Not Ready, Why do we need God? [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

Cerril

07-09-2005, 08:55 AM

The simplistic answer is that we need something that doesn't conform to normal standards to answer the question. Everything comes from somewhere, and if the chain is to end it has to end in a being that bridges the gap between the sensible world and the supernatural. God fits the bill nicely.

If you need an answer to the question and you won't accept infinity, you absolutely have to bring in a being of dual nature (natural and supernatural), the philosophical 'unmoved mover'. Of course at the same time nothing is said of his qualities, he doesn't have to be 'good' or 'powerful', he doesn't have to even be sentient or still exist. All there is is that someone had to be around to flip the switch to 'on'.

And don't take this as an answer for NR or anyone else, it's just the canned one; someone who actually believes this sort of reasoning almost has to have a much more sophisticated viewpoint.

*Edit: If you answer the question in terms of meaning rather than causality, you've got two more branches. The first is that logically our lives are meaningless if they end at death (a hard point to refute, no matter what our physiology would like to convince us). The second is that some peoples' lives *indivually* would lack meaning without the concept of a personal God. Also, I won't speak to their strengths or failings, but 'whatever does it for you'... if you need God to make it through the day, go ahead and go with God, just don't expect me to. And last... I'm still not trying to answer for anyone else, just thinking out loud.

Prevaricator

07-09-2005, 09:14 AM

Or time could be cyclical

Darryl_P

07-09-2005, 09:47 AM

I personally believe this, ie. that time and space are cyclical in the sense that they warp around in a higher dimension. Just as a 2-dimensional being on the earth's surface would think the area he sees is infinite, so space and time seem to us.

If you ask me what was before the big bang, I'd say the big crunch. It's just one cycle after another, seemingly infinite, but actually warping around in another dimension that we can't (yet) comprehend.

evil_twin

07-09-2005, 01:54 PM

No. It's the mushroom men.

Cerril

07-09-2005, 07:15 PM

Giving another option doesn't help much if it's still easier to wrap your head around an invisible man or supernatural force or what have you.

I've had some discussions with math teachers about visualizing fourth dimensional objects. Some people can do it, some can't. I'm not suggesting that the ones who can are even right, but to others it's just incomprehensible. I've discovered that a lot of conceptions of time are like that as well. For that matter, so is God.

TStoneMBD

07-09-2005, 08:58 PM

could you elaborate on your definition of 4th dimensional objects?

LargeCents

07-09-2005, 11:08 PM

The idea of "God" has a powerful way of unifying people with a common belief. Sprinkle in some benign artifacts about "God", and people have some easy answers to some impossible questions. Society works "harmoniously" by people following some basic social guidelines that is "god's will", when in actuality, it's just some common sense social norms that promote community/society health and welfare.

It's like telling a little kid that babies come from a stork that delivers babies. Yeah, it's a lie, but does it really matter to a little kid? It may even be a healthy fallacy.

To us "intellectual adults", we don't believe in storks that deliver babies or Gods that care enough about us to punish/forgive our sins. We want the gory details, for better or for worse. When I first learned about the reality of where babies come from, I preferred the stork story. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[ QUOTE ]
You use God as a way to answer the queston "Where did we come from?".

But this answers begs another question: "Where did God come from?

If you have no answer to that, then why complicate the issue by adding God into the equation?

It seems completely unnessecary and illogical.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, God actually "simplifies" things for people. It is logical, and necessary, because it is not practical to spend a lot of time pondering the meaning of life/god/universals. It is just a waste of mindpower, from a practical perspective. It does society a lot more good if smart people spend their time thinking about curing cancer, rather than questioning deep existential problems, that definitely won't produce anything useful, and probably won't matter in the end anyway.

David Sklansky

07-09-2005, 11:31 PM

"So, God actually "simplifies" things for people. It is logical, and necessary, because it is not practical to spend a lot of time pondering the meaning of life/god/universals. It is just a waste of mindpower, from a practical perspective. It does society a lot more good if smart people spend their time thinking about curing cancer, rather than questioning deep existential problems, that definitely won't produce anything useful, and probably won't matter in the end anyway."

That's an interesting outlook. What should we call it? It certainly isn't Atheism. It cerainly isn't Judaism, Christianity, or even Sklanskyanity. We need a name. By the way the above quoted comment is yet another example of veiled insults to religious people. I hope they see that.)

