Specific Question For Not Ready and Others

[David Sklansky]

Sometimes I make the mistake of bring up side issues in my posts which result in replies outside my main point.
Not this time.

I think there exists in this world a certain type of person that I will define in a moment. He or she is rare but not that rare. I would like to know if Not Ready and others believe such persons exist, and if so, what do they have to say about them.

The people I speak of:

1. Believe that life is essentially meaningless if there is no Biblical type God.

2. Believe that there is no absolute right or wrong if there is no Biblical type God.

3. Believe that if there is a biblical type god, they will not be "saved" if they don't firmly believe in his existence.

(At this point let me say that I meant for the above three things to capture the essence of Not Ready's positions. If I didn't do a good job, them I would simply stipulate that you change the above as necessary to what his positions on these issues really are.)

4. In spite of the above three beliefs, they believe that a Biblical God is unlikely to exist. They are not happy about that conclusion since it makes their life more "hopeless" and more meaningless. It also scares them because they still feel that God is an unlikely possibility and they do believe that they are doomed if that unlikely possibility turns out to be true.
However it does not logically follow from having beliefs 1-3 that one must believe that God exists. These particular people for some reason, scientific or whatever, reluctantly admit to themselves that in spite of hearing and understanding the gospel, and wishing it was true, they don't think it is.

I say millions of people fall into this category. What does Not Ready have to say about them?

[Darryl_P]

I was clearly one of these people about 6-7 years ago. It bothered me greatly for obvious reasons: Rationality guides my life and rationality leads me to believe there is probably no biblical type God, but if that's the case then life is meaningless. Tough thing to digest indeed.

Then I found myself with lots of time on my hands and was able to meditate deeply about these issues. At first it was very painful but a bit later some answers came to me as if from out of the blue.

In a nutshell I was able to find God on my own, but in a lot of ways it did not resemble the God of the bible. It was more like a Force rather than a being. I felt I could communicate with it, feel part of it etc. and that cured my depression almost instantly.

Now when religious people talk about God I no longer think of a pink elephant that doesn't exist, I just think of this Force and assume they mean the same thing, even if their details don't match mine. I find it easy and painless to ignore the details (which don't match) and concentrate on the spiritual elements which are very powerful and feel a sort of kinship with religious people, even if they are far less rational about the world than I am.

I'm still a big fan (and big user) of rationality, but it has moved to number 2 on my priority list, number 1 being my relationship with God and the duties I feel I have based on His/Its expectations of me.

[goofball]

I wonder how many fall into a slightly different category. Someone who has been spoonfed the first 3 conditions and as such are mentally incapable of considering them to be false. Then, is forced to doggedly believe in the biblical type god in the face of any and all evidence to the contrary, because to not do so would force them to confront a meaningless life devoid of right and wrong. They feel such a helpless need to know and believe in the biblical god, that they prostelitize to any and all who will listen in hopes of being validated, they persecute all who don't believe like they do, and they ignore/squash evidence contrary to their belief.

[NotReady]

I've answered an lot of your questions. I will answer this if you will first answer the following:

1. Explain the meaning of the universe and justify the explanation.

2. Explain how morality is possible without an ultimate Lawgiver.

3. If there is a Biblical God, and He requires belief in Christ in order to be saved, explain how you expect to be saved without believing in Him.

[jakethebake]

This is interesting because these people are generally raised to believe (along with the first three beliefs listed) that there is a Biblical God. What is interesting is that somewhere alogn the line, they lose their belief in God for whatever reason, but do not shake these three beliefs, which leaves them with #4. It would seem they should lose those three along with losing their faith, but they don't.

[durron597]

I think Pascal's Wager is relevant to this discussion.

[ QUOTE ]
Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

- Blaise Pascal.

[Triumph36]

I'm not going to answer these in any real way, and they weren't directed towards me, and I didn't read the other thread, but:

1. This is clearly impossible without deferring to a higher power. To explain 'the meaning of life' without doing so one would have to prove universal truths about men, a difficult if not impossible task. This does not rule out the possibility that there is no inherent 'meaning' to life.

2. I'm not sure what you mean by 'morality', but societies can construct ethics by which to live. All systems of morality limit or channel desires, and there is clearly the possibility of rational systems of morality; they will be incomplete, but they will not be fear-based either. See Plato's Gorgias for a discussion of why doing injustice is worse than suffering it, for example.

3. This is self-evident, and an attempt to back into Pascal's Wager.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
I've answered an lot of your questions. I will answer this if you will first answer the following:

1. Explain the meaning of the universe and justify the explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

To start, I don't think david claims to know the meaning of the universe. Further, I think the fact that biblical believers claim to know the meaning of the universe is what irritates david. I think its fair to say that only people who claim to know the meaning of the universe are placed with the burden of proving their claim's validity.

[ QUOTE ]

2. Explain how morality is possible without an ultimate Lawgiver.

[/ QUOTE ]


Morality may not exist in the way you think of it. Morality may not exist at all. Why does it have to? Perhaps morality is an instincutal tool for survival or a self-imposed illusion.

Also, I wonder why you think morality would be at the core of universal meaning? What evidence do you have for this?
[ QUOTE ]

3. If there is a Biblical God, and He requires belief in Christ in order to be saved, explain how you expect to be saved without believing in Him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, i wouldn't expect to be saved. I don't see what this proves, though. For example, lets say there is a god and he requires belief in child molestation in order to be saved. As ridiculous as this sounds, i can't prove that this isn't the case right now, can you?. So, since this is an unprovable possibility, should i molest children just in case?

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Pascal's Wager is relevant to this discussion.

[ QUOTE ]
Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

- Blaise Pascal.

[/ QUOTE ]


From my other post in this thread:

Lets say there is a god and he requires belief in child molestation in order to be saved. As ridiculous as this sounds, i can't prove that this isn't the case right now, can you?. So, since this is an unprovable possibility, should i molest children just in case?

[goofball]

[ QUOTE ]
I've answered an lot of your questions. I will answer this if you will first answer the following:

1. Explain the meaning of the universe and justify the explanation.

2. Explain how morality is possible without an ultimate Lawgiver.

3. If there is a Biblical God, and He requires belief in Christ in order to be saved, explain how you expect to be saved without believing in Him.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Why must it? Find meaning in your life, your work, your family. Live your life doing things that make you happy, let the universe take care of itself.

2. To fully answer this would require a book. One thing to remember though, is that there is no universalyl accepted moral code. What's morally impermissible in society changes by location and time. It also changes from person to person. It seems, that if there were a god who was an "ultimate lawgiver" this wouldn't be the case.

3. You can't. Essentially what you've said is: A iff B, therefore, if not B than not A.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I think its fair to say that only people who claim to know the meaning of the universe are placed with the burden of proving their claim's validity.


[/ QUOTE ]

Assignment of burden of proof is arbitrary unless you have authority. Do you believe the universe has meaning?


[ QUOTE ]

Morality may not exist at all. Why does it have to?

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't have to if the universe is irrational and has no meaning. In which case, why criticize Hitler, assuming you do.

[ QUOTE ]

i can't prove that this isn't the case right now, can you?


[/ QUOTE ]

I've never said I can prove the God of the Bible.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Why must it?


[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't have to. But if there's no ultimate meaning, there's no meaning, period. All is relative which is the same as saying all is meaningless.

[ QUOTE ]

2. etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

Once you deny the moral law you introduce might makes right. Hitler was as "right" as the allies.

[Cyrus]

Life has no meaning, in any sense of 'meaning' that we humans can assign to the term.

The refusal to accept our fate (which is death) and our condition (which is the wonder/horror of consciousness) lies at the very core of our psyche and is the root cause of everything we do. (Suggested (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0029021901/qid=1119805546/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/104-6282816-6368753) reading (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684832402/qid=1119805546/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-6282816-6368753)). Hence our continuous and all-inclusive effort to replace or fill up total meaninglessness with artificial meaning (such as religion, nationalisms, etc - but not endeavors such as mythology).

And the human is an animal. An animal exactly like the rest of the animals and the fauna, in general. It can be safely argued that its brain's development has been different than all others'. A significant difference but also the only difference.

[ QUOTE ]
...We can conclude that a project as grand as the scientific-mythical construction of victory over the human limitations is not something that can be programmed by science. Even more, it comes from the vital energies of masses of men sweating within the nightmare of creation -- and it is not even in man's hands to program. Who knows what form the forward momentum of life will take in time ahead or what use it will make of our anguished searching.
<font color="white">. </font>
The most that any of us can seem to do is to fashion something - an object or ourselves - and drop it into the confusion, make an offering of it, so to speak, to the life force.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Assignment of burden of proof is arbitrary unless you have authority. Do you believe the universe has meaning?

[/ QUOTE ]

I cannot defend any claim regarding whether or not the universe has meaning, therefore, i don't make a claim.

[ QUOTE ]


It doesn't have to if the universe is irrational and has no meaning. In which case, why criticize Hitler, assuming you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

The universe can have meaning and can have rationality without morality. Also, I criticize hitler because i think supporting people like him is not in my best interest.

[ QUOTE ]

I've never said I can prove the God of the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

i never said you could. I thought you were impying that because one can't prove the bible wrong, one must adhere to its teachings out of fear of the bible possibly being true.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Hence our continuous and all-inclusive effort to replace or fill up total meaninglessness with artificial meaning (such as religion, nationalisms, etc - but not endeavors such as mythology)


[/ QUOTE ]

There can't be artificial meaning if there is no meaning. That's like saying there can be false truth.

If there is no meaning and all is irrational, why object to anything. A hair-brained religion has as much meaning as the most erudite philosophy,i.e., 0=0.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Also, I criticize hitler because i think supporting people like him is not in my best interest.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then if it's in someone's best interest to support him, you won't criticize them? Might makes right?

[ QUOTE ]

I thought you were impying that because one can't prove the bible wrong, one must adhere to its teachings out of fear of the bible possibly being true.


[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't even come close to stating my position. There are many things I can't prove are right or wrong. I believe the Bible is true and one should adhere to its teachings because it is God's Word.

I believe we should obey God because He is sovereign, wise, just, loving and righteous. He created us and desires what is best for us. The best for us is to worship Him. When you decide to be the sovereign of your own life, you choose much the worst path possible. You fail to achieve your raison d'etre. Submission to God is the only true freedom, because only then can you be what you were intended to be, and only that way can you achieve genuine, eternal joy. Contra Milton's Satan, better to serve in Heaven than rule in Hell.

[pc in NM]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Explain the meaning of the universe and justify the explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]
"Meaning" is an ambiguous concept. Your question seems to treat it as a possible objective attribute of "the universe". I don't think that "meaning" belongs to an object, rather, it is, like "beauty", in the eye of the beholder. I don't even know what "the meaning of the universe" could even be; and if it were an attribute, it would have to be found by studying the universe itself, not some taxt about the universe....

[ QUOTE ]
2. Explain how morality is possible without an ultimate Lawgiver.

[/ QUOTE ]
You seem to reduce "morality" to some kind of legal system, which seems both simplistic and inappropriate. Values, like "meaning", presuppose a "beholder". And, logically, values are not facts, they are in an entirely distinct logical type; this is commonly accepted in contemporary philosophy. Moral reasoning and discourse are not only possible, but occur everyday without any need to consult either "laws" or a "lawgiver" (itself, a rather archaic presupposition about the basis for laws)

[ QUOTE ]
3. If there is a Biblical God, and He requires belief in Christ in order to be saved, explain how you expect to be saved without believing in Him.

[/ QUOTE ]
If there were a biblical God who had such a requirement as you posit, how could he/she be regarded as "fair" or "just" if he/she created millions and millions of souls who would/could never be exposed to the idea of "Christ" at any point in their lives? Your belief system is so obviously culture-bound, and historically contingent, that any claim to universal "truth" is unsupportable....

Your questions, themselves, presuppose the answers you have predetermined. You have started with answers, and then created facile questions for them....

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Your questions, themselves, presuppose the answers you have predetermined. You have started with answers, and then created facile questions for them....


[/ QUOTE ]

Everybody presupposes answers. You presuppose the non-existence of God, and not suprisingly then find that God doesn't exist.

[ QUOTE ]

I don't even know what "the meaning of the universe" could even be; and if it were an attribute, it would have to be found by studying the universe itself, not some taxt about the universe....


[/ QUOTE ]

Why can't it be found by listening to the One Who created it?

[ QUOTE ]

Values, like "meaning", presuppose a "beholder"


[/ QUOTE ]

This is just another way of saying might makes right. Hitler was a "beholder" of his values and sought to impose them on the rest of the world. The rest of the world "beheld" different values and resisted. No one was right or wrong. The allies won. If Hitler won, we couldn't say he was wrong.

[ QUOTE ]

If there were a biblical God who had such a requirement as you posit, how could he/she be regarded as "fair" or "just" if he/she created millions and millions of souls who would/could never be exposed to the idea of "Christ" at any point in their lives?


[/ QUOTE ]

How can you have any concept of fairness or justice if the universe has no meaning and no values can be ultimate?

[goofball]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Explain the meaning of the universe and justify the explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]
"Meaning" is an ambiguous concept. Your question seems to treat it as a possible objective attribute of "the universe". I don't think that "meaning" belongs to an object, rather, it is, like "beauty", in the eye of the beholder. I don't even know what "the meaning of the universe" could even be; and if it were an attribute, it would have to be found by studying the universe itself, not some taxt about the universe....

[ QUOTE ]
2. Explain how morality is possible without an ultimate Lawgiver.

[/ QUOTE ]
You seem to reduce "morality" to some kind of legal system, which seems both simplistic and inappropriate. Values, like "meaning", presuppose a "beholder". And, logically, values are not facts, they are in an entirely distinct logical type; this is commonly accepted in contemporary philosophy. Moral reasoning and discourse are not only possible, but occur everyday without any need to consult either "laws" or a "lawgiver" (itself, a rather archaic presupposition about the basis for laws)

[ QUOTE ]
3. If there is a Biblical God, and He requires belief in Christ in order to be saved, explain how you expect to be saved without believing in Him.

[/ QUOTE ]
If there were a biblical God who had such a requirement as you posit, how could he/she be regarded as "fair" or "just" if he/she created millions and millions of souls who would/could never be exposed to the idea of "Christ" at any point in their lives? Your belief system is so obviously culture-bound, and historically contingent, that any claim to universal "truth" is unsupportable....

Your questions, themselves, presuppose the answers you have predetermined. You have started with answers, and then created facile questions for them....

[/ QUOTE ]

Very very nice post.

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets say there is a god and he requires belief in child molestation in order to be saved. As ridiculous as this sounds, i can't prove that this isn't the case right now, can you?. So, since this is an unprovable possibility, should i molest children just in case?


