think that the full moon causes problems. We focus on significant events/people/places and assume that things around them are also significant. I call it the celebrity-effect.
Through Science : Atom Bomb, Nuclear Bomb, Chemical warfare, Biological warefare, and the Idea of a weapon. Two thousand years ago If I saw someone propell a piece of metal out of a tube, via a small explosion, into somebodies Body, and they died I would call him a Wizard.
The idea of a weapon has been around a long time and has been advanced by religion and non-religious people alike. 2000 years ago, you would probably not assume the person was a wizard if you had been exposed to the chinese or other culture that used gunpowder in some form. Also, the ancients were not really all that foolish. They, like humans from all time periods, are able to grasp complex ideas that seemed outlandish. Yes, some people were a bit on the dull side then but we have that now as well.
As for advances in science from Christians, may I suggest people like Sir Isaac Newton, George Washington Carver, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Boyle, Pascal, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Niels Henrik Abel, Sir William de Wiveleslie Abney, José de Acosta, John Couch Adams, Maria Gaetana Agnesi, Georgius Agricola, François De Aguilon, etc. I can go on and on here.
Through Logic : The Universe created by God was determined, through theory and reason, to be nothing more than one big accident. I will paraphrase a qoute from the late George Carlin "Logic pretty much proves the inexistence of God."
Logic cannot prove the existence or non-existence of any god. Logic is not the end-all-be-all of reason. Logic cannot be applied to everything we do especially as we delve into inductive reasoning. There are plenty of things in science that cannot be answered through logic.
Through Reason : Every Atheist I know is smart. High I.Q. Smart. They have reasoned that God is not needed, or didn't intervene during some horrible incident, so therefore He cannot exist.
I would suggest looking up a list of faithful scientists. You'll find that they are all very intelligent (logically they must be since we've heard of them). I gave a very short list above.
I have had recent experiences with so-called "Christians" I apologize. I was Lashing out.
I suggest lashing out at the ones who offended you. Just like you would want to be treated as an individual so would everyone else. You may have noticed a couple times I chose not to post so that I wouldn't let my personal life interfere with the discussion here.
And granted we use Science, Logic, and Reason to further ourselves. We shouldn't. Why would we need Faith?
Faith gives many people hope. Hope for something beyond what we have here. Hope that we will live on after we die. Hope that everything we accomplish here has meaning. Some of us don't need faith. Some of us want faith. I have seen some amazing things happen when people have found God. I have seen some horrible things happen from others who have found God. I certainly wouldn't say that all christians are one or the other. Most just live their lives trying to be measure up as best they can to their role model, Jesus.
To love something blindly, without reason, without science, and without logic is true love. The love that He looks for.
This is not true either. The Bible does not teach to love blindly. There are many passages that support learning as much as one can about the faith and the world. In fact, the mere existence of the Bible proves that the faithful should be learning about their faith. If we take the assumption that God is real and that God created man, then we need to assume that God gave man intellect above the rest of the animals. This is also demonstrative of the fact that God does not want blind love. He would want us to use our intellect. The brain is most certainly not a vestigial organ. At least I hope not but I'm starting to wonder the more I watch TV news.
It seems like you've got two main concerns:
I have more than two but I don't want to clutter the conversation too much.
I.E., what happens to good people who are not believers?
I tried not to use the word "good." It’s open to debate on what a good person is and what good acts are. I think we can mostly agree on what good and evil are though.
An important point is that even good people who are believers won't go to Heaven unless they're also repentant, and they love God.
I have no problem with this position. It’s very common and supported by many passages in the Bible. Simply believing in God and doing good acts is not enough.
So, non-believers are at the very least subject to those two conditions. They've got to be repentant of their sins (else it's not safe to let them have eternal life, where they'll have the ability to keep hurting people), and they've got to love God (or at least, they've got to be able to love Him when they finally meet Him).
Fortunately they wouldn’t be able to keep hurting people there. I would think that repentance is more than a way for god to choose who goes and who stays. God, being as powerful and knowledgeable would be able to tell if someone is going to cause problems in heaven.
Now, we're told rather plainly that Jesus is the "Way, the Truth, and the Light. No-one gets to the Father accept through (him)." But what does it mean to go "through" Jesus? Obviously we're not literally passing through his body. Through means "via" or, I think more properly, "by the power of." We cannot get to God by our own power, so I think it's not too much of a stretch to accept that it's only by God's power (in this case, Jesus's sacrifice) that we can get to Him. So that statement isn't really so much talking about what we need to do, so much as it is telling us that there's nothing we can do. It's informing us that we have to be humble, and that we can't have an attitude of entitlement--so many good deeds and God has to let me in. It's not a contract. It's a gift.
This is a very reasonable and fair look at things. I like the way you put this. There are way too many people who feel they are entitled. Much of it is human nature. We work hard and expect to be rewarded for that hard work but really, we aren’t entitled to anything. I think the church perpetuates this problem of entitlement though. While in church, I hear the pastor go on about how works are not enough. Then at funerals I hear the pastor go on about how the deceased is in heaven. It is assumed that the person met the requirements for being there when we really don’t know. I know that no one would want to hear that their loved one is being tortured for eternity (however you want to define torture or eternity).
So, what is required of us? I think it comes down to attitude. Repentance. Humility. Rejecting entitlement. Loving God with everything we've got.
Rejecting entitlement is a big one, because as I type this I realize that the question of who gets into Heaven or not isn't about being a good person or not, nor is it about believing or not. It's a free gift, from God, and it's not about what we do or don't do, what we believe or don't believe. And even if we don't go to Heaven, that's okay. It's not a reward, it's a gift, and failure to grant a gift is not a morally reprehensible action.
Not going to heaven is okay? I thought there were really only two options: heaven and hell. I know if I were a believer I would definitely prefer one over the other and going to hell would not be okay with me.
If you're concerned with justice, then what you want to know is, will someone who's a good non-believer be sentenced to Hell, by which we mean eternal suffering and torment forever and ever and ever.
I’m more concerned for the person who never had the chance to know god, regardless of how good or not the person was. By not being given the chance, it seems that this person is destined to hell. It’s hard to get to god through Jesus if you’ve never been given the chance.
As I've said before, I think that God is just. His punishment will be just. I need to study more to figure out exactly what that punishment will be, but setting aside the specifics, I think the main point that is being made with all the discussion of "outer darkness" and "weeping and gnashing of teeth" is that people will be punished for their sins. That we are responsible for our sins. And that God isn't going to let it just go. Whether that's a literal fiery torment, or whether that's for eternity or not...I don't think the passages are really trying to tell us what exactly waits for sinners. Their main goal is to tell us that sinners will be punished. Justice will be served. What happens after that...well, Encara's answer seems good. But personally, I don't know. I'm confident that it will not be unjust or cruel, however.
I don’t think you’re going to come up with much of an answer on what the punishment is like. I do agree that we are responsible for our sins. That’s something I think everyone should be able to agree with. What if we didn’t know what we did was a sin? What if we thought we were doing something right but unbeknownst to us, it turned out to be horrible? What if we didn’t have the mental capacity to understand?
I.E., God, as presented in the Bible, is inconsistent. The short answer (and I have to be brief, since I'm running low on time), is that I don't think God has changed so much as we have. You don't treat a 2 year old the same way you treat a 14 year old. As a species and a people, I think we've matured. The abolition of slavery is a good indicator of this. God doesn't have to deal with us with the same strictness as He would have had to deal with a people who are less sensitive to their own conscience. The whole goal is to get us to consistently make the right decisions on our own, and as we come closer to doing that, He doesn't have to be quite so strict with the rules. Just like a parent has to be stricter with a 2 year old than with a 14 year old. You still need rules and regulations, but you don't have to stand over them and say "okay, pick up that train...then that toy car...now put them in the toybox." You can just tell them to clean their room. Eventually, you can trust them to keep the room clean on their own.
This makes some sense until you bring in the assumption that god is immutable. He doesn’t change his mind (1 Samuel 15:29). Of course we don’t know if he had this plan all along. We do know that god himself has said that he does not change (Malachi 3:6). God has changed his mind and even has been convinced to do so by mortals. Moses convinced god to not kill the jews for worshipping the golden calf. God and Jesus have made contradictory statements. These things tend to make it very confusing for those who are paying attention, believer and non-believer alike.
Are you telling me that Christians can't be intelligent? I sincerely hope not. It's not only patently false, but terribly insulting.
Seriously; I have met some stupid ****in' atheists in my day. Just go into a High School cafeteria and ask people about religion lol . . . search out the ones with Che Guevara t-shirts.
Sorry to kind of pounce like that, but that's one of the things that really irks me: atheists who think that all Christians are incredibly dull and stupid.
I have more than two but I don't want to clutter the conversation too much.
I appreciate that. :-p
Fortunately they wouldn’t be able to keep hurting people there. I would think that repentance is more than a way for god to choose who goes and who stays.
See, I disagree, but that's because I have a different concept of what God desires. Yes, God "is not willing that any should perish" (1st or 2nd Peter), and God doesn't want us to sin and perish: "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?" (Ezekial 17:23). So, it's clear that God doesn't want people to sin, nor to die. So, why do people sin and die, since God is all powerful and doesn't want it to happen?
I think it's because God's desire that people would not sin or die is not the full story. Yes, God wants us to have life and holiness, but He also wants us to choose life and holiness for ourselves. He can't just give us those qualities, because those qualities in themselves are not what He desires. He desires our freely made choice. That's why a "god gene" wouldn't work, since any devotion springing from that wouldn't be a freely made choice.
And I don't think this is for His benefit. It's not like Freely Chosen worship is better than coerced worship (it may be, but I don't think that's what God really cares about). It's for our benefit. Because we are the best beings that we can be when we are mature, when we stand on our own two feet, when we have striven to achieve and triumphed...and that means we have to make the choice ourselves. And it's not about power, the ability to triumph on our own merits, whether our victory is for good or ill. The best qualities in mankind come to the surface when we make the choice for good, even when a greater power causes us to fall short. This is why we cheer for the underdog, and why so many cultures revere people who have died for a losing cause. It's not about physical victory--the best qualities of mankind are when we choose what is right of our own free will, and then fight to the last for that right action.
And God wants us to have that, but more than that, He is going to exercise His full power to ensure that our frailty does not end in defeat! Once we make the decision to stand for good, He has promised to ensure that good is victorious! We do not live in defeat, but in victory, and that is what much of Revelations is about.
But God is not going to take away our chance to express the best parts of ourselves. He wants us to be that heroic being that stands up for what's right, even when it's hard. So He steps back and gives us enough room to do so. He also takes actions to lend His power so that those choices aren't futile.
Not going to heaven is okay? I thought there were really only two options: heaven and hell. I know if I were a believer I would definitely prefer one over the other and going to hell would not be okay with me.
True love gives no thought to reward. I came to be a Christian because I feared Hell...but now, I am willing to accept it. It's more important to me that I chose the right and fought for it, even if in the end I fall short or even missed the mark. Paul was willing to lose his eternal life because of his love for his people, so I think it is perfectly valid to eschew reward on behalf of something you love more. In the end, where I spend eternity...doesn't really matter as much to me. It's service, love, and fidelity that I value.
I’m more concerned for the person who never had the chance to know god, regardless of how good or not the person was. By not being given the chance, it seems that this person is destined to hell. It’s hard to get to god through Jesus if you’ve never been given the chance.
But even one who's never heard of Jesus can have an attitude about God, as best they understand Him, and decide whether or not to follow and love Him.
In the end, though, I just can't say for sure since no-one, even believers, are entitled to go to Heaven. It's all God's choice, and He is not unjust to refuse mercy to anyone. Mercy is the very opposite of justice. None of us have any right or claim to mercy.
But whether or not a particular person receives mercy, the fact that God gives mercy to anyone says a lot about Him. I don't think I'm going to try to argue that a person should worship God in the hope of receiving mercy. I'm going to argue that a person should worship God because He is the kind of God who is willing to grant mercy, and furthermore suffered and died in order to extend that mercy to us. Whether or not God gives us specifically mercy, He has promised to give mercy to many, and has shown Himself faithful to His promises (look at what happened with the Israelites!). Worship God because He is Merciful and Faithful, and therefore is worthy of worship. Don't worship Him out of a desire to receive mercy or any other reward.
I don’t think you’re going to come up with much of an answer on what the punishment is like. I do agree that we are responsible for our sins. That’s something I think everyone should be able to agree with. What if we didn’t know what we did was a sin? What if we thought we were doing something right but unbeknownst to us, it turned out to be horrible? What if we didn’t have the mental capacity to understand?
What is a just response to accidental sin? The people who were hurt are still hurt. Probably the best response is to ensure that the person who committed the sin can never make that mistake again, either by educating them until they recognize their sin and repent of it, or by removing their power to commit such sins if they cannot be educated (which could be done by keeping the means of committing sins out of their hands, or by locking them up). The main point is that we can't do nothing. We can't excuse the pain that was caused by saying "the person didn't know any better." The victims of the sin deserve more than that.
This makes some sense until you bring in the assumption that god is immutable. He doesn’t change his mind (1 Samuel 15:29). Of course we don’t know if he had this plan all along. We do know that god himself has said that he does not change (Malachi 3:6). God has changed his mind and even has been convinced to do so by mortals. Moses convinced god to not kill the jews for worshipping the golden calf. God and Jesus have made contradictory statements. These things tend to make it very confusing for those who are paying attention, believer and non-believer alike.
I don't think that either of those passages are saying that God never changes His mind. Both of them refer to promises He made. In the quote from Samuel, God had just made the declaration that Saul would lose his kingship--God had made a promise to destroy. Samuel said that God doesn't change His mind to impress upon Saul that God will carry out His decree. Samuel said that God is not like a man, and in this case "a man" might say something out of anger, but not really mean it. Samuel is telling Saul in this passage that God doesn't just say things lightly, out of anger, and not follow through. If God decrees a judgment, He means it. This is not to say that God cannot be convinced to later rescind the judgment. He can be, by repentance. It's just that God does not make idle threats.
In the second passage, God is referring to His commitment to Israel. In this case, God made a promise to preserve. Just as God does not make idle threats, neither does He make idle promises. God can be convinced to rescind His promises, by sin and iniquity, but those promises were not made with no intention to follow through. God has every intention to follow through when He says He'll do something. That's what the passage was referring to. Not that God "doesn't change," but rather that He is faithful.
It seems you're just about the only person who's interested in my perspective. Bob's the only other poster who even fluttered an eyelash at my post. I'm sorry if this is incendiary, but it's hard not to find it telling when people don't see fit to answer a post made in earnest with which they would theoretically disagree. Is it my ideology that they do not wish to challenge, or their own?
Sorry, but I'm having a hard enough time keeping up with conversations I started weeks ago. I probably should drop even those, since this discussion is distracting me from work. Fortunately I'm a graduate student and it's summer, so I have some leeway, but I still really need to be getting my priorities back in proper order...
The biggest problem I have with your comparison to the Tree to a pile of glass is that your characterization of what God did and what the Tree represents kind of misses the point. I think you're being too literal. The Tree simply represents the choice--follow God, love Him, and make Him the priority in your life, or don't. It's the same choice the Cross represents, which means that we're not being punished for the sin of one man--each of us has the opportunity to make that decision for ourselves.
If you treat the Tree as that choice, then the pile of glass analogy really isn't relevant anymore. Adam and Eve weren't punished for a specific action. They were punished for an attitude and a life-style choice. That choice would have been the same even without an external object to represent the choice. All that's necessary for the choice to happen is for God to exist, to desire a relationship with us, and for us to have the ability to say no. And none of those are really analogous to a dangerous, evil thing left out deliberately to trap and hurt us.
If you would have quoted my entire response, you would see that I did say I don't know.
After you said 'because'. Your response was 'because', and then you followed it up by admitting that you didn't know. Saying 'I don't know, because.' is no more logical than saying simply 'because.'. The thrust of each is a baseless assertion, and the minor admission of ignorance does not make it less so.
If you want a reason why I'm not responding directly, is that I'm already in discussions with Halequin, Bob, and Raz, and it's a bit taxing.
Understandable. You guys have been getting into it pretty heavily, and Harlequin and Bob have been raising cogent and insightful points. Raz has been posting too. :P
I've been hoping the my responses to others have possibly seemed relevant to your posts, is there anything in particular you wanted me to address?
Not to be flip, but there's nothing in my post I didn't want addressed. That's why I posted it. I'm not going to start telling people how to respond to me; I was just kind of trying to clear my throat to see if I could get anyone to.
Sorry, but I'm having a hard enough time keeping up with conversations I started weeks ago.
I guess I'm just late to the party. Wish I could've gotten in on the ground floor of the conversation.
The biggest problem I have with your comparison to the Tree to a pile of glass is that your characterization of what God did and what the Tree represents kind of misses the point. I think you're being too literal. The Tree simply represents the choice--follow God, love Him, and make Him the priority in your life, or don't.
Right. The choice to obey the parent, love the parent, etc, or don't. By disobeying the parent, we suffer a lot of pain, for which the parent punishes us. I don't see it as too literal to represent an object/choice which gave us unimaginable suffering as something dangerous and painful.
It's the same choice the Cross represents, which means that we're not being punished for the sin of one man--each of us has the opportunity to make that decision for ourselves.
But we are, according to Genesis. Any other theological implications aside, the story of Eden could be summed up as 'Why Life Sucks'. Because of Adam and Eve's choice, we age and die, we have to work to stay fed, and having children is agonizingly painful. Add on the notion of original sin, and God has never stopped punishing every one of us for something a couple of naked dip
s did in the wayback days.Adam and Eve weren't punished for a specific action. They were punished for an attitude and a life-style choice. That choice would have been the same even without an external object to represent the choice. All that's necessary for the choice to happen is for God to exist, to desire a relationship with us, and for us to have the ability to say no. And none of those are really analogous to a dangerous, evil thing left out deliberately to trap and hurt us.
There was a catalyzing event, action, or choice which was both inherently harmful to us, and inherently offensive to God. Whether that was noshing an apple, thinking the wrong thought, or Eve wearing her hair just so, it was the tipping point on the vessel of God's wrath.
Since God can look at the future and see how things will go down (predetermination in the sense of 'knowing beforehand' does not conflict with free will) he knew that choice would be made, and had set up the rules in such a way that the making of it would be the doom of his beloved creations. I don't see how it's inaccurate to describe that choice as a dangerous thing left out deliberately to trap and hurt us.
If you're suggesting that a choice shouldn't be represented as an object because it isn't an object, I'm not sure I'm the one being too literal. ;)
After you said 'because'. Your response was 'because', and then you followed it up by admitting that you didn't know. Saying 'I don't know, because.' is no more logical than saying simply 'because.'. The thrust of each is a baseless assertion, and the minor admission of ignorance does not make it less so.
Please. That's just playing games with words to try to make my answer what you want it to be. Just because I didn't say "I don't know." first thing doesn't mean that's not how I responded.
Understandable. You guys have been getting into it pretty heavily, and Harlequin and Bob have been raising cogent and insightful points. Raz has been posting too. :P
Indeed.
Not to be flip, but there's nothing in my post I didn't want addressed. That's why I posted it. I'm not going to start telling people how to respond to me; I was just kind of trying to clear my throat to see if I could get anyone to.
When I asked, I was wondering if there was anything that you posted that I hadn't responded to in some other post, even if not directed at you. I'd prefer not to post the same thing 2 or 3 times.
I'll try to reiterate my point--the Garden and the Tree doesn't have to be literal. It doesn't have to have happened at all. If it did happen, then it's actually a symbol for something else--something larger and at the same time more personal. Thus, we aren't being punished for the actual event, but rather are being punished for what the event represents.
It's symbolic of the way in which man (any man, on an individual level, or man as a species) makes a choice to walk away from God, and as a consequence we suffer since we are separated from the protection of God. The Cross is likewise a symbol (albeit, in this case, a symbol that I've got reason to believe did actually happen), except it's showing us the way to reverse that initial decision to walk away from God. It also happens to show us the depth of God's love for us, since He was willing to incarnate, leave His power behind, suffer, and die for us and all that.
This decision to walk away from God would have happened anyway, even without a real Tree, pattern of thought, or hair style. All that is required for this to come to pass is that God exists, God desires a relationship with us, and for us to have the ability to say no to that desire. None of those things is inherently bad, but together they enable something bad to happen. Still, just because a car and a beer together enable drunk driving doesn't mean that cars or beers are bad.
In other words, it's not about the rules. It's not about following or not following some particular stricture. It's about love, and relationship, and the choices we make for good or evil. If you're hung up on a particular rule, you've missed the point.
Here's a question: is God responsible for the evils of man? Spin it whatever way you like, it boils down to God putting man on Earth with every tool to do evil and cause mayhem, knowing full well what would happen. I'm not trying to say that humankind isn't responsible for our own actions, but is God held accountable for what we do in any way since, in a very real way, God is an enabler?
People have children knowing full well that they're going to screw up and cause somebody pain. Are parents therefore responsible for the evils their children do, since those children would not exist without the parents?
People have children knowing full well that they're going to screw up and cause somebody pain. Are parents therefore responsible for the evils their children do, since those children would not exist without the parents?
That's hardly a fair analogy. On one hand you have two flawed falible people that probably don't know everything backwards and forwards about children, psychological behavior, and don't have the power to do anything possible for the children that they wanted to.
On the other, you have an omniscient and omnipotent deity that claims to be perfect and infallible.
So no, I wouldn't blame the parents for screwing up raising a kid. The deity? Yep. He had the power, he had the knowledge, and he has no excuse.
And I suddenly realized "a minute" meant "next paragraph." So here we go, gotta cast a quick Endure Elements: Fire for this one.
I do not think God is omnipotent.
*Red Alert, All Hands Brace For Impact*
Now, let me clarify. I think that these is a huge difference between truly infinite power and being omnipotent (yes I know what the dictionary says, i'm redefining it).