Zygote

07-10-2005, 12:07 AM

If skepticism won't break your illusion than one should absolutely train their minds to do whatever will benefit them the most. If happiness is one's ultimate goal then how one achieves that goal is irrelevant to whether or not they are aware of any reality, for example.

[ QUOTE ]
rather than questioning deep existential problems, that definitely won't produce anything useful, and probably won't matter in the end anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

"produce anything useful" and "matter" are the same thing, no? aside, i don't see why you conclude that answering cosmologoical problems probably won't matter.

I think we've so far seen that our search for life's answers is what motivates many sciences. Also, I do'nt see how you can think that the answers to the existential questions are not highly correlated with useful knowledge.

LargeCents

07-10-2005, 12:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"So, God actually "simplifies" things for people. It is logical, and necessary, because it is not practical to spend a lot of time pondering the meaning of life/god/universals. It is just a waste of mindpower, from a practical perspective. It does society a lot more good if smart people spend their time thinking about curing cancer, rather than questioning deep existential problems, that definitely won't produce anything useful, and probably won't matter in the end anyway."

That's an interesting outlook. What should we call it? It certainly isn't Atheism. It cerainly isn't Judaism, Christianity, or even Sklanskyanity. We need a name. By the way the above quoted comment is yet another example of veiled insults to religious people. I hope they see that.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Common sense?

(By the way the above quoted comment, by Mr. Sklansky, is yet another example of veiled insults to religious people. I hope they see that.)

LargeCents

07-10-2005, 12:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If skepticism won't break your illusion than one should absolutely train their minds to do whatever will benefit them the most. If happiness is one's ultimate goal then how one achieves that goal is irrelevant to whether or not they are aware of any reality, for example.

[ QUOTE ]
rather than questioning deep existential problems, that definitely won't produce anything useful, and probably won't matter in the end anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

"produce anything useful" and "matter" are the same thing, no? aside, i don't see why you conclude that answering cosmologoical problems probably won't matter.

I think we've so far seen that our search for life's answers is what motivates many sciences. Also, I do'nt see how you can think that the answers to the existential questions are not highly correlated with useful knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I wrote my original message, I wrote "for the average person", but I must've deleted it for brevity, with the implication that I was speaking for society as a whole. 99% of the population doesn't need to be consumed with existential problems. It just doesn't mean enough in daily lives. Just the same, 99% of the population doesn't need to be consumed with trying to cure cancer. I hope I'm getting my point across that God makes a heck of a lot of sense for the majority of the population. But, it also makes sense, as a society, to have some crackpots, like me, contemplating every existential dilemma. Again, I was oversimplifying for brevity. The discussion is a lot more complicated than I can explain in a single paragraph response.

mmbt0ne

07-10-2005, 01:30 AM

Shouldn't you be resting for Day 2?

Wes ManTooth

07-10-2005, 01:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"So, God actually "simplifies" things for people. It is logical, and necessary, because it is not practical to spend a lot of time pondering the meaning of life/god/universals. It is just a waste of mindpower, from a practical perspective. It does society a lot more good if smart people spend their time thinking about curing cancer, rather than questioning deep existential problems, that definitely won't produce anything useful, and probably won't matter in the end anyway."

That's an interesting outlook. What should we call it? It certainly isn't Atheism. It cerainly isn't Judaism, Christianity, or even Sklanskyanity. We need a name. By the way the above quoted comment is yet another example of veiled insults to religious people. I hope they see that.)

[/ QUOTE ]

It also insults those that spend time defending their ideas/belief's against "religious people" or questioning the ideas/belief’s of “religious people”. People such as yourself... I hope you see that.

NotReady

07-10-2005, 04:10 AM

I didn't come up with the idea of God to answer a philosophical question or fulfill a need. I was converted at a point in time primarily by the correct preaching of the Word of God. That is why I became a Christian.

My posts concerning meaning and logic are simply a defense against the charge that Christianity is irrational. Nothing more. I have said many times, and I will HEAVILY emphasize it here, no one becomes a Christian through philosophical reasoning.

The questions you ask point to one reason why this is so. Human reason is not ultimate and cannot provide ultimate answers. We are time bound and causality bound. If God caused the universe what caused God. We can't escape that problem through human reason. But non-theistic reason has the same difficulty.

I believe this problem results from the Fall. Man decided he would determine truth and falsehood, right and wrong on his own, without reference to God or His Word. Philosophy is the result.