[/ QUOTE ]

Neither your hypothetical god or the biblical god can be disproven right now. They can, however, be assigned probabilities of existance. This will vary from person to person, but in general, most should conclude that the biblical god is more likely to exist than the molester-god (although maybe priests are on to something). Therefore, it's a better bet for those people to not molest children.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

Then if it's in someone's best interest to support him, you won't criticize them? Might makes right?

[/ QUOTE ]

lets say a tiger tries to attack me. the tiger is doing what is in her best interest. i think the tiger can do whatever she believes is in her best interest. she may sometimes be wrong and confused about what is in her best interest, but that is besides the point.

Now, I would also be looking out for my best interest and, therefore, would attempt to stop the tiger from attacking me, perhaps by killing it. If another tiger, lets call it tiger2, tries to help tiger1 because tiger1 provides tiger2 with food, i would not cirticize tiger2 for doing what is in its best interest either. I don't really criticize anyone for doing what is in their best interest, as long as they can actually see what is in their best interest. I will, however, criticize and protect myself against anyone who, through their best interest or not, infringes on my best interests.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe the Bible is true and one should adhere to its teachings because it is God's Word.

[/ QUOTE ]

why do you believe it is true?

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lets say there is a god and he requires belief in child molestation in order to be saved. As ridiculous as this sounds, i can't prove that this isn't the case right now, can you?. So, since this is an unprovable possibility, should i molest children just in case?


[/ QUOTE ]

Neither your hypothetical god or the biblical god can be disproven right now. They can, however, be assigned probabilities of existance. This will vary from person to person, but in general, most should conclude that the biblical god is more likely to exist than the molester-god (although maybe priests are on to something). Therefore, it's a better bet for those people to not molest children.

[/ QUOTE ]

why should most people conclude the biblical god is more likely? I agree that they would, but i don't see why.

Anyways, the molestor god wasn't the point. I could make up many possiblities for god that are seemingly more probable than the biblical god.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]



[ QUOTE ]

If there were a biblical God who had such a requirement as you posit, how could he/she be regarded as "fair" or "just" if he/she created millions and millions of souls who would/could never be exposed to the idea of "Christ" at any point in their lives?


[/ QUOTE ]

How can you have any concept of fairness or justice if the universe has no meaning and no values can be ultimate?

[/ QUOTE ]

He doesn't need to accept the concept of fairness to make his critique. It is the the biblical supporters who claim everything is fair because of god's benevolence. The poster is simply showing that the supposedly fair system isn't fair by its own merits of fairness. If anything, he is saying there is no concept of fairness and justice.

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lets say there is a god and he requires belief in child molestation in order to be saved. As ridiculous as this sounds, i can't prove that this isn't the case right now, can you?. So, since this is an unprovable possibility, should i molest children just in case?


[/ QUOTE ]

Neither your hypothetical god or the biblical god can be disproven right now. They can, however, be assigned probabilities of existance. This will vary from person to person, but in general, most should conclude that the biblical god is more likely to exist than the molester-god (although maybe priests are on to something). Therefore, it's a better bet for those people to not molest children.

[/ QUOTE ]

why should most people conclude the biblical god is more likely? I agree that they would, but i don't see why.

Anyways, the molestor god wasn't the point. I could make up many possiblities for god that are seemingly more probable than the biblical god.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not well versed in religion, but I'm sure many who are could provide sources that support the existence of the biblical god. It would be more difficult to support the existence of the molester-god, which makes him, in my opinion, less likely to exist.

Maybe you could come up with more probable god's than the biblical one. I was brief in the last post when saying that since bib-god is more likely than molester-god, you should not molest children.

It really is a weighing of equity. If I believe that there is a .5% chance that the biblical god exists, say the one catholics believe in, I would have to decide if (going to church, not commiting sins, etc.) is worth the risk.

Please excuse my own shorthand for the following equation. I'm not sure how to portray it properly. It may look something like:

if
P(no cath. god) * abs(Equity of practicing religion) &gt; P(yes god) * abs((Equity difference of Heaven v. Hell)- (Equity of practicing religion))

then one should not practice catholicism.

So you have to assign probabilities, and decide how inconvenienced you would be by practicing religion and by going to hell. (One thing I would add to the practicing side is the fact that if there is no god, you're whole belief system throughout life is incorrect, assuming you believe in the god you worship. To me, this is a big deal. The same can be added to the other side though.)

So, if you made up a different god; say the cheese-god, who's only requirement for getting into heaven is to eat cheese on the day you turn 30, it may be more worthwhile to believe in this god even if his existance is less likely since you give up less when being wrong. (assume that believing in this god will mean not going to heaven if the catholic god exists)

I hope that made sense, and I apoligize if I'm hijacking this thread.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

It is the the biblical supporters who claim everything is fair because of god's benevolence. The poster is simply showing that the supposedly fair system isn't fair by its own merits of fairness.


[/ QUOTE ]

But the Biblical system is fair because part of the system states God is just. To criticize that, you must have a different system. And if there is no concept of fairness at all, the criticism that God is unfair is meaningless.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

But the Biblical system is fair because part of the system states God is just.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is hypocritical, that is all that is being said. We don't need an exterior system to prove this.

[durron597]

Alright jman28, here's a "god" that is in my opinion more likely to exist than the Catholic god -

Imagine if this "God" (read: omnipotent being) existed at the beginning of time, created the universe, and decided to sit back and watch and see what happened without intervening. He exists with no effect on this universe whatsoever except to cause the creation of the universe in the first place. This "God", given his *no intervention* policy, did not create a heaven or a hell, when you die, you die... our souls (if they even exist), disappear/go nowhere.

I challenge you to prove that this hypothetical "God" is more or less likely than some other "God".

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
Alright jman28, here's a "god" that is in my opinion more likely to exist than the Catholic god -

Imagine if this "God" (read: omnipotent being) existed at the beginning of time, created the universe, and decided to sit back and watch and see what happened without intervening. He exists with no effect on this universe whatsoever except to cause the creation of the universe in the first place. This "God", given his *no intervention* policy, did not create a heaven or a hell, when you die, you die... our souls (if they even exist), disappear/go nowhere.

I challenge you to prove that this hypothetical "God" is more or less likely than some other "God".

[/ QUOTE ]

I think maybe 'probability' was bad word choice by me.

I cannot prove that your 'god' is more or less likely than any other unless I made up a 'god' with attributes that were logical impossibilities.

The formula I suggested should really be based on 'degrees of belief' rather than 'probability', or in other words, what any one person believes the probability to be. This formula would yeild different results for different people.

Not that it matters much, but I do believe your 'god' is significantly more likely than the catholic god, which I believe is significantly more likely than the molestation-god. I can't prove this, but I could give reasons as to why I believe this. They may change your personal degrees of believe in each, and they may not.

[NotReady]

How is it hypocritical?

[NotReady]

This is deism, and is no different than atheism.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Explain the meaning of the universe and justify the explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why ever should the universe have a meaning?

If it did have a meaning, why do you think any human could ever comprehend any part of it?

[ QUOTE ]
2. Explain how morality is possible without an ultimate Lawgiver.

[/ QUOTE ]

Morality is a human thing. Any grouping of humans will naturally evolve moral guidelines. These will tend to show similarity across different groupings.

I don’t understand what an ultimate Lawgiver is or what it has to do with this process.

[ QUOTE ]
3. If there is a Biblical God, and He requires belief in Christ in order to be saved, explain how you expect to be saved without believing in Him.

[/ QUOTE ]

A false premise can imply anything. However I see you are referring to point 3 of DS’s post.

I think the point is that the individual is not expecting to be saved. That is why

[ QUOTE ]
They are not happy about that conclusion since it makes their life more "hopeless" and more meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Their capacity for self-delusion is not sufficient for them to believe something they do not consider to be possible, despite that fact that they wish they could.

[pc in NM]

[ QUOTE ]
This is deism, and is no different than atheism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ultimately, this is what you are reduced to - arbitrarily rejecting the meaning of the terms of the discussion at hand.

[MtDon]

[ QUOTE ]

I believe we should obey God because He is sovereign, wise, just, loving and righteous. He created us and desires what is best for us. The best for us is to worship Him. When you decide to be the sovereign of your own life, you choose much the worst path possible. You fail to achieve your raison d'etre. Submission to God is the only true freedom, because only then can you be what you were intended to be, and only that way can you achieve genuine, eternal joy. Contra Milton's Satan, better to serve in Heaven than rule in Hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

It appears that you have decided that God has characteristics which you think of as good. This implies that you have a basis for determining what you think is good besides "because that's what it says in the bible." Is this correct?

My position is that it doesn't matter whether there is a God or not as far as determining whether there is a "correct morality."

I am an atheist because I don't know of any resonable reason to believe in the existence of any God (using the term "God" in its usual sense), or any mystical force or energy, etc which some people like to substitute for a belief in a god.

But an even more basic belief I have is that what is "moral" cannot depend on what some "outside entity makes moral." If I thought there was a God, then I would think that God's teachings as to morality were teaching us something that existed in the universe that God happens to know, not something that God created.

Saying a supernateral god "determines" what is moral is logically the same as saying that what your parents, or friends, or government "determine" is moral is moral.

[David Sklansky]

"Everybody presupposes answers. You presuppose the non-existence of God, and not suprisingly then find that God doesn't exist."

And I am saying that not everyone who comes to the conclusion that God probably doesn't exist, presupposes that he doesn't. They are neutral or maybe even presuppose the opposite. Do you disagree with that?

[MtDon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is deism, and is no different than atheism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ultimately, this is what you are reduced to - arbitrarily rejecting the meaning of the terms of the discussion at hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to defend NotReady's reply, with a qualification.

As I stated in an earlier post, I am an atheist.

Believing in Durron597's "more probable god" is for all practical purposes the same thing in believing there is no god. Durron597's proposed god has no ongoing effect, does not judge, requires no belief in him/her/it, etc.

My qualification: I'm not absolutely sure that all "deists" believe that this is the exact type of god which exists, however, it is a possible "deist god."

[The Dude]

David,

There are many people who were either raised or converted Christian who, because of some kind of experience (usually the problem of evil), lose their belief in God. That's the long way around to saying that yes, there are many people who are neutral or even presupposed to the opposite who reach the conclusion that God doesn't exist.

On the other hand, there are many people who are also the exact opposite. They presuppose that God doesn't exist, and may even fight vehemently the notion that he does, and yet reach the conclusion that he does exist.

[David Sklansky]

"I've answered an lot of your questions. I will answer this if you will first answer the following:

1. Explain the meaning of the universe and justify the explanation.

2. Explain how morality is possible without an ultimate Lawgiver.

3. If there is a Biblical God, and He requires belief in Christ in order to be saved, explain how you expect to be saved without believing in Him."

1. Don't know. When you argue your position on this subject I find no obvious logical flaws. Though I haven't thought about it deeply, I have no good reason to believe you are wrong when you say there is no meaning without God.

2. Nothing is inherently immoral. Acts can contradict man made axioms about what is moral, but they are only inventions, not self evident. Eulid thought his axioms of Geometry were self evident but he was wrong. God, if he exists picked different axioms.

3. I cannot possibly expect to be saved without believing in him.

Now please answer my question about the people I posulated.

[David Sklansky]

"Believing in Durron597's "more probable god" is for all practical purposes the same thing in believing there is no god. Durron597's proposed god has no ongoing effect, does not judge, requires no belief in him/her/it, etc."

It matters a lot as far as physicists are concerned. For example, the speed of light is x widths of a hydrogen atom during y flashes of a cesium atom. Can that speed be logically deduced from all the other laws of physics or was it the whim of Durron's God?

[NotReady]

I think you're probably right that not all deists believe exactly the same thing. However, I think the definition of deism as I understand it includes the essentials of a god who created the universe (but not always, see Aristotle), and who has nothing to do with it thereafter, and in no way communicates with us. Given that definition, such a god would be irrelevant to us since we could know nothing of him, which leaves us in the same position as atheism.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Why ever should the universe have a meaning?

If it did have a meaning, why do you think any human could ever comprehend any part of it?


[/ QUOTE ]

The question is whether it does, not whether it should. And human history pretty much proves man is unable to comprhend much about that meaning through unaided human reason. That's why God gave us His Word.

[ QUOTE ]

Morality is a human thing. Any grouping of humans will naturally evolve moral guidelines. These will tend to show similarity across different groupings.


I don’t understand what an ultimate Lawgiver is or what it has to do with this process.


[/ QUOTE ]

If there's no ultimate Judge, there's no ultimate morality. The logical conclusion is might makes right.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

This implies that you have a basis for determining what you think is good besides "because that's what it says in the bible." Is this correct?


[/ QUOTE ]

No. God is good, and He defines what is good.

[ QUOTE ]

But an even more basic belief I have is that what is "moral" cannot depend on what some "outside entity makes moral." If I thought there was a God, then I would think that God's teachings as to morality were teaching us something that existed in the universe that God happens to know, not something that God created.


[/ QUOTE ]

This makes the moral law above God, which means He isn't God. The moral law is an expression of God's nature, not something He looks up in a cosmic dictionary.

[ QUOTE ]

Saying a supernateral god "determines" what is moral is logically the same as saying that what your parents, or friends, or government "determine" is moral is moral.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's not logically the same because parents, etc., are not the ultimate, supreme Being, perfectly good, righeous and just in their very essence..

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Do you disagree with that?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that everyone sits down and makes a conscious decision that they are against God. What the Bible says is that all people are separated from God and their fundamental motive is contrary to Him. An individual may not have thought this through and articulated a defined position. His life and thought may not demonstrate what his true heart attitude is. Non-Christians are capable of doing outward works of immense (human) goodness and charity, they may be personally likeable (often far more so than Christians), and they may live spotless, impeccable lives by human standards. Nevertheless, I accept what the Bible says about human nature, and it's clear that all non-Christians, by implication at least presuppose the non-existence of the God of the Bible. And if you claim that you don't do so, I will not attempt to prove you wrong, nor am I trying to make you a liar. I can only say that the Bible says otherwise, and I'm simply going to accept the Bible over what any human says unless you can prove it's wrong.

I believe that neutrality is an illusion. The Bible says that all non-believers are enemies of God, haters of God. That doesn't mean they all persecute Christians or burn churches. It means that their most fundamental attitude is contrary to God, that they refuse to acknowledge His sovereignty, and seek to establish their own autonomy, their own right to judge God by their standards.

This is a hard topic. It is one of those things I must accept by faith. Appearance can be deceiving, as there are many examples of people who do magnificent things, sacrifice themselves for others, go to great lengths to help others, and live lives that are praiseworthy by any human standard. Yet the Bible insists that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, all are children of wrath, all are haters of God, no one is good except God.