Take the Q from Star Trek. They do not have limitless power, they can even be killed. In absolute truth, they have limits. As far as humans are concerned, they are pretty much all powerful.
This is how I view God. He may not be able to do everything conceivable. But, he can sure do anything we can do and then some. He is, to me, effectively omnipotent within our universe, even if his power isn't truly limitless. This is a REALLY unorthodox view and I would be stunned if anyone else here agreed with me.
So given that position, no God can't change how he exists, and no he isn't all of those "omni"s.
Take that how you will.
My roommate (the one who was going to be a preacher) is pretty much in agreement with you. He believes that god is very powerful, so powerful that as far as we are concerned he may as well be all those omnis. I find that this is a very reasonable position. It is contrary to how things are taught, and even against some of the literal teachings of the Bible.
Well he had chosen people.
Of course, considering the ancient Israelites behavior, I'm not all that surprised that he stopped appearing. Look at it this way:
Appear directly to people and help them directly: Creates a few years or short era of peace and they eventually fall to worshiping idols and being totally corrupt.
Send Jesus: Creates a lot more long-term doubt and a great deal of debate, but you don't see very many people acting like the ancient Israelites did.
Sounds like the second one worked better.
The ancient Jews didn’t just wait a few years. I remember a story about a golden calf.
When reading the Bible, it seems to me that many of the devout were rather dense at the time. It’s another one of the problems I have; most of the examples of followers are actually poor examples of humans. They tend to be stupid (they don’t believe Jesus when he performs true miracles, they don’t keep faith with god even when god demonstrates his benevolence (splitting the water), they argue with god and are killed (wanting more than manna from heaven), etc.
I still don’t think the second one worked any better. The Israelites are still committing atrocities. Many evil acts are done in the name of god. This isn’t necessarily god’s fault but it is something to consider. People simply didn’t learn. God also knows that his plan isn’t perfect that’s why he plans on destroying mankind again, this time there is no redemption.
I'll have to wait for my best friend to get back from his honeymoon, he helped me do the research.
I can do that.
Quote:
The Hades/Sheol/Hell discussion gets very confusing. I have only read up on it a little bit and from what I can tell there are quite a few different takes on the subject. Can you expand on how you know how Hades is actually Sheol? When the Bible says that Enoch and Elijah ascended, there doesn't seem to be any hint that they are not with god and even seem to go out of their way to say that they are with god or in heaven.
Sorry I can't find where the Bible actually says they are in heaven. I don't have a great opportunity to look at the moment, however. If you know of any references I'd be glad to hear them.
Wikipedia gives a decent explanation about "Hades" in the Bible and how I know that in that particular Scripture, it's talking about Sheol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol
It also talks about where "Hell" comes from.
I know that I’ve seen it somewhere. The Bible isn’t as explicit as I remember in this case. I know that the common understanding is that god brought Enoch directly to heaven but you’re right, it does not come right out and say that. It does say that Enoch did not die and that god took him with no mention of desitination.
As for Elija, it is clear that he went to heaven (2 Kings 2:1).
I’ve read the wikipedia article (in fact that was one of the only things I had read on the subject) and it is certainly explanatory but it even then there really isn’t any consensus. Sheol can mean many things from an actual location to a state of being or even just simply a grave. I’m not convinced that Hades, Sheol, and Hell are all the same thing.
Heck, I know what you mean. That book makes my head spin. I promise you any Christian who isn't kidding him or her self feels the same way.
Dream sequences are fun aren’t they? At least the Bible doesn’t have the Dallas effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_(TV_series) see “Blast From the Past under famous episodes).
But being created so that we would be "allowed...to fall from his grace" is being created "imperfect." Now I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
I’m not really sure anymore either. Sometimes I have a point but then when I come back to it a few days later I forget where I left off.
Well, admittedly he didn't actually kill them.
Also, he never said that they weren't allowed to know more, but they went about it the wrong way. They didn't ask God, "Hey Dad, what's Good and Evil?" He never said "Oh, and don't ask questions!"
The real sin wasn't seeking knowledge, it was attempting to be equal to God.
Well, depending on how you want to read into killing them. It is commonly taught that they would never have died (which actually contradicts Genesis 3:22). Of course that would lead to overcrowding eventually but I’m sure something could be done to address that.
God was actually concerned that they would know what he knows (Genesis 3:21-23).
Quote:
What about the children who die before they can even acknowledge who their parents are? What about those people who live in areas where preaching christianity is punishable by death? There are plenty of other scenarios that are very likely. What about the stillborn child?
Well considering Jesus used children as an example of who to be like in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, I'd venture to say they are going to heaven. "Apart from the law, sin is dead." These children can't comprehend the rules, so they don't apply.
Areas where Christianity is punishable by death is tricky. Although I would like to mention that Christianity started out punishable by death, so I wouldn't exactly say that's a great excuse, considering every single early Christian.
Still, I'm not the judge, only God can REALLY know these things, this is just my best guess.
I can accept the premise as far as children go. What about those who cannot comprehend but are not children? The deaf, dumb, and blind? The mentally handicapped or truly insane? Those who were taught improperly or brainwashed?
Early Christians were violent and caused uprisings. Things have improved but the old wounds are still there. At no point in history are christians perceived as peace-loving by non-christians as a whole. When the Word is spread at sword-point, I think I would be likely to want to kill the one who is spreading the Word.
I know that many people are simply not given the opportunity to understand much about other religions. In first world countries, we are very lucky. I know that it isn’t the same everywhere else though. My boss, who is bhuddist, still has a difficult time understanding that Christianity is not necessarily the same as Catholicism. She was raised mostly in Vietnam.
Oh man, the morality issue belongs in it's own horrible thread
I will try not to bring it up in this one then. You’re right, it would clutter this one and would probably degenerate fast. It would feel like a 3E Paladin thread.
Heh I'm obsessed with math and so I read Chaos. I need to find a good book on Game Theory...
I can’t help you with that. I wish I had the capacity to understand part of it. I managed to get through two courses on calculus (the third one was too difficult), a course on probability, a course on logic, three courses on general chemistry, and two courses on physics. I would like to continue working with physics and calculus but I think they may get too much. Dealing with the various series in calculus was very confusing.
Hmm, do you know any programming? I can't remember. I'll try to keep this in pure math for now:
Just because their chosen doesn't make them constants. 2 is ALWAYS 2, it can ONLY be 2, no matter the context. Nothing changes that.
X might be 2 right now. X might never change. X may be 2 for all time. But X CAN be something else. Just because it never is, doesn't mean it can't be.
I’m better with medication, insurance, and guest service. I work as a pharmacy technician.
Yeah well, you've seen how in line I am with most Christians.
You and Horatio are two of the more intelligent Christians. I don’t mean to say that others are stupid. I mean that you understand that the Bible cannot be taken 100% literally and you are willing to learn more on your own. Too many leave it up to their pastor to tell them everything in 1-2 hours once a week. I remember getting into a discussion about how language evolves with one of the lemmings. He mentioned that the only description on how language has changed that makes any sense is the story of the Tower of Babel. I spent another few minutes showing how just the English language has changed over the past decade when it dawned on me that I was wasting precious oxygen.
Well, that's assuming God intended for us to have the New Testament in the first place, which I don't believe.
Do you mean that you think god intended on a single volume rather than two separate ones?
I always saw that "God knowing what is in our hearts" being that he understands how we feel and what we are going through. Not really a "I know what your thinking." Which seems to be what those first three are talking about.
See, that’s another reasonable and more plausible understanding. I think many people would find Christianity easier to grasp if things were taught this way.
That's hardly a fair analogy. On one hand you have two flawed falible people that probably don't know everything backwards and forwards about children, psychological behavior, and don't have the power to do anything possible for the children that they wanted to.
On the other, you have an omniscient and omnipotent deity that claims to be perfect and infallible.
So no, I wouldn't blame the parents for screwing up raising a kid. The deity? Yep. He had the power, he had the knowledge, and he has no excuse.
We actually do blame parents for doing a poor job of raising their kids. In some states there are consequences. I know that I have seen news stories of people serving jail time because they couldn't get their kids to go to school. I know that some people have had their children taken away because they were doing such a poor job that the child was in danger. Some of those parents have actually seen jail time as well.
Neglect is a serious charge and I am still under the belief that the god of the Bible neglected his children. He threatens them with death if they get out of line. The Bible is full of this. He sometimes even kills them when he agrees with them. Numbers chapter 11 goes into the story of how the Israelites wanted more than just manna (very nutritious bread from god). God allows them to eat meat but wipes out 1/3 of them with a plague for asking. We then get to Deuteronomy 8 where we learn that god did this to teach them that man cannot live on bread alone. How's that for cruel?
Here's a question: is God responsible for the evils of man? Spin it whatever way you like, it boils down to God putting man on Earth with every tool to do evil and cause mayhem, knowing full well what would happen. I'm not trying to say that humankind isn't responsible for our own actions, but is God held accountable for what we do in any way since, in a very real way, God is an enabler?
Well Hume did a fine job vis-a-vis natural evil. [God cannot be all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good given the existence of natural evil (i.e.: natural disasters, disease, etc.) Either he didn't know how much people would suffer, wasn't able to avert it, or he decided to make people suffer anyway.]
The same reasoning may be applied to human-created evil--if we accept certain ontological facts (i.e.: minds are natural and the product of brains-at-work), then I think we easily can. If god created everything, put it in motion and magically knew all that would happen, humans really have no choice in the matter (because they cannot deviate from the plan), thus the evil they commit is more like natural evil.
Well Hume did a fine job vis-a-vis natural evil. [God cannot be all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good given the existence of natural evil (i.e.: natural disasters, disease, etc.) Either he didn't know how much people would suffer, wasn't able to avert it, or he decided to make people suffer anyway.]
The same reasoning may be applied to human-created evil--if we accept certain ontological facts (i.e.: minds are natural and the product of brains-at-work), then I think we easily can. If god created everything, put it in motion and magically knew all that would happen, humans really have no choice in the matter (because they cannot deviate from the plan), thus the evil they commit is more like natural evil.
What are you thoughts on Leibnitz' the Best of All Possible Worlds? Monads?
What are you thoughts on Leibnitz' the Best of All Possible Worlds?
Since reducing man's suffering by, say, 10%, would not degrade his achievements or moral purpose by the same percentage, I don't see how that follows. Our world may be better than many, but I could not argue that this is "the best." (This, of course, ignores any metaphysical limitations--our world may, by the nature of physics, be the only one which can create life. I can accept that, but that's a slightly different argument.)
In light of what we know now about entropy vs. order and information theory, evil by its nature is superfluous--there is no "necessary evil." Evil is tolerated only because it cannot all be fought by good people all at once.
Regardless, there's an epistemological problem with trying to apply concepts used to describe things inside the known universe to things outside the known universe (such as morality, knowledge, etc.) This is largely why I don't concern myself with things outside the universe, even things like god and afterlife--it's a total straw-grasp. Try to pin down their exact meaning and you'll come up empty-handed.
I will not provide examples, because I have none. This will probably get a few raised eyebrows. I chose not to give any examples on the basis that I know I will be one-upped. I do not mean this badly, just that there are more researched and intelligent people on here.
Faith is something we humans are born to struggle with. To say blind faith is weak and untested is wrong to me. I was 6 when I visioned what the Afterlife to be like with no God. It was full of void, and horrible. (Does our Innate fear of the Dark know something we don't?)
But yet I carried on believing, because I have a feeling there is something larger.
When my Father passed away, you can bet anger at the heaven's flooded through me. This traumatic event has left me with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Numbers have to be even, so I double up on my actions.
This is when I started slacking in school. It wasn't that my grades weren't there, I would just rather be at home when it caught on fire. I had a fear of everyone in my family dying just like my Dad. So school was no longer my priority. This was sad since I was commended on my grades despite a half a year's worth of absences.
But I still believe, blindly even though my faith was tested it remained strong.
I have believed in Him without a modicum of proof that He exist. I feel Him, and Sense Him. I always have, but the evil I see at Churches get under my skin.
The reason I stay away from the Bible is because I would rather translate it Myself. I would rather learn The Old Languages and read it myself. Or hear it from the BBGG himself.
I have been to Church, and I regretted every minute of it. I has a small ranking member in small-town society am shunned, and hated. The kids of the higher ups having sex, and doing drugs only to Judge me the very next day.
And I thought these people were close to God?
Why do they feel the need to out my problems and addictions when their own children are worse than me?
I wish to be more researched like Encara, Horatio, Bob Loblaw, and others. Maybe I wouldn't be ridiculed on my beliefs that Science, Reason, and Logic are the fault for Mankind's downfall.
Why was the Serpent punished, Eve dubbed Original Sinner, and everyone booted out of the dimensional Eden just for tasting of knowledge?
I think it is because We started to question Him. This is what He wanted to avoid. Why would he waste his time with someone who would always question Why He does something?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I mean by the whole 2000 years ago.
If there isn't just one way to do something, then that means nothing is predetermined or set in stone. And researching God trying to mathematically determine His existence, although possible, just does away with Faith. (Pardon the reposted Idea, don't kill me Encara.)
And the Manipulation of Life(Gene Manipulations, Stem-cells, etc), or Creation of life(Cloning, Hypothesis's on Ways to form an Earth.) is what Lucifer was thrown out of the Heavens for.
He wanted authority over Life. So do We. So who are we really a part of.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like I said, I wish I was more like Encara the Knowledgeable(complement:P ) in presenting my idea's, but I fall behind on data and statistics. Guess I am more of a Right brain thinker.
All of you guys are highly intelligent thinkers and I commend all of you.
After my Theology, Philosophy, and Writing degrees are complete I will be happy to list examples.
Next Semester I start. WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO:D
String Theory invalidates Religion and Evolution. The Universe is Debris of Change in Possibility (which means the Universe is debris about a point of change beyond its limits of possibility), Black Holes Moments of Change in Possibility (They form when a string possibility set collides with its mirror and collapses to singularity - almost - there is debris allowing interaction with the singularity), and Time Continuous Change in Possibility. The only thing that can create Change in Possibility is life and can only do so from outside the possibility Set.
What happens when we reach a point where we must outlaw the peddling of Religion and Evolution because they are incompatible with the truth?
Faith is something we humans are born to struggle with. To say blind faith is weak and untested is wrong to me. I was 6 when I visioned what the Afterlife to be like with no God. It was full of void, and horrible. (Does our Innate fear of the Dark know something we don't?)
But yet I carried on believing, because I have a feeling there is something larger.
When my Father passed away, you can bet anger at the heaven's flooded through me. This traumatic event has left me with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Numbers have to be even, so I double up on my actions.
This is when I started slacking in school. It wasn't that my grades weren't there, I would just rather be at home when it caught on fire. I had a fear of everyone in my family dying just like my Dad. So school was no longer my priority. This was sad since I was commended on my grades despite a half a year's worth of absences.
But I still believe, blindly even though my faith was tested it remained strong.
That, however, is evidence. That is not blind faith.
Look, anyone here who thinks that they can prove God's existence one way or another is kidding themselves. We're talking about evidence.
[QUOTE[
I have believed in Him without a modicum of proof that He exist. I feel Him, and Sense Him.
Given the above, this statement isn't true, Your experiences are evidence (at least to yourself) that God exists.
I always have, but the evil I see at Churches get under my skin.
Heh, I know what you mean, I'm dealing with some of that right now.
The reason I stay away from the Bible is because I would rather translate it Myself. I would rather learn The Old Languages and read it myself. Or hear it from the BBGG himself.
I would love to know Biblical Greek and Hebrew. However, I am not currently blessed with the time, but I recognize that other men have done a halfway-decent job translating it and so, at least for now, I rely on their work (imperfect though it is).
I have been to Church, and I regretted every minute of it. I has a small ranking member in small-town society am shunned, and hated. The kids of the higher ups having sex, and doing drugs only to Judge me the very next day.
I understand what you mean here too. But, not every church is like that. Have you tried multiple churches? My experiences haven't been like this, fortunately.
I wish to be more researched like Encara, Horatio, Bob Loblaw, and others. Maybe I wouldn't be ridiculed on my beliefs that Science, Reason, and Logic are the fault for Mankind's downfall.
Well, I hope I didn't come off as ridiculing you. That was not my intent.
But, Science, Reason, and Logic are not at fault. The fault is Man and our desire to be equal with God. That was the original sin, and it is the sin that permeates humanity today. Science, Reason, and Logic are not products of this. Science began as a method for the curious to explore the wonders of God's creation. Aristotle, a champion of Reason, Logic, and Philosophy, eventually concluded that a single God must exist (and was put to death for it).
Why was the Serpent punished, Eve dubbed Original Sinner, and everyone booted out of the dimensional Eden just for tasting of knowledge?
The sin wasn't obtaining knowledge, it was disobeying God and attempting to be like him. Look at what the serpent said to Eve:
Genesis 3:4-5
"You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
(Emphasis mine)
I think it is because We started to question Him. This is what He wanted to avoid. Why would he waste his time with someone who would always question Why He does something?
I think there is a significant difference between questioning God and asking questions of God.
If there isn't just one way to do something, then that means nothing is predetermined or set in stone. And researching God trying to mathematically determine His existence, although possible, just does away with Faith. (Pardon the reposted Idea, don't kill me Encara.)
Silly I wouldn't kill you! ( *turns to ninjas* shoo shoo! <.< )
Actually, like I said earlier. I don't hold any delusions of "proving" God. But I can certainly provide evidence. Proof is conclusive and final. I don't have proof.
If God exists, and we believe he does, do you not think he would leave some sort of noticeable mark that we could observe?
And the Manipulation of Life(Gene Manipulations, Stem-cells, etc), or Creation of life(Cloning, Hypothesis's on Ways to form an Earth.) is what Lucifer was thrown out of the Heavens for.
Actually, I'm pretty sure he was thrown out of Heaven for attempting to supplant God.
Like I said, I wish I was more like Encara the Knowledgeable(complement:P ) in presenting my idea's, but I fall behind on data and statistics. Guess I am more of a Right brain thinker.
Actually, in a test on brain-sided-ness, I was almost twice as right brained as left brained.
I have an immense amount of trouble with Math if I can't give myself some sort of concept to visualize it with.
The problem with Religion vs Evolution is that both are wrong.
String Theory invalidates Religion and Evolution. The Universe is Debris of Change in Possibility (which means the Universe is debris about a point of change beyond its limits of possibility), Black Holes Moments of Change in Possibility (They form when a string possibility set collides with its mirror and collapses to singularity - almost - there is debris allowing interaction with the singularity), and Time Continuous Change in Possibility. The only thing that can create Change in Possibility is life and can only do so from outside the possibility Set.
What happens when we reach a point where we must outlaw the peddling of Religion and Evolution because they are incompatible with the truth?
Heh, sorry I saw this and had to respond.
String Theory? Seriously? The physics world is in a tirade over String Theory. There are tons of problems with String Theory, and a lot (if not most) physicists have abandoned it or pointed out the various holes in it.
Heck, String Theory even got booted out of physics and is more of a mathematical model now since it can't even be tested.
You should read The Trouble with Physics. Written by an atheist physicist who used to be a string theorist.
Sorry I missed this. I take a couple of days and sometimes forget to come back to a previous point.
No problem, it's hard to keep up with it all.
My roommate (the one who was going to be a preacher) is pretty much in agreement with you. He believes that god is very powerful, so powerful that as far as we are concerned he may as well be all those omnis. I find that this is a very reasonable position. It is contrary to how things are taught, and even against some of the literal teachings of the Bible.
Good to know there is more support for these ideas other than me.
The ancient Jews didn’t just wait a few years. I remember a story about a golden calf.
When reading the Bible, it seems to me that many of the devout were rather dense at the time. It’s another one of the problems I have; most of the examples of followers are actually poor examples of humans. They tend to be stupid (they don’t believe Jesus when he performs true miracles, they don’t keep faith with god even when god demonstrates his benevolence (splitting the water), they argue with god and are killed (wanting more than manna from heaven), etc.
Yeah, they could be pretty stupid. Then again, so can we. The truth of the matter is most people aren't highly intelligent.
The way I see the continuous doubting even in the face of miracles is this:
If you've ever done one of those (admittedly silly) trust exercises, the phenomenon is really evident. Take the ones that involve people falling, trusting others to catch them. You watch person after person after person fall and be caught, returned safely to the ground. Still, when it comes down to your turn, generally you hesitate, have doubt. When you fall you brace for a painful impact, and really you only feel better when you've actually been caught.
Heck, some people won't even fall, even though they've seen the rest of the group do so without injury.
That's how I see doubt even in the face of God's direct influence. He's not standing there all the time, and when things start to get rough and no immediate relief is seen, people doubt and turn away looking for something more immediately comforting, even if it's bad in the long run. It's a problem with Humanity as a whole.
I still don’t think the second one worked any better. The Israelites are still committing atrocities. Many evil acts are done in the name of god. This isn’t necessarily god’s fault but it is something to consider. People simply didn’t learn. God also knows that his plan isn’t perfect that’s why he plans on destroying mankind again, this time there is no redemption.
Well, I think it worked better. After all, look at how many people become or remain Christian (even if they aren't perfect) now. I mean, with the Israelites, he was lucky if he got a couple of generations of faithfulness before they were back to Baal and the Ashera Poles.
(And on a completely off topic note, am I the only one who can't resist pronouncing Baal "BAHL" instead of "BAY-AL" thanks to Baldur's Gate?)
I know that I’ve seen it somewhere. The Bible isn’t as explicit as I remember in this case. I know that the common understanding is that god brought Enoch directly to heaven but you’re right, it does not come right out and say that. It does say that Enoch did not die and that god took him with no mention of desitination.
As for Elija, it is clear that he went to heaven (2 Kings 2:1).