What I try to indicate is that if the personal God of the Bible doesn't exist, your questions are meaningless anyway. If existence itself is impersonal and irrational, any question and any answer are both absurd and meaningless. This doesn't prove that God exists. It simply shows the consequences to reason and morality if He doesn't. Some existentialist in the 19th century, perhaps Dostoevsky or Nietzche, said "If God is dead, all is permitted". He probably meant this in a moral sense, but it's also true concerning logic and science. But no one wants to believe the consequences, they just want to escape judgment. They want meaning and purpose without guilt. The problem is when you eliminate God to eliminate guilt, you also eliminate all possibility of purpose and meaning. Again, that doesn't prove God, it simply asks you to be consistent with your own worldview.

In the Bible, Moses wanted to know God's name so he could tell pharoah who sent him. God said His name is "I AM THAT I AM". I take this to mean there is no explanation for God, He is not caused, He is Absolute. I can't visualize that anymore than I can visualize eternity or infinity. I am indeed made of clay.

Cerril

07-10-2005, 04:28 AM

I don't think I'd give you something that is much different than nonsense. I'm speaking in a geometrical and especially mathematical sense (the sort used in purely theoretical areas of calculus and matrix calculations), that some people find the idea of tranforming a point to a line segment to a planar area to a solid to a fourth dimensional object to be a reasonable set of transformations, while others can't even visualise how that might be the case, to the extent that it affects their ability to do calculations.

For myself, I suppose my image is something between a three dimensional world/object compressed to a point and extended to a line, and a cube given the same sort of expansion treatment that we give a square to draw a cube on paper. It's not even very useful, just sort of a mental exercise.

David Sklansky

07-10-2005, 11:27 AM

"What I try to indicate is that if the personal God of the Bible doesn't exist, your questions are meaningless anyway. If existence itself is impersonal and irrational, any question and any answer are both absurd and meaningless. This doesn't prove that God exists. It simply shows the consequences to reason and morality if He doesn't. Some existentialist in the 19th century, perhaps Dostoevsky or Nietzche, said "If God is dead, all is permitted". He probably meant this in a moral sense, but it's also true concerning logic and science. But no one wants to believe the consequences, they just want to escape judgment. They want meaning and purpose without guilt. The problem is when you eliminate God to eliminate guilt, you also eliminate all possibility of purpose and meaning. Again, that doesn't prove God, it simply asks you to be consistent with your own worldview.

In the Bible, Moses wanted to know God's name so he could tell pharoah who sent him. God said His name is "I AM THAT I AM". I take this to mean there is no explanation for God, He is not caused, He is Absolute. I can't visualize that anymore than I can visualize eternity or infinity. I am indeed made of clay."

But nothing you just said results in the necessity that the story of Jesus be true. I'm pretty sure religious Jews basically agree with all you said that I quoted above along with other points you have made. Life and morals is meaningless without God. Those who think otherwise want to be in some sense God. They want to avoid the burdens that God's existence implies. Etc. Etc. But they then go on to espouse the opinion that the story of Jesus is incorrect. Put out by those who may have been well meaning but for some reason were in error. (Just as you probably think the Joseph Smith story is incorrect.) And they justify this view with detailed analysis of passages from the same bible that you believe in.

Since these are smart people with the same general theistic view that you have, how can you be so sure they are wrong? You can't ascribe to them a need to avoid God like you do atheists. You can only ascribe to them an erroneous interpretation of the same words you read. You both believe in a messiah. They think you got fooled into beliving in a premature one. And their arguements seem strong if not compelling.

Worse yet in your case, since you are not Catholic, you expect that these people who are as much for God as you, and are only trying to figure out his details, like you, will probably go to hell in spite of their piousness. Simply because of bad reading comprehension in your eyes.

Can you justify your position on this matter in as plausible a way as you justify your general belief in God as in the quoted material above? I'm pretty sure not.

NotReady

07-10-2005, 12:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Can you justify your position on this matter in as plausible a way as you justify your general belief in God as in the quoted material above? I'm pretty sure not.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I've said my main concern has been to defend Christianity against the charge of irrationalism. Within Christianity there are many experts on many different subjects, including the question of Jesus as the Messiah. I'm not one of them. If you're saying you now believe in God as an Absolute Person who created the universe but you just can't decide whether Jesus is Lord then there are people who can help you with that far better than me. If you're just bringing it up because you know I'm not well versed in that area, just to score debate points, you win the debate. Congratulations. My concern is with people who have a sincere interest in the truth. I believe God will lead that person to faith in Christ no matter how many debates I lose.