So if all are at enmity with God, there can be no neutrality.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I have no good reason to believe you are wrong when you say there is no meaning without God.


[/ QUOTE ]

My goodness gracious sakes alive, man. Doesn't this suggest something to you?

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
such a god would be irrelevant to us since we could know nothing of him, which leaves us in the same position as atheism.


[/ QUOTE ]

The large difference between the two is that, if there is no god, deists would be wrong and athiests would be right (and vice versa, if it's the right kind of god).

I'm interested in finding the truth about religions, not because I would ever greatly change the way I live, but because I want to believe in things that are true.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm simply going to accept the Bible over what any human says unless you can prove it's wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you do that?

eastbay

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
I've answered an lot of your questions. I will answer this if you will first answer the following:

1. Explain the meaning of the universe and justify the explanation.


[/ QUOTE ]

The "meaning of the universe" supposes that the universe is some kind of statement which possesses a meaning. I see no reason to believe that is the case, and therefore think the "what is the meaning of the universe" is a nonsense question, maybe roughly analogous to asking what the sound of the color red is.

[ QUOTE ]

2. Explain how morality is possible without an ultimate Lawgiver.


[/ QUOTE ]

Define morality.

[ QUOTE ]

3. If there is a Biblical God, and He requires belief in Christ in order to be saved, explain how you expect to be saved without believing in Him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Silly.

eastbay

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
2. Explain how morality is possible without an ultimate Lawgiver.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know you were asking David, NotReady, but I'd like to comment briefly on this from my own perspective.

If one defines morality as treating others at least decently (and generally speaking, that is not far from how I would define it), then the existence of an ultimate Lawgiver would appear rather superfluous to this matter.

All that is required for practicing morality according to the above definition is an awareness that others have feelings too, and an effort to therefore treat others with decency. And whether or not one believes in God, one can understand that others have feelings similar to one's own and that a practice of genuine respect for such feelings is good and mutually beneficial.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Why would you do that?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's God's Word.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The "meaning of the universe" supposes that the universe is some kind of statement which possesses a meaning. I see no reason to believe that is the case, and therefore think the "what is the meaning of the universe" is a nonsense question, maybe roughly analogous to asking what the sound of the color red is.


[/ QUOTE ]

I use that phrase as shorthand. The issue is whether anything has ultimate meaning. Of course, if it doesn't, then the sound of the color red means as much as anything else, which is nothing.

[ QUOTE ]

Define morality.


[/ QUOTE ]

Right and wrong.

[ QUOTE ]

Silly.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, to the unbeliever the Gospel is foolishness. You agree with at least one Biblical statement.

[NotReady]

It isn't a question of what people do or are able to do. It's a question of what they ought to do. When you define morality as treating others decently you are close to the Biblical statement of the Golden Rule. But if this rule doesn't come from God and isn't enforced by God, the only alternative is might makes right. Why should I follow the Golden Rule if I don't want to? The abstractness of ought without an Absolute Person is non-binding and can only be enforced by humans who may very well choose to enforce some other rule. There's no logical way to say I ought not do whatever pleases me.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why would you do that?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's God's Word.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) What does that mean?
2) Why do you believe it?

eastbay

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The "meaning of the universe" supposes that the universe is some kind of statement which possesses a meaning. I see no reason to believe that is the case, and therefore think the "what is the meaning of the universe" is a nonsense question, maybe roughly analogous to asking what the sound of the color red is.


[/ QUOTE ]

I use that phrase as shorthand.



[/ QUOTE ]

For what?

[ QUOTE ]

The issue is whether anything has ultimate meaning. Of course, if it doesn't, then the sound of the color red means as much as anything else, which is nothing.


[/ QUOTE ]

What is "ultimate meaning" and why should I care about it?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Define morality.


[/ QUOTE ]

Right and wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

Define right and wrong.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Silly.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, to the unbeliever the Gospel is foolishness. You agree with at least one Biblical statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yawn.

What you said is "If A then B. If we assume A, how could you argue against B?" That's silly, and it has nothing to do with any gospel.

eastbay

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

1) What does that mean?


[/ QUOTE ]

Doh

[ QUOTE ]

2) Why do you believe it?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's true.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

For what?


[/ QUOTE ]

Doh

[ QUOTE ]

What is "ultimate meaning" and why should I care about it?


[/ QUOTE ]

Meaning than which there is none higher. You should care about it because it defines who you are, why you are here, and what you should care about.

[ QUOTE ]

Define right and wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

That which is or isn't a transgression of or want of conformity to the will of God.

[ QUOTE ]

What you said is "If A then B. If we assume A, how could you argue against B?" That's silly, and it has nothing to do with any gospel.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't constructing a logical syllogism. I was stating what the Bible says. It's a dogmatic assertion of truth.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
It isn't a question of what people do or are able to do. It's a question of what they ought to do. When you define morality as treating others decently you are close to the Biblical statement of the Golden Rule. But if this rule doesn't come from God and isn't enforced by God, the only alternative is might makes right. Why should I follow the Golden Rule if I don't want to?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolute nonsense. The reason is that it behooves you as an individual.

The dependence of man on other men leads to the Golden Rule. There's absolutely no need for a invisible nanny-in-the-sky to enforce it as a sound principle for man's behavior. The Golden Rule is in an individual's best interests because he needs other men to thrive, as much as they need him.

eastbay

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1) What does that mean?


[/ QUOTE ]

Doh


[/ QUOTE ]

Unable to explain?


[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

2) Why do you believe it?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evasive?

eastbay

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:

Quote:

1) What does that mean?




Doh




Unable to explain?


Quote:

Quote:

2) Why do you believe it?




Because it's true.



Evasive?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obtuse?

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Define right and wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

That which is or isn't a transgression of or want of conformity to the will of God.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nice circle.

eastbay

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The dependence of man on other men leads to the Golden Rule

[/ QUOTE ]
You can't get an ought from an is.

[eastbay]

My questions are quite simple. You are simply unwilling to answer them.

eastbay

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The dependence of man on other men leads to the Golden Rule

[/ QUOTE ]
You can't get an ought from an is.

[/ QUOTE ]

"ought to" is meaningless without a criterion. "ought to" for what?

eastbay

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
It matters a lot as far as physicists are concerned. For example, the speed of light is x widths of a hydrogen atom during y flashes of a cesium atom. Can that speed be logically deduced from all the other laws of physics or was it the whim of Durron's God?

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless my hypothetical "God" determined all the other laws of physics to be such that the speed of light would be what it actually is. And then it really wouldn't matter from the physicists perspective.

But what is interesting is that intuitively (to me) my hypothetical "God" is more likely, yet so few believe in this "God", including me. There are a lot more Catholics than there are deists, no? (FWIW I am not a Catholic nor a Deist nor an Athiest).

Here's another hypothetical "God". Imagine this "God" is the same as the previous "God" except there is a Heaven and a Hell. The criteria he uses to determine whether you deserve to go to Heaven or Hell is whether you respect the rights and beliefs of your fellow man throughout your life as long as their actions don't infringe on your own rights or beliefs. In other words, proselytizing = bad.

What is the correct course of action according to Pascal's Wager now?

---------------------------

Note: most of my posts in this thread will be more questions than answers. I consider myself a meta-agnostic. ( /images/graemlins/laugh.gif )

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

"ought to" is meaningless without a criterion. "ought to" for what?


[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Why should I obey the Golden Rule?

[Alex/Mugaaz]

The problem with your statements has been pointed out before. I don't think there are many people who beleive if God exists that his power isn't absolute. However, I think most people agree that the God from the Bible (especially Old Testament) isn't making himself known in the same ways as before. Even if everything you said is true, many people who could/would follow the correct path never will due to simple chance. Which bring up other questions, such as.

1. If God's will is absolute, then why are man's choices or beliefs important to him? Obviously what people think, or try to figure out has some value, even if they come to an incorrect conclusion.

2. While many people do not follow the path we are supposed to follow according to you. Their reason for being damned cannot be because they think they are greater than God in anyway. I'm will to bet even Sklanksy doesn't think he plays poker better than God, or know any subject better than him. Even if I were to judge God from my point of view, wouldn't my point of view simply be an incomplete portion of God's view of himself? (Since he is the creator)

3. If I am correct about 2, then what is the real reason?

P.S. I agree. Without God there is no point in anything as far as I can see.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Nice circle.


[/ QUOTE ]

All human reasoning about ultimate issues is circular.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

"ought to" is meaningless without a criterion. "ought to" for what?


[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Why should I obey the Golden Rule?

[/ QUOTE ]

I already stated why. Because it is in your interests as a sentient being with a will to live and the desire to be comfortable in that life.

It produces results which you seek, to achieve those goals of life and happiness.

eastbay

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Nice circle.


[/ QUOTE ]

All human reasoning about ultimate issues is circular.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which takes me back to my original question: why do I care? I care not for circular "reasoning" because it is not generative of anything I care about.

eastbay

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

why do I care?


[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently you don't. So why are we having this dialogue?

[durron597]

The problem here eastbay (as I see it) is that you are trying to defeat through logic Notready's beliefs.

But I think it has sufficiently been established that we cannot rigorously prove Notready wrong. Thus he chooses to take his faith as an axiom (isn't that what faith is?). The only logic that can be used to defend a core axiom is circular. If P is "God is defined to be what he is based on everything Notready &amp; the Bible have stated about his existence", then all of Notready's logic exists in the universe "Assume P". Obviously it is true that "P implies P", which seems circular to those who don't assume P.

This is also why Sklansky said:

[ QUOTE ]
I have no good reason to believe you are wrong when you say there is no meaning without God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Notready is making a perfectly correct logical argument given his axioms. The issue here should really be, then, "is his axiom correct?"

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

many people who could/would follow the correct path never will due to simple chance


[/ QUOTE ]

Chance doesn't exist for God.
[ QUOTE ]

If God's will is absolute, then why are man's choices or beliefs important to him?


[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly don't know. Why God created in the first place is a knotty problem theology has been unable to answer. The Bible doesn't say why He did. There is much speculation, but in the end we simply accept that He did for His own good reasons.

[ QUOTE ]

Their reason for being damned cannot be because they think they are greater than God in anyway. I'm will to bet even Sklanksy doesn't think he plays poker better than God, or know any subject better than him.


[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't often come out in an obvious way. Think of a child who willfully disobeys his parents, even though he knows better. If you asked him, he probably would deny that he thinks he is better than they. But the implication is that he does because he substitues his will for theirs, his desires for theirs.

[ QUOTE ]

P.S. I agree. Without God there is no point in anything as far as I can see.


[/ QUOTE ]

Great. And if you can see that, can you see that God may not tell us everything we want to know, but for His reasons only tell us what we need to know?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Notready is making a perfectly correct logical argument given his axioms. The issue here should really be, then, "is his axiom correct?"


[/ QUOTE ]

Very well said. There are two fundamental presuppositions for man. The God of the Bible exists or He doesn't. No one has yet shown how the universe or anthing in it can make sense if He doesn't exist. If God is presupposed, the universe then makes sense. Obviously this is way over simplified, but that's the gist of it.

The argument was derived by a 20th century theologian well versed in Kantian idealism. He adopted the form of the transcendental argument Kant used, which can be simply stated as "What are the prerequisites for human thought to be possible", and asked "What are the conditions for the universe to have meaning?".

He thought he had found a silver bullet for apologetics, a demonstrably perfect and certain argument. I don't go that far, but I think it's the best of the theistic proofs.

The major flaw is I can't prove the universe has meaning. But I can point out the consequences for human thought and life if it doesn't. So given the universe has meaning, this can only be true if the God of the Bible exists.

[philopker]

I think what Pascal was getting at, or at least a popular interpretation of what his argument amounts to, is that belief in God has as a reward (payoff) infinite bliss if God indeed exists. However, if God does not exist what you give up by believing falsely is only finite in nature, namely this earthly existence (and even then, what are you giving up really? Some would even say a life of faith is better than one without even is no god or afterlife exists). But if you believe falsely that God does not exist, then you give up your infinite reward, as I guess faith in God is required for that reward: God's apparently not such a great sport when it comes to these things. So the conclusion is you should believe in God because what you are wagering is only finite, well what you stand to gain is infinite.
So even if the probability of God actually existing to pay you off is vanishingly small (say 1 in a trillion), since you stand to gain infinitely, you should make the bet. The pot odds, so to speak, dictate that you do so.
If this sounds fishy to some people, it is. Some of the objections raised earlier in this thread will do well enough to dispense with the argument.
By the way, how many people do you think believe in God based on reasoning similar to Pascal's? I be interested to meet someone like that.

[philopker]

What is this post getting at? You can logically deduce certain activities of particles based on the laws of physics, and unless you believe God can change the laws of logic, there will never be a problem with that. However, whether or not the laws of physics will always hold can never be demonstrated logically as there is no logical reason why the laws of physics are what there are and not otherwise; even a complete unified theory would be totally contingent logically.
However, if you believe in a God that intervenes in the universe in such a way as to make his presence and action unmistakable, then such a God presumably could and in fact does suspend the laws of physics according to his whim. Such Godly actions we of course call miracles, and the occurence of miracles might be considered good evidence that God, or a god, exists: so the probability of the existence of God increases, so to speak.
Unfortunately for those who are attracted to such reasoning, I think Hume put this issue to rest (rationally, not actually) over three hundred years ago. It is not rational to believe in any miracle unless an overwhelming amount on evidence can be ushered to show otherwise. But no such evidence has ever been forthcomeing, and there is little reason to believe it ever will.
Interestingly enough, our justification for discounting miracles rests on the observed constancy of the laws of physics. Who'd a' thunk it?

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

why do I care?


[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently you don't. So why are we having this dialogue?

[/ QUOTE ]

You asked a question. I asked you why I might care to find an answer to the question. You replied with circular reasoning. I point out that this is invalid and not useful for telling me why I might care about finding an answer. You agree and then ask me why I'm asking.

I'm asking because I want to know if there's a reason I might care about answering the question you asked.

If the answer is "there isn't one", then the obviously my next question is "then why did you ask it".

If there is one, you have yet to provide it.

eastbay

[David Sklansky]

"I'm not saying that everyone sits down and makes a conscious decision that they are against God. What the Bible says is that all people are separated from God and their fundamental motive is contrary to Him. An individual may not have thought this through and articulated a defined position. His life and thought may not demonstrate what his true heart attitude is. Non-Christians are capable of doing outward works of immense (human) goodness and charity, they may be personally likeable (often far more so than Christians), and they may live spotless, impeccable lives by human standards. Nevertheless, I accept what the Bible says about human nature, and it's clear that all non-Christians, by implication at least presuppose the non-existence of the God of the Bible. And if you claim that you don't do so, I will not attempt to prove you wrong, nor am I trying to make you a liar. I can only say that the Bible says otherwise, and I'm simply going to accept the Bible over what any human says unless you can prove it's wrong.