I'm not so sure. This guy does a good job of explaining it, even showing various Scriptures which show that he did not ascend to God's throne:
http://www.willyougotoheaven.info/Did_elijah_go_to_heaven.htm
I’ve read the wikipedia article (in fact that was one of the only things I had read on the subject) and it is certainly explanatory but it even then there really isn’t any consensus. Sheol can mean many things from an actual location to a state of being or even just simply a grave. I’m not convinced that Hades, Sheol, and Hell are all the same thing.
Oh I don't think they are the same thing. I think "Hell" or the "lake of fire" is a place of permanent destruction, perhaps where things truly cease to exist. Sheol is the place of waiting for judgement, and I think that Sheol is generally translated as "Hades."
Dream sequences are fun aren’t they? At least the Bible doesn’t have the Dallas effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_(TV_series) see “Blast From the Past under famous episodes).
Heh, soap operas *shakes head*
Well, depending on how you want to read into killing them. It is commonly taught that they would never have died (which actually contradicts Genesis 3:22). Of course that would lead to overcrowding eventually but I’m sure something could be done to address that.
God was actually concerned that they would know what he knows (Genesis 3:21-23).
Well actually Genesis 3:22 is the Scripture which is used to support that they would have lived forever. Suggesting that had they remained in the garden, they could have eaten from the Tree of Life and lived forever. (Tree of Life and Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil being different Trees)
I suppose that's true, in a sense.
I can accept the premise as far as children go. What about those who cannot comprehend but are not children? The deaf, dumb, and blind? The mentally handicapped or truly insane? Those who were taught improperly or brainwashed?
I wasn't being specific. These people who are unable to comprehend and understand these things are not held accountable.
If people have, in any true sense, the capacity to learn and understand what they are doing: They are accountable.
Otherwise, I personally believe they have quite a bit of leeway.
Early Christians were violent and caused uprisings. Things have improved but the old wounds are still there. At no point in history are christians perceived as peace-loving by non-christians as a whole. When the Word is spread at sword-point, I think I would be likely to want to kill the one who is spreading the Word.
Yeah, and that's totally justified. Although I would argue that the early Christians (during the Roman Empire) would probably have been viewed as peace-loving by the few that knew of them, since they had to remain underground.
I know that many people are simply not given the opportunity to understand much about other religions. In first world countries, we are very lucky. I know that it isn’t the same everywhere else though. My boss, who is bhuddist, still has a difficult time understanding that Christianity is not necessarily the same as Catholicism. She was raised mostly in Vietnam.
It's unfortunate that this is true. I can only hope and pray that this continues to get better as time progresses.
I will try not to bring it up in this one then. You’re right, it would clutter this one and would probably degenerate fast. It would feel like a 3E Paladin thread.
Ugh, not that...
I would be interested in having a discussion like this at some point, but not here.
I can’t help you with that. I wish I had the capacity to understand part of it. I managed to get through two courses on calculus (the third one was too difficult), a course on probability, a course on logic, three courses on general chemistry, and two courses on physics. I would like to continue working with physics and calculus but I think they may get too much. Dealing with the various series in calculus was very confusing.
Actually, I found Calculus III to be harder than Calculus IV, although I did have a much better teacher for Calculus IV.
I’m better with medication, insurance, and guest service. I work as a pharmacy technician.
Ah, okay. Well I asked cause I had a programming analogy, but I'd rather not give a lecture on basic programming first ;)
You and Horatio are two of the more intelligent Christians. I don’t mean to say that others are stupid. I mean that you understand that the Bible cannot be taken 100% literally and you are willing to learn more on your own. Too many leave it up to their pastor to tell them everything in 1-2 hours once a week. I remember getting into a discussion about how language evolves with one of the lemmings. He mentioned that the only description on how language has changed that makes any sense is the story of the Tower of Babel. I spent another few minutes showing how just the English language has changed over the past decade when it dawned on me that I was wasting precious oxygen.
First, I'm humbled by your complement, thank you.
Yeah, there are some thick people who just can't step out of their bubble. It's sad, but true.
Do you mean that you think god intended on a single volume rather than two separate ones?
What I mean is that the Bible was compiled by the Catholic church many, many years after Christianity came into existence. The letters and accounts in the New Testament were written by people to tell the stories of Jesus and to provide guidance to Christian's behaviors. They are comments from the authorities on the matter.
I don't believe that the New Testament is without error or even without doctrinal error, since the New Testament isn't "Scripture" in the sense that the Old Testament is.
I generally look at everything in the New Testament (anything not said by Jesus) with the two rule lens:
Does the behavior suggested here express love for God above all?
Does the behavior suggested here express love for others above myself?
Generally, i get a yes from both, since the apostles did know what they were talking about. The New Testament is valuable, but aside from perhaps Revelations, I don't know that it's "God breathed" per se.
See, that’s another reasonable and more plausible understanding. I think many people would find Christianity easier to grasp if things were taught this way.
I agree, but sadly I have no power over the way things are done. Best I have is to do something like we're doing here.
That's hardly a fair analogy. On one hand you have two flawed falible people that probably don't know everything backwards and forwards about children, psychological behavior, and don't have the power to do anything possible for the children that they wanted to.
On the other, you have an omniscient and omnipotent deity that claims to be perfect and infallible.
So no, I wouldn't blame the parents for screwing up raising a kid. The deity? Yep. He had the power, he had the knowledge, and he has no excuse.
Okay, so, you're saying that God knows that harm will occur, that He has the power to stop it, and therefore should stop it?
Consider, then, this example: The Joker has taken a bunch of people hostage and is going to blow them up unless you kill your wife. Are you morally responsible for those people he blows up when you don't kill your wife? But you knew with 100% certainty that something bad would happen, and you had it within your power to stop it, but you didn't. By the logic you're applying to God, you must be morally responsible, right?
Except, of course, that there are two things going on here that mitigate your responsibility. First is the fact that you didn't blow those people up, or make any decisions that led to them being blown up, or contribute to them being blown up in any way except that you failed to take an action which could have stopped it from happening. The Joker set all this up, and he is the one that bears the strongest moral responsibility. Even if we did possess the means to stop him in a way that wasn't evil itself, the crime of failing to stop a crime is of much, much lesser magnitude than the crime itself. This doesn't excuse you completely, assuming you had non-evil ways to stop it (like beating Joker up or something), but if you do not participate in a crime, you do not bear the moral responsibility for that crime. You bear moral responsibility for a different crime--that of failing to stop a crime in progress (i.e., Good Samaritan laws, which, by the way, are a fairly recent legal development).
Second is the fact that the action you would have to take to stop the Joker is morally reprehensible. You're not held morally responsible for something that you can only stop by becoming as bad or worse than the thing you're trying to stop.
How does this relate to God? Well, in the first place, it's not God that's committing these sins, nor is He making any decisions that lead to those sins, nor is He contributing to those decisions in any way except that He is not taking actions which could stop them from happening. We are the ones committing these sins, making the decisions that lead to them, etc, and we are the ones that bear the strongest moral responsibility for them. God is not guilty of our sins just because He failed to stop them. He is, at most, guilty of a different sin, that of failing to stop sin when He had the ability. And that sin is of much lesser magnitude. This is just to put things into perspective.
In the second place, how can God stop sin? If we consider my argument where the Tree is symbolic of the way we reject relationship with God, then the only ways God can stop sin are to (1) Stop existing, (2) Stop wanting our friendship, or (3) take away our ability to say no. None of those are good actions, and it's not a moral failing to refuse to take those actions, just like it's not a moral failing for you to fail to kill our wife when the Joker demands it.
Sorry to kind of pounce like that, but that's one of the things that really irks me: atheists who think that all Christians are incredibly dull and stupid.
Smart people can believe dumb things and conversely dumb people can believe smart things. Particularly when they are beliefs we are exposed to when we are young.
People have children knowing full well that they're going to screw up and cause somebody pain. Are parents therefore responsible for the evils their children do, since those children would not exist without the parents?
Yes.
God is not guilty of our sins just because He failed to stop them. He is, at most, guilty of a different sin, that of failing to stop sin when He had the ability. And that sin is of much lesser magnitude. This is just to put things into perspective.
If He is incapable of stopping sin, then he bears no responsibility.
If he is capable stopping sin but chooses not to, how is that not an even greater sin than all the sins of the world, compounded?
Part of the issue has to do with foreknowledge ("I did not know that was going to happen") and power ("I couldn't do anything to prevent it.") If you know, and you have the power, and you fail to act, are you still culpable?
If someone is drowning, and you walk on by even though you are a champion swimmer, is that wrong?
If you see someone beating their child with an iron bar, and you can freeze time, but yet you do nothing, is that wrong?
If you are omnipotent, omniscient, and you create the universe and everything in it, how is every sin that occurs in that universe not ultimately your sin?
In the second place, how can God stop sin? If we consider my argument where the Tree is symbolic of the way we reject relationship with God, then the only ways God can stop sin are to (1) Stop existing, (2) Stop wanting our friendship, or (3) take away our ability to say no. None of those are good actions, and it's not a moral failing to refuse to take those actions, just like it's not a moral failing for you to fail to kill our wife when the Joker demands it.
Well, this may sound facetious, but:
If I recall correctly, sin came into the world when Adam and Eve were told by God not to eat of the fruit, and they chose to anyway.
If God had not told Adam and Eve 'do not do this', then they couldn't have sinned by choosing to 'do this'.
God could have chosen (4) don't tell us what to do, thereby ensuring that we don't disobey him and, through disobedience, sinning.
And if I, knowing years ago that this was going to happen, failed to take the most basic precautions, then yeah, I'm morally responsible for the death of my wife, and the Joker's bomb spree. Power+Knowledge=Responsibility.
If he is capable stopping sin but chooses not to, how is that not an even greater sin than all the sins of the world, compounded?
Part of the issue has to do with foreknowledge ("I did not know that was going to happen") and power ("I couldn't do anything to prevent it.") If you know, and you have the power, and you fail to act, are you still culpable?
If someone is drowning, and you walk on by even though you are a champion swimmer, is that wrong?
If you see someone beating their child with an iron bar, and you can freeze time, but yet you do nothing, is that wrong?
If you are omnipotent, omniscient, and you create the universe and everything in it, how is every sin that occurs in that universe not ultimately your sin?
Well, let's look at the second example: someone is beating their child, and you can stop them (we'll change the example to say that just have to call the police to stop them, to make it a little less outlandish). In the first case, drowning is not a moral fault, so there's no relative moral stigma. There's only one sin going on, that of the champion swimmer passing by, so there aren't two sins to compare.
So, if someone (person A) is beating their child, and someone else (person B) has the ability to stop them but doesn't, has person A committed a greater sin or has person B? Or are their sins equal? My intuition says that the sin of person A has greater moral weight.
So, this argument does not get God off the hook. It just gives some perspective to those who are trying to say that God is a greater monster than Ted Bundy because God let Ted Bundy exist. Speaking in all fairness, God would bear some moral responsibility, but our loathing for Him should be far, far less than our loathing for Ted Bundy. If it's not, well, I think there's something wrong there.
Well, this may sound facetious, but:
If I recall correctly, sin came into the world when Adam and Eve were told by God not to eat of the fruit, and they chose to anyway.
If God had not told Adam and Eve 'do not do this', then they couldn't have sinned by choosing to 'do this'.
God could have chosen (4) don't tell us what to do, thereby ensuring that we don't disobey him and, through disobedience, sinning.
And if I, knowing years ago that this was going to happen, failed to take the most basic precautions, then yeah, I'm morally responsible for the death of my wife, and the Joker's bomb spree. Power+Knowledge=Responsibility.
Yes, but I've been arguing against that notion of original sin for a while now. Adam and Eve's sin wasn't violating a rule. It was a spirit of rebellion, which would have existed even if no rules were in place. It just wouldn't have had a focus.
And that said, what's wrong with rules? "Don't murder each other" seems like a darn good one, and I am more than comfortable with condemning a person who violates it. "Treat each other with love and respect" seems like a good one too, as does "be grateful to people who do nice things for you." Like, you know, creating you.
The point is, even if Adam and Eve hadn't broken the rule about eating a particular fruit, they'd have broken some other rule. The specific rule isn't really the point--it's the spirit of rebellion that's the problem, and that attitude is wholly owned by the people who express it (i.e., us). We have been given full control over ourselves. God can take that away, and thus stop sin, but I think removing that self-control is itself a morally reprehensible act, and thus, by my prior Joker argument, God is not culpable for our sins for not taking a morally reprehensible act to stop us.
It's important to note that by my argument is that sin is a possibility as soon as we're granted free will and control over ourselves and our actions. Hence, the only way to stop sin is to remove free will and/or our ability to control ourselves and our actions (assuming there's a difference between free will and self control).
Think about it for a bit and try to find a way that God can stop every sin forever that doesn't destroy free will, either directly or effectively. For example, He can't simply take away all opportunities to sin, since without the opportunity to sin we have no meaningful choices, and hence effectively have no free will.
Finally, who said that God isn't doing anything to stop sin? That's the whole point of the Cross--all we have to do is accept God's help, and then He'll stop sin cold. This is about the most significant and powerful thing He can do that doesn't destroy free will completely. We can have absolute victory, but only if we choose it. Seems like a pretty good solution. Does your proposes solution stop sin as effectively, while still effectively preserving free will?
Edit: As to your proposes solution of not telling Adam and Eve about good or evil. This basically means keeping a person ignorant forever, even of the fact that they're ignorant.
If a person is not aware that they can make another choice, do they really have free will? For example, if there's a room with one exit, but the exit is cleverly hidden, and moreover you have the power to ensure that the person in the room never finds the door, can you really say that the person stays in the room of their own free will? I don't think so--the only reason they're there is because they aren't aware they can leave. I think Jim Carey did a movie like that once...
Thus, your proposed solution fails, since it does not preserve free will.
If a person is not aware that they can make another choice, do they really have free will? For example, if there's a room with one exit, but the exit is cleverly hidden, and moreover you have the power to ensure that the person in the room never finds the door, can you really say that the person stays in the room of their own free will? I don't think so--the only reason they're there is because they aren't aware they can leave. I think Jim Carey did a movie like that once...
I believe you are thinking of The Truman Show. Great movie.
So, this argument does not get God off the hook.
I'm a little disturbed by the notion that the omnipotent creator of the universe would require a mortal's philosophical arguments to excuse their actions.
I'm a little disturbed by the notion that the omnipotent creator of the universe would require a mortal's philosophical arguments to excuse their actions.
This is getting really close to one of those "morality" arguments that really should be in its own thread, cause it gets ugly.
This is getting really close to one of those "morality" arguments that really should be in its own thread, cause it gets ugly.
Well yes, theodicies is probably the most viciously argued component of theology. Usually ends with a few Godwin's laws and baby-eating comments on both sides.
Perhaps it's best not to bring that one up.
I'll just leave it that I hold an omnipotent and omniscient deity to a different standard of responsibility then a human, just as I hold an adult to a different standard of responsibility then a child.
And I'll leave it that I quite agree.
It is a complex and interesting topic, but not really one that's appropriate for this forum.
I believe that everyone has Faith. Wether that be Faith in an all powerful omnipotent god, or the Faith that there is no all powerful omnipotent god it is still Faith in something.
Now, for argument sake lets say there is a God. If he is all powerful and omnipotent, don't you think it is within his ability to show himself different ways to different people?
I think it is a little arogant to believe that your Faith is the "correct" Faith and that anyone that thinks different is either an "Bible thumper" or "a heathen not saved by God yet".
I just don't know if there is a all encompassing "correct" answer. I have my own personal Faith and belief regarding God and it is "correct" for me. Maybe some people agree, maybe some don't but why do people have to be "wrong"?
So I read the first few pages of this thread and then got tired of reading tons of posts so I am sorry if I am behind.
It's fine
although it's usually better to read the last few than the first few. I believe that everyone has Faith. Whether that be Faith in an all powerful omnipotent god, or the Faith that there is no all powerful omnipotent god it is still Faith in something.
I'd agree with this.
Now, for argument sake lets say there is a God. If he is all powerful and omnipotent, don't you think it is within his ability to show himself different ways to different people?
Well, that' actually part of what we're discussing here. Is God, at least as Christians view him, actually omnipotent?
I think it is a little arogant to believe that your Faith is the "correct" Faith and that anyone that thinks different is either an "Bible thumper" or "a heathen not saved by God yet".
Well, that depends on what you mean by "Faith." From a Christian standpoint, there are a few "belief" requirements. Generally most religions assert the correctness of their beliefs and the incorrectness of others' beliefs. That's not arrogance, that's part of their religious doctrine.
I just don't know if there is a all encompassing "correct" answer. I have my own personal Faith and belief regarding God and it is "correct" for me. Maybe some people agree, maybe some don't but why do people have to be "wrong"?
I think there is an all encompassing correct answer.
However, I also think that no one alive on this Earth knows what it is.
The reason people have to be wrong is that someone IS right. Therefore, everyone else is wrong. We're just trying to figure out who before it's too late ;)
It's fine
I'd agree with this.
Well, that' actually part of what we're discussing here. Is God, at least as Christians view him, actually omnipotent?
Well, that depends on what you mean by "Faith." From a Christian standpoint, there are a few "belief" requirements. Generally most religions assert the correctness of their beliefs and the incorrectness of others' beliefs. That's not arrogance, that's part of their religious doctrine.
I think there is an all encompassing correct answer.
However, I also think that no one alive on this Earth knows what it is.
The reason people have to be wrong is that someone IS right. Therefore, everyone else is wrong. We're just trying to figure out who before it's too late ;)
I grew up in a Roman Catholic family and Catholic school from K-12 so speaking as a pretty studied up Catholic (not to toot my own horn), but there are a TON of protestant religions (meaning other faiths that have branched from Roman Catholicism) all of them with varying degrees of ideas and beliefs. However, IMHO most religions believe that God is omnipotent by definition. If he didn't have power over everything then he wouldn't be titled God.
True, a lot of different religions assert a sort of "dominence" over others a set of "required beliefs". Now, speaking for the Roman Catholicism Dogmatic law, this isn't the case. A lot of people, sterotypically, view "RC" as this "you agree with me or your going to hell". This idea is vastly incorrect and IMHO discouraging. RC doctrinal law is actually very flexible in what you really "have" to believe. Most preists teach it like an apple core. There are the few "seeds" or "leaps of faith" that "grants" you the title of RC but the rest is just what you agree with or don't agree with. Just because I am RC does not mean that I believe that the Pope is Infalible(sp).
IMHO whenever anyone assumes what is right for them is right for anyone else, is arrogance to begin with.
And, hypothetically, can't we all be "wrong"?
This is getting really close to one of those "morality" arguments that really should be in its own thread, cause it gets ugly.
Except that the idea of whether or not God is good is pretty much the crux of of all the debates we're having. The apparent cruelty of Hell, the responsibility of God for our sins due to His foreknowledge, and the specific case of the Tree are all arguments that God is not good. The perception that God is not good is, I think, one of the largest barriers to belief out there. A lot of people find it easier to think that God does not exist rather than think that He does exist, but still allows all this pain and suffering. And if He does exist, most of those same people would be very, very angry with Him.
This is an important discussion, and is in fact the discussion we've been having for the past several days. I don't see any reason not to acknowledge it and discuss it. We're already neck deep in "things which shouldn't be discussed on this forum," so drawing a line here seems, well, rather arbitrary. As long as we maintain the same civility and open-mindedness we've had so far, that is.
Btw, I've been working very hard to avoid Godwin. I've mentioned Stalin, Pol Pot, Ted Bundy, and the Joker, but I have very deliberately been avoiding mention of a certain mid-20th century dictator. Besides, I think we can make tons of valid points about morality with relatively tame examples, such as vandalism or stealing cookies, and still get the point across.
Except that the idea of whether or not God is good is pretty much the crux of of all the debates we're having. The apparent cruelty of Hell, the responsibility of God for our sins due to His foreknowledge, and the specific case of the Tree are all arguments that God is not good. The perception that God is not good is, I think, one of the largest barriers to belief out there. A lot of people find it easier to think that God does not exist rather than think that He does exist, but still allows all this pain and suffering. And if He does exist, most of those same people would be very, very angry with Him.
Some people inside Roman Catholicism believe that the absence of God, or the simple fact of denying his exsistence, is "hell on earth". Also, people of the Jewish Faith typically don't believe in a traditional idea of "hell".
I agree with you that some people may think that, but, on the flip side, I think that a lot of people just have Faith in nothingness.
With the second option, there's also good and free will.
I think that's worth the price.
This is an interesting work of art and can give some more insight on christian history.
That's not arrogance, that's part of their religious doctrine.
Why can't it be both? :P
Except that the idea of whether or not God is good is pretty much the crux of of all the debates we're having. The apparent cruelty of Hell, the responsibility of God for our sins due to His foreknowledge, and the specific case of the Tree are all arguments that God is not good. The perception that God is not good is, I think, one of the largest barriers to belief out there. A lot of people find it easier to think that God does not exist rather than think that He does exist, but still allows all this pain and suffering. And if He does exist, most of those same people would be very, very angry with Him.
Don't forget that, supposedly, god makes man dependent upon reason for survival then demands mysticism (the abandonment of reason) for eternal salvation.
So, this argument does not get God off the hook. It just gives some perspective to those who are trying to say that God is a greater monster than Ted Bundy because God let Ted Bundy exist. Speaking in all fairness, God would bear some moral responsibility, but our loathing for Him should be far, far less than our loathing for Ted Bundy. If it's not, well, I think there's something wrong there.
I think our loathing for Ted Bundy should be far less that that for God. While Ted Bundy, being human, is capable of savagery, being human he is also subject to forces that can influence how he chooses to exercise his free will; God, being omniscient and omnipotent, is not only NOT subject to such forces but is the prime mover, the first cause, behind those forces. God set Ted Bundy in motion at the beginning of all things.
Yes, but I've been arguing against that notion of original sin for a while now. Adam and Eve's sin wasn't violating a rule. It was a spirit of rebellion, which would have existed even if no rules were in place. It just wouldn't have had a focus.