I'm only saying I can't make the case for Jesus as the Messiah from the Old Testament very well, not that the case can't be made. I believe it can be, but requires far more knowledge of the text and original languages than I have. That's why I didn't get involved in the Jews Reject thread except when boss tried to claim the NT is antisemitic implying that Christianity is necessarily antisemitic .

I was going to end this post with the above but there's another point. I haven't thought this through but in general there's an incompleteness to the OT which becomes apparent in the NT. The fundamental problem of man is sin which caused his separation from God and brought about condemnation. The OT provides no solution to this problem. That is why Christ came, to become the real sacrifice that the Levitical sacrifices foreshadowed. So it's more than just pointing to prophecies of Him in the OT. It involves the whole picture of who God is, who man is, and the relationship between God and man. The NT in Hebrews says that the sacrifice of animals is insufficient to take away the guilt of sin, to make atonement. If Jesus is not Messiah, the guilt remains, Messiah is yet to come, but wouldn't He have to do the same as Jesus? So the difference between Christianity and Judaism involves more than just whether or not Jesus was the Messiah but the very purpose of Messiah, the real issue of sin and guilt, and the possibility of forgiveness.

David Sklansky

07-10-2005, 12:47 PM

"I'm only saying I can't make the case for Jesus as the Messiah from the Old Testament very well, not that the case can't be made. I believe it can be, but requires far more knowledge of the text and original languages than I have."

The question remain thens, how is it reasonable that those who basically believe in God as you do, and simply don't have expertise (as you admit you don't) should be punished for their well meaning different interpretation of God's word? Catholics apparently don't think they necessarly will be. Which by the way brings up the question of whether this belief of Catholics is enough to condemn them too.

NotReady

07-10-2005, 01:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]

should be punished for their well meaning different interpretation of God's word?

[/ QUOTE ]

No one is well meaning.

PairTheBoard

07-10-2005, 01:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"I'm only saying I can't make the case for Jesus as the Messiah from the Old Testament very well, not that the case can't be made. I believe it can be, but requires far more knowledge of the text and original languages than I have."

The question remain thens, how is it reasonable that those who basically believe in God as you do, and simply don't have expertise (as you admit you don't) should be punished for their well meaning different interpretation of God's word? Catholics apparently don't think they necessarly will be. Which by the way brings up the question of whether this belief of Catholics is enough to condemn them too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have time to make at least another half dozen posts before the tournament starts David. You know, if they let you use one of those wireless internet things you could probably continue the debate between hands. We expect you to at least return here during your breaks. I think you have notready on the verge of cracking.

PairTheBoard

The Dude

07-10-2005, 01:30 PM

David, the view of heaven and hell by Evangelicals is not necessarily shared by all Christians. I used to consider myself Evangelical, but growing knowledge of this subject - and a few others - has caused me to drop that label. What people's eternal destiny specifically is and what precisely is the minimum requirements to attain a certain destiny is actually fairly vague in the Bible. There is a good amount of variety of Christian beliefs on this matter, and it is only because of the Evangelicals' very outward nature that theirs seems to be the unified Christian view.

When dealing with others - and I take this approach both because of the Bible's vagueness on the subject and because I believe it's what Jesus modeled in his life - is to try and bring them closer to God, wherever they are. I'm not hoping to get them to a "sinner's prayer" or any specific point, just to try and help them along the path in any way I can. That never involved a "Fire and Brimstone" approach. It's somewhat unfortunate that in America the Evangelicals' views and methods seem to be seen as the common across the board (with the exception of Catholics - their perspectives are fairly known as well.

David, when you ask these kinds of questions, they can actually help Christians in our discussions with each other. I've debated many an Evangelical, and used some of hte points you bring up about irrationality and eternal punishment. But while it is always difficult to get somebody to genuinely be open to changing their perspective, I think it is generally better received from somebody like me than somebody like you.

I'm in a big hurry to leave here, so I'm not able to proof this post. I'll correct errors in it later.

The Dude

07-10-2005, 01:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No one is well meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree wholeheartedly with this comment.

NotReady

07-10-2005, 01:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I think you have notready on the verge of cracking.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm biting my nails cause I'm really worried about his performance. I think he should post what he has on each hand so we can kibbitz properly.

NotReady

07-10-2005, 01:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
No one is well meaning.