I believe that neutrality is an illusion. The Bible says that all non-believers are enemies of God, haters of God. That doesn't mean they all persecute Christians or burn churches. It means that their most fundamental attitude is contrary to God, that they refuse to acknowledge His sovereignty, and seek to establish their own autonomy, their own right to judge God by their standards.

This is a hard topic. It is one of those things I must accept by faith. Appearance can be deceiving, as there are many examples of people who do magnificent things, sacrifice themselves for others, go to great lengths to help others, and live lives that are praiseworthy by any human standard. Yet the Bible insists that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, all are children of wrath, all are haters of God, no one is good except God.

So if all are at enmity with God, there can be no neutrality."

All very nice but you STILL did not answer my question. Do you agree that there are at least some people who share all your thoughts about the negative implications of a godless world and also share your thoughts that if there is God he will punish non belief, yet in spite of that simply do not think God exists because that is the way they read the physical and historical "evidence"?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I have no good reason to believe you are wrong when you say There is no meaning without God.

[/ QUOTE ]

My goodness gracious sakes alive, man. Doesn't this suggest something to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

What it suggests is that "God gives meaning to the world".

And not that "Necessarily, therefore, God exists".

See, we have no 'promise', from anyone or anything, of receiving a meaning. We have a yearning for meaning, yes. But being hungry does not necessarily mean that food is forthcoming or already served.

[PairTheBoard]

Notready -
"all people are separated from God and their fundamental motive is contrary to Him"

"all non-Christians ... presuppose the non-existence of the God of the Bible."

It's a little puzzling how anybody ever does become a Christian.

PairTheBoard

[DavidL]

[ QUOTE ]

I honestly don't know. Why God created in the first place is a knotty problem theology has been unable to answer. The Bible doesn't say why He did. There is much speculation, but in the end we simply accept that He did for His own good reasons.


[/ QUOTE ]

May I use the word "existential" in a philosophy forum?

Dear friends, I believe that the ultimate answers are existential, and are consequently inviolate to reason.

NotReady: Does the Bible not say that "God is Love" (not "God has love" or "God is loving" but "God IS Love") and also that "knowledge will pass away"? If so, then the very essence of God is Love itself, not a philosophical treatise.

Did Christ not say "I AM the Truth" rather than "the written word is THE truth"? If so, Truth IS the existential person of Christ, not a theological or moral doctrine.

Every philosophical approach to defining God – and hence the creation, the moral law, and everything that proceeds from God – will come up short, not necessarily because God is infinitely sovereign and therefore beyond human comprehension, but more simply because it fails to capture the existential nature of His being.

The universe is created as an expression of God's love. Here are the three gifts of God: the gift of Life, the gift of free choice, and the gift of Himself through His Son.

God can not be contained within the pages of the Bible. If the Bible signposts the love of God through the risen Christ, then it has fulfilled its ultimate purpose.

I have never studied philosophy, but I believe (in a rough sense) that reasoning begins with assumptions, and that assumptions proceed from one's innate convictions. If we want to "reverse engineer" further, then I would very loosely suggest that conviction is the result of some kind of amalgam of intuition (faith, revelation and imagination fit somewhere in here), volition, and humility (or lack of). The intellect is a slave to these convictions, but it creates its own reasons – and justification – that proceed from them.

The way I see it, philosophy that does not lead us to a "first cause" will inevitably result in an unsatisfying, circular belief system.

I would suggest that "reality" incorporates elements that are highly subjective, and that God seeks a uniquely individual relationship with every person. Thus it is for each individual to "work out their own salvation".

The very nature of our entire being – physical, emotional, spiritual, whatever – created in the image of God, is existential, yet somehow we always manage to "convince" ourselves that the ultimate answers to the puzzle of life lie behind reason and scholarship. Knowledge may provide a temporary panacea for insecurity, but it is ill-equipped to deal with the anxiety and restlessness that relentlessly harass the core of the human psyche.

May all the readers of this forum experience the depth of God's unfailing and transforming love.

David

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
The logical conclusion is might makes right.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t follow.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I have no good reason to believe you are wrong when you say There is no meaning without God.

[/ QUOTE ]

My goodness gracious sakes alive, man. Doesn't this suggest something to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

What it suggests is that "God gives meaning to the world".

And not that "Necessarily, therefore, God exists".

See, we have no 'promise', from anyone or anything, of receiving a meaning. We have a yearning for meaning, yes. But being hungry does not necessarily mean that food is forthcoming or already served.

[/ QUOTE ]

I cannot be the only one here who thinks meaning in ones life comes directly from within each individual. The idea that meaning can somehow be bestowed upon me from some god or that if a god does not grant meaning to my life then existence has no point does not correspond to how I understand meaning. If you imagine the things that bring meaning to your life -- for me, my relationships with friends and family -- what does god have to do with it? Just as it was mentioned earlier how morality can exist without god, meaning can exist without god. The concept of god is quite superfluous.

In another discussion, NotReady argued that without god there is no truth. Does 2+2=4? If suddenly all belief of god was found to be ridiculous, would that equation be any less true? Perhaps the concept of truth is much more an agreed upon mode of thought and communication than many of us care to admit or realize. Again, god is quite irrelevant to the topic.

If you truly consider a topic in a philosophical manner, bringing god into the equation does nothing more than stop what could have otherwise been a fruitful inquiry. The only commandment I see coming from organized religion is "thou shalt not think."

[NotReady]

I'm sure there are people like that. The argument I make is not intellectually difficult and it's logically sound so it's very easy to agree with it. The problem is nothing man can do or say will be 100% convincing. There is always an out, no matter what the argument or evidence, due to the finiteness of man. So no doubt there are people who would say my reasoning is sound and I see no alternative, but I still don't believe in God.

I said in another thread some time ago that unbelief is not an intellectual problem, but an ethical one. People don't believe because they don't want to, because genuine belief requires committments, life changes and other serious consequences, including the admission of guilt and recognition that one is a created and finite individual. Man has a great aptitude for rationalizing away what he doesn't want to do.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You asked a question. I asked you why I might care to find an answer to the question. You replied with circular reasoning.


[/ QUOTE ]

The circular reasoning you complain about was my answer concerning morality, not why you should care.

The question about why you should care concerned ultimate meaning. I have difficulty taking that seriously, as it is self-evident why a reasonable, finite being should care about the One who created Him and is in control of his eternal destiny.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But being hungry does not necessarily mean that food is forthcoming or already served.


[/ QUOTE ]

But it does imply the existence of food.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

It's a little puzzling how anybody ever does become a Christian.


[/ QUOTE ]


Matthew 19:

24 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
25 When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, "Then who can be saved?"
26 And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
I have difficulty taking that seriously, as it is self-evident why a reasonable, finite being should care about the One who created Him and is in control of his eternal destiny.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you're so small minded that you can't conceive of more possibilities than having been created by some "One", whatever that means, of having some "eternal destiny", whatever that means, and that this "One" is "in control of it", whatever that means.

There is nothing self-evident about any of that.

More to the point, I see you have dropped the only coherent subthread here dealing with this ridiculous notion that without a biblical God, that only "might makes right" could ensue. This is something that Bible thumpers are almost universally deeply confused about. I see you are no exception.

eastbay

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Does the Bible not say that "God is Love"


[/ QUOTE ]

see this (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=2451307&amp;page=&amp;view=&amp;s b=5&amp;o=)

There's no need to guess about what God is like or what He means by love. It's in His Word.

[NotReady]

If there is no ultimate standard of morality then there is no reason to choose one standard over another. Hitler says genocide is good, others say it isn't. If "Morality is a human thing" then the question is "which human's morality?", mine or Hitler's? Since the allies won they can claim to be right, but if Hitler had won, or some future Hitler actually does win, he will have the same right.

[KaneKungFu123]

you should write a star wars comic book.

The "One".....

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You asked a question. I asked you why I might care to find an answer to the question. You replied with circular reasoning.


[/ QUOTE ]

The circular reasoning you complain about was my answer concerning morality, not why you should care.

The question about why you should care concerned ultimate meaning. I have difficulty taking that seriously, as it is self-evident why a reasonable, finite being should care about the One who created Him and is in control of his eternal destiny.

[/ QUOTE ]

[NotReady]

Your comment doesn't go to why someone should care, which is obviously self-evident, you just disagree with the content.

I have no idea what you're talking about concerning the subthread. And why do you think that finite man can create an ultimate moral standard?

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
And why do you think that finite man can create an ultimate moral standard?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think finite man cannot create a moral standard that is not ultimate, or having to do with god?

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And why do you think that finite man can create an ultimate moral standard?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think finite man cannot create a moral standard that is not ultimate, or having to do with god?

[/ QUOTE ]

You want my place on this infinite merry go round? Have fun.

eastbay

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And why do you think that finite man can create an ultimate moral standard?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think finite man cannot create a moral standard that is not ultimate, or having to do with god?

[/ QUOTE ]

You want my place on this infinite merry go round? Have fun.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

No, eastbay, you were doing fine. I have plenty of experience with NotReady's unique brand of madness.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Your comment doesn't go to why someone should care, which is obviously self-evident, you just disagree with the content.

[/ QUOTE ]

I ASKED YOU why I should care. You have yet to give me a reason. But asking for a reason from the faithful is like asking your dog to do your taxes.

Which is something I don't waste my time on, so I think I'm done here. If you want to address an issue on the basis of evidence rather than dogmatic assertion and circularity, I'd be willing to talk. Until then, all I'm doing is listening to a pre-recorded tape. And that's not very interesting.

eastbay

[fritzwar]

I haven't followed much of this discussion but...

As a professional philosopher, I think the first thing to say here is that people who believe especially your #2 could really use a good University level introduction to ethics and/or ethical theory course. I'm aware of almost no specialists in meta-ethics who believe that objective morality requires a God or anything God-like.

Leaving aside your #2, there are indeed many people who know what they are doing (and many who do not) who fit the profile you sketch. Many of these people have a well thought out and at least intellectually defensible position.

One place to start for a decent College level introduction to philosophy is with, no joke, the book *Philosophy for Dummies* in the popular "for dummies" series. Thomas Morris (now retired from teaching but formerly a well respected Professor here at Notre Dame)wrote up that volume largely from his "intro to philosophy course notes". I don't teach freshman students any more, but if I did I would use the text as part of an intro course today.

Ted Warfield
Associate Professor of Philosophy
University of Notre Dame

[NotReady]

I haven't read Martin's book on Atheism and Morality (don't remember the name), but have read some reviews. He engaged in a dialog with one reviewer on the net. The reviewer was a fellow atheist, and he was complaining that Martin never offered justification for non-theistic morality. Martin finally admitted that if morality means basically the Golden Rule he couldn't justify it.

[NotReady]

OK, then be specific. What exactly is it you're asking about concerning why you should care?

[fritzwar]

The "view" that morality means "basically the Goldem Rule" isn't a position that I'm familiar with from serious philosophers. That's not to say that the view isn't out there somewhere, but few would think this anything having to do with the golden rule is involved in the debate about atheistic moral realist positions.

There have been dozens of volumes devoted to the topic of Moral Realism over the past decade published by many respectable University presses (Oxford, Cornell, etc...). Most work in this area is done by atheistic or agnostic philosophers who accept and defend various versions of moral realism. Of course there are critical discussions of these positions in the relevant professional literature as well. It's a serious ongoing debate in contemporary ethical theory.

[NotReady]

I only brought it up because #2 concerns the question of absolute right or wrong. You said "people who believe especially your #2 could really use a good University level introduction to ethics and/or ethical theory course. I'm aware of almost no specialists in meta-ethics who believe that objective morality requires a God or anything God-like. "

I would guess Martin qualifies as a specialist in meta-ethics, though I could be wrong. I'm not a philosopher and am not familiar with the current vocabularies of the pros. But if he is a specialist, and if he admits he can't justify absolute morality, it would seem he ought to believe it requires God. I know he would say something like objective morality doesn't have to be absolute, but that simply means he claims he can get an ought from an is. I guess by moral realism you mean observing what humans do and calling that morality. But if he can't give an absolute reason for oughtness, how is there oughtness at all?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets say there is a god and he requires belief in child molestation in order to be saved..... should i molest children?

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems like a no brainer to me.

Stu

[BluffTHIS!]

I think that David's 4 points illustrate a type of person who is not that rare at all. I am referring to all the millions who have grown up in a Judeo-Christian culture such as our own, and who would say that they believe in God and that the bible is true, while at the same time never going to church or practicing religion. They do this because they have fundamental doubts or most likely because they find it too hard to live up to the moral demands expected of a "true" believer. Nonetheless, they think God will understand them and be merciful to them in the end as long as they are "good" people, i.e. don't actually commit the extremes of moral depravity exemplied by murder, rape, etc. The strong cultural, historical and familial ties of the dominant religious culture further prevent them from actually joining another religion or accepting a non-theistic philosophy.

To me these types of people seem to be hoping in the benefits of Pascal's Wager without really taking it by actually practicing religion.

[fritzwar]

There are certainly professionals who believe that objective morality requires God. It's a minority position in the profession but it is defended by some very talented people. As I said in my intial response to David, I haven't followed this thread -- so I don't even know what side of what question each of you was defending.

One small final point -- there's a big gap between not being able to give a conclusive or absolute reason for thinking that X is true or X exists and the conclusion that X is not true or X does not exist. So I wouldn't conclude from the fact that some philosopher says he can't give a conclusive reason for believing something that he doesn't believe the thing or anything like that.

A parting recommendation - one recent intro-level but reasonably well written introduction to the "moral realism debate" (including some discussion of the link, if any, between God and Morality) is by Russ Shaffer-Landau, a philosopher at Univ of Wisconsin, Madison. Oxford U Press published a reasonably priced paperpack of his called *Whatever happended to Good and Evil?* It might be worth a peek. And if it's too simple, it contains well chosen references to high quality and more sophisticated work on the topics he introduces in that book.

[NotReady]

The title alone may be worth the price of the book.
Thanks.

[MtDon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This implies that you have a basis for determining what you think is good besides "because that's what it says in the bible." Is this correct?


[/ QUOTE ]

No. God is good, and He defines what is good.

[ QUOTE ]

But an even more basic belief I have is that what is "moral" cannot depend on what some "outside entity makes moral." If I thought there was a God, then I would think that God's teachings as to morality were teaching us something that existed in the universe that God happens to know, not something that God created.


[/ QUOTE ]

This makes the moral law above God, which means He isn't God. The moral law is an expression of God's nature, not something He looks up in a cosmic dictionary.