And that said, what's wrong with rules? "Don't murder each other" seems like a darn good one, and I am more than comfortable with condemning a person who violates it. "Treat each other with love and respect" seems like a good one too, as does "be grateful to people who do nice things for you." Like, you know, creating you.
It seems odd. "Don't murder each other" comes out of the results of "don't eat the fruit", when simply refraining from telling them "don't eat the fruit" would have enabled them to gain the knowledge of good and evil when they chose to eat the fruit, without the penalty for disobeying God's law.
The point is, even if Adam and Eve hadn't broken the rule about eating a particular fruit, they'd have broken some other rule. The specific rule isn't really the point--it's the spirit of rebellion that's the problem, and that attitude is wholly owned by the people who express it (i.e., us). We have been given full control over ourselves. God can take that away, and thus stop sin, but I think removing that self-control is itself a morally reprehensible act, and thus, by my prior Joker argument, God is not culpable for our sins for not taking a morally reprehensible act to stop us.
It has been proposed that the only true morally reprehensible act from a human point of view is disobeying God, and that God cannot commit any morally reprehensible acts, being the ultimate authority. Any action that ultimate authority chooses to do, including taking away our free will, must be moral. If God chose to not allow us the capacity to sin, is that just as reprehensible as not allowing us the capacity to ? We have full control over ourselves only in that there are things that we literally cannot do and cannot conceive of.
It's important to note that by my argument is that sin is a possibility as soon as we're granted free will and control over ourselves and our actions. Hence, the only way to stop sin is to remove free will and/or our ability to control ourselves and our actions (assuming there's a difference between free will and self control).
I am reading something different from your arguments:
that free will is only possible if we are granted the capacity to sin.
There are more things that we cannot do than things we can do. As marvelous as our imaginations might be, there are things we cannot conceive of. Yet we are reckoned to have free will, and the central pillar to that argument is that, unless we could sin, that we would not have free will. If sin were impossible, how is that any more morally reprehensible than disallowing ?
Think about it for a bit and try to find a way that God can stop every sin forever that doesn't destroy free will, either directly or effectively. For example, He can't simply take away all opportunities to sin, since without the opportunity to sin we have no meaningful choices, and hence effectively have no free will.
Sin=disobey God.
No commands = no opportunity to sin.
Without directives, what is there to rebel against?
Or. . . effectively have no free will anyway. Else you could choose to not know about sin. But you can't. That choice has been made for you.
Finally, who said that God isn't doing anything to stop sin? That's the whole point of the Cross--all we have to do is accept God's help, and then He'll stop sin cold. This is about the most significant and powerful thing He can do that doesn't destroy free will completely. We can have absolute victory, but only if we choose it. Seems like a pretty good solution. Does your proposed solution stop sin as effectively, while still effectively preserving free will?
It seems contradictory. God cannot stop us from sinning, and will punish us for sinning, but if we choose to accept his help he will save us from the punishment he implemented for sinning even if we continue to sin. Yet this does nothing for the people who do not know God/Christ, who are then damned for sinning and not knowing about God's offer of help.
One would think the most powerful thing he could do is allow sin, and rescind its punishment. Unequivocally. Unconditionally.
Edit: As to your proposes solution of not telling Adam and Eve about good or evil. This basically means keeping a person ignorant forever, even of the fact that they're ignorant.
Who is there to judge their ignorance but God? They were the smartest humans alive. They weren't ignorant, unless it was compared to God.
Like the analogy of the room with the hidden door, if the door is not hidden, eventually someone will discover that weird deformation in the edge of their universe is something weird that opens up the universe into a bigger universe; perhaps they might call it a . . . door-handle, for lack of a better term. Knowledge of good and evil without being punished for breaking God's prohibition.
If a person is not aware that they can make another choice, do they really have free will? For example, if there's a room with one exit, but the exit is cleverly hidden, and moreover you have the power to ensure that the person in the room never finds the door, can you really say that the person stays in the room of their own free will? I don't think so--the only reason they're there is because they aren't aware they can leave. I think Jim Carey did a movie like that once...
Thus, your proposed solution fails, since it does not preserve free will.
Then there is no such thing as free will at all.
The proposal seems to be that free will can only be achieved through not just the ability to choose, but the awareness of choice. But Adam and Eve did not have a choice about whether or not they even wanted to know about the 'tree of good and evil'.
Furthermore, if someone does not have free will because there are choices they are unaware that they can make, then it is likely that none of us are free, because there are choices that we are incapable of making because we are unaware of them. What choices might that be, you ask? I don't know. If I knew what they were, I'd have free will.
And here we have the situation Adam and Eve were presented with by God. They began with a world with a certain knowledge, which did not include the choice of knowing about good and evil. Then God imposes upon them [1]without their will[/i] a scenario which includes this knowledge (rather like introducing the notion of a door in this huge room in your example).
Then God's creation tempts Adam and Eve into taking a bite of that fruit. It was not Adam and Eve's unsolicited free will which lead to that inevitable decision. I say inevitable because Adam and Eve had no way of knowing that it was wrong to disobey God, until they'd eaten the fruit that allowed them to see that it was wrong to disobey God. Adam and Eve didn't fall from Grace; they were pushed.
A Catch-22, planned by God, set in motion by God's creatures, and then punished by God, who even punished the serpent and all the serpent's descendants as well. Why punish the serpent and the serpent's descendants? I never quite understood that, unless the serpent had free will as well.
Free will is a rather ephemeral thing. A room without a door allows you to be free to move around in the room. Yet if someone makes you aware of the door, you have no choice about that knowledge. Did you choose to know about the door, or did someone else make that choice for you?
Let Mankind discover the fruit for himself, without prohibition or coercion. If it takes all of eternity, what difference does it make?
Maybe some people agree, maybe some don't but why do people have to be "wrong"?
Because Plato wrote a disproof by contradiction for relativism.
Then God's creation tempts Adam and Eve into taking a bite of that fruit. It was not Adam and Eve's unsolicited free will which lead to that inevitable decision. I say inevitable because Adam and Eve had no way of knowing that it was wrong to disobey God, until they'd eaten the fruit that allowed them to see that it was wrong to disobey God. Adam and Eve didn't fall from Grace; they were pushed.
Ignorance is not an excuse from the law, further more God not only ordered them not to, but also warned them of the consequence: "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die"
Now the choice was made in the to disregard the order. The importance is Choice, not knowledge.
Ignorance is not an excuse from the law, further more God not only ordered them not to, but also warned them of the consequence: "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die"
Now the choice was made in the to disregard the order. The importance is Choice, not knowledge.
You put a loaded gun in a room with two kids, tell them not to touch it, and then leave them alone, they're inevitably going to touch it, and most likely shoot themselves. Do you blame the child or the reckless adult who left the gun in the first place?
You put a loaded gun in a room with two kids, tell them not to touch it, and then leave them alone, they're inevitably going to touch it, and most likely shoot themselves. Do you blame the child or the reckless adult who left the gun in the first place?
But you did not tell them "do not pull the trigger for it will surely destroy whatever is before the barrel"
Now the choice was made in the to disregard the order. The importance is Choice, not knowledge.
Eh? If god already knows the outcome beforehand, how is there any choice in the matter? What does the word "choice" mean under that circumstance? God's supposed omniscience changes the known laws of physics--you have to account for that.
Also, morality is something applied to relatively equal people. It can be derived from personal self-ownership and the necessity for men to respect each other's autonomy should they seek to get along. It is something which applies to real people in the real world. Once you start applying it to things outside the universe with inscrutable properties, the concept is so radically different that it must be redefined.
He softened it, he covered them with the skin of the animal and spread their pain to the rest of the world so they would feel it less. Instead of immediately being struck down, they were allowed to live and age and breed.
The choice matters because he does not prevent the consequences, he may at times soften them, but does not prevent them.
Please define, "choice," under those circumstances.
If you keep rejecting Him, it's not God's fault, but yours.
Help me out here: what does it mean to "reject" in the context of a pre-determinism?
Help me out here: what does it mean to "reject" in the context of a pre-determinism?
everyone has the freedom to choose. He didn't pre-determine you to go to hell, you choose to go there.
At least, that's what I believe.
everyone has the freedom to choose. He didn't pre-determine you to go to hell, you choose to go there.
If he's all-knowing then he already knows what you're going to do, and you cannot deviate from the script. How is this "choice" meaningful in any way?
If he's all-knowing then he already knows what you're going to do, and you cannot deviate from the script. How is this "choice" meaningful in any way?
He knows what you'll do, but he doesn't stop you. It's like your the writer of a movie, deviating from your own script would be stupid.
It seems that the core of your argument is that "sin = disobedience to God." While that's a useful definition, I've argued that sin should instead be viewed as "rebellion against God," which is subtly different, but in important ways.
The main difference is that rebellion is an attitude, whereas disobedience is an action. The force of my argument comes from the fact that God is not punishing us for specific actions, but rather for attitudes. Most of your arguments address the fact that, under specific circumstances, we are not responsible for our actions. However, we are always responsible for our attitudes, so long as we are free and independent beings. The only way to to absolve us from responsibility for our attitudes is to remove our capability to have attitudes at all, and once you do that we cease to be. Sure, our bodies would still be here, but the thing which makes us, well, us--our personality, our mind, our freedom to choose--all of that would be gone, and we wouldn't really be here at all. Narf_the_Mouse summarized that point fairly well.
Edit: Thinking about it, I believe that your main point is actually that, if sin = disobedience, then a simple way to avoid disobedience is to ensure that there's nothing to disobey--i.e., have no commands. My response, then, is to make the point that an attitude of rebellion does not require commands. All that is necessary for us to rebel against God is for God to exist and for us to be able to have an attitude (and it's arguable as to whether the first thing is needed--people are remarkably adept at getting worked up over nothing). Thus, the only way to cure an attitude of rebellion is to remove our ability to have attitudes, which I've already discussed.
Help me out here: what does it mean to "reject" in the context of a pre-determinism?
I've written extensively in this very thread on the subject of how God's Omniscience and our Free Will can exist side-by-side. So far, everyone has come to the point where we agree to disagree. If you'd like to go back and reread the arguments, you can PM me with your thoughts, but that argument has been had here and I don't think it will do much good to rehash it.
As far as the subject's relevance to my other arguments about God's Justice and essential Goodness, all of them are predicated on the idea that we do indeed have Free Will. Again, I've given my arguments as to why we can say that Man has Free Will, so if you want to dispute this further please start by reading everything that's come before. I'm happy to continue that discussion provided something new can be added to it.
I've written extensively in this very thread on the subject of how God's Omniscience and our Free Will can exist side-by-side. So far, everyone has come to the point where we agree to disagree. If you'd like to go back and reread the arguments, you can PM me with your thoughts, but that argument has been had here and I don't think it will do much good to rehash it.
Thanks, I went back and looked. AFAICT, you concluded that god really doesn't know everything; he's just guessing. Fair enough.
Ignorance is not an excuse from the law
This concept has its roots in convenience. It is all but impossible to tell what someone knows; saying 'I didn't know that was illegal' becomes a universal shield that can be wielded without fear of contradiction. A telepathic society, or an omniscient entity, would have no difficulty with such a defense, because they would be able to tell if a defendant did, in fact, know about that law. In fact, a society with access to a reliable lie detector could readily verify the truth of that statement. Technology being what it is, in 100 years law classes may refer to the days when people could be punished for not knowing their acts were illegal as the "Dark Ages".
But I digress.
further more God not only ordered them not to, but also warned them of the consequence: "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die"
Now the choice was made in the to disregard the order. The importance is Choice, not knowledge.
The point here is taken; whether ignorance could have been used as a valid defense seems moot because they did know, and did choose, and therefore warranted the punishment.
An interesting thing: In most countries we stipulate that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but in some countries we accept that if someone is incapable of telling right from wrong, through mental illness or other cause.
In Adam and Eve's case, the judgment appears to be reversed. I infer from the fact that if God told them not to eat the fruit, He recognized that they could not be held responsible if they didn't know. But the tree of good and evil held the fruit which wold allow them to know that disobeying God was wrong. They were not ignorant of the law, but had no capacity to determine that their actions were wrong.
But you did not tell them "do not pull the trigger for it will surely destroy whatever is before the barrel"
So the adult left the gun in the room, told the children not to touch it and why, left them in the room with a known sociopathic teenager and did not warn them about the teen, watched and listened to the teenager lie to the children, waited until the children fired the gun, and then stormed in and threw all of them out of the house (after giving the kids some clothes) saying "I told them not to touch it."
Would you accept this justification from an adult who told you this story?
It seems that the core of your argument is that "sin = disobedience to God." While that's a useful definition, I've argued that sin should instead be viewed as "rebellion against God," which is subtly different, but in important ways.
It is a very subtle and important distinction, true.
You can be obedient, but rebellious. Easy enough; visit any office where the employees angrily follow the letter of the law.
You can be loyal, but disobedient. This I believe is much more difficult, but possible, if you are misled into believing that the object of your worship wants something different than what you were told, or that you would serve your God better somehow if you did things the way you saw fit.
You can be loyal and obedient, and rebellious and disobedient, of course
Where do Adam and Eve fit? To me they seemed to fit L & O, until the serpent came along. Then they became L & D, through deceit. (It can be argued that they became R & D as well. Did they think "Oh, that God, trying to stop us from knowing about good and evil, what a toff." Did they think, "Oh, it's alright, the serpent says it's okay to eat, I guess God made a mistake. How weird. Well, God isn't saying anything, so I guess it's okay." It's not clear through the story. )
I have always wondered, where in all this was God, did the serpent have free will and if so why did it feel the need to deceive, and why did God not warn Adam and Eve about the serpent as well as the tree?
Part of the answer lies in the nature of the tree. The serpent could have told Adam and Eve to do any number of things, but only by eating of the tree would they have known what they were doing was wrong, and thus be condemned to death. God could have stopped the serpent, or stopped Adam and Eve from eating the fruit. He did not because he wanted them to eat. He wanted them to choose that knowledge, because he did not stop them even when they had already rebelled/disobeyed by the sheer act of choosing to do so.
Why?
God is cruel, and wanted humans to die by their own hand, like the aforementioned parent and loaded gun scenario.
Possible, and quite frankly supported by a lot of the Old Testament, but not necessarily useful.
Or,
God wanted humans to have the knowledge of right and wrong for themselves if they showed signs of "growing up" (making a choice for themselves about their actions).
Enlightened, but not supported by huge swathes of the Old Testament, which involves God smiting, bribing, eradicating, and playing favorites with humanity throughout the ages.
Or,
Something else. . .
Thinking about it, I believe that your main point is actually that, if sin = disobedience, then a simple way to avoid disobedience is to ensure that there's nothing to disobey--i.e., have no commands. My response, then, is to make the point that an attitude of rebellion does not require commands. All that is necessary for us to rebel against God is for God to exist and for us to be able to have an attitude (and it's arguable as to whether the first thing is needed--people are remarkably adept at getting worked up over nothing). Thus, the only way to cure an attitude of rebellion is to remove our ability to have attitudes, which I've already discussed.
While this may be true, it fails to address the necessity of the tree, and the disconnect between attitude and action. Interpreted as written, Adam and Eve's punishment wasn't to die, it was to be thrown out of the Garden, with a bouncer making sure they couldn't get to the tree of life. Their rebellious attitude deciding to eat did not trigger God's wrath, but them eating of the tree.
Where do Adam and Eve fit? To me they seemed to fit L & O, until the serpent came along. Then they became L & D, through deceit. (It can be argued that they became R & D as well. Did they think "Oh, that God, trying to stop us from knowing about good and evil, what a toff." Did they think, "Oh, it's alright, the serpent says it's okay to eat, I guess God made a mistake. How weird. Well, God isn't saying anything, so I guess it's okay." It's not clear through the story. )
From the story it's safe to assume that they ate the fruit in rebellion because God could tell good and evil, but they couldn't. When they ate the fruit, they tended to do evil things because evil deeds feel better than good deeds. He gave them a choice, thus it isn't always clear what they're going to do.
This concept has its roots in convenience.
An interesting thing: In most countries we stipulate that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but in some countries we accept that if someone is incapable of telling right from wrong, through mental illness or other cause.
No, its wrong because regardless of prior knowledge, it is still wrong. Lack of knowledge being an excuse would be only the case if relativism was possible.
as to mental illness, it is not ignorance but the lack of the ability to be in control of self. Still they are subject to consequences, they are imprisoned and/or medicated.
But you cannot hold these cases relevant anyway because Human law has never been purely logical, if logical in any manner at all.
God yes, but one that doesn't care about us mere mortals, we aren't special, we just are.
Religion no. You can keep your church, your rituals and saints and zen and all that crap, its just man made stuff to make people think you know what the hell youre on about and somehow superior cause you can talk big words.
I'll worship god in my own way thankyou, and don't need anyone else thinking their god is better or in some way more right or real than mine.
my god is my own and no one elses.
so please keep your bible to yourself for it is simply a story book, same with the coran and all those other supposed religious texts.
a prophet is someone with enough charisma for others to forget their own gods and worship the prophets. so in some ways, religion is a american idol context crossed with highlander movies. the most popular wins, and there can only be one! but thats simple human sillyness.
From the story it's safe to assume that they ate the fruit in rebellion because God could tell good and evil, but they couldn't. When they ate the fruit, they tended to do evil things because evil deeds feel better than good deeds. He gave them a choice, thus it isn't always clear what they're going to do.
I don't think it's safe to assume anything given the source material and how important correctly interpreting the material may theoretically be to the disposition of our immortal souls.
The only things we can safely assume is that God permitted the serpent to tempt Adam and Eve, and that they were excluded from Eden only AFTER they had eaten the fruit, because only then they be capable of comprehending that rebellion (deciding to disobey him) was wrong.
One thing we can also assume, though not safely, if that the serpent had free will as well. Why? Well, it does not seem logical to punish a creature that has no soul and no ability to make independent decisions.
That's about all I feel I can assume about the story. God threw man out of the Garden so he could not eat of the tree of life and live forever. Why the serpent did not tell Man to eat of the tree of life first, then the tree of good and evil, I cannot say. Why either tree was in the Garden if God did not want Man to eat of either, I cannot say. Why the serpent chose to deceive Adam and Eve, how (if) the serpent had knowledge of good and evil, I cannot say.
I find the title of this thread amusing as all get out.
"On reason and discussing God"
Personally I have found that there can be no "reason" in a discussion about god. It's the same as discussing Santa Claus or the Flying Spagetti Monster. They are myths, and trying to discuss such things logically is inherently pointless.
I think it is important to point out, however, that as foolish as I view the disscussion about god, I am equally adamant in the utility of a discussion in the reasons behind someones belief in god.
That's all.
Cheers!
Wollstonecraft
No, its wrong because regardless of prior knowledge, it is still wrong. Lack of knowledge being an excuse would be only the case if relativism was possible.
The issue is not whether the act is right or wrong, only if the act should be punishable even if the offender does not know that the act is wrong. Hence, the question of should Adam and Eve be punished for not knowing rebellion was wrong, which slipped sideways into ignorance of the law is not an excuse. To which I respond:
This is the country of Winterleaf.
In the country of Winterleaf, it is illegal to use the letters ZzZ in sequence without a space or character between them.
In the country of Winterleaf, along with diminished capacity and coercion, ignorance is also an accepted legal defense to this charge. Anyone who draws a cartoon with a sleeping guy and "zzz" over his head cannot be found guilty of violating the zzz law if he didnt' know that it was illegal.
Easy.
The law is whatever the bodies that control their jurisdiction agree.
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is not an immutable or universal law, any more than "presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". In some cases, the presumption of guilt is on the defendant, who has the burden of proving themselves innocent. Both of these concepts are merely legal artifacts, that can be changed if desired. The point is, there is no desire to do so, in order to preserve aspects of our legal system that we find useful or fair.
as to mental illness, it is not ignorance but the lack of the ability to be in control of self. Still they are subject to consequences, they are imprisoned and/or medicated.
In most modern countries, insanity does not generally refer to the lack of control, which generally seems to be the grounds for reducing punishment. Insanity as a defense usually centers around whether or not the defendant really knew what they were doing, or if they were unable to tell right from wrong.
A person who is held to be legally insane is (generally) not convicted of a crime. They are not guilty. They are treated, not punished, because the law deems that they can't be punished for not knowing what they were doing, or being unable to tell right from wrong. This is also one of the reasons we have juvenile courts; children are not held to the same standards as adults are, because children are deemed to be incapable of fully appreciating the nature of their actions.
Thus, bringing us back to the issue of Adam and Eve in the Garden; are we being punished for rebellion? Or are we being 'treated'?
But you cannot hold these cases relevant anyway because Human law has never been purely logical, if logical in any manner at all.
The problem is that application of God's law by humans is subject to human interpretation, and humans, as you have pointed out, are illogical, imperfect. And if we cannot comprehend God's perfect law because we are imperfect, are we to be held accountable for that? Do you whip a blind man for being unable to tell the difference between 'pearl' and 'eggshell white'?
The problem is that application of God's law by humans is subject to human interpretation, and humans, as you have pointed out, are illogical, imperfect. And if we cannot comprehend God's perfect law because we are imperfect, are we to be held accountable for that? Do you whip a blind man for being unable to tell the difference between 'pearl' and 'eggshell white'?
No, but I will whip him if I find his hand groping for my wallet (or groping for anything else on my person for that matter.)
What matters is weather it is right or wrong, not perception.
As to the country of Winterleaf, the law is clearly one of those "stupid Human"
laws that have no relevance.
Virtues
Prudence: God wiped out all of Sodom and Gomorrah. Children as well as adults, even those children that could not have committed sins so bad to warrant the death penalty are wiped out in a wrath of fire. Everyone, except Lot and his family are killed. The just Lot had offered his daughters up to be raped but he is considered good enough to live. His wife, who looked back, was turned to salt. God failed the Prudence test.
Justice: Er is simply killed for being wicked in god’s eyes (we don’t know any more). God still allows some of the more horrific people to go on living and torturing others in ways that Er probably never thought of. God failed the Justice test.