I disagree wholeheartedly with this comment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you disagree with the Bible.

The Dude

07-10-2005, 02:37 PM

I'm going to avoid making some snitty response here, because I think in general you've done a good job defending Christianity and theism from a philosophical standpoint. I'm also impressed with how vulnerable you've chosen to be in a forum where you are sure to get many more challengers than supporters.

That said, you're off base here in your application of this.

quinn

07-10-2005, 05:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]

The question remain thens, how is it reasonable that those who basically believe in God as you do, and simply don't have expertise (as you admit you don't) should be punished for their well meaning different interpretation of God's word?

[/ QUOTE ]

No one is condemned for their beliefs, they are condemned for their sins.

It is entirely just for anyone who has sinned to go to Hell, just as God would be justified in exterminating the entire human race. He has given us everything and he owes us nothing..he has the authority to take everything away from us.

Heaven is the place in the company of God, Hell is not in the company of God. If you live your life ignoring God, it only makes sense that you go to Hell. It is, in fact, your choice.

Alex/Mugaaz

07-10-2005, 08:57 PM

Notready. If someone proved J wasn't the messiah, as well as proved the bible was inaccurate, what then? Obviously some parts of your beliefs hold true still, such as the existence of God and belief in judgement. How would you develop a system to judge the worth of people if you didn't have a direct ranking system provided to you by God? Since he didn't provide one, how could it possibly be a fair system? If it's not fair, how is that possible?

NotReady

07-10-2005, 09:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]

If someone proved J wasn't the messiah, as well as proved the bible was inaccurate, what then? Obviously some parts of your beliefs hold true still, such as the existence of God and belief in judgement.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't that obvious. I've spoken before on agnosticism and how it's indistinguishable from atheism. A god who exists but doesn't communicate with us is to us the same as no god. I see no other candidate to be God's Word other than the Bible. So if you could prove it isn't God's Word I see no basis for hope, logic or meaning.

David Sklansky

07-10-2005, 10:08 PM

"should be punished for their well meaning different interpretation of God's word."

"No one is well meaning."

By well meaning I meant simply that they are trying to be objective. If using this definition you still say no one is well meaning, then the same can be said of you and your objectivity in interpreting the bible. Where does that leave us? Now please go back to the other thread. The Jewish Not Ready is running amuk over there.

NotReady

07-10-2005, 11:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]

then the same can be said of you and your objectivity in interpreting the bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said I'm objective.

What knocked you out?

Malachii

07-11-2005, 06:04 AM

Pragmatism.

SheetWise

07-11-2005, 10:43 AM

God solves the political question of where our rights originate, "... all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ..."

This was the brilliance of the U.S. political structure -- if rights don't originate with men and are not not granted by men, then they can't be taken away by men. This thinking worked very well up until the recent makeup of SCOTUS. It seems the current thinking is that rights originate from the State, are whatever the Court says they are, and can be removed by the State.

Whether I believe in God or not, I'd rather have a Creator in the equation.

bossJJ

07-13-2005, 11:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't thought this through but in general there's an incompleteness to the OT which becomes apparent in the NT. The fundamental problem of man is sin which caused his separation from God and brought about condemnation. The OT provides no solution to this problem. That is why Christ came, to become the real sacrifice that the Levitical sacrifices foreshadowed. So it's more than just pointing to prophecies of Him in the OT. It involves the whole picture of who God is, who man is, and the relationship between God and man. The NT in Hebrews says that the sacrifice of animals is insufficient to take away the guilt of sin, to make atonement. If Jesus is not Messiah, the guilt remains, Messiah is yet to come, but wouldn't He have to do the same as Jesus? So the difference between Christianity and Judaism involves more than just whether or not Jesus was the Messiah but the very purpose of Messiah, the real issue of sin and guilt, and the possibility of forgiveness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Christians still sin, so believing in jesus doesn't solve the problem. Christians have a long history of violence and murder, persecuting other religions, oppressing their own people and supressing science and knowledge. It actually made things worse, because they believe a person's actions aren't so important - it's faith that matters.

So the question is, "how does one atone for sin?" According to the Hebrew bible, sincere repentence alone atones for sin, while a jesus' alleged sacrifice does not:
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/jesusdeath.html

Jews follow what the bible says, while Christians got their beliefs from paganism.

Same with the messiah - we get our beliefs about him from the bible, while the Christians' borrowed theirs from paganism. This is what will happen when the real messiah comes:
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/sin.html