[ QUOTE ]

Saying a supernateral god "determines" what is moral is logically the same as saying that what your parents, or friends, or government "determine" is moral is moral.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's not logically the same because parents, etc., are not the ultimate, supreme Being, perfectly good, righeous and just in their very essence..

[/ QUOTE ]

Then how or why do you think that God is "perfectly good, righeous and just in (his) very essence." If you do not have any idea of what is good or righteous outside of what God defines as good, how have you decided in your own mind that God is "perfectly good, righeous and just in their very essence"? There is nothing in the idea of a supernatural god that requires the god to be good, is there?

Re: my comment about morality.
"This makes the moral law above God, which means He isn't God. The moral law is an expression of God's nature, not something He looks up in a cosmic dictionary." I would say that it would mean that moral law is in a different category than God, not above or below God. Just as I would say that basic arithetic, e.g. 2+2=4, is in a different category and does not depend on God, if there is a God.

[David Sklansky]

I think that David's 4 points illustrate a type of person who is not that rare at all. I am referring to all the millions who have grown up in a Judeo-Christian culture such as our own, and who would say that they believe in God and that the bible is true, while at the same time never going to church or practicing religion. They do this because they have fundamental doubts or most likely because they find it too hard to live up to the moral demands expected of a "true" believer.

I am NOT talking about those people. I am talking about people who accept Not Ready's arguments that there is no real meaning or morals in life without God (as an aside though, I would like to point out that the God that Not Ready needs to make his argument work, can be the Catholic one or even [gasp] the Jewish one]) but still think it is unlikely that type of God exists because of how they interpret scientific and other pragmatic evidence. He still hasn't told me whether he agrees there are such people and what he thinks about them.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
If there is no ultimate standard of morality then there is no reason to choose one standard over another. Hitler says genocide is good, others say it isn't. If "Morality is a human thing" then the question is "which human's morality?", mine or Hitler's? Since the allies won they can claim to be right, but if Hitler had won, or some future Hitler actually does win, he will have the same right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Individuals’ moral standards can be considered those of the culture the individual comes from overlaid with his or her own perspective (or visa versa).

I suppose it’s possible that a nation’s political leader might have some influence on the moral standards of the various groups in that nation. However moral laws are not legal laws, they need the consensus of the whole group in question because that is what they are.

“Hitler’s morality” as you call it was so far from the human norm, that I think any influence he created would be (and was) localised unstable and short-lived.

[malorum]

The group of people you describe is not uncommon in secularised western cultures.
Religious belief at least at an individual level is psychologically hygenic. Certainly in post-enlightenment europe the educational system tends to implicitly reject God, or at least a well defined concept thereof.
At an emotional level belief in a well defined God, appears to be a normal healthy psychological function in the vast majority of people in this world (Do you need stats?).
In western culture with its magisterial application of logic, and quaint attachment to the idea that a tautology is always true /images/graemlins/smirk.gif, our desire for God leads to dissonance.
I guess these people can just hope that God will step in and resolve the problem by creating faith in them.

I pray for them daily.

[BluffTHIS!]

David, I am clear now on what you meant. The type of people you describe are basically those, including likely many clergymen/ministers, who have "lost their faith". They at one time did believe, but now are merely going through the motions. The gospel "parable of the sower" refers in part to such people.

[David Sklansky]

"In western culture with its magisterial application of logic, and quaint attachment to the idea that a tautology is always true , our desire for God leads to dissonance."

But a specifically defined God is less like to be believed in in eastern cultures.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Then how or why do you think that God is "perfectly good, righeous and just in (his) very essence." If you do not have any idea of what is good or righteous outside of what God defines as good, how have you decided in your own mind that God is "perfectly good, righeous and just in their very essence"?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think He is good because He says He is. I haven't decided in my own mind, I have accepted the Bible as God's Word.
[ QUOTE ]

I would say that it would mean that moral law is in a different category than God, not above or below God.


[/ QUOTE ]

Something or someone has to be the final reference point, the ultimate standard. If God must conform to a law outside Himself, He isn't sovereign, therefore isn't God. Which is the same as saying He doesn't exist. 2+2 = 4, as all math, is a logical abstraction. Logic is an expression of God's nature as is morality. To say logic would be the same if God didn't exist is a nonsense statement, because possibility is not above God nor does it define Him. He defines possibility.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

as an aside though, I would like to point out that the God that Not Ready needs to make his argument work, can be the Catholic one or even [gasp] the Jewish one]


[/ QUOTE ]

He IS the God of Catholicism and Judaism, because both accept the Bible as God's Word.

[ QUOTE ]

He still hasn't told me whether he agrees there are such people and what he thinks about them.


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe I answered this question yes. The argument is basically simple intellectually and I've yet to find a counter-argument. But people don't always act logically. The excuse that science makes Christian theism unlikely is just that - an excuse.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Then how or why do you think that God is "perfectly good, righeous and just in (his) very essence." If you do not have any idea of what is good or righteous outside of what God defines as good, how have you decided in your own mind that God is "perfectly good, righeous and just in their very essence"?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think He is good because He says He is. I haven't decided in my own mind, I have accepted the Bible as God's Word.
[ QUOTE ]

I would say that it would mean that moral law is in a different category than God, not above or below God.


[/ QUOTE ]

Something or someone has to be the final reference point, the ultimate standard. If God must conform to a law outside Himself, He isn't sovereign, therefore isn't God. Which is the same as saying He doesn't exist. 2+2 = 4, as all math, is a logical abstraction. Logic is an expression of God's nature as is morality. To say logic would be the same if God didn't exist is a nonsense statement, because possibility is not above God nor does it define Him. He defines possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

what if there is no objective measure of laws or morality? why do you give no credit to this possibility?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

“Hitler’s morality” as you call it was so far from the human norm, that I think any influence he created would be (and was) localised unstable and short-lived.


[/ QUOTE ]

Even if the "human norm" was an acceptable moral standard (which I deny for many reasons), who decides what that norm will be? If you say the majority, then why? What absolute standard of right and wrong dictates that the majority will decide? What if the majority decides it's time to wipe out some minority?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

what if there is no objective measure of laws or morality? why do you give no credit to this possibility?


[/ QUOTE ]

Morality means what is right and wrong. If there is no objective measure(for us) there is no right and wrong.

[MtDon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Then how or why do you think that God is "perfectly good, righeous and just in (his) very essence." If you do not have any idea of what is good or righteous outside of what God defines as good, how have you decided in your own mind that God is "perfectly good, righeous and just in their very essence"?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think He is good because He says He is. I haven't decided in my own mind, I have accepted the Bible as God's Word.


[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, here's a couple of questions that should be useful in understanding your belief in God:

Why have you accepted the Bible as God's word?

What process did you go through to accept the Bible as God's word?

[NotReady]

I became a Christian at the age of 22, 33 years ago. I can remember declaring my atheism to a friend of mine when I was about 11 or 12. I don't specifically remember why I had decided this, but I expect I found the whole "God" thing incredible.

During the intervening years I had little contact with organized religion. My mother was probably a Christian at the time, but she was very uncertain about many things concerning the faith. I don't remember her ever talking to me about Christ. I do remember attending Sunday School and church, but I'm certain I never "heard" the Gospel though I'm sure it was preached. I hated every minute of it. My father was obviously a sceptic, and went through several philosophical phases. During one of those he gave me Yockey's Imperium and Spengler's Decline of the West to read, I think when I was about 16. I remember being impressed with Yockey but it was obvious that he was an admirer of Hitler, and I couldn't reconcile that with anything reasonable. I found Spengler difficult to understand, but did get the idea he was somewhat pantheistic. I then went through an Ayn Rand phase which lasted about 2 months.

When I was actually converted the last thing I was thinking about was God and religion. A friend of mine introduced me to another friend who was a devoted Christian, and I agreed to discuss it with him. He answered some objections I had, mostly concerning predestination. His answers were almost exclusively Bible texts, with some elaboration. I believe it was the use of the Bible which convicted me, and I believe that most if not all true conversions come from hearing the Word. My conversion was not a logical process, nor an exhaustive search for evidence. I believe that God prepares the heart, and this is different for each individual, and the final conversion is almost always tied to something from Scripture.

From the moment I believed I never questioned whether the Bible is God's Word. I have done some digging when questions have come up but have always found the objections are ill-conceived, often just plain wrong. But I do believe the only way anyone can accept the Bible as God's Word is through His enabling power. Salvation is from God, and no one can accept the Gospel apart from His grace.

I make these arguments now because I believe the charge made that Christianity is irrational and that we make a blind leap of faith is demonstrably false. Christianity is the only worldview that can give an account of logic and reason, only Christianity is a rational worldview. But I don't believe any human argument can convince someone to become a Christian. I can give you the reasons and answer your questions, and perhaps God will use that in persuading you, but my arguments in themselves will never do that.

This is probably a lot more than you wanted to hear. I suspect you're looking for a psychological explanation. You recognize the phenomenon that otherwise seemingly sane people believe this wild-eyed myth, and like Sklansky, you're curious about the psychology involved. So there it is, a synopsis of the conversion of one mediocre fanatic. All I can say is I believe the Bible is the Word of God, no one to my knowledge had been able to demonstrate otherwise, and it is His Word through which we have forgiveness of sins and life eternal.

The last guy I was honest with called me a robot. Flame away.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

what if there is no objective measure of laws or morality? why do you give no credit to this possibility?


[/ QUOTE ]

Morality means what is right and wrong. If there is no objective measure(for us) there is no right and wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, so lets say there is no absolute right or wrong. Basically, i'm confused as to why you conclude that there must be an absolute right or wrong.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Basically, i'm confused as to why you conclude that there must be an absolute right or wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying there must be, I'm trying to indicate the consequences if there isn't. If there's no ultimate law, and especially if there's no ultimate Lawgiver, then there's really no intelligible law at all. The prohibition to murder is of no more logical significance than the speed limit.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Basically, i'm confused as to why you conclude that there must be an absolute right or wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying there must be, I'm trying to indicate the consequences if there isn't. If there's no ultimate law, and especially if there's no ultimate Lawgiver, then there's really no intelligible law at all. The prohibition to murder is of no more logical significance than the speed limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes this is sort of true. But why can't people create and enforce laws based on personal best interests and survival. This would be intelligible and practical. That is basically how our world works today. For example, why haven't I commited murder even though I don't believe i will be morally punished if do? The asnwer is that I simply don't believe its in my best interest to do so. I also believe its in my best interest to help others by protecting against people who believe that murder is in their best interest. Further, laws are derived from basic philosophical principles that do not require an ultimate law giver or absolute measure. Laws only require foundational, consistent principles. The principles i've outline are survival and individual rights. For example, we create laws that respects the rights of individuals to do as they wish as long as they don't infringe on the rights of another. This is logically derived principle used as a tool for surival created by people to look out for their individual interests. What is wrong with this model?

[udontknowmickey]

Hey Notready-

Been following along but haven't posted. You've got a lot more patience than I do. Thanks for sharing your testimony.

[NotReady]

What you describe is the pragmatic ordering of society. I not only don't disagree with it, I thank God that people do this. Man generally recognizes that without law, survival is questionable at best. So I'm certainly in favor of conventional morality and legal systems.

But that's not the issue. That's just pragmatism, and is useful up to a point. It assumes it's a good thing than man survives and is prosperous. But if right and wrong are measured by a pragmatic standard, right and wrong can change based on what currently works.

I hate to keep using Hitler, but he makes such a great example. Suppose he had won the war and Nazism conquered the world. It would have been successful and prosperous while no doubt continuing it's program of genocide. There is simply no way to label that immoral when you tie morality to success or pragmatism.

[David Sklansky]

"I make these arguments now because I believe the charge made that Christianity is irrational and that we make a blind leap of faith is demonstrably false. Christianity is the only worldview that can give an account of logic and reason, only Christianity is a rational worldview. But I don't believe any human argument can convince someone to become a Christian."

Everyone should understand that this statement is the only part of Not Ready's points that I care about disputing. Whether he is right that the non existence of god implies Hitler is as good as any of us, or that we have no real reason to live, is irrelevant to me. All humans have a subconscious bias when evaluating things. But if we left this question to an unbiased mega computer, Not Ready implies that it would come to the conclusion that his religion is likely to truthfully state the facts of the universe. I wish we could bet.

[David Sklansky]

"The excuse that science makes Christian theism unlikely is just that - an excuse."

A slightly different way of saying what I quoted in the previous post. And again the only obviously wrong statement of Not Ready (since he uses the word "unlikely" rather than "impossible").

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Being hungry does not necessarily mean that food is forthcoming or already served.


[/ QUOTE ]

But it does imply the existence of food.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it does nothing of the sort. If I'm hungry, it may very well be that there is no food anywhere in the world. It may also be that food never existed. (I trust we are still in metaphorical mode - otherwise I'm ordering takeaway.)

Man has indeed an undisputed yearning for meaning in the world; that may very well be equivalent to Man having a yearning for Martian kiwi, as far as the "existence" of such a meaning is concerned.

Man's yearning does not necessarily imply "existence", unless Man's wish is the world's command!

But then Man would be God, and he is not.

[David Sklansky]

"He still hasn't told me whether he agrees there are such people and what he thinks about them."

"I believe I answered this question yes. The argument is basically simple intellectually and I've yet to find a counter-argument. But people don't always act logically."

You still didn't answer the whole question. Are such people in the same boat as the tribesman in New Guinea? It seems they should be since their unbelief stems from an "affliction" (an inability, as far as you are concernced, to think logically) and is no fault of their own.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
who decides what that norm will be?

[/ QUOTE ]

It’s the way humans have been hard wired.

[ QUOTE ]
What absolute standard of right and wrong dictates that the majority will decide?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no absolute standard of right and wrong, except to the extent that humans tend to respond to similar situations in similar ways.

[ QUOTE ]
What if the majority decides it's time to wipe out some minority

[/ QUOTE ]

Then some minority will be wiped out.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

No, it does nothing of the sort.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it does. Being hungry is more than just a wish.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I wish we could bet.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would only bet you if I knew the programmer.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

And again the only obviously wrong statement of Not Ready


[/ QUOTE ]

You still haven't explained why science makes theism unlikely. You have vaguely referred to the size of the universe but haven't explained what that has to do with the issue. I know of no other claims you've made concerning science vs. Christianity.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Are such people in the same boat as the tribesman in New Guinea?


[/ QUOTE ]
All people are in the same boat. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". Believers were in that boat, but their sins are forgiven because they have trusted in Him. I should clarify that I'm not stating all who have never heard the Gospel will be saved. The tribesmen in New Guinea, who have never heard, are lost unless God saves them. I'm only saying the Bible doesn't specifically state that He doesn't, so I'm unwilling to either.