Restraint/Temperance: God wipes out all air-breathing animals on Earth because his human creation, the one in his own image that he said was good, can’t stay in line. He wipes out everything except a single raven. God failed the Restraint test.
Courage/Fortitude: God does not give mankind choice in who they wish to follow. Instead, Mr Jealous (Exodus 34:14) sets the rule down that no one can worship another god. He then tells his followers to smite all the non-believers. If there are no other gods and it is our choice, what can he possibly be afraid of? These are not the actions of someone who is courageous. See also Deuteronomy 6:15. God failed the Courage test.
Faith: When Moses heads up to the mountain, the Jews decided that they wanted to worship a golden calf. God decides to smite them all because he thinks that they can’t be trusted to continue to worship him. Moses needs to convince god of their faith. God failed the Faith test.
Hope: God regretted making mankind (Genesis 6:6) and regrets putting certain people in charge (Saul). These were decisions that the nearly-all-knowing god should have seen would have negative consequences. Instead, because of his despair, god kills off many people. God failed the Hope test.
Love/Charity: With all the laws laid down in Exodus through Deuteronomy, it’s hard to see how he is even remotely selfless. He is very self-centered and does not do these things because he loves us. He does these things because they are pleasing to him. Those are his words. Job 2:10
He replied, "You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?"
In all this, Job did not sin in what he said.
God failed the Love test.
Sins
Lust: God is very concerned with sex throughout the Bible. It seems he wants us to enjoy sex but only in ways he approves. There isn’t much mentioned, and that which he does mention is not very clear. Masturbation isn’t clearly a sin but not having sex and masturbating instead while throwing your seed on the ground in defiance is a sin. God passes the Lust test.
Gluttony: God really enjoys the smell of burning flesh. He wanted us to burn quite a bit of the animals but only if they were perfect. God passes the Gluttony test.
Greed: God wants everyone to give unto him. He wants his people to be wealthy and take from those they slaughter (most of the time). He wants his leaders to have more than their people, at least as far as the Old Testament is concerned. God passes the Greed test.
Sloth: God wants us to be busy 6 days of the week. On that seventh day, we can take a break. God fails the Sloth test.
Wrath: God says that vengeance is his. He wiped out the planet once and is willing to do it again simply because he is angry with us. He kills throughout the Bible many people who disagree with him. Check out Deuteronomy 32:21-26 for some good stuff. God passes the Wrath test.
Envy: God’s name is Jealous. He makes the claim in Exodus 34:14. God passes the Envy test.
Pride: Everything we do should be in the name of god. There is no question about that. Job is a great story about god’s Pride. God passes the Pride test.
It seems to me that god can’t seem to measure up to his own standards with the exception of Sloth. It is because of these and many more, that I cannot believe that the god of the Bible is anything more than a tool used to manipulate the masses.
Many good things have come about because of god’s followers, but that certainly doesn’t make the god of the Bible real (or non-existent for that matter).
It is because of these and many more, that I cannot believe that the god of the Bible is anything more than a tool used to manipulate the masses.
I think you can apply that statement to about every religion everywhere. What is religion but control? It is impractical to chain the leg of every man on the planet with iron, but his mind? There's no limit...
"don't be silly, how will we get you coming back to give money to the church?!"
No, but I will whip him if I find his hand groping for my wallet (or groping for anything else on my person for that matter.)
What matters is weather it is right or wrong, not perception.
As to the country of Winterleaf, the law is clearly one of those "stupid Human"
laws that have no relevance.
. . . like ignorance of the law not being a defense.
Having had time to think, I have to expand (my response was a little too glib, and that way lies the eventual slide into flamewar).
We have here a potential issue. The person groping for your wallet may or may not be justified in doing so. Your responses are justified based on what you reasonably believe to be happening at the time (someone is trying to take your wallet). Legal rulings are based on a number of consensus decisions about what "normal" people would consider to be "reasonable", because no one can truly tell what is going on in another's head. God's omniscience is supposed to transcend these limitations.
Why is any of this material? Because according to (some) Christian doctrine, only those who accept Christ in their hearts as their savior shall go to heaven. Now imagine that you are an early North American living in the great plains region of the continent, the second Jesus was resurrected and ascended into heaven. You do not know Jesus, never heard of him, in fact have your own naturalist traditions and do not even know about the Ten Commandments. Yet, according to God (by your interpretation) you are condemned to Hell the second that accepting Jesus becomes the requirement for entering Heaven.
(Granted, it was quite possible that you were going to Hell anyway for violating the Commandments you didn't know about. Some believe that the ten Commandments were never really meant for anyone besides the Isrealites, which means they're meant for those of the Jewish faith and have just been coopted by Christianity the way Christianity has absorbed aspects of so many other religions in its march to prominence. Another digression, and debatable.)
So given this set of circumstances, would a believer conclude that God rigidly holds that "ignorance of the law is not a defense"?
If this is the case, it may yet turn out that you are currently disobeying God's law through ignorance. Our knowledge of god's law is through the Bible, which as we know is a document that was decided upon by men, assembled by men, printed and published by men. If it turned out that part of a document not included was essential information for going to heaven, and no one knew of this because it was not transcribed, does all of humanity that has been following the Bible go to Hell?
Horatio mentioned a Dead Sea Scroll being found. On one hand, "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a good strategy for God to adhere to. It means that those who believe will forever be scrambling to retrieve and preserve everything that might impact their eternal existence. On the other hand, it means that it is possible that everyone who dies before that information is found, translated, published and circulated may be condemned to Hell depending on the contents.
Damned if you do. . . etc.
I think you can apply that statement to about every religion everywhere. What is religion but control? It is impractical to chain the leg of every man on the planet with iron, but his mind? There's no limit...
Absolutely true. I stuck with the christian god only because that was the focus of this thread. I think there may be some exceptions, like Buddhism, but since I am not as familiar with some of the eastern philosophies I can't be sure.
I think there may be some exceptions, like Buddhism, but since I am not as familiar with some of the eastern philosophies I can't be sure.
Well, Zen did a good job of getting samurai to spill their guts for their masters. I think we can go out on a limb here...
I would like to point out that these "Seven"s were not created by God. The first four virtues you have listed were actually created by Plato, the rest by Christian men.
Prudence: God wiped out all of Sodom and Gomorrah. Children as well as adults, even those children that could not have committed sins so bad to warrant the death penalty are wiped out in a wrath of fire. Everyone, except Lot and his family are killed. The just Lot had offered his daughters up to be raped but he is considered good enough to live. His wife, who looked back, was turned to salt. God failed the Prudence test.
I'm sorry, but I feel like your making a critical assumption here that I simply don't buy.
Conventional definition of prudence: the exercise of sound judgment in practical affairs.
Can you explain what makes this judgement unsound?
Justice: Er is simply killed for being wicked in god’s eyes (we don’t know any more). God still allows some of the more horrific people to go on living and torturing others in ways that Er probably never thought of. God failed the Justice test.
I actually don't know this story. But, this is a fallacy in not considering the range of possible punishments.
For instance, we (humans) execute a person who murders 5 others.
We also execute a person who murders, rapes, and tortures 25 others.
Is the punishment for the first crime not justice? Obviously the crime committed by the second man is far worse. These only so much that you can do to a man.
If God had killed Er but then tortured and killed others who did worse than Er, you'd say God is exercising cruel and unusual punishment. There's no way of satisfying what you would consider "Justice." The only conclusion I can come to is that your definition of what constitutes "Justice" is flawed.
Restraint/Temperance: God wipes out all air-breathing animals on Earth because his human creation, the one in his own image that he said was good, can’t stay in line. He wipes out everything except a single raven. God failed the Restraint test.
You aren't taking into account the whole picture.
First, he didn't wipe out ALL air breathing animals. He saved a pair of each, and even allowed humanity (which is who he was really ****** off at) to continue.
Not to mention that if God had made the universe so that humanity could exist, destroying only some life forms on a planet isn't much.
God could have unmade the entire universe, destroyed all life, and started from scratch if he wanted to, and instead he allowed us to live, and you tell me he didn't show Restraint?
Courage/Fortitude: God does not give mankind choice in who they wish to follow. Instead, Mr Jealous (Exodus 34:14) sets the rule down that no one can worship another god. He then tells his followers to smite all the non-believers. If there are no other gods and it is our choice, what can he possibly be afraid of? These are not the actions of someone who is courageous. See also Deuteronomy 6:15. God failed the Courage test.
I'm going to assume that you are referencing Old Testament events since I don't know of any account where God ordered Christians to smite anyone.
Secondly, the Old Testament orders to kill groups of people had nothing to do with belief systems. He was helping them to survive in the war-torn Ancient times. Aggressive Defense. It had nothing to do with "being afraid" of people other than his chosen.
Faith: When Moses heads up to the mountain, the Jews decided that they wanted to worship a golden calf. God decides to smite them all because he thinks that they can’t be trusted to continue to worship him. Moses needs to convince god of their faith. God failed the Faith test.
When you say "smite them all" what are you talking about? God was angry with them and threatened to do so, but he didn't.
And yes, God still punished them, but do you not punish your children when they disobey you?
Plus, on the other side of the coin, who said God was obliged to have Faith in any of us? Faith is a virtue set down for humans to have for God, not the other way around. To even ascribe the need for God to have faith in humanity is silly.
Hope: God regretted making mankind (Genesis 6:6) and regrets putting certain people in charge (Saul). These were decisions that the nearly-all-knowing god should have seen would have negative consequences. Instead, because of his despair, god kills off many people. God failed the Hope test.
Yeah he does, but like I mentioned before, he let Noah (for example) live. This is exactly what Hope is.
"Geez my computer crashes regularly and is infected with viruses galore. It's even possible the BIOS is infected, rendering the entire thing worthless. I might as well throw it out...
*Reconsideration* (And here comes the Hope)
Well, I suppose I can reformat, and hopefully that will get my computer back in a good, working state."
I'm sorry if I'm coming off as frustrated, but I feel like in this discussion you are allowing yourself to see only the negative side of things. You focus on the deaths of the flood, rather than the Hope expressed by God by allowing humanity to continue. It would have been much easier (and would have saved a lot of suffering by His Son) to just kill everyone and start over.
Love/Charity: With all the laws laid down in Exodus through Deuteronomy, it’s hard to see how he is even remotely selfless. He is very self-centered and does not do these things because he loves us. He does these things because they are pleasing to him. Those are his words. Job 2:10He replied, "You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?"
In all this, Job did not sin in what he said.
God failed the Love test.
Again, as always, I'm arguing from the Christian perspective (I mention this because my response to this contains very Christian specific things)
First off, I don't even see how that quote refutes God's Love.
But, selfish? Non loving? Seriously?
Probably one of the most famous passages, John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
I love to see anyone else here give up their only child to an enormous amount of suffering just to save the necks of some other random people (even if you know them). God failing the Love test seems the most patently wrong thing so far.
Lust: God is very concerned with sex throughout the Bible. It seems he wants us to enjoy sex but only in ways he approves. There isn’t much mentioned, and that which he does mention is not very clear. Masturbation isn’t clearly a sin but not having sex and masturbating instead while throwing your seed on the ground in defiance is a sin. God passes the Lust test.
So because he gives us guidelines for sex, he's suddenly filled with Lust? This doesn't even make sense.
Are you telling me it's impossible to deal with sex in any way without being a victim to Lust?
Gluttony: God really enjoys the smell of burning flesh. He wanted us to burn quite a bit of the animals but only if they were perfect. God passes the Gluttony test.
From Wikipedia: Gluttony is the over-indulgence and over-consumption of food, drink, or intoxicants to the point of waste
Your implication here is that these sacrifices are an OVER indulgence. Which, quite honestly, since we don't know exactly why these sacrifices were necessary in the first place, we can't really know that. It's short sighted to call Gluttony on this one since no one here knows what constitutes an over indulgence in this matter.
Greed: God wants everyone to give unto him. He wants his people to be wealthy and take from those they slaughter (most of the time). He wants his leaders to have more than their people, at least as far as the Old Testament is concerned. God passes the Greed test.
Say what? Okay, yeah God wanted some sacrifices which were a trifle section of a person's possessions. He even provides guidelines for different acceptable sacrifices for people who can't afford the normal one.
As far as the rest of your argument here:
What would you have God have his people do with the wealth of those they conquered? Destroy it? Then, God would be accused of being wasteful.
Sloth: God wants us to be busy 6 days of the week. On that seventh day, we can take a break. God fails the Sloth test.
Well, I'll agree with this.
Wrath: God says that vengeance is his. He wiped out the planet once and is willing to do it again simply because he is angry with us. He kills throughout the Bible many people who disagree with him. Check out Deuteronomy 32:21-26 for some good stuff. God passes the Wrath test.
Yeah, exactly. God says that vengeance is his. Wrath is a sin for humanity, not God. God has the insight, information, and wisdom to know what deserves his wrath and anger. Humans get angry all the time over things that don't deserve or merit the reaction. This is a rule given by God to humans for their behavior, it isn't to be applied to him.
Envy: God’s name is Jealous. He makes the claim in Exodus 34:14. God passes the Envy test.
Ditto the whole "Rule for humanity given by God, does not apply" argument, which quite honestly runs through this whole thing, although I don't always mention it.
Pride: Everything we do should be in the name of god. There is no question about that. Job is a great story about god’s Pride. God passes the Pride test.
And again. The reason Pride is a sin is because humans have no merit or reason to be arrogant and Prideful. God does, God's Pride is merited and therefore not wrong.
It seems to me that god can’t seem to measure up to his own standards with the exception of Sloth. It is because of these and many more, that I cannot believe that the god of the Bible is anything more than a tool used to manipulate the masses.
Well, do you hold your pets to the same standard as you?
Let's say you don't let your pets on the furniture. You'd think it pretty silly if your pet started making arguments saying "Psh, yeah, you tell me it's wrong for me to sit on the furniture, then YOU go and do it."
The fact of the matter is, God is in a different ballpark of standards. He set down standards for us, but that doesn't mean that He is set to the same ones. (Although, I, personally, think he does a decent job of modeling them for us)
Many good things have come about because of god’s followers, but that certainly doesn’t make the god of the Bible real (or non-existent for that matter).
True enough.
From Wikipedia: Gluttony is the over-indulgence and over-consumption of food, drink, or intoxicants to the point of waste
Your implication here is that these sacrifices are an OVER indulgence. Which, quite honestly, since we don't know exactly why these sacrifices were necessary in the first place, we can't really know that. It's short sighted to call Gluttony on this one since no one here knows what constitutes an over indulgence in this matter.
The sacrifices were to cover man's sin until the perfect sacrifice could be made to take it away (Jesus upon the cross).
The sacrifices were to cover man's sin until the perfect sacrifice could be made to take it away (Jesus upon the cross).
Well I know that, I meant we don't know why God set the standards for sacrifice the way he did.
Ugh, I'm watching this thread turn into what it always does on the internet...I hope it doesn't keep going this way.
Sorry, after reading what I wrote the tone was all wrong. My personal life is bleeding into this discussion. If I start to come across as offensive or insulting, let me know immediately. I don't want to offend anyone.
I would like to point out that these "Seven"s were not created by God. The first four virtues you have listed were actually created by Plato, the rest by Christian men.
The virtues come from an interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13. From my understanding the sins are meant to be the opposite extreme of the virtues created by the church.
I'm sorry, but I feel like your making a critical assumption here that I simply don't buy.
Probably but shouldn't the one we look up to be able to meet the standards?
Conventional definition of prudence: the exercise of sound judgment in practical affairs.
Can you explain what makes this judgement unsound?
Killing children because of the sins their parents commit is already showing poor judgment. Killing Lot's wife because she looked back is giving her the same punishment that all the horrid people in both cities received. Calling Lot a good man when he offers his daughters to a gang of rapists seems wrong to me. I don't think that god shows good judgment throughout the Bible. He has a few times where he seems to be on the right track but honestly, for a being with his level of intellect and power he sure seems to make some really bad decisions.
I actually don't know this story. But, this is a fallacy in not considering the range of possible punishments.
For instance, we (humans) execute a person who murders 5 others.
We also execute a person who murders, rapes, and tortures 25 others.
Is the punishment for the first crime not justice? Obviously the crime committed by the second man is far worse. These only so much that you can do to a man.
It doesn't really matter what the range of possible punishments is though. If someone is a truly despicable human, then they are truly despicable. Why kill someone outright and allow others to live who are just as bad if not worse? If we are given free choice, why are so many people killed for being evil? Wouldn't it be better to just remove evil or choice?
If God had killed Er but then tortured and killed others who did worse than Er, you'd say God is exercising cruel and unusual punishment. There's no way of satisfying what you would consider "Justice." The only conclusion I can come to is that your definition of what constitutes "Justice" is flawed.
I think god's idea of punishment is already cruel. For myself, I have a big problem with killing others in the name of justice. I also have a problem with using someone as an example but then not going into detail on what was the problem in the first place. This is a consistent issue in the Bible. How are we to learn if there is only phrases like "so-and-so was wicked in the eyes of the LORD so the LORD struck him down."
You aren't taking into account the whole picture.
First, he didn't wipe out ALL air breathing animals. He saved a pair of each, and even allowed humanity (which is who he was really ****** off at) to continue.
To be fair, the animals were collected in groups of seven and pairs depending on their cleanliness. What did the gazelle do that was so horrible that the cockroach needed to be killed?
Not to mention that if God had made the universe so that humanity could exist, destroying only some life forms on a planet isn't much.
That's certainly not good judgment. We cannot have free will with a loaded gun pointed at our heads. God also didn't kill some life forms, he killed nearly all air breathing life forms.
God could have unmade the entire universe, destroyed all life, and started from scratch if he wanted to, and instead he allowed us to live, and you tell me he didn't show Restraint?
Well, we probably wouldn't know if he's already tried this approach. I don't think he showed much in the way of restraint when he killed little baby Sally because someone she didn't know was evil.
I'm going to assume that you are referencing Old Testament events since I don't know of any account where God ordered Christians to smite anyone.
God doesn't actually say much after the Gospels. In fact, there isn't anything directly from god that I can find anywhere after those four books. However, the Old Testament is as much a part of the Bible as the New so it shouldn't be discounted.
Secondly, the Old Testament orders to kill groups of people had nothing to do with belief systems. He was helping them to survive in the war-torn Ancient times. Aggressive Defense. It had nothing to do with "being afraid" of people other than his chosen.
God made it very clear to kill the non believers and level their cities. God told them to initiate the attack. Defense comes in when someone attacks first. I have no problem with defending oneself. When someone preemptively strikes, it is out of fear.
When you say "smite them all" what are you talking about? God was angry with them and threatened to do so, but he didn't.
He didn't because Moses convinced him not to. God most definitely said he was going to kill them all.
And yes, God still punished them, but do you not punish your children when they disobey you?
I generally don't threaten them with death or actually kill them. Grounding, spankings, etc are all acceptable. Plagues, floods, torture, slavery, etc are not.
Plus, on the other side of the coin, who said God was obliged to have Faith in any of us? Faith is a virtue set down for humans to have for God, not the other way around. To even ascribe the need for God to have faith in humanity is silly.
I don't take "faith" to mean simply a religious devotion. I take it to mean that you believe in something. In this case, god should believe in his creation to accomplish great things. Instead of giving us a chance, he tends to have epic tantrums that kill many people who probably not problems.
Yeah he does, but like I mentioned before, he let Noah (for example) live. This is exactly what Hope is.
He didn't really provide much hope though. He didn't give Noah much of a choice in the matter. He certainly didn't give us a choice in the matter. Instead of providing better leadership, he decided that the problem should be wiped out.
I'm sorry if I'm coming off as frustrated, but I feel like in this discussion you are allowing yourself to see only the negative side of things. You focus on the deaths of the flood, rather than the Hope expressed by God by allowing humanity to continue. It would have been much easier (and would have saved a lot of suffering by His Son) to just kill everyone and start over.
I could say that you focus only on the good parts of the Bible while downplaying the negative. Jesus didn't really suffer either. He was inconvenienced for a few days. As god and certainly knowing that he'd be sitting with himself later, there was no real suffering. Those who drowned suffered. Those who were burned in Sodom and Gomorrah suffered. Those who died at Moses's sword suffered. Those who died of plagues caused by god suffered.
First off, I don't even see how that quote refutes God's Love.
Job feels that god is just in causing pain and we should love god for it because god also causes pain to end. I don't think that anyone who loves another should intentionally cause pain. I know that the pain I have caused others has put serious strains on those relationships.
But, selfish? Non loving? Seriously?
I actually see the god of the Bible as very selfish and non-loving. He comes across as a temperamental child.
Probably one of the most famous passages, John 3:16
It also contradicts god's own actions throughout most of the Bible. If god really loves his children, he would be able to save them without having to send his son to be killed. God should be powerful enough.
I love to see anyone else here give up their only child to an enormous amount of suffering just to save the necks of some other random people (even if you know them). God failing the Love test seems the most patently wrong thing so far.
With all evil that god himself created and the suffering he brings on others, I just don't see how love comes into the picture.
So because he gives us guidelines for sex, he's suddenly filled with Lust? This doesn't even make sense.
Are you telling me it's impossible to deal with sex in any way without being a victim to Lust?
God focuses on sex more than Ron Jeremy. I can't believe how much focus there is. To make it worse, he instills us with commands and urges then tells us not to carry them out unless done in a certain way. He does this in both the Old and New Testaments (assuming that his followers speak for him).
From Wikipedia: Gluttony is the over-indulgence and over-consumption of food, drink, or intoxicants to the point of waste
Gluttony need not simply be food, drink, or intoxicants but even if we allow for those three only, it sure seems that god really enjoys the smell of burning perfect cattle. Genesis 8:20-21 is just one example.
Your implication here is that these sacrifices are an OVER indulgence. Which, quite honestly, since we don't know exactly why these sacrifices were necessary in the first place, we can't really know that. It's short sighted to call Gluttony on this one since no one here knows what constitutes an over indulgence in this matter.
Leviticus chapters 1 through 9 are very focused on how and when the sacrifice must be done. Throughout we read about the sweet savor unto the Lord.
Say what? Okay, yeah God wanted some sacrifices which were a trifle section of a person's possessions. He even provides guidelines for different acceptable sacrifices for people who can't afford the normal one.
True, but each one must be from a perfect animal so god can enjoy the sweet savor.
What would you have God have his people do with the wealth of those they conquered? Destroy it? Then, God would be accused of being wasteful.
Why not distribute it to the poor? Why not use it to enhance how his people live rather than give it to the priests?
Yeah, exactly. God says that vengeance is his. Wrath is a sin for humanity, not God. God has the insight, information, and wisdom to know what deserves his wrath and anger. Humans get angry all the time over things that don't deserve or merit the reaction. This is a rule given by God to humans for their behavior, it isn't to be applied to him.
Do as I say not as I do? God gets angry all the time as well. The difference is that when I get angry I don't go on a killing rampage.
Ditto the whole "Rule for humanity given by God, does not apply" argument, which quite honestly runs through this whole thing, although I don't always mention it.
It's a poor double standard for myself. I think that I should be able to look up to someone I am expected to follow. I should do everything I can to emulate their best attributes. The more they have the better off I can be.
And again. The reason Pride is a sin is because humans have no merit or reason to be arrogant and Prideful. God does, God's Pride is merited and therefore not wrong.
I don't buy it. Pride is Pride. Why shouldn't I be proud of my accomplishments? Why shouldn't I strive to improve on those same accomplishments? I know that it would be arrogant to rub it in someone's face but I shouldn't have to be ashamed of them either.
Well, do you hold your pets to the same standard as you?
For the standards that they can meet, yes. I don't expect them to crap on the carpet and for their food to stay in their eating place. I also expect them to stay in the yard. I don't think I am one of god's pets though.
The fact of the matter is, God is in a different ballpark of standards. He set down standards for us, but that doesn't mean that He is set to the same ones. (Although, I, personally, think he does a decent job of modeling them for us)
I think that god does a horrible job of setting the standards and of setting the example of meeting those standards. I hold god to the same standard I would like to be held to if I had the same level of power and knowledge.
Many people say that God is not good because they set some particular standards, pick some passages, interpret them some particular way, and then conclude that God violates those standards. Hence God is not good.
Encara's response is fairly typical for those who say that God is good. They question whether those standards which have been picked are really valid. They question whether those passages you picked are really representative of God, or if they've been taken out of context. They question whether the interpretation of those passages is really valid, or if there is another interpretation that allows God to be meet the standards set forth.
That's what I mean by "challenging your other standards" instead of challenging the existence of God. Are your standards of what is good really valid? Are your interpretations of scripture really valid? If we assume that God is in fact good, does looking at scripture give us a new and deeper understanding of what good really is? I've found that it does for me. I've learned a lot about Justice, and Mercy, and Love by doing this. I don't think about them the same way anymore. And I think that's a good thing. It's changed how I deal with people, for the better, I think, because I've taken a look at the notes of the person who created people, and hence knows them best.
I think the key to figuring out what standard to hold God to is to figure out what His purpose is. As I've said before, I think He loves us, and more than that He wants us to be the best us we can be. He wants us to choose, freely, the right thing to do. From that point of view, a lot of what God does makes a lot more sense.
Anyway, I think that's as much deep thought as you're getting from me for a while. I may be back, but for now I'm going to sign off and leave this to others. Hope it's been helpful and continues to be so.
Edit: "Wouldn't it be better to just remove evil or choice?"
I think this is where you and God part ways, value-wise. This is also where you and I part ways. Choice seems to be what God values above most everything. If you don't agree with that value, well, I guess it's not surprising that you have so many problems with God.
The fact of the matter is, God is in a different ballpark of standards. He set down standards for us, but that doesn't mean that He is set to the same ones.
What I was saying earlier, but I think we found different conclusions.
The way I see it, adults are more developed and aware then a teenager or child, and as such are more responsible and accountable for their own actions, as well as having some degree of liability of those under their care.
A God? Well, they are even more responsible and accountable for their actions then the adults, and bear some degree of responsibility and liability for those under their care (that is, adults and children).
One of the big problems I have is that God seemingly flip-flops in how he treats people. He never (or seldom) explains why he does things, treating humans as children in that we aren't capable (or mature enough) to understand his reasons. And then when we screw up he treats us as adults in our punishments. And in the entire process, he never seems to acknowledge his responsibility in everything (and anything) that happens.
I think Bob Loblaw's and Encara's interaction pretty much makes the point on this whole "is God good" argument.
For the record, I do see many of the good things that god has done in the Bible and that have been done in his name. I just don't think that they remove the evil that he has done or has been done in his name.
Many people say that God is not good because they set some particular standards, pick some passages, interpret them some particular way, and then conclude that God violates those standards. Hence God is not good.
Unfortunately that's the only way we can do it. We can go into the stories themselves, and I think we have a few times here, but in the end we need the quotes. The advantage to using the passages is that they come as prepackaged quotes. I try to keep the passages in context. I know that I don't always succeed, but I do try. Taking things out of context is how many of the problems occur.
Encara's response is fairly typical for those who say that God is good. They question whether those standards which have been picked are really valid. They question whether those passages you picked are really representative of God, or if they've been taken out of context. They question whether the interpretation of those passages is really valid, or if there is another interpretation that allows God to be meet the standards set forth.
We should definitely make sure that we interpret things correctly. I think this is one of the most difficult things for any of us to do. I wish there was a better option.
That's what I mean by "challenging your other standards" instead of challenging the existence of God. Are your standards of what is good really valid? Are your interpretations of scripture really valid? If we assume that God is in fact good, does looking at scripture give us a new and deeper understanding of what good really is? I've found that it does for me. I've learned a lot about Justice, and Mercy, and Love by doing this. I don't think about them the same way anymore. And I think that's a good thing. It's changed how I deal with people, for the better, I think, because I've taken a look at the notes of the person who created people, and hence knows them best.
I read the Bible trying to become a christian. I really wanted to be one of the saved. After reading it critically, I came to the opposite conclusion as you. I do think that there are plenty of good things in there (don't kill, don't lie, don't steal, treat each other nicely, etc). I think that those who try to emulate the good parts of the Bible are great additions to society. I have a problem when bigotry, hatred, ignorance, etc are brought into the world because of religion. Sometimes it is because the reader misinterpreted what was said, other times it's because the message is clear.
For example, I keep bringing up Moses and the slaughter he was commanded to do. I know that god commanded Moses to those actions and did not actually state that others should follow in his footsteps. However, as one of god's hand selected followers, many feel that he is an example of what the rest of us should do.
This is how people misinterpret abortion mentioned in the Bible. The passages that are mentioned actually single out specific prophets and are not necessarily meant to be all inclusive of the rest of humanity.
I think the key to figuring out what standard to hold God to is to figure out what His purpose is. As I've said before, I think He loves us, and more than that He wants us to be the best us we can be. He wants us to choose, freely, the right thing to do. From that point of view, a lot of what God does makes a lot more sense.
I don't think we really know what god's purpose is so the only standards we have to go on is what he has laid out. The ultimate goal is to emulate him (or Jesus) as much as possible. The only way we have to do this is with the instructions he has put forth.
Anyway, I think that's as much deep thought as you're getting from me for a while. I may be back, but for now I'm going to sign off and leave this to others. Hope it's been helpful and continues to be so.
I've appreciated your input and would like to see more from you. You certainly keep a more level head than I. It helps keep me in check. The same goes for Encara. My posts tend to be better written and more reasonable after reading from you both.
Edit: "Wouldn't it be better to just remove evil or choice?"
I think this is where you and God part ways, value-wise. This is also where you and I part ways. Choice seems to be what God values above most everything. If you don't agree with that value, well, I guess it's not surprising that you have so many problems with God.
I don't personally have any problem with evil being allowed in the world. I have a problem with it being allowed, giving us a choice, and then condemning us for making that choice.
I think that many things that we claim are evil really are just events in life that we need to adapt to. Sometimes they are things that we brought on ourselves. Sometimes there are truly evil things. How we deal with them is what determines our character. Too many people are concerned with how others live their lives and end up making the situation worse than it could ever have been. Abortion, death penalty, religious rights, sexual rights, etc are all things that would be much better if we looked at things with a more rational mindset. I don't think that we will ever be completely rational, but I think we could try a bit harder.
What I really don't understand from most people involved in this conversation is why people are trying to justifiy what they believe.
Everyone's faith has "leaps". Simple as that. You take a "leap" and say "this is what i beleive". Now does everyone have to agree with you? No. Might some people agree with you? Maybe. But to discredit someone's ideas or belief structure on the grounds of disagreement sounds little oppresive(sp).
Also, on the agrument(sp) on wether or not God follows Plato's Seven Heavly acts and Seven Sins. To assume that you can comprehend, let alone justify and judge, a (for arguments sake) "all powerful being" is just plain arogance. Questioning is fine, but believing you know the whole and complete story behind every action or inaction God takes is just rediculous.
So I came back from not reading the thread this weekend and the discussion turned into something pretty interesting. :D
What I really don't understand from most people involved in this conversation is why people are trying to justifiy what they believe.
I beleive in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The creationism theory that makes the most sense to me.
I beleive in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The creationism theory that makes the most sense to me.
Good for you. Can't "prove" your wrong and can't "prove" your right. It is simply what you believe. Is that really that hard for people to do?
I think Bob Loblaw's and Encara's interaction pretty much makes the point on this whole "is God good" argument.
Many people say that God is not good because they set some particular standards, pick some passages, interpret them some particular way, and then conclude that God violates those standards. Hence God is not good.
Encara's response is fairly typical for those who say that God is good. They question whether those standards which have been picked are really valid. They question whether those passages you picked are really representative of God, or if they've been taken out of context. They question whether the interpretation of those passages is really valid, or if there is another interpretation that allows God to be meet the standards set forth.
That's what I mean by "challenging your other standards" instead of challenging the existence of God. Are your standards of what is good really valid? Are your interpretations of scripture really valid? If we assume that God is in fact good, does looking at scripture give us a new and deeper understanding of what good really is? I've found that it does for me. I've learned a lot about Justice, and Mercy, and Love by doing this. I don't think about them the same way anymore. And I think that's a good thing. It's changed how I deal with people, for the better, I think, because I've taken a look at the notes of the person who created people, and hence knows them best.
I think the key to figuring out what standard to hold God to is to figure out what His purpose is. As I've said before, I think He loves us, and more than that He wants us to be the best us we can be. He wants us to choose, freely, the right thing to do. From that point of view, a lot of what God does makes a lot more sense.
Anyway, I think that's as much deep thought as you're getting from me for a while. I may be back, but for now I'm going to sign off and leave this to others. Hope it's been helpful and continues to be so.
My issues are not with God, but with the Biblical presentation of God.
God plays favorites, bribes humans to do his bidding, gets angry and kills people. God sets up humanity to fail, gets angry when they do, punishes them and their children for their failure.
Biblical God seems, to me, less like an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent God, and more like a very powerful human.
The assumption that God is good allows for a certain perspective by which we can then interpret all of God's actions and edicts; the New Testament seems to reflect this possibility far more than the Old. However, it requires that in order to accommodate this belief that we ignore large segments of the Bible which portray God as vengeful, jealous and murderous, or it requires rationalizing God to a degree that places him outside our definitions of Good and Evil. In which case, you cannot rightly call Him Good either.
The assumption that God is evil makes it difficult to explain portions of the New Testament, but makes much of the Old Testament understandable in this light. It does make it more difficult to comprehend the softer, gentler God that is portrayed in the New Testament, but it can also make God just as incomprehensible as the Good God i just referred to.
God has changed. Unlikely; the Bible implies that God is a constant. So it seems then that we have changed, except that God's actions still seem inconstant in the light of our 'new' perspective. Perhaps once we have changed enough, God's actions will make sense. . . and we will see how saving one family and murdering the rest of humanity is 'good'.
The assumption that the humans who wrote and assembled the Bible interpreted God's actions through the prism of their beliefs, which is why God seems to be constantly exhibiting human failings, seems more likely than either assumption.
Edit: "Wouldn't it be better to just remove evil or choice?"
I think this is where you and God part ways, value-wise. This is also where you and I part ways. Choice seems to be what God values above most everything. If you don't agree with that value, well, I guess it's not surprising that you have so many problems with God.
When God chose to kill all but Moses' family, it had a very specific effect:
None of the people who killed would thus have the opportunity to change their ways.
God, it seems, intervened and removed the choice to worship him on earth, for every old timer, young adult, child and unborn.
It raises questions of his benevolence, certainly, especially if he is omnipotent and omniscient. There are some possibilities:
That he knew that the people who were being slain would never turn to him. The entire planet, save for Noah and his kin. If this is the case, then it means free will is not what we think.
That all of the people who were killed in the world knew of God already and had their chance to worship him. Even the ones who may have existed in different parts of the world and never had a chance to know of God, knew about Him and thus had a choice.
That God didn't care.
That they all had a chance to learn of God in the hereafter and make a choice then.
That there are other factors involved that we don't understand.
The way I see it, adults are more developed and aware then a teenager or child, and as such are more responsible and accountable for their own actions, as well as having some degree of liability of those under their care.
A God? Well, they are even more responsible and accountable for their actions then the adults, and bear some degree of responsibility and liability for those under their care (that is, adults and children).
One of the big problems I have is that God seemingly flip-flops in how he treats people. He never (or seldom) explains why he does things, treating humans as children in that we aren't capable (or mature enough) to understand his reasons. And then when we screw up he treats us as adults in our punishments. And in the entire process, he never seems to acknowledge his responsibility in everything (and anything) that happens.
Allow me to take this post and turn it around a bit. As a child, did you understand, let alone agree with the motivations and actions of the adults around you? As a child, did you have the mental faculties to comprehend why your parents made the decisions they made?
You're saying that you're holding God to a higher standard of accountability, but let me submit that God is operating with an entirely different set of variables that we mortals don't grasp, just like parents operate with variables that kids don't grasp.
Still I wanted to mention something I found curious:
He comes across as a temperamental child.
Funny, I see God as an incredibly frustrated parent. I see the whole Old Testament and God continuously giving his people commands. He rewards them when they follow, and he punishes them when they disobey. He is frustrated because his "children" disobey him repeatedly over and over, never learning from their mistakes. To me, Jesus was His gift to us so that we would always have a way to Him, while at the same time God was "throwing up his hands" with his children and saying, "Fine, I'll leave you to the consequences of your actions, but if you ever want to come to me, come through my Son."
I'll reply in more depth later
I'm sick and tired (litterally) so I'll respond in more depth when I'm fully functional.
Funny, I see God as an incredibly frustrated parent. I see the whole Old Testament and God continuously giving his people commands. He rewards them when they follow, and he punishes them when they disobey. He is frustrated because his "children" disobey him repeatedly over and over, never learning from their mistakes. To me, Jesus was His gift to us so that we would always have a way to Him, while at the same time God was "throwing up his hands" with his children and saying, "Fine, I'll leave you to the consequences of your actions, but if you ever want to come to me, come through my Son."
I'll reply in more depth later
I'll wait. But while I wait, I have questions.
Why sacrifice His Son? Why not show His benevolence by broadcasting His face around the world, imprint all of humanity with the knowledge of His existence, and give them a choice? "Because God must be accepted from faith, not knowledge" is insufficient; God proves himself to his personal favorites over and over again, with pillars of fire, burning bushes, speaking to them personally. To say that God cannot prove his existence to Humanity so that Humanity can accept his existence on faith alone is false, and contradicted by the Bible itself.
God can do whatever God wants. God chose murder as the way we can get closer to Him. Does that frighten any believers?
Why sacrifice His Son? Why not show His benevolence by broadcasting His face around the world, imprint all of humanity with the knowledge of His existence, and give them a choice? "Because God must be accepted from faith, not knowledge" is insufficient; God proves himself to his personal favorites over and over again, with pillars of fire, burning bushes, speaking to them personally. To say that God cannot prove his existence to Humanity so that Humanity can accept his existence on faith alone is false, and contradicted by the Bible itself.
According to the Bible, Moses parted the Red Sea and later drowned the Egyptian forces in pursuit of the Israelites According to the Bible, God sent plagues & pillars of fire to protect them. But still they rejected Him and prayed to false idols. According to the Bible, Judas was with Christ day in & and day out, saw Him performing all manner of miracles, and still Judas betrayed Him.
So I'm guessing that speaking to people personally would likely still not do it for some folks...
According to the Bible, Moses parted the Red Sea and later drowned the Egyptian forces in pursuit of the Israelites According to the Bible, God sent plagues & pillars of fire to protect them. But still they rejected Him and prayed to false idols. According to the Bible, Judas was with Christ day in & and day out, saw Him performing all manner of miracles, and still Judas betrayed Him.
So I'm guessing that speaking to people personally would likely still not do it for some folks...
Moses performing supernatural abilities is not the same as god showing up and making himself known. God uses proxies. Even Jesus was a proxy. As for Judas, the Book of Judas seems to say that Jesus told Judas, his best friend, that he was to betray Jesus so that the mission would be complete. Whether or not we want to believe this, it was something that would make much more sense than Judas turning on someone who clearly was the Son of God. God also knew that Judas would need to turn and that he would. Judas was either a martyr or was conned by god. If we take the assumption that god does not lie, Judas would need to be a martyr.
None of the really matter though. Those who actually saw god or spoke directly to him seemed to believe more than those who saw what his proxies could do. God also should know that he created us with the ability to reason. One of the best ways to understand something is to observe it directly. It would be a very simple matter for him to show himself.
Back to the Book of Judas, I read the translation a few times and I understand why it won't become part of the Bible. There are some inconsistencies with other books, mostly Genesis and Revelation. It is an interesting read though and I suggest it for that reason alone.
I'm sick and tired (litterally) so I'll respond in more depth when I'm fully functional.
I hope you feel better soon. This:
to this:
Funny, I see God as an incredibly frustrated parent. I see the whole Old Testament and God continuously giving his people commands. He rewards them when they follow, and he punishes them when they disobey. He is frustrated because his "children" disobey him repeatedly over and over, never learning from their mistakes. To me, Jesus was His gift to us so that we would always have a way to Him, while at the same time God was "throwing up his hands" with his children and saying, "Fine, I'll leave you to the consequences of your actions, but if you ever want to come to me, come through my Son."
I would agree with you if the punishments weren't so harsh. God kills, or threatens to kill, those who disobey. He only wants those who are perfect to be able to worship him, everyone else is worthless.
Leviticus:
21:16 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
21:17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
21:18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,
21:19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
21:20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
21:21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.
21:22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.
21:23 Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them.
More Leviticus:
20:8 And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you.
20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
20:12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
20:14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
20:15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
20:16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
The Old Testament is full of commandments to put people to death for their injustices, no matter how slight. While many of the things that are mentioned are definitely wrong (adultery, bestiality) others are not really in the same league (cursing your parents). I don't know how to deal with the whole homosexuality thing, god should know that there is a genetic rationale. It is imperfections (in the Biblical sense) like this that make me question if he could exist. He creates imperfections that he find abhorrent and then tells those with the imperfection that they simply should be killed for his mistake.
I'll reply in more depth later
You had your chance. You blew it.
The Old Testament is full of commandments to put people to death for their injustices, no matter how slight.
One could argue that only god knows what the consequence of allowing these scofflaws to live would be. Perhaps the fall of the whole Israelite nation? One thing is clear: god is a collectivist. But then, so are most people. So what is so divine about the bible per se? It’s indistinguishable from a pure work of men.
One could argue that only god knows what the consequence of allowing these scofflaws to live would be. Perhaps the fall of the whole Israelite nation? One thing is clear: god is a collectivist. But then, so are most people. So what is so divine about the bible per se? It’s indistinguishable from a pure work of men.
I'm not sure if a child that curses their parent is going to cause the fall of the entire Israelite nation. I certainly don't see how homosexuals, which god knows are only about 10% of the world's population, are going to cause the end of anything divinely significant.
I agree that the Bible is indistinguishable from a pure work of men. I think that everyone should read Misquoting Jesus. It is a very interesting look at how the Bible was written.
I'm not sure if a child that curses their parent is going to cause the fall of the entire Israelite nation. I certainly don't see how homosexuals, which god knows are only about 10% of the world's population, are going to cause the end of anything divinely significant.
Well, I wouldn't kill a random guy for gathering sticks on a Saturday, either. But he killed the one (and presumably dropped him in the lake of fire to burn for all eternity) to save the many.
Who are we to second-guess him?Again, if he is all-powerful, why the charade and suffering when he could just miracle-up the end-product of his harebrained scheme?
Again, if he is all-powerful, why the charade and suffering when he could just miracle-up the end-product of his harebrained scheme?
Sometimes the journey is more important then the end result.
Also, if he is all powerful, how is it possible to even understand his choices? Wouldn't that put completely comprehending his ideas, thoughts and plans into the realm of "unreachable goal"?
Sometimes the journey is more important then the end result.
If he's all-powerful, he could have made the universe 10 seconds ago and you'd never know the difference.
Also, if he is all powerful, how is it possible to even understand his choices? Wouldn't that put completely comprehending his ideas, thoughts and plans into the realm of "unreachable goal"?
Sure his plans are unknowable. I'm just saying his methods look fishy, as if, you know, people were just making it all up.
If he's all-powerful, he could have made the universe 10 seconds ago and you'd never know the difference.
possible, but I still don't see how the length of the journey matters when it the focus is on the journey itself. As long as you are still journeying(sp) what does it matter when the universe started?
Sure his plans are unknowable. I'm just saying his methods look fishy, as if, you know, people were just making it all up.