[ QUOTE ]

It seems they should be since their unbelief stems from an "affliction" (an inability, as far as you are concernced, to think logically) and is no fault of their own.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this statement. If it was true, there would be no guilt. They don't have an inability. As I've said, it's not an intellectual difficulty.

[kevyk]

ESPN Boss Guy: We'd like you to switch over to broadcasting the 6pm SportsCenter.

Trey Wingo: I can't do that.

Boss Guy: Why not?

Trey Wingo: That's dinnertime.

Boss Guy: Why not eat dinner at 7 pm?

Trey Wingo: 7 pm is not dinnertime.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
The tribesmen in New Guinea, who have never heard, are lost unless God saves them. I'm only saying the Bible doesn't specifically state that He doesn't, so I'm unwilling to either.

[/ QUOTE ]

So there we have it at last, though as usual with an equivocating caveat at the end. The possibility of a supposedly merciful God who may very well condemn for eternity people who have lived in such remote regions as never to hear the gospel preached. But here is exposed a logical paradox by these latest statements:

a) tribesman may well be condemned because of an inability to hear the gospel preached, but NotReady is unwilling to say for sure because God could still save them yet.

b) people who live in a dominant Christian culture and have "heard" but sincerely not believed the gospel to be true are unequivocally said by NotReady to have "rejected" and thus cannot hope to be saved.

So it seems if you have heard a Christain preacher preach and didn't BAM! see the light and convert, that you would be better off being that tribesman. I would like to point out again, since he has never answered my direct questions on same, that since by NotReady's views you cannot hear without understanding absent some mental defect possibly, then hearing the gospel produces so self-evident of a "it is true" response, as opposed to for example hearing the Quran, that effectively the hearer's free-will has been negated in imposing the truth upon him, and thus the only outcomes are accept or reject, and never incredulity.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

ESPN Boss Guy: We'd like you to switch over to broadcasting the 6pm SportsCenter.

Trey Wingo: I can't do that.

Boss Guy: Why not?

Trey Wingo: That's dinnertime.

Boss Guy: Why not eat dinner at 7 pm?

Trey Wingo: 7 pm is not dinnertime.


[/ QUOTE ]

Boss Guy: I want you to murder Al Michels for me.

Trey Wingo: I can't do that.

Boss Guy: Why not?

Trey Wingo: Murder is wrong.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
What you describe is the pragmatic ordering of society. I not only don't disagree with it, I thank God that people do this. Man generally recognizes that without law, survival is questionable at best. So I'm certainly in favor of conventional morality and legal systems.

But that's not the issue. That's just pragmatism, and is useful up to a point. It assumes it's a good thing than man survives and is prosperous. But if right and wrong are measured by a pragmatic standard, right and wrong can change based on what currently works.

I hate to keep using Hitler, but he makes such a great example. Suppose he had won the war and Nazism conquered the world. It would have been successful and prosperous while no doubt continuing it's program of genocide. There is simply no way to label that immoral when you tie morality to success or pragmatism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right and wrong do change based on what works. Though, the fundemental principles of human laws should probably never change or may be only slightly modified. Hitler, IMO, was confused by what was in his best interest. Its not necessarily immoral in the way you think of it. He just wasn't doing what was best for survival or individual rights and, therefore, should be stopped.

If Hitler won the war, he probably would've continued to commit genocide and impose his ways, which aren't in the best interest of individual rights or survival. Thats why our world is chaotic. That's why many species have died out. There is no visible absolute. You are saying an absolute must be necessary because otherwise hitler will recieve no retribution and that idea scares you. I assume that you think: "what if hitler succeeded and lived a perfectly happy life until his death. If he has no punishment afterlife, then what?" IMO, i don't see how this can be a good reason for accepting an absolute.

Another question i want to ask: which absolute do you choose and why? We have several relgions and groups who say that they have an absolute moral code for our world. Why did you choose the one you chose?

[RxForMoreCowbell]

[ QUOTE ]



The way I see it, philosophy that does not lead us to a "first cause" will inevitably result in an unsatisfying, circular belief system.

David

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't a belief in absolute causality (which you seem to promote) imply the exact opposite? If you believe all material things in this universe have a cause, then the first cause must also have a cause, no?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You are saying an absolute must be necessary


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying an absolute must be necessary. I'm pointing out the consequences in there isn't one. There can be no genuine communication concerning right and wrong if there's no absolute.

[ QUOTE ]

which absolute do you choose and why?


[/ QUOTE ]

I just made a detailed post in this thread on this subject.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

the first cause must also have a cause, no?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the limitation of human reason. Since we are finite, we must start all reasoning about ultimate issues with an unprovable assumption. However, the infinite regress you suggest also involves an unprovable assumption. If literally every effect has a cause, there can be no first cause. That is itself a fundamental presupposition which can be translated as "God cannot possibly exist".

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You are saying an absolute must be necessary


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying an absolute must be necessary. I'm pointing out the consequences in there isn't one. There can be no genuine communication concerning right and wrong if there's no absolute.

[ QUOTE ]

which absolute do you choose and why?


[/ QUOTE ]

I just made a detailed post in this thread on this subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are living the consequences of no absolute. Most people either don't accept an absolute or disagree on what is the absoulte, and we can see the consequences of this. Look out the window. What are the grave consequences that you speak of? Is it the world not being as perfect as you imagined it?

Also, i'm not sure which post you are refering to. Perhaps you could post a link or copy the msg into here if you have a chance. I'm guessing you might be talking about the post where you explained how you become a christian, but i don't see a direct answer to my question in that post. I think this is an important question and would really appreciate if you could directly address it.

BTW, i highly enjoy these discussions and hope you don't take my words condescendingly.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
That is itself a fundamental presupposition which can be translated as "God cannot possibly exist".

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that "If it is possible for God to exist, then He does, in the form suggested by the Bible?" Or are you saying that "It is clearly false to say that it is impossible for God to exist, because the fundamentals of the universe implies God as suggested by the Bible?" Or something else entirely?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

We are living the consequences of no absolute.


[/ QUOTE ]

We are indeed. When man rebelled against God and abandoned His Word as the rule of life, all hell broke loose, literally and figuratively. So much so, that sinful man now thinks he is normal, and so comes up with theories like moral realism. I sincerely believe that if God was not active in restraining the effects of sin we would destroy ourselves in less than a week. Before nuclear weapons it might have taken a year.

[ QUOTE ]

how you become a christian,


[/ QUOTE ]

I think it answers the question because the only thing I know about an absolute is from the Bible. I believe in absolutes for the same reason I believe the Bible is God's Word.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

"It is clearly false to say that it is impossible for God to exist, because the fundamentals of the universe implies God as suggested by the Bible?"


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the closer of the two. But I don't believe human logic alone is sufficient because some presupposition not based on logic must be made due to our finitude.

Your first statement presupposes possibility surrounds God, the second that God encompasses and defines possibility. The first would nullify God as sovereign, the second affirms that He is absolute.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

We are living the consequences of no absolute.


[/ QUOTE ]

We are indeed. When man rebelled against God and abandoned His Word as the rule of life, all hell broke loose, literally and figuratively. So much so, that sinful man now thinks he is normal, and so comes up with theories like moral realism. I sincerely believe that if God was not active in restraining the effects of sin we would destroy ourselves in less than a week. Before nuclear weapons it might have taken a year.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can god actively restrain sin without comprimising our free will?


[ QUOTE ]


I think it answers the question because the only thing I know about an absolute is from the Bible. I believe in absolutes for the same reason I believe the Bible is God's Word.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that just being willfully blind though? Why haven't you studied other absolute systems? You are saying you simply chose the bible because of ethnocentrism? If not, why christianity over judaism?

To illustrate my point through an example. Lets say hitler teaches his son nazi ideologies. Because his son chooses to avoid properly exposing himself to any other philosophies and the nazis represent his culture, he chooses to follow by his father's ways for no objective reason. The teachings of his father can withstand all the kid's knowable scrutinity and this is what further compelled him to follow and practice these ways. Do you support hitler's son's decisions?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

How can god actively restrain sin without comprimising our free will?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to get into a discussion of free will per se. I think another thread would be better as it may be a lengthy discussion. But a brief illustration may be something like - Someone decides to set off a nuclear bomb in NYC, fully intends to do so, takes many of the necessary steps to do so, but then God allows him to be caught. In other words, God ultimately controls whatever happens in His universe, but that doesn't deny the responsibility of His creatures.
[ QUOTE ]

Isn't that just being willfully blind though? Why haven't you studied other absolute systems?


[/ QUOTE ]

There are very few systems that believe in an absolute, personal God. Judaism does and Christianity agrees with it to that extent. Islam does, I think, but there are huges differences concerning other doctrines. Neo-Kantian idealism proposed the necessity for an absolute, but it was an impersonal, abstract idea. I believe Christianity is unique in this regard. If you have a system you are suggesting I'm willing to listen.

I don't support hitler's sons decisions, but I don't think it's necessary to conclude that God would condemn him either. He also gives one of the most powerful warnings in Scripture about leading children astray.

For reasons I stated in my other post, I deny that I'm following anything blindly.

[RxForMoreCowbell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

the first cause must also have a cause, no?


[/ QUOTE ]

If literally every effect has a cause, there can be no first cause. That is itself a fundamental presupposition which can be translated as "God cannot possibly exist".

[/ QUOTE ]

That was the entire point of the question. The previous poster was effectively saying "there must be a cause for everything, therefore there must be a creator" and I was pointing out that if you truly believe "there must be a cause for everything" then the result is actually the opposite, that there must be an infinite loop with no creator.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to get into a discussion of free will per se. I think another thread would be better as it may be a lengthy discussion. But a brief illustration may be something like - Someone decides to set off a nuclear bomb in NYC, fully intends to do so, takes many of the necessary steps to do so, but then God allows him to be caught. In other words, God ultimately controls whatever happens in His universe, but that doesn't deny the responsibility of His creatures.

[/ QUOTE ]

So did the 9/11 terorrists pay god to turn his back and not intervene? how can god make a case for only slighltly restraining sin and not eliminating it?

[ QUOTE ]
There are very few systems that believe in an absolute, personal God. Judaism does and Christianity agrees with it to that extent. Islam does, I think, but there are huges differences concerning other doctrines. Neo-Kantian idealism proposed the necessity for an absolute, but it was an impersonal, abstract idea. I believe Christianity is unique in this regard. If you have a system you are suggesting I'm willing to listen.

I don't support hitler's sons decisions, but I don't think it's necessary to conclude that God would condemn him either. He also gives one of the most powerful warnings in Scripture about leading children astray.

For reasons I stated in my other post, I deny that I'm following anything blindly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets keep it simple. Why don't you practice Judaism over Chrstianity?

[NotReady]

You have to presuppose something. Only omniscience has no unprovable presuppositions. I don't accept the statement "Every effect must have a cause", unless you exclude God as an effect. But that requires a presupposition. If you believe every effect must have a cause that also is a presupposition which excludes the possibility of God.

We are finite. We know nothing exhaustively. That's why I don't believe it's possible to prove anything with demonstrable, objective evidence to a 100% degree of certainty. Salvation is by faith, through grace.

[RxForMoreCowbell]

I completely agree with you that the statement "every effect has a cause" is not proveable, and I don't personally believe it is accurate. My original post was solely to show the fallacy in the logic another poster had used.

As far as your statement that "you must presuppose something", I don't see why. Why can we not accept that we don't understand everything about the universe, it's cause(s)/beginning/purpose and find value and meaning in our life on our own? I don't see why there needs to be a creator, judge, or final scorecard to think life has value.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Why can we not accept that we don't understand everything about the universe, it's cause(s)/beginning/purpose and find value and meaning in our life on our own?


[/ QUOTE ]

You can. Many people do. You just have to give up any content to the words meaning and purpose. The Bible says that before we were Christians we were enemies of God and without hope in the world. No non-Christian system has any rational basis for hope or meaning.

[RxForMoreCowbell]

[ QUOTE ]
No non-Christian system has any rational basis for hope or meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when does Christianity get a monopoly on the terms "hope" and "meaning"?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Since when does Christianity get a monopoly on the terms "hope" and "meaning"?


[/ QUOTE ]

If it's the only system that's true, why wouldn't it be a monopoly?

[MtDon]

[ QUOTE ]
"I make these arguments now because I believe the charge made that Christianity is irrational and that we make a blind leap of faith is demonstrably false. Christianity is the only worldview that can give an account of logic and reason, only Christianity is a rational worldview. But I don't believe any human argument can convince someone to become a Christian."


[/ QUOTE ]

First, thank you for giving a serious answer to my question about how you came to your belief in Christianity.

I did not know if you had grown up believing in God and Christ and never changed your mind; grown up believing, went through a period of doubt or rejection; or as you wrote, started out as a non-believer and then became a believer after you were an adult. What you wrote gives me a clearer picture of you.

************************************************** ***

However, your statements seem to be contradictory with respect to "a blind leap of faith" not being required to become a believer. You also say that the only way one can become a believer is through God's grace. You wrote:

"My conversion was not a logical process, nor an exhaustive search for evidence. I believe that God prepares the heart ..."

"But I do believe the only way anyone can accept the Bible as God's Word is through His enabling power. Salvation is from God, and no one can accept the Gospel apart from His grace."

From a non-believer's veiw point, possibly from many believer's veiwpoints, this is an example of a "blind leap of faith." Possibly you just object to the use of the word "blind." From my experience, many believers, say their belief is based on faith rather than logic.

From a rational veiwpoint, "faith" is not a good basis for believing that something is the truth. I think that faith is based on an unconscious feeling and it is not concerned with the truth of something. An unconscious feeling can hint at truth, but cannot be used for a final decision concerning the truth of something.

[NotReady]

I don't believe anyone becomes a Christian through a logical process of reasoning alone. Certainly the intellect is involved to a greater or lesser extent. The conversion of C.S. Lewis is the only documented case I know of where someone became a Christian almost through reasoning alone, but even he made the final committment through faith. It's necessary for faith to be involved because we are sinful and finite. Only omniscience operates without some form of fatih. For Christians, conversion is a response to the call of God. That may appear blind to an onlooker, but I don't think it is because it is God who is operating on us.

But I think I have demonstrated that Christianity can be defended, that it isn't fideistic in the arbitrary sense of that word. I also state that I can't prove it to a 100% degree of certainty. No one becomes a Christian apart from the working of God on the heart. No one can "reason" themselves into genuine faith. But to exercise faith is not to deny reason. It's not an either or situation. We aren't required to check our minds at the church door.

[David Sklansky]

"We aren't required to check our minds at the church door."

What about at the synagogue door? Or mosque door?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What about at the synagogue door? Or mosque door?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm the wrong one to ask, but I would think not.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
If it's the only system that's true, why wouldn't it be a monopoly?