Questioning is human nature. The lack of "leaps of faith" into whatever ideas are out there are yours to make. But if he is all powerful even "fishy methods" are within his realm of abilities. To use the idea "he is all powerful but I don't get what he is doing," as a means to deny him is bad logic. Either everything is possible and possibly outside our grasp of knowledge, or he is not all powerful.
if you think people made him up then thats fine. its what you believe. The question is: what if that is what he wants you to believe?
possible, but I still don't see how the length of the journey matters when it the focus is on the journey itself. As long as you are still journeying(sp) what does it matter when the universe started?
I dunno--maybe an eternity of torture is no small thing to folks who've been punished perhaps needlessly. Just a thought.
if you think people made him up then thats fine. its what you believe. The question is: what if that is what he wants you to believe?
I'd say he's done an excellent job of it. I'll remember that while I'm roasting in hell for impure thoughts.
I dunno--maybe an eternity of torture is no small thing to folks who've been punished perhaps needlessly. Just a thought.
I'd say he's done an excellent job of it. I'll remember that while I'm roasting in hell for impure thoughts.
Funny. I especially like the torture part :D .
If you think that someone made him up and people are being fooled into believing something that isn't real then awesome. You have solved the problem subjectively. Kudos. However, the logic of stating "an all powerful god doesn't know what he's doing" is flawed.
If you think that someone made him up and people are being fooled into believing something that isn't real then awesome. You have solved the problem subjectively.
All religion is man-made.
Judeochristianity is a religion.
:. Judeochristianity is man-made.
Now, you may challenge the truth value of my givens, but the logic is valid. Those are objective statements. A subjective statement would be something like "God, bleck!" which cannot fit into such a logical argument.
Kudos. However, the logic of stating "an all powerful god doesn't know what he's doing" is flawed.
I already covered this earlier in the thread: Hume's argument on natural evil. His argument is still sound.
Funny. I especially like the torture part :D .
If you think that someone made him up and people are being fooled into believing something that isn't real then awesome. You have solved the problem subjectively. Kudos. However, the logic of stating "an all powerful god doesn't know what he's doing" is flawed.
Given the evidence, it seems like that is the case.
The suggestion that we cannot comprehend the workings of an omniscient, omnipotent deity may well be true. It is also a singularly useless suggestion. If we cannot make any statements about God's character because He is beyond our ken, then we cannot rely on faith any more than we can rely on reason. the Bible may tell us that worshiping Christ is the path to Heaven, but if God's workings are beyond our ken, it is just as likely that everyone goes to Hell. Or no one.
The Bible's value as a tool to understanding God's will is based on the assumption that one can determine God's will through reason. The Bible, many will say, is part historical document, a codex of instructions from God to Man. God's nature is not opaque; He has a will, and has made his will known in the Bible.
So will God send you to Hell even if you are following his will completely?
We don't know.
If the Bible is true, then following the word of God and believing in Christ is the only way to the kingdom of heaven. But if we cannot truly comprehend the infinite, the omniscient, the omnipotent, then Christ's "divinity" may be a test to his chosen ones, the Israelites, to see if they would follow a false prophet. And the Christians, ever eager for a quick fix, fell for it.
If we are too limited to understand God's reasoning, then the eventual realization that we are all going to Hell no matter what we believe is just as likely as some going to Heaven and some going to Hell. "I have faith" is then based not on the Bible, but on what you believe. In other words, you have elevated yourself above God's will as documented in the Bible; rebellion. Welcome to Hell.
On the other hand, if the faithful insist that God's will can be found in the writings of the Bible, then we should be able to use reason as well as faith to determine what He would have of us. The Bible is written. The written word must be read, and reason must be used to determine what those words mean to us. Through reason and faith, we can come to an understanding, if incomplete, of God's nature and God's will for us.
So the faithful would have us believe. Are you proposing that the faithful and the atheist are both wrong on this matter?
I hope you feel better soon. This:
to this:
I would agree with you if the punishments weren't so harsh. God kills, or threatens to kill, those who disobey. He only wants those who are perfect to be able to worship him, everyone else is worthless.
Leviticus:
21:16 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
21:17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
21:18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,
21:19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
21:20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
21:21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.
21:22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.
21:23 Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them.
More Leviticus:
20:8 And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you.
20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
20:12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
20:14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
20:15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
20:16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
The Old Testament is full of commandments to put people to death for their injustices, no matter how slight. While many of the things that are mentioned are definitely wrong (adultery, bestiality) others are not really in the same league (cursing your parents). I don't know how to deal with the whole homosexuality thing, god should know that there is a genetic rationale. It is imperfections (in the Biblical sense) like this that make me question if he could exist. He creates imperfections that he find abhorrent and then tells those with the imperfection that they simply should be killed for his mistake.
You had your chance. You blew it.
First part: Those only apply to people approaching the Ark of the Covenent behind the veil. You know, that thing you saw in Indiana Jones? They also had to be priests, etc. Hardly seems like an unreasonable requirement, but even if you disagree that really and truly is nitpicking.
Second part: Also common laws around the world 150 years ago and earlier. These have been capital crimes for quite a while, regardless of region of the world or religious beliefs. Heck, even tribesmen in the rain forest follow it. Nowadays there's hardly any capital punishment, so I can see people being opposed to it regardless. Really this is opening up a whole 'nother can of worms with debates on capital punishment and adultery and what not. So here I stop. I wonder why the forums mods even let this thread exist.
The_Harlequin:
Getting killed for gathering sticks on the sabbath: Dude, the man did it right after God himself gave the command directly to Moses. On stone tablets personally written by the hand of God, as part of the 10 commandments. When they were seeing grand-scale miracles every other week. Generally it is not a capital crime. His destination afterwards is not specified.
General:
This thread, or at least the more recent stuff, just seems like more of the typical nitpicking people like to do (on all topics, not just religion). If something is at all flawed in your own personal opinion you reject the whole thing. This is a common way to dismiss things without serious, carefully reasoned discussion, as everything in the world has some flaw in someone's personal opinion. I generally do not devote so much time to such things because nitpicking is just another form of a short demand for long irrefutable proof. And that failure to provide such means you have proven something. That's as flawed as saying: "Unless you provide me with a complete, hole-free explanation for how the universe came to be through self-caused means, that nobody in the world will perceive flaws in it regardless of their own beliefs, then the world must have been created in 7 days." Or even "then the world must not have come to be through self-caused means". Or any similar conclusion. It's a logical fallacy and a poor way to discuss anything. Yet convenient in that it requires little reasoning (and often little typing) on the part of those who use it and requires much from anyone who wishes to respond.
Normally I just disregard major logical fallacies, the poster assumes that to be concession (convenient, really), and everybody's happy. Today I guess I'm bored and really need to get up and go do something. So up I go.
All religion is man-made.
Judeochristianity is a religion.
:. Judeochristianity is man-made.
Now, you may challenge the truth value of my givens, but the logic is valid. Those are objective statements. A subjective statement would be something like "God, bleck!" which cannot fit into such a logical argument.
subjectively meaning that you solved the problem to your own personal satisfaction. Objectively would mean that you solved for everyone. Subjectively works.
I already covered this earlier in the thread: Hume's argument on natural evil. His argument is still sound.
Again, to make any assumptions, in any way, to how, what, when, where, and why an all powerful diety does things is logically flawed. A "imperfect" being can not understand a "perfect" being. They can attempt to somehow come to a conclusion, however, inherinetly they will only be convincing themselves.
Humans by nature don't like to have unanswered questions. Why does the sun rotate? How does the wind blow? What is God? People don't like living in the "dark" sorta say. Hume falls prey to that instinct when he makes the assumption that it is even possible to understand God. Hume's argument is sound if you assume that God is a being that can be understod.
Does a child know exactly why he can't eat ice all day? No, he just assumes his mom is mean. They are called "leaps of faith" for a reason. You have to either accept that we don't know everything and accept living in the "dark" or you don't. Neither is "wrong" or "right", it's your own, subjective, opinion.
Given the evidence, it seems like that is the case.
The suggestion that we cannot comprehend the workings of an omniscient, omnipotent deity may well be true. It is also a singularly useless suggestion. If we cannot make any statements about God's character because He is beyond our ken, then we cannot rely on faith any more than we can rely on reason. the Bible may tell us that worshiping Christ is the path to Heaven, but if God's workings are beyond our ken, it is just as likely that everyone goes to Hell. Or no one.
The Bible's value as a tool to understanding God's will is based on the assumption that one can determine God's will through reason. The Bible, many will say, is part historical document, a codex of instructions from God to Man. God's nature is not opaque; He has a will, and has made his will known in the Bible.
So will God send you to Hell even if you are following his will completely?
We don't know.
If the Bible is true, then following the word of God and believing in Christ is the only way to the kingdom of heaven. But if we cannot truly comprehend the infinite, the omniscient, the omnipotent, then Christ's "divinity" may be a test to his chosen ones, the Israelites, to see if they would follow a false prophet. And the Christians, ever eager for a quick fix, fell for it.
If we are too limited to understand God's reasoning, then the eventual realization that we are all going to Hell no matter what we believe is just as likely as some going to Heaven and some going to Hell. "I have faith" is then based not on the Bible, but on what you believe. In other words, you have elevated yourself above God's will as documented in the Bible; rebellion. Welcome to Hell.
On the other hand, if the faithful insist that God's will can be found in the writings of the Bible, then we should be able to use reason as well as faith to determine what He would have of us. The Bible is written. The written word must be read, and reason must be used to determine what those words mean to us. Through reason and faith, we can come to an understanding, if incomplete, of God's nature and God's will for us.
So the faithful would have us believe. Are you proposing that the faithful and the atheist are both wrong on this matter?
The Bible is a book designed to attempt to make the divine mundane. The Roman Catholic Church has stated that from the very foundation of the Bible. It is, according to Doctrinal law, "God speaking through human hands to spread his message" or something along those lines. Inherinetly that means that the Bible is not wholly divine. The concept of "leaps of faith" covers this idea in it's entirety. You go beyond what your reason and logic tells you and believe in something. Hell, according to the Roman Catholic's, the Bible is not a litteral translation of Faith. It is a book of interpretation.
Short end of the stick: your faith should not be based on reason alone, nor belief alone. Combine the two and you got your reciepe(sp) for faith.
Secondly, I just finished a rather interesting trilogy by James Morrow which I picked up thanks to this discussion. It's sort of a satirical series that posits that God kills himself and falls to Earth in an attempt to make humans "grow up" and take care of themselves--sort of a "Here's proof that I exist, live with it" statement. The second book, however, is what I wanted to mention--in that book, Blameless in Abaddon, the main character puts God on trial in the ICJ for the perceived evils He has committed throughout history.
While it gets a bit, ah, strange (and occasionally graphic) at times, the book covers five or six of the best-known theodicies and makes some very interesting arguments for and against God's culpability; since quite a few points in this thread were raised concerning the existence of evil in the world, I thought someone else here might be interested in reading it.
First part: Those only apply to people approaching the Ark of the Covenent behind the veil. You know, that thing you saw in Indiana Jones? They also had to be priests, etc. Hardly seems like an unreasonable requirement, but even if you disagree that really and truly is nitpicking.
It's not nit picking at all. It is very clear that god does not think that imperfect people are good enough to even see the Ark. He is the one that created physically flawed people. He should not hold us accountable for those flaws.
Second part: Also common laws around the world 150 years ago and earlier. These have been capital crimes for quite a while, regardless of region of the world or religious beliefs. Heck, even tribesmen in the rain forest follow it. Nowadays there's hardly any capital punishment, so I can see people being opposed to it regardless. Really this is opening up a whole 'nother can of worms with debates on capital punishment and adultery and what not. So here I stop. I wonder why the forums mods even let this thread exist.
An immutable being that exists the same throughout time should have laws that are consistent throughout time. I can't see why any of those crimes are capital crimes from a being that is so forgiving. Forgiveness should not include the death penalty.
The mods haven't shut this thread down yet because we haven't had any problems. There is nothing in the Code of Conduct that has been violated.
The_Harlequin:
Getting killed for gathering sticks on the sabbath: Dude, the man did it right after God himself gave the command directly to Moses. On stone tablets personally written by the hand of God, as part of the 10 commandments. When they were seeing grand-scale miracles every other week. Generally it is not a capital crime. His destination afterwards is not specified.
This is actually the problem though. Regardless of how and when it happened, the problem is that it happened. This is not how a loving, caring, beneficent, forgiving being acts.
General:
This thread, or at least the more recent stuff, just seems like more of the typical nitpicking people like to do (on all topics, not just religion). If something is at all flawed in your own personal opinion you reject the whole thing. This is a common way to dismiss things without serious, carefully reasoned discussion, as everything in the world has some flaw in someone's personal opinion. I generally do not devote so much time to such things because nitpicking is just another form of a short demand for long irrefutable proof. And that failure to provide such means you have proven something. That's as flawed as saying: "Unless you provide me with a complete, hole-free explanation for how the universe came to be through self-caused means, that nobody in the world will perceive flaws in it regardless of their own beliefs, then the world must have been created in 7 days." Or even "then the world must not have come to be through self-caused means". Or any similar conclusion. It's a logical fallacy and a poor way to discuss anything. Yet convenient in that it requires little reasoning (and often little typing) on the part of those who use it and requires much from anyone who wishes to respond.
It isn't really being nit picky. The book is supposed to be the inerrant word of god. God is supposed to be the pinnacle of morality. How is it that we are able to find so many errors with the text and with how a moral creature would act? If one part of the Bible is wrong, then the entire premise is wrong.
You may also notice that we aren't really trying to prove or disprove anything. I think that most of us are of the understanding that we cannot prove or disprove the existence of god. It is the discussion that we are enjoying.
You may also notice that we aren't really trying to prove or disprove anything. I think that most of us are of the understanding that we cannot prove or disprove the existence of god. It is the discussion that we are enjoying.
Well, we can use induction to disprove the existence of things like gods, unicorns, leprechauns, etc. But so what? It's been done. Besides, if someone needs an invisible sky god to help them get by, who am I to take that away? The main value I find is refining my own ideas; one way of doing that is to continually put them out there to make sure they're still robust. So carry on, all.
Again, if he is all-powerful, why the charade and suffering when he could just miracle-up the end-product of his harebrained scheme?
In the scripture of my religion (I'm Baha'i), we're taught that we're to actively develop spiritual qualities like honesty, humility, compassion, etc. The act of working to develop those qualities in this life is of benefit in the next. In my Faith, we're also told that the next life isn't the end, either.
With the caveat that this is a metaphor and is thus inherently flawed, it would be the difference between teaching a kid how to make money and just giving him a million dollars.
That having been said, I'd like to address this directly:
The book is supposed to be the inerrant word of god.
I know many Christians believe this, but so far I think most Christians arguing here are not arguing from that standpoint.
That having been said, given that the Bible is not inerrant, disproving a particular part doesn't disprove the premise.
So, now I'm going to make the thread explode.
There's a lot of talk going around about God being evil or moral or whatnot. This is the kind of topic you can go around in circles and never make any truly excellent point. The real thing about a discussion like this is that what we are really (in a sense) dealing with is a much bigger issue that, insofar, we have avoided because it's really nasty. However, it seems like it's no longer avoidable. No progress will be made while we dance around the core of this argument. So now I pose the question:
Where does morality come from in the first place? Who defines what is moral? Why is one particular source of morality acceptable versus all others?
This is the crux of the discussion. I'll probably end up playing devil's advocate a lot, so this will be interesting.
I think morality comes from God. God, to me, is the very definition of morality, and as a result anything that he does is moral. If God came down and gave a decree that some currently heinous act is okay behavior, I would accept that as the new standard.
I think God is an acceptable source of morality because he is divine and has the ability to perceive and understand far more than I could, so I trust God to know what is right.
This is how my morality is defined.
In the scripture of my religion (I'm Baha'i), we're taught that we're to actively develop spiritual qualities like honesty, humility, compassion, etc. The act of working to develop those qualities in this life is of benefit in the next. In my Faith, we're also told that the next life isn't the end, either.
Well, I hope you're right. Again, this kind of reasoning coupled with what I said above just stabs simplistic concepts like "omnipotence" in the gut.
Where does morality come from in the first place?
It's a logical set of rules designed to allow men and women to live together while respecting each other's inherent self-ownership.
Who defines what is moral?
Mostly philosophers. Morality is studied to this day, and ideas are always being refined.
Why is one particular source of morality acceptable versus all others?
Because while man may be the discoverer of his nature, he is not the author of it. Certain behaviors are consistent with his survival and those of his neighbors while others are not.
If God came down and gave a decree that some currently heinous act is okay behavior, I would accept that as the new standard.
I...would not.
Short end of the stick: your faith should not be based on reason alone, nor belief alone. Combine the two and you got your reciepe(sp) for faith.
And yet you argue that we cannot understand God. Thus, reason fails. That leaves only faith.
It's a logical set of rules designed to allow men and women to live together while respecting each other's inherent self-ownership.
That only answers what morals are, not where moral authority originates.
Because while man may be the discoverer of his nature, he is not the author of it. Certain behaviors are consistent with his survival and those of his neighbors while others are not.
That doesn't exactly answer why philosophers should be held as the authority on morals. Especially since philosophers disagree all the time. Why should I believe any philosopher who claims I should adhere to a certain set of morals?
And yet you argue that we cannot understand God. Thus, reason fails. That leaves only faith.
I don't understand quantum mechanics, so does reason fail for science, leaving only faith?
Being able to totally understand something is not a requirement for reason. I may not be able to understand God totally, but I can see reason and evidence for his existence, hence a combination of faith and reason.
That only answers what morals are, not where moral authority originates.
It originates with personhood. If you're a person, you have the same rights as everyone else.
That doesn't exactly answer why philosophers should be held as the authority on morals.
It's the same reason why physicians are the authorities on medicine.
Especially since philosophers disagree all the time.
So? Humanity is not perfect. Physicians disagree, too. So do theologians, btw, so saying "I'll just follow the Bible" is no escape--you'll either have to rely on someone else's study of the text or your own interpretation and disagreements.
Why should I believe any philosopher who claims I should adhere to a certain set of morals?
I assume you have no trouble taking the advice of a doctor, or at least a majority of physicians who agree on a specific point. Regardless, there's no subsittute for using your own brain, especially in matters of philosophy. A surgeon can fix your body, but only you can fix your mind.
That doesn't exactly answer why philosophers should be held as the authority on morals. Especially since philosophers disagree all the time. Why should I believe any philosopher who claims I should adhere to a certain set of morals?It's the same reason why physicians are the authorities on medicine.
So? Humanity is not perfect. Physicians disagree, too. So do theologians, btw, so saying "I'll just follow the Bible" is no escape--you'll either have to rely on someone else's study of the text or your own interpretation and disagreements.
I assume you have no trouble taking the advice of a doctor, or at least a majority of physicians who agree on a specific point. Regardless, there's no subsittute for using your own brain, especially in matters of philosophy. A surgeon can fix your body, but only you can fix your mind.
Very simple, and very plain. I never thought of that, but a fantastic argument. Well done.
It originates with personhood. If you're a person, you have the same rights as everyone else.
Says who? Some philosopher? What if I don't buy that position?
It's the same reason why physicians are the authorities on medicine.
Sort of except that philosophy is opinion and speculation whereas medicine is fact (at least in practice, excepting research which is to determine fact).
So? Humanity is not perfect. Physicians disagree, too. So do theologians, btw, so saying "I'll just follow the Bible" is no escape--you'll either have to rely on someone else's study of the text or your own interpretation and disagreements.
Sure theologians disagree on some stuff, although I'd point out that they agree on a lot of core stuff. Most priests will says that murder, ****, and theft are wrong.
Still, with philosophers only generating ideas, not facts, why should that be considered an authority? What qualifies you as a philosopher? Could I just come up with my own idea about morals or behavior and that's legitimate philosophy?
I assume you have no trouble taking the advice of a doctor, or at least a majority of physicians who agree on a specific point. Regardless, there's no substitute for using your own brain, especially in matters of philosophy. A surgeon can fix your body, but only you can fix your mind.
Fair enough, which brings me to reiterate my question:
Can I just come up with my own philosophy, and that's a legitimate moral authority?
The thing about theology, as far any 'moral authority' goes, is that its pretty much just another philosophy. It says what we should do, and sometimes why we should do it. Depending on the religion, that 'why' might just be 'because'.
Most non-theistic philosophies, on the other hand, answer the 'why' with reasoning and thought and conjecture. Instead of just saying 'because' they give you an argument.
Which is more valid then the other? Well, that's a very personal question. Many people find moral authority in some theistic explanation and that suits them. Some people find the 'just because' attitude lacking and turn to non-theistic philosophies. I expect that most people find a balance somewhere in between.
Either way, moral authority isn't something you'll find on earth, and certainly not in any book (holy or otherwise).
Funny thing about this world, but you won't find any 'legitimate moral authority'. Some people believe that there is an objective moral authority, but you can't find it 'round here.
The thing about theology, as far any 'moral authority' goes, is that its pretty much just another philosophy. It says what we should do, and sometimes why we should do it. Depending on the religion, that 'why' might just be 'because'.
Most non-theistic philosophies, on the other hand, answer the 'why' with reasoning and thought and conjecture. Instead of just saying 'because' they give you an argument.
Which is more valid then the other? Well, that's a very personal question. Many people find moral authority in some theistic explanation and that suits them. Some people find the 'just because' attitude lacking and turn to non-theistic philosophies. I expect that most people find a balance somewhere in between.
Either way, moral authority isn't something you'll find on earth, and certainly not in any book (holy or otherwise).
Hmm, that's dependent on you having a secular view of religion. If you truly believe in the existence of God, you believe that moral authority originates from a divine God, and you believe that His moral authority is objective.
I'd agree that morals are completely personal without God.
My point becomes, even if philosophers back up their ideas with reasons and whatnot, they are still just opinions. Why should I adhere to any specific philosophy instead of my own?