[/ QUOTE ]

By "it" of course you mean your interpretation of Christianity, the doctrines of the specific denomination which you belong to. And you are making a logically fallaceous arguement by presupposing that since one religion/sect might be totally true, that others do not possess some truth to some degree, even if that amount of truth might not be effecacious for salvation in your view. Furthermore, it logically follows from your views, that if any one of the various Christian doctrines that you believe in, or the basis upon which they rest, for example a certain way of interpretation of sacred scripture or church history, should ever be proved untrue, then your entire system of belief must be untrue.

[PairTheBoard]

"My conversion was not a logical process, nor an exhaustive search for evidence. I believe that God prepares the heart ..."

"But I do believe the only way anyone can accept the Bible as God's Word is through His enabling power. Salvation is from God, and no one can accept the Gospel apart from His grace."

--Notready

Does God "prepare the heart" and provide this "enabling power" to everybody?

PairTheBoard

[vulturesrow]

I think NotReady has done a fine job in this thread of defending his position, one which I agree with wholly in regards to existence of God especially. I do have some disagreements in that I take the Catholic view that very few religions are categorically false. Rather I believe that they have captured some bit of truth about God and his nature, but haven't made it "all the way" so to speak.

I would say that my personal story also somewhat mirrors his own. Though I never went so far as to completely reject the existence of God, in practice I did since I lived a life where I pretty much ignored the teaching of Jesus and the Church. Too make a long story short, I was on deployment (Im in the Navy) and one of my roommates had C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity. I read this book and I can say in all seriousness it was a life changing event. For the first time I had been exposed faith supported by intellectual reasoning. For the next few months I spent time with the works of various Christian apologists, and finally found my faith again. So while I agree with NotReady in that in the end you do have accept certain things by faith, I also think (and I think he agrees) that intellectual reasoning can play a large role in someones faith, esp. someone like me that has a healthy respect for rational thought and logical reasoning.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Does God "prepare the heart" and provide this "enabling power" to everybody?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of the hardest questions, and the Bible doesn't say specifically. Armenians believe in prevenient grace. Reformers don't. I'm undecided. This is really part of the predestination question. As I've said before, I rest in my belief that God is just. No one is saved by his own efforts. No one is condemned unjustly. God controls whatsover comes to pass. God forces no one to do evil or reject Him. I can't reconcile all of this to the satisfaction of human reason. But I also believe God is absolute Reason and does nothing arbitrarily. For us, much mystery remains. As far as any individual is concerned, God promises that whosoever will may come.

[NotReady]

Great post. Lewis had a profound effect on me for years after I first became a Christian. At least as to his public impact, he was clearly the most influential apologist of the 20th century.

I understand they're making the Chronicles into a movie(s). Hope they do as good a job as with Tolkien.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Great post. Lewis had a profound effect on me for years after I first became a Christian. At least as to his public impact, he was clearly the most influential apologist of the 20th century.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lewis's ability to put things into a clear and understandable manner is really impressive. I am reading 'Miracles' right now. Certainly a bit more 'dense' but nonetheless very understandable. An interesting sidenote: My buddy who the book belonged to was away from the boat at the time I borrowed this book. When he got back I told him I borrowed it. He told me that this was his 3rd or 4th copy of the book, as it always seemed to 'disappear' on him. Im currently on my 3rd copy, as my first two have disappeared as well. Hopefully they have the same impact on someone else as it did on me.

[ QUOTE ]
I understand they're making the Chronicles into a movie(s). Hope they do as good a job as with Tolkien.

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw a trailer for the movie when I went to see the the latest Star Wars movie. It looked pretty good in that trailer, but we shall see.

[BluffTHIS!]

I think as this thread winds down that it is fitting to review a question I put to NotReady in another thread, which is, can someone hear/read the gospel and sincerely not believe? This in some ways is similar to David's original question in this post. NotReady always equates not believing with rejecting, as if the mere hearing/reading of the gospel would dispel any doubts for anyone at all regarding its truth, and thus all that was left was acceptance or rejection. He has basically said this in the following quote from another post in this thread:

[ QUOTE ]
I said in another thread some time ago that unbelief is not an intellectual problem, but an ethical one. People don't believe because they don't want to, because genuine belief requires committments, life changes and other serious consequences, including the admission of guilt and recognition that one is a created and finite individual. Man has a great aptitude for rationalizing away what he doesn't want to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I would put a final question for NotReady, though he has taken to not responding to my posts:

Is it possible that there has ever lived throughout history, even just one man, who heard/read the gospel, understood it intellectually, but yet honestly did not believe it to be true? This is a yes or no question and deserves to be answered as such at the very beginning or ending of any response giving any explanation.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Being hungry is more than just a wish.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already wrote that it is a yearning. What are you going on about ? Do you actually want us to believe that, because Man craves the existence of meaning in this world, meaning exists??

You do not seem to understand that this is has no logical bearing. If you do, then you are simply trying to milk the metaphor until it becomes invalid - as all metaphors are when used literally - in order to score "debating points". Not worthy of our time.

*I have a yearning to fly like an albatross. That does not mean that somewhere, somehow, a man has wings.

*I wish I could bed [insert name of attractive female here]. That does not necessarily mean that the possibility of this ever happening in this universe is above zero!

*I crave a plateful of [insert name of very tasty and very fattening food] that will not add weight on me. That does not mean -etc.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

*I have a yearning to fly like an albatross. That does not mean that somewhere, somehow, a man has wings.


[/ QUOTE ]

Flight is possible.

[ QUOTE ]

*I wish I could bed [insert name of attractive female here]. That does not necessarily mean that the possibility of this ever happening in this universe is above zero!


[/ QUOTE ]

Sex exists.

[ QUOTE ]

*I crave a plateful of [insert name of very tasty and very fattening food] that will not add weight on me. That does not mean -etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

Food and exercise exist.

[ QUOTE ]

You do not seem to understand that this is has no logical bearing.


[/ QUOTE ]

It does have logical bearing. It isn't absolute proof. Just stating the universe has no meaning isn't proof either.
But you refuse to face the logical consequences if the universe has no meaning. To blithely assert life is meaningless and then act as if that itself has no meaning is true blindness.

[David Sklansky]

"To blithely assert life is meaningless and then act as if that itself has no meaning is true blindness."

It means we are the same as cats and dogs except our brain has evolved to the point where it knows it exists. If that implies there is no inherent right and wrong (which I tend to agree with you it does) so what?

[DTsee]

[ QUOTE ]


It does have logical bearing. It isn't absolute proof. Just stating the universe has no meaning isn't proof either.
But you refuse to face the logical consequences if the universe has no meaning. To blithely assert life is meaningless and then act as if that itself has no meaning is true blindness.

[/ QUOTE ]
Blindness is the illusion that anyone has an absolute knowledge of thier surroundings. To make true the statement "There is Oil in New Mexico" one would have only to find oil anywhere in New Mexico. To make true the statement "There is no oil in New Mexico" one would have to have an absolute knowledge of New Mexico which is impossible. You will never be able to prove god exists, likewise no one will ever be able to prove god doesn't exist. It is the height of arrogance to claim life is meaningless or meaningful. The meaning to life is in the heart of each individual

[vulturesrow]

I would have to say no. If you truly understand the message of the Bible, than you are left at a choice. The basic message of the Bible is that there is a God, who has certain teachings laid out in the Bible , that must be followed by Man. If you understand this, than at this point you either accept His message or reject it.

If you do reject this message, I would agree with NotReady however, that most people do so because of the profound implications it has on your life.

Now, categorical rejection aside, let me also say I think that doubt exists in some degree in most believers. It is human nature to question that which we know. In one book I read they dealt with the problem of doubt in people's faith. The Gospels deal with this topic in the story of Thomas, who doubted Jesus was resurrected until he touched His wounds. NotReady may be one of those who has no doubts at all. I would submit that he is probably in the minority of Christian believers.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

NotReady may be one of those who has no doubts at all


[/ QUOTE ]

Not me, brother.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

NotReady may be one of those who has no doubts at all


[/ QUOTE ]

Not me, brother.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didnt think so, as I think that is pretty rare. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I would have to say no. If you truly understand the message of the Bible, than you are left at a choice. The basic message of the Bible is that there is a God, who has certain teachings laid out in the Bible , that must be followed by Man. If you understand this, than at this point you either accept His message or reject it.

If you do reject this message, I would agree with NotReady however, that most people do so because of the profound implications it has on your life.


[/ QUOTE ]

Although I don't disagree with the last sentence above, that many people would reject the message of the gospel because of the hardships it entails, you are seemingly taking a position in which God mitigates your free will by making you believe the gospel to be true. Perhaps your phrase "truly understands" though is similar to my "hear and sincerely not believe". To clarify further, if a person who had never been exposed to any religion were given a part of the Quran, a Buddhist sutra, and one of the gospels to read, do you really believe that he would have to acknowledge the gospel to be true even with some doubt? If so then you really are positing that God does limit our free will by forcing us to see the truth of the gospel upon first hearing/reading.

[bholdr]

People that:

[ QUOTE ]
Believe that life is essentially meaningless if there is no Biblical type God.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are cowards- afraid to take responsibility and apply meaning to their own lives, and accept that they are qualified to act as a arbiter for their own existance. the same goes for people that:

[ QUOTE ]
Believe that there is no absolute right or wrong if there is no Biblical type God.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is nothing absolute, then why not be the absolute yourself? If you need a 'god' to provide meaning and morality to your own life, you don't place enough value on your own faculties, imagination, conciousness, and power. The rejection of a biblical-type god should free us to define reality, morality, life and death as we see fit, not imprison us in the gulag of relitivisim. People that go on to:

[ QUOTE ]
Believe that if there is a biblical type god, they will not be "saved" if they don't firmly believe in his existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are meerly victims of dogmatic upbringings, weather they realize it or not. There is no A priori knowlage that leads to the conclusion that salvation, if it exists (it doesn't), is conditional upon belief- it's a religious belief with no logical or analytical basis. believe what you chose to believe, not what you've been brought up to accept.

Finally, people that:

[ QUOTE ]
believe that a Biblical God is unlikely to exist. They are not happy about that conclusion since it makes their life more "hopeless" and more meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are, IMO, probaly not haveing very much fun. bummer.

life can have whatever meaning that we choose to apply to it! don't be afraid to define your own existance! It is, IMO, a basic human failing to not recognize the value of your own opinions, value judgements, and power. Religious meaning is self-applied, just like any other meaning, it's shameful that people are so unsure in their own value that they need to believe in a god before they apply meaning to their own lives. skip god, have the courage to apply that meaning, morality, whatever, to youur own life through your own power, instead of being cowardly and dishonestly placing that application of meaning in a ficticious external source.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If there is nothing absolute, then why not be the absolute yourself?


[/ QUOTE ]

Why do people call Christians irrational?

[PairTheBoard]

Notready,

Could you elaborate a little more on that part of your personal experience when you were being "preached" the gospel but as you put it, did not "hear" it. Surely you understood what you were being taught intellectually. What was your response? Did you not believe it? Did you choose to reject it? What exactly were you thinking about it?

PairTheBoard

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Could you elaborate a little more


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure the pastor of the last church I had attended before I became a Christian about 6 years later was a strong Evangelical who preached the Gospel on a regular basis. I'm simply assuming he did so the few times I was in the pew. I have no memory of any of the content of his sermons. The only response I can be sure of was taking a nap.

How much are you charging for this session, Dr.?

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do people call Christians irrational?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did i say that christians were irrational? I do not think that they are, not exactly, anyway. Their assumptions and faith are not rational, but their actions that proceed from those beliefs are anything but irrational.

i'm really not getting your point here.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Could you elaborate a little more


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure the pastor of the last church I had attended before I became a Christian about 6 years later was a strong Evangelical who preached the Gospel on a regular basis. I'm simply assuming he did so the few times I was in the pew. I have no memory of any of the content of his sermons. The only response I can be sure of was taking a nap.

How much are you charging for this session, Dr.?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just wondering how your experience at that time might relate to the kinds of responses to the gospel that David and others have mentioned here. It sounds like your response at that time was basically to just not listen to it.

I will get more personal with this question though. You said your Father was a sceptic. Did he remain a sceptic throughout his life? Is he still alive? If he died a sceptic are you happy knowing he is now in hell? If you can't know such a thing until you are with god in heaven, assuming your father dies a sceptic will you be happy in heaven knowing your father is in hell? If not your father, surely there are others close to you who are not saved. Will you be happy in heaven knowing some of them are in hell? As a Christian your most fervent wish is to love god and love your neighbors - which I assume includes everyone on the planet. These people you now love so much...will you be happy in heaven knowing so many of them are in hell?

PairTheBoard

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If he died a sceptic are you happy knowing he is now in hell?


[/ QUOTE ]

You must "hear" what I say as much as I "heard" the pastor of that church. You can wake up now.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Did i say that christians were irrational?


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say you did. I said people say that.

[ QUOTE ]

Their assumptions and faith are not rational,


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I should have said "Why do people call Christianity irrational". So I can include you in "people" who think Christianity is irrational.

[ QUOTE ]

If there is nothing absolute, then why not be the absolute yourself?

i'm really not getting your point here.



[/ QUOTE ]
How many people are there on earth? 3 billion? So you are saying there are 3 billion absolutes? Is that rational?

[bholdr]

To be rational means to act in such a manner that your actions are reasonable considering the circumstances and your knowlage of the situation.

To be reasonable means that one has logical, repeatable, sound reasons for holding the beliefs and ideas that one holds.

Given what we are capable of directly observing, It is irrational to believe that there is a 'god' , a heaven or hell, or anything supernatural, because there is exactly ZERO repeatable, sound evidence supporting such a belief, while the world is FULL of evidence, both logical and anecdotal, that deny the existance of 'god'.

[ QUOTE ]
How many people are there on earth? 3 billion? So you are saying there are 3 billion absolutes? Is that rational?

[/ QUOTE ]

Where have you been? it's more like six billion. I am indeed saying that there are six billion absolutes- but from any individual perspective, there is only one. It's perfectly rational.

I think you may be in a little over your head in this discussion NR... no insult or anything, but my post was pretty basic stuff.

[vulturesrow]

God doesnt make you believe anything. His message is there for all to ponder and there is no shortage of resources for those who feel they may not fully understand the messages of the Bible. When you truly understand the message He is giving us, you then have a choice to make. You are completely free to accept or reject that message as you see fit.

To be honest, I am not quite sure what your question about reading two other religious texts along with the Bible is getting at? It doesnt change anything. But I suspect I may have missed the point of the question and I'll be happy to readdress it. SOrry for the long delay in replies, I am currently living out of my suitcase and staying in a place with no wireless internet access. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
while the world is FULL of evidence, both logical and anecdotal, that deny the existance of 'god'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Id like to see some examples of that evidence.

[ QUOTE ]
I am indeed saying that there are six billion absolutes- but from any individual perspective, there is only one. It's perfectly rational.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats called moral relativism and it inevitably leads towards a world where might makes right and I know you dont agree with that.

You better be nice or I wont buy you a beer the next time I'm in Seattle. :P

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If he died a sceptic are you happy knowing he is now in hell?


[/ QUOTE ]

You must "hear" what I say as much as I "heard" the pastor of that church. You can wake up now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or maybe you are choosing to ignore the question just as you ignored what the pastor was preaching.

PTB

[NotReady]

SYLLABICATION: ab·so·lute
PRONUNCIATION: bs-lt, bs-lt
ADJECTIVE: 1. Perfect in quality or nature; complete. total: absolute silence. See Usage Note at infinite. 4. Unconstrained by constitutional or other provisions: an absolute ruler. 5. Not to be doubted or questioned; positive: absolute proof.

6 billion of'em?

[David Sklansky]

"If you do reject this message, I would agree with NotReady however, that most people do so because of the profound implications it has on your life."

"Although I don't disagree with the last sentence above, that many people would reject the message of the gospel because of the hardships it entails,"

It is my opinion that this is totally wrong. Not believing what the bible says and not obeying the bible are two different things. There are four categories of people.

1. Those who believe in and obey the bible.

2. Those who believe in but disobey the bible.

3. Those who disbelieve but still live their life basically according to the bible.

4. Those who disbelieve and disobey the bible.

There are plenty of people in category 2 due to their human weakness. Or mabybe a hedonistic, live for today, attitude. But that doesn't turn them into non believers. They may hope the bible is wrong but they still believe it is true.

People in category 3 are by definition exceptions to your theory. Clearly they don't disbelieve to avoid hardship if they endure that hardship anyway.

It is only those in category 4 that are candidates to be recjecters of the bible to avoid hardship. But I am almost positive that this is a rare bird. They have to have the psychological propensity to fool themselves as to what they really believe. I don't deny that propensity exists in some. In fact I ascribe it to those religious fanatics who have an IQ above 130. But I do think it is rare. Especially because it is not logically necessary to reject your belief in the bible to avoid hardships. All the category 2 people do it and that probably comprises half the population of this country.

I am almost positive that the vast majority of those who reject the bible do so because they believe that the weight of the evidence they are aware of, points in that direction. Right or wrong, that is their reason. I wonder if it would change anything if religious people accepted that about non believers.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
Id like to see some examples of that evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

here's a start:

tang (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/tang.html)

mmmm... tang...

[ QUOTE ]
Thats called moral relativism and it inevitably leads towards a world where might makes right and I know you dont agree with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

moral relitivism is the belief that there is no one moral system that is universally true. on some levels, i aggree- but, here's a bit from another post i made (too lazy to re-state it in context, sorry):

[ QUOTE ]
If there is nothing absolute, then why not be the absolute yourself? If you need a 'god' to provide meaning and morality to your own life, you don't place enough value on your own faculties, imagination, conciousness, and power. The rejection of a biblical-type god should free us to define reality, morality, life and death as we see fit, not imprison us in the gulag of relitivisim.

[/ QUOTE ]

With that freedom comes responsibility. We can be free to chose our own system of morals, but it is irrational to just pick this-and-that willy-nilly and call it a system. With or without God, there is order and chaos in the universe- structure- a circle is a circle... and it's wrong to assume that there can be no moral structure to reality without a god to put it there.

Personally, i believe that there are clues to what a moral system should be buried in the very structure of reality. I'm tired, though, and can't think straight enough to give you the whole Kant v Hume 'morality is ingrained in the structure of the universe' argument, but generally speaking, universal morality, if it exists, is contained within the a priori knowlage that any person has access to, and can, through analytical processes, come to understand.

Just like a circle is always a circle, unless you veiw it edge on, when it's an oval...

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
6 billion of'em?

[/ QUOTE ]

...and, at the same time, only one. you really don't get it?

[vulturesrow]

First off you can reduce your categories in half if you are talking about perfectly obeying the lessons of the Bible and God. If that isnt what you meant, feel free to stick with four.

Anecdotally speaking, I have heard far more people reject Christianity because of reasons basically relating to their resistance to the authority of God. They say things such as "I dont need a book to tell me what is right or wrong" or other related things. The Bible tells us many things that make us uncomfortable and requires substantive changes in the way you live your life. People instinctively resist changes like this. It is human nature. I am sure that their exist people that regard it as you say. I also believe that many people claim intellectual disagreement as cover for the basic fact that they dont want to change how they live their life.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

here's a start:

tang

mmmm... tang...


[/ QUOTE ]
A better link is this

Frame/Martin debate (http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html?mainframe=martin_TAG.html)

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

..and, at the same time, only one. you really don't get it?


[/ QUOTE ]

I really, really don't get it.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
here's a start:

tang

mmmm... tang...

[/ QUOTE ]

WEll I agree that TANG (the drink) is yummy. In order to be fair I should include the link to the response to your article, which is also includes a link to allows you to view the whole of the debate.

Martin-Frame debate (http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html?mainframe=martin_TAG.html)

That being said, your criterion for proof of something seemed to depend mostly on observable, testable phenomena, which the link you provided is certainly not that.

[ QUOTE ]
moral relitivism is the belief that there is no one moral system that is universally true. on some levels, i aggree- but, here's a bit from another post i made (too lazy to re-state it in context, sorry):

[/ QUOTE ]

I did say I know you dont believe that. /images/graemlins/smile.gif That aside, each person being their own absolute is certainly moral relativism.

[ QUOTE ]
you don't place enough value on your own faculties, imagination, conciousness, and power

[/ QUOTE ]

This is certainly not true. Then again, saying "not enough value" is somewhat slippery, because that value is not quantifiable. There isnt much to say on this point other than I think that Christians value all these things in more than sufficient quantities.

[ QUOTE ]
With that freedom comes responsibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

The word responsibility implies an obligation. From what source does this obligation come? Even if you believe the clues exist as to a correct moral system exist in the structure of reality, why are we obligated to follow them?

[ QUOTE ]
but generally speaking, universal morality, if it exists, is contained within the a priori knowlage that any person has access to, and can, through analytical processes, come to understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

So something as abstract as morals exists somewhere out there, just floating around in some undefined space, waiting for us to reach out and find them? Sounds like Christians arent the only ones that believe in miracles, or maybe you think that Plato's forms exist??

[ QUOTE ]
I'm tired, though,

[/ QUOTE ]

Been hanging out with that French lady, eh? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Although I don't disagree with the last sentence above, that many people would reject the message of the gospel because of the hardships it entails,"

[/ QUOTE ]

It is my opinion that this is totally wrong. Not believing what the bible says and not obeying the bible are two different things.

There are plenty of people in category 2 due to their human weakness. Or mabybe a hedonistic, live for today, attitude. But that doesn't turn them into non believers.

[/ QUOTE ]

You actually just affirmed my point since a live for today attitude and not trying to overcome weakness is the same as avoiding hardship. And I didn't say that they were turned into non-believers by believing but disobeying. God doesn't expect us to be perfect, and the principal hardship is simply getting up from each fall and trying again.


[ QUOTE ]
People in category 3 are by definition exceptions to your theory. Clearly they don't disbelieve to avoid hardship if they endure that hardship anyway.

It is only those in category 4 that are candidates to be recjecters of the bible to avoid hardship. But I am almost positive that this is a rare bird. They have to have the psychological propensity to fool themselves as to what they really believe. I don't deny that propensity exists in some. In fact I ascribe it to those religious fanatics who have an IQ above 130. But I do think it is rare. Especially because it is not logically necessary to reject your belief in the bible to avoid hardships. All the category 2 people do it and that probably comprises half the population of this country.

[/ QUOTE ]

You will remember that unlike NotReady, I believe in the Natural Law, a minimal moral code God imprints upon each human soul and which is the more minimal standard by which they will be judged if they honestly do not believe.

[ QUOTE ]
I am almost positive that the vast majority of those who reject the bible do so because they believe that the weight of the evidence they are aware of, points in that direction. Right or wrong, that is their reason. I wonder if it would change anything if religious people accepted that about non believers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, unlike NotReady I agree with this statement and accept it.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You will remember that unlike NotReady, I believe in the Natural Law, a minimal moral code God imprints upon each human soul and which is the more minimal standard by which they will be judged if they honestly do not believe.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why did you make this up?

[AthenianStranger]

[ QUOTE ]
As a professional philosopher, I think the first thing to say here is that people who believe especially your #2 could really use a good University level introduction to ethics and/or ethical theory course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Professional philosopher? I believe the ancient Greeks had a name for that. Yeah. They were called sophists. Your ethical theory course? I assume you'll be teaching me what virtue is?

[AthenianStranger]

[ QUOTE ]
There are four categories of people.

1. Those who believe in and obey the bible.

2. Those who believe in but disobey the bible.

3. Those who disbelieve but still live their life basically according to the bible.

4. Those who disbelieve and disobey the bible.


[/ QUOTE ]

We're all #4. What does it mean to "live [one's] life basically according to the bible"? There is not one righteous, no, not one. To the extent that we disobey God, we do not believe in His word. We all disobey God.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You will remember that unlike NotReady, I believe in the Natural Law, a minimal moral code God imprints upon each human soul and which is the more minimal standard by which they will be judged if they honestly do not believe.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why did you make this up?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you implying that the doctrine regarding the Natural Law is made up, or that I have incorrectly said that you do not believe that doctrine in the manner that I do?

[David Sklansky]

He had better answer that you made up the natural law. If instead he answers that you didn't describe his beliefs accurately, there is no point debaating him, since know one knows what the hell he is really saying anyway.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Are you implying that the doctrine regarding the Natural Law is made up, or that I have incorrectly said that you do not believe that doctrine in the manner that I do?


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what manner you believe anything. I'm not a fan of the phrase "Natural Law". What I believe about what is commonly referred to as "Natural Law" can be found in Romans. Feel free to lie about me all you want, but I will respond to that. I will ignore your insults, however.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

no know one knows what the hell he is really saying anyway.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto. What about that science question?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
What I believe about what is commonly referred to as "Natural Law" can be found in Romans. Feel free to lie about me all you want, but I will respond to that. I will ignore your insults, however.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nonetheless, it is clear from previous posts that what I mean by the Natural Law is not the same as what you do, and so my statement about same that caused this exchange is not a lie. I have no desire to misrepresent anything you say but I will continue to point out that your views do not represent those of all Christians, let alone of a majority (an impossibility since Catholics outnumber all other Christian denominations combined and unless Islam has outpaced them, are also the largest religious denomination in the world). I will also continue to point out the logical consequences of some of your beliefs and merely ask that you state same clearly, without changing something I say like "hear and sincerely not believe" into "hear and reject".

[malorum]

"But a specifically defined God is less like to be believed in in eastern cultures."

I suggest that The distinction is rather that the conceptof God is sometimes more inclusive, not less well defined in these cultures. Let me expand on this:

Eastern religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Toaism, Shinto, Sihkism etc.

Certainly Hinduism provides a coherent cosmology while allowing for differing manifestations of the divine. Budhism has a number of varieties, and for pureland Buddhism you might argue that God is not that well defined.
Taosism again provides a coherent cosmology.
Shinto is somewhat more complex with its plethora of Deities (I lost count as to how many)
All of the traditions however provide practical guidance for an intimate relationship with God or for the expression of the 'divine spark' in man.

Cosmologies are not generally ill-defined in their concept of the divine, they are however more inclusive. The two ideas can be confused, because inclusive cosmologies seek to explain a variety of expressions of religious interaction.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[David Sklansky]

What do you think, I think, that science finds unlikely to be true that you believe to be true?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What do you think, I think, that science finds unlikely to be true that you believe to be true?


[/ QUOTE ]

Miracles.

[BluffTHIS!]

And what about the evolution of the species?

[malorum]

"Morality is a human thing." = Axiom????

"Any grouping of humans will naturally evolve moral guidelines. These will tend to show similarity across different groupings." = Rationalisation; Or is there some evidence of 'evolution' from amoral to moral social groups, that I have missed.

"Their capacity for self-delusion is not sufficient for them to believe something they do not consider to be possible, despite that fact that they wish they could." = No comment /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[David Sklansky]

If 99.9 percent of supposed miracles that have been investigated have shown to be non miracles, and if miracles happenning means that the laws of science are sometimes disobeyed, and if scientists believe that the laws of science are never disobeyed, a combination of these facts means that scientists believe that it is far more likely that the one tenth of one percent of purported miracles that have not been completely refuted, are not really miracles either but rather events where the scientific explanation for it was there but somehow missed.

[David Sklansky]

"And what about the evolution of the species?"

He has already stated that his beliefs do not require that evolution be wrong or that the earth being 5 billion years old be wrong. But he does believe (as do you) that miracles happen so we need not discuss anything else. Your differences with him (or rabbis, or mullahs, or astrologers or ESP advocates, or those who believe in rushes) are pretty irrelevant compared to the differences all you guy have with me (or the vast majority of those I know who are both educated and have an IQ above 150.)

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

(or the vast majority of those I know who are both educated and have an IQ above 150.)


[/ QUOTE ]

Your circle of aquaintences is too small.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If 99.9 percent of supposed miracles that have been investigated have shown to be non miracles,


[/ QUOTE ]

Which one of these is in the Bible?

[David Sklansky]

I think some supposed miracles in the bible, if they really occurred had alternative scientific explanations. Others like the sun standing still can only be explained with the scientific hypothesis that "it didn't happen". One of those two explanations almost certainly apply to all biblical miracles. Because there is no compelling reason to believe a miracle has ever happened while humans walked the earth and there is compelling evidence that they haven't. (Not so during Newton's time when so many things still seemed miraculous).

I will not contribute further to this debate unless at least five other posters say that Not Ready's counterarguments seem persuasive to them.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

if they really occurred had alternative scientific explanations.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you presuppose the non-existence of God, every miracle has an alternate explanation. That's just denying the possibility of miracles, it hardly constitutes scientific proof - whether you want to use the word impossible or unlikely.

[ QUOTE ]

the scientific hypothesis that "it didn't happen"


[/ QUOTE ]

Is that Einstein or Newton?

[ QUOTE ]

One of those two explanations almost certainly apply to all biblical miracles.


[/ QUOTE ]

So much for objectivity and neutrality.

[ QUOTE ]

I will not contribute further to this debate unless at least five other posters say that Not Ready's counterarguments se
em persuasive to them.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't blame you.