Hmm, that's dependent on you having a secular view of religion. If you truly believe in the existence of God, you believe that moral authority originates from a divine God, and you believe that His moral authority is objective.
Which wouldn't be found on Earth (at least, not in a physical scientifically provable way) now would he? I didn't mean to imply that there isn't a God, just that moral authority can't be found on this mud ball.
My point becomes, even if philosophers back up their ideas with reasons and whatnot, they are still just opinions. Why should I adhere to any specific philosophy instead of my own?
Who said you should? You have morals drawn from one source. Other people have morals drawn from other sources. There is no way, on Earth, to find out if one set of morals (from philosophy or religion or from your alphabet soup) is the 'correct' set, or even if there is a correct set.
Which wouldn't be found on Earth (at least, not in a physical scientifically provable way) now would he? I didn't mean to imply that there isn't a God, just that moral authority can't be found on this mud ball.
Who said you should? You have morals drawn from one source. Other people have morals drawn from other sources. There is no way, on Earth, to find out if one set of morals (from philosophy or religion or from your alphabet soup) is the 'correct' set, or even if there is a correct set.
Well, I'd certainly agree with that.
No God = personally dominant morals.
Which then of course leads to this:
If I decide murder (for example) is an ok behavior, who's to tell me I'm wrong?
If I decide murder (for example) is an ok behavior, who's to tell me I'm wrong?
How about the men with the guns and shiny badges?
More seriously, that's actually pretty close to the answer. Humankind has determined, through many religions, societies, civilizations and cultures, that certain actions are not allowed in a general sense. We have create institutions and laws that we adhere to. Where does the authority of these institutions come from? From the authority we give them.
Whether you accept that their judgment and decision is morally right or wrong, they have the authority (that has been vested in them by society) and the power (that has been given to them by tax-payer money) to force you to at least live by their judgment.
And over time people change their minds and certain behaviors that were previously unacceptable (interracial marriages, sodomy, a woman divorcing her husband) become acceptable while previously acceptable behaviors (physical punishment of kids, "queen for a day" in the military, etc.) lose their acceptance. And then the laws, as made by men* and for men, change.
So even though nobody may have any inherent right to tell you 'that moral philosphy is wrong' (though many would doubtless try), they can (try to) force you to live by the rules set down. Is that impinging on your moral freedom? Yep. But thats why life is about compromise. If you're unwilling to compromise your moral integrity, and that leads you to conflict with a legal authority, then you might be forced to compromise your freedom instead.
Is that perfect? Nope. But as the only being that could actually reasonably play at being a moral authority doesn't seem to want to step up to the plate anymore, it's what we have to work with.
*'humans' didn't sound right, so I went with 'men'. But I do mean that in the gender-neutral way.
How about the men with the guns and shiny badges?
More seriously, that's actually pretty close to the answer. Humankind has determined, through many religions, societies, civilizations and cultures, that certain actions are not allowed in a general sense. We have create institutions and laws that we adhere to. Where does the authority of these institutions come from? From the authority we give them.
Whether you accept that their judgment and decision is morally right or wrong, they have the authority (that has been vested in them by society) and the power (that has been given to them by tax-payer money) to force you to at least live by their judgment.
And over time people change their minds and certain behaviors that were previously unacceptable (interracial marriages, sodomy, a woman divorcing her husband) become acceptable while previously acceptable behaviors (physical punishment of kids, "queen for a day" in the military, etc.) lose their acceptance. And then the laws, as made by men* and for men, change.
So even though nobody may have any inherent right to tell you 'that moral philosphy is wrong' (though many would doubtless try), they can (try to) force you to live by the rules set down. Is that impinging on your moral freedom? Yep. But thats why life is about compromise. If you're unwilling to compromise your moral integrity, and that leads you to conflict with a legal authority, then you might be forced to compromise your freedom instead.
Is that perfect? Nope. But as the only being that could actually reasonably play at being a moral authority doesn't seem to want to step up to the plate anymore, it's what we have to work with.
So what you are saying is murder, ****, theft, torture, and all things along these lines aren't wrong they're just illegal?
Ok, that may have been crossing the line. But my point is that we don't have any earthly moral authority. I have my own set of ethics and morals. you have yours. Why should anyone else take us at our word that we have the right way of things?
And is that any worse then saying 'it's wrong because God told me so'?
Yes. I'd say so at least. At least in the "God told me so" version, people have a reason not to just exploit everyone else to their own gratification.
Ok, that may have been crossing the line. But my point is that we don't have any earthly moral authority. I have my own set of ethics and morals. you have yours. Why should anyone else take us at our word that we have the right way of things?
If it's just between two people? There isn't a reason. If God did decree a set of morals for us, I can say you should take me at my word because I didn't make this stuff up, God did.
If you don't believe me when I say that, it has nothing to do with the validity of my morals, but the validity of my beliefs.
Says who? Some philosopher? What if I don't buy that position?
Well, I'm not sure how you'd construct a moral system absent people.
Sort of except that philosophy is opinion and speculation whereas medicine is fact (at least in practice, excepting research which is to determine fact).
This is simply the difference between a proscriptive system and a descriptive one. Tet they are both objective and subject to the rules of reason.
Sure theologians disagree on some stuff, although I'd point out that they agree on a lot of core stuff. Most priests will says that murder, ****, and theft are wrong.
As will most secular philosophers. It's really difficult to create a moral system which allows for random murder, honestly.
Still, with philosophers only generating ideas, not facts, why should that be considered an authority? What qualifies you as a philosopher? Could I just come up with my own idea about morals or behavior and that's legitimate philosophy?
Same as above--I never advocate people accept philosophies in a second-hand fashion. That doesn't mean you have to start from scratch any more than a doctor or engineer should.
If you don't believe me when I say that, it has nothing to do with the validity of my morals, but the validity of my beliefs.
Well, I see no fruitful discussion coming from questioning your beliefs. I doubt I could change your mind, and doubt even more I would want to.
But in the end, you don't have any divine moral authority that you can go to for moral dilemmas. At best you have people that have made a livelihood of interpreting a millennial-long game of telephone and claiming that their interpretation is right. Yes, you have your morals. And you have a place they came from. But as you have only your faith to tell you that your source and interpretation is correct, I really don't see how that's any better then someone who came to their own conclusions separate from your source. After all, it's your faith that your source and interpretation is correct versus their faith that their reasoning and logic is correct*.
*Or just their faith in a different source/interpretation. There's lots of places to build your own morality from.
This is simply the difference between a proscriptive system and a descriptive one. Tet they are both objective and subject to the rules of reason.
If not 100% sure what you're saying here, can you clarify for me. I'd hate to provide an asinine response.
As will most secular philosophers. It's really difficult to create a moral system which allows for random murder, honestly.
Fair enough, although I would suggest that several human philosophies allow for random murder, when following the line of reasoning.
Same as above--I never advocate people accept philosophies in a second-hand fashion. That doesn't mean you have to start from scratch any more than a doctor or engineer should.
My point was not about how much effort or thought I'd have to put in. I was more clarifying that I was allowed, by your viewpoint, to create my own moral standard if I wanted to?
Beleif in God causes you to put value on human life.
The first is historical but the question remains was it Atheism that allowed it to happen (I do not).
The second is extrapolated from the first.
That is about all I will have to contribute on this matter.
Well, I see no fruitful discussion coming from questioning your beliefs. I doubt I could change your mind, and doubt even more I would want to.
But in the end, you don't have any divine moral authority that you can go to for moral dilemmas. At best you have people that have made a livelihood of interpreting a millennial-long game of telephone and claiming that their interpretation is right. Yes, you have your morals. And you have a place they came from. But as you have only your faith to tell you that your source and interpretation is correct, I really don't see how that's any better then someone who came to their own conclusions separate from your source. After all, it's your faith that your source and interpretation is correct versus their faith that their reasoning and logic is correct*.
*Or just their faith in a different source/interpretation. There's lots of places to build your own morality from.
It's better because I have a reason to put the morals above anything else, to not compromise them, and have a reason to believe those morals are absolute for humanity.
And you're right about "no divine moral authority" for me personally. I don't have a provable reason to believe that the morals I hold are divine. But I believe it.
My point it, objective morality means that I can make up whatever morals I want. Therefore, there is no action that is inherently wrong.
Therefore, there is no action that is inherently wrong.
And does that really bother you that much? No, I take that question back. If it didn't bother you, then we wouldn't have gotten to this point.
I'll just leave it at that some people are comfortable without belief that there's someone upstairs with all the answers. Many people feel otherwise. You clearly believe one way is better then the other. Not much more to say there.
As for atheist governments... eh. Horrible things have been done in the name of the divine just as much, if not more. The only difference is recent memory and that we have such better tools for killing people quickly now.
As for atheist governments... eh. Horrible things have been done in the name of the divine just as much, if not more. The only difference is recent memory and that we have such better tools for killing people quickly now.
I agree. I just brought it up for discussion.
If not 100% sure what you're saying here, can you clarify for me. I'd hate to provide an asinine response.
Meaning there's a difference between "is" and "ought." Though they are both formal systems. Mathematics is good example of a formal system which is totally decoupled from empiricism, yet should you try to make a building which ignores mathematics, it would not stand. So, too, if you try to have a collection of people that ignore morality, it also will not stand. The analogy isn't perfect, but maybe you get the idea.
Fair enough, although I would suggest that several human philosophies allow for random murder, when following the line of reasoning.
Random's not the same as arbitrary. Also, it's tricky if you follow a social contract--yet giving away rights to a collective is not the same as positing those rights don't exist.
I was more clarifying that I was allowed, by your viewpoint, to create my own moral standard if I wanted to?
It's really more discovery than invention. Once you start with givens, such as rights, necessarily true propositions start to follow. I mean, you could have a philosophy which ignores reason altogether, but that's like claiming you invented a medical practice that ignores reason.
My point it, objective morality means that I can make up whatever morals I want. Therefore, there is no action that is inherently wrong.
No, that would be a subjective morality, such as "Hooray for murder!" An objective morality has categorical statements. For example:
It is wrong to aid wrong-doings.
Murder is wrong.
.: It is wrong to aid murder.
See, the conclusion is necessarily true with those givens. I could not claim that aiding murder is a-okay. Even if I had never thought about the morality of aiding murder, the answer was there already, waiting to be discovered.
First off, I think that responding statement by statement isn't doing much but gradually increasing how much typing I have to do, so I'm going to try to make my point in a more generalized fashion in the hopes that perhaps it will contribute to the larger discussion, instead of just Bob and me. (As much as you know I love you Bob)
I was having fun hogging the spotlight too.
Where does morality come from in the first place? Who defines what is moral? Why is one particular source of morality acceptable versus all others?
I believe that morality comes from evolution. I don't think that one particular source is any better than another. I do believe that some sources provide some really bad advice. Morality should be consistent, and yet with many religions it is not. I don't have my book with me, but in the God Delusion (if I'm remembering the source right), there is an example of how someone tested the "morality" of religious students. The researcher took the story of Jericho and gave it exactly as written to a bunch of religious students who claimed that what happened what morally acceptable because it was commanded by god. When the researcher took the same story but changed the names and places leaving out god then gave it to another set of students of the same religion most of them said that what happened was morally unacceptable. I really need to get my gook back so I can find the name of the researcher(s) and provide a link to the source.
I think morality comes from God. God, to me, is the very definition of morality, and as a result anything that he does is moral. If God came down and gave a decree that some currently heinous act is okay behavior, I would accept that as the new standard.
So if god came down and changed the 10 commandments, essentially reversing his views, you would accept that without question?
I think God is an acceptable source of morality because he is divine and has the ability to perceive and understand far more than I could, so I trust God to know what is right.
I know many people who are smarter than I can ever be. I wouldn't necessarily trust them to know what is morally right.
My point becomes, even if philosophers back up their ideas with reasons and whatnot, they are still just opinions. Why should I adhere to any specific philosophy instead of my own?
Consistency. Shouldn't any philosophy be as consistent as possible with its teachings? While I don't think that every situation can be covered perfectly, I do think that the best one(s) are the most consistent. A particular philosophy shouldn't teach conflicting rules on the same subject(s).
So what you are saying is murder, ****, theft, torture, and all things along these lines aren't wrong they're just illegal?
Many things that are illegal are also immoral. This holds true with the Bible as well. Murder is both wrong and illegal. God laid down many laws. He chose some because of their morality. Some were chosen for other reasons though. Remembering the Sabbath is not a moral command. Taking the sacrament is also not a moral command. This are meant to bring you closer to god and remember what he has done for you. They are rituals based on law more than anything else.
Most species do not murder, ****, steal, or torture. There are exceptions, but for the most part those activities are detrimental to the survival of the species. Some, like ****, are human-only crimes only because of the way mating, courtship, and individualism work with humans.
I believe that morality comes from evolution. I don't think that one particular source is any better than another. I do believe that some sources provide some really bad advice. Morality should be consistent, and yet with many religions it is not. I don't have my book with me, but in the God Delusion (if I'm remembering the source right), there is an example of how someone tested the "morality" of religious students. The researcher took the story of Jericho and gave it exactly as written to a bunch of religious students who claimed that what happened what morally acceptable because it was commanded by god. When the researcher took the same story but changed the names and places leaving out god then gave it to another set of students of the same religion most of them said that what happened was morally unacceptable. I really need to get my gook back so I can find the name of the researcher(s) and provide a link to the source.
I read Richard Dawkin's work as well. Though I tend to agree with the said authour, I find the book to be heavily biased to the atheist. I think it is less objective.
His book to me does the same thing as creationism... start with a conclusion and work back to the hypothesis.
Ok for creationists...
Bad for Richard Dawkins who knows better as he is a real scientist and not a creationist.
My big problem with religion is ignorance. Most Christians do not know that they were built off of a wide variety of religions, including paganistic practices that they later persecuted for being wrong. Fundamental themes keep recurring in many of the worlds religions. Sadly instead of looking for the way to the top of the mountain too many have focused on which path is correct without even realizing it is the destination which is important.
What do Atheist believe in...
or is there many degrees within atheism, like some believe in a form of god, while others believe that it is all just no rhyme or reason, or science is king?
1) Implicit Atheists is the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it.
2) Explicit Atheism is defined as the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it (those who have thought about the existence of deities and have purposely decided against it), and is sometimes characterized as antitheism. Explicit atheists are composed of two sub-groups:
2a) The strong/positive variety, who explicitly deny the existence of deities.
2b) The weak/negative, who explicitly eschew belief in gods, but do not necessarily deny the possibility of their existence.
I believe that we are only here for a short period of time and when our time is up, then we are recycled back into the earth. It is up to me to make the best of the time I have here. If I wish to be immortalized then I need to do something so that I am remembered. I don't really care if I am immortalized so I just make sure that the impact I have on others is as positive as possible. I try to live my life in a way that my family would be proud to call me their son. I want others to look at me and emulate my best attributes, whatever they may be.
I don't have any real problems with religion or faith. I have a problem with people who take it to extremes or decide to leave their brains at the door of their local religious institution. We are all familiar with extremists who blow themselves up. Islam is covered more commonly than the others, but there are Jews, Christians, and Buddhists that do this as well. I think the media does a great disservice by not covering them equally. I also think the media does a disservice by not covering the positive aspects of Islam. It leads to a bias against one religion that fuels an ongoing fire.
We have some atheists that cause problems as well. Taking the phrase "In God We Trust" off the money is a waste of time right now. People who focus on this are missing out on a bigger issue. While I don't think it should be there, I also don't think that we should be wasting tax payer dollars fighting to remove it right now.
When I said that some people leave their brains at the door of their local religious institution, let me give you some examples of things I have dealt with in the recent past:
Someone tried to argue that the only thing that makes any sense on how language changed is the story of the Tower of Babel. I tried to demonstrate how languages evolve and why it's very fast but he was unable to see beyond the story he was told. Note that he couldn't tell me where to find it other than "The Bible." He is not one who reads, he follows his shepherd.
Someone tried to tell me that evolution can't be true because he didn't want to come from monkeys. I tried to explain that we didn't come from monkeys but he heard from his pastor that we did so I must be wrong.
Someone tried to tell me that we can't ignore the parts of the Bible we want. We must follow all of it. [I agree]. When she told me that she is non-violent because that's what the Bible tells her she should be, I asked her about the passages that discuss being a soldier for god or how Jesus said he did not come in peace but came with a sword or how god told many of his followers to go into battle. I think it's great that she is non-violent but she certainly wasn't following the teachings of her Bible.
Someone tried to tell me that we have evidence that the Sun stood still over Jericho. When I asked for that evidence, the only thing they could produce was a bunch of BS. Instead of acknowledging that someone else was lying, they discarded the evidence and clung to their belief.
I had someone try to tell me I should be worried because Armageddon was right around the corner. She was very scared. I asked her why was she so terrified. Her response was that she didn't want to die. When I asked her if her soul was prepared, she said yes but she feared for her daughter. I then asked her if she failed to prepare her daughter's soul (who was only about a year old). She said she did everything she could. I then asked her why was she so afraid to be with her god. To me, if I was a Christian I would look forward to Armageddon. I would know then that everything I believed in was true and that I was going to see the one being I had served my life for.
The reason I am an atheist really doesn't have much to do with evidence, although that plays a part. It really has to do with logic and consistency. I haven't found any religion that is consistent or follows from a logical path. For example, one of my friends is Buddhist. Sometimes she tries to avoid eating meat because she really shouldn't eat anything that was once alive (except plants). This doesn't make any sense to me since we are omnivores and we actually need vitamin B-12. Most believers talk about tolerance but then use their religion to push intolerant ideas (oppose gay marriage, restrict women's rights, restrict the sales of some items on certain days of the week, etc).
Atheism fits my world view very well. I don't put science over anything else. I see science as a way to describe how the universe works. I see philosophy as a way to describe how mankind works. Both are very important but neither one is superior to the other overall.
Ignorance can take many forms...even outside of religion. In the old days you had the mysteries of various cultures who would only try to enlighten those that could handle it. In today society information is readily available even to those who may not have the mental faculty to view it from numerous angles.
Everything is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. I think too many try to conceptualize "God" as humanoid because it would be hard to picture the sum of all energy in lines that we can grasp. I am spiritual, but not religious...and I think there are many paths to the top of the mountain and if you live in ignorance then you really are not doing much to climb, just criticizing another path while standing still.
Having said that, if anyone would like to continue a conversation with me about this, I could probably keep it going in a more personal PM, but posting here is simply adding an ever-growing amount of responses to what I write and it has grown difficult for me to respond effectively.
So if anyone is interested in continuing our conversations, please send me a PM containing whatever you'd like to hear my response to, and I would be glad to continue. For now, at least I must retire from the thread.
I think morality comes from God. God, to me, is the very definition of morality, and as a result anything that he does is moral. If God came down and gave a decree that some currently heinous act is okay behavior, I would accept that as the new standard.
I think God is an acceptable source of morality because he is divine and has the ability to perceive and understand far more than I could, so I trust God to know what is right.
This is how my morality is defined.
Buried in there is what I believe to be the truth about morality, whether divined by secular means or religious:
We choose our morality. THEN we find ways to justify it.
Whether you choose to defer the ultimate authority to another or make those judgments ourselves, or (usually) a combination of both, the fact is that we humans define what is moral ourselves, and then spend much energy and effort (and sometimes blood) justifying why our position is the moral one.
Even with the statement that "God is the ultimate moral authority" is then beset by the issue of determining God's will. I find the statement that "if god told me to commit a heinous act i would do so" interesting from a practical standpoint; how do you determine God's will?
Even more interesting; do you accept the heinous acts committed by others who claim God told them to do them?
I don't understand quantum mechanics, so does reason fail for science, leaving only faith?
Being able to totally understand something is not a requirement for reason. I may not be able to understand God totally, but I can see reason and evidence for his existence, hence a combination of faith and reason.
If you cannot understand quantum mechanics, it puts you in very large company. Honestly, I understand very little of quantum mechanics, and leave the discussion to those who do. However, the claims of those who say that for only 3 easy payments of $19.95 (plus S&H) I can get a bracelet with crystals that can prevent me from getting sick through the miracle of quantum mechanics I dismiss until I can see the data that supports their claims, because anyone can make claims and I like my money.
As such with God. In the company of other laypersons, my body of knowledge is as good as (and as poor as) anyone else's. Discussions involving a great deal of historical context of the Biblical documents I stay out of because I have little formal schooling in history. But the Bible itself as currently published is fair game for open discussion.
The point of that long-winded preamble? Quantum mechanics does not not, as we understand it, a will of its own. God does. If he wants me to know that he exists, he has the power to do so unequivocally and immediately. God shouldn't need a lobbyist, anyone than gravity needs a PR man.
Well, I'd certainly agree with that.
No God = personally dominant morals.
Which then of course leads to this:
If I decide murder (for example) is an ok behavior, who's to tell me I'm wrong?
Oddly enough, this is exactly the issue that theists use to insist that atheists are little more than amoral walking powder-kegs of murder waiting to explode.
And yet:
I think morality comes from God. God, to me, is the very definition of morality, and as a result anything that he does is moral. If God came down and gave a decree that some currently heinous act is okay behavior, I would accept that as the new standard.
This is the argument that atheists will cite as reasons that theists are little more than delusional walking powder-kegs of murder waiting to explode.
(And yet, although the majority of people in modern cultures claim a belief in God, murder, war and atrocity have been perpetrated every day. Apparently, some theists didn't get the memo. Or maybe God told them to.)
What stops atheists from murder is quite similar to what stops Christians from killing. They think it's wrong, it makes them queasy, they're afraid of getting caught. Christians supposedly have an additional deterrence; God will punish them forever. They also have an out though; God will forgive them if they're really, really sorry and turn to him afterwards.
When it comes right down to it, to the victim it doesn't matter much if the person who killed them was an atheist who "just felt like it " (psychopath) or a Christian who believed that God wanted them dead (psychopath). The victim is just as dead.
I personally think it's a wash. But that's just me.