13 Mar 03
1 edit
Originally posted by mikadoAn athiest doesn't believe there's a god. So we don't believe in something, just there lack there of.
Well I dunno - if you have got it wrong, and God does exist, then you're going to spend eternity in hell 🙂 Wouldn't it be more logical for the atheist to play safe and assume that God does exist? 😉
As for faith, my dictionary defines ...[text shortened]... ls me that the Brumbies are going down to the Stormers tomorrow 😀
P.s. My toaster called your stapler a lying bastard.
P.p.s. I wonder how much they will charge me to get my pixie in to the game.
13 Mar 03
Originally posted by rwingettThat was neither my statement nor is it the truth of the matter. I can not see why you would make such a statement, at least not for any positive purpose. What do I have to do to get through to you people that I am not trying to push my religion on anyone, and want only to discuss it in an honest and reflective manner? Please, let us all be civil in this. I have not criticized anyones beliefs here nor their motivations, please show me the simple and common courtesy to hold that acidic tongue till you can sweeten it to a pallateable level.
So a philosopher with a "proper mindset" would be one who does not disagree with you, and who appears to be open to accepting input from you. That would seem to be a rather opportunistic definition.
Beware! Although bbarr professes a lack of knowledge and asks many questions, I suspect that he is not really interested in discussing your insights. I su ...[text shortened]... be innocent questions, he hopes to expose any weaknesses that your position (or mine) may hold.
13 Mar 03
Originally posted by OmnislashI do not see how my comment was out of line. I merely made an inference based on what I have read thus far. If you think it is false, then be prepared to state why you think it is false. If you want to discuss a matter, then you must be prepared to entertain arguments that are contrary to your own. You can not ask (in a public forum) to discuss a matter only with people who agree with you.
That was neither my statement nor is it the truth of the matter. I can not see why you would make such a statement, at least not for any positive purpose. What do I have to do to get through to you people that I am not trying to push my religion on anyone, and want only to discuss it in an honest and reflective manner? Please, let us all be civil in this. ...[text shortened]... and common courtesy to hold that acidic tongue till you can sweeten it to a pallateable level.
13 Mar 03
Originally posted by rwingettYou nailed it! 😵 As a good practicing atheist I vote this the working definition. Any seconds?
Declaring a belief for god because it appears you've got nothing to lose and possibly everything to gain, is known as "Pascal's wager". But it is a false proposition. At best, it is a shallow and transparent attempt to gain possible salvation. At worst, it is the cheapening of one's verifiable existence by trying to believe what one knows to be illogic ...[text shortened]... eve in the nonexistence of god, but they overstep the bounds of what atheism is able to provide.
13 Mar 03
Originally posted by bbarrHmm. I was trying to convey the difference between being able to make rational logical conclusions about occurrences in your daily life and those that are not. Your claim about the disappearing monster is self-defeating - if every attempt to verify its existence is automatically negated by that attempt, then would not appear to be any reason to try, since it is defined by its very inability to be proven. Furthermore, we've all looked under beds multiple times, so it gives us a frame of reference to compare our observations with.
Suppose I claim that there is a monster under your bed that telports to another dimension whenever to try to verify its existence (thus preventing any sort of verification of my claim). Are you saying that it is just as rational to believe my claim as to disbelieve it?
A nice example of this is trying to explain the phenomenon of special relativity to a layman. While the mathemetical proof of it is elegant, it is inaccessible to those who lack a background in physics or math. When you make the claim that objects tend to become heavier as they approach the speed of light, on the surface this sounds like an identical proposition to the monster under the bed - no one in their daily routine ever experiences the state of massive velocity so they have no basis for comparison - lacking the mathematical understanding, the layman is content in saying 'Well, it's just as likely to me (if not more so) that things are the way that I've seen them my whole life, when something moves it neither gains nor loses mass, and your inscrutable mumbo-jumbo calculations have not convinced me otherwise.' To the scientist, he thinks, 'All this person needs is a proper understanding of the mathematical tools used to derive this theory and he will accept it even in the absence of direct evidence because he will understand that it is, in actuality logical.'
So to return to your example of the monster under the bed, what if you showed me a scroll filled with writing that you understood but that I did not, and claimed that this worked out proof of the existence of your monster in such a convincing manner that I would not need to experimentally verify its existence once I understood it? I might think twice about rejecting the notion of the disappearing monster out of hand, and make an effort to try and understand the writing and draw my own conclusions. Having done this, I've now given equal weight to both possibilities.
To bring this back into the realm of the existence of lack of existence of god, as I claimed before, I am an agnostic, and try to be as rational and logical as I can. I have made no great effort to study the bible or other theological musings that claim to offer proof of god's existence. Therefore, I must either reject them out of hand, which is to take a position of faith, based on my personal experience which tells me that there is not one, I can accept their claims without proving it to myself, which takes a different position of faith, or I can try to study their proofs, and assume that I will understand them sufficiently afterwards that I will be able to make a rational decision based on the presented evidence.
-mike
13 Mar 03
Originally posted by OmnislashThanks you Omnislash. Yes I would like actual references fromthe Bible, specifically any references that indicate that God is omnipotent (can do anything that can be done), omniscient (knows the truth value of every proposition) and morally perfect (for any two acts x and y, if x is morally better than y, then God prefers x to y and acts accordingly). So I'm looking for pretty specific information, any references you have concerning God's perfection would he helpful, though I'm more interested in whether the Bible claims that God has the three specific properties I mentioned above.
Thank you bbarr for having such an open mind and for making good points. As to your question as to if there is anywhere in the Bible that it clearly states that God is perfect. Yes my friend, there is. I can REALLY understand why you didn't see it though. A clear and concise declaration of such nature is not common. There are many things in the Bible that ...[text shortened]... you've shown yourself to have the proper mindset for a philosopher in my book.
Sean
🙂
Bennett
13 Mar 03
Originally posted by bbarrSince I don't believe this argument is being limited to the context of the New Testament, you may have a hard time justifying any moral superiority in god's actions from the book of Job. I've yet to meet anyone seriously religious who can offer an explanation to god's actions in those stories other than the maddening 'the lord works in mysterious ways.'
Thanks you Omnislash. Yes I would like actual references fromthe Bible, specifically any references that indicate that God is omnipotent (can do anything that can be done), omniscient (knows the truth value of every proposition) and morally perfect (for any two acts x and y, if x is morally better than y, then God prefers x to y and acts accordingly). So I'm ...[text shortened]... hether the Bible claims that God has the three specific properties I mentioned above.
Bennett
-mike
13 Mar 03
Originally posted by legionnaireInteresting, this is what you wrote before:
Hmm. I was trying to convey the difference between being able to make rational logical conclusions about occurrences in your daily life and those that are not. Your claim about the disappearing monster is self-defeating - if every attempt to verify its existence is automatically negated by that attempt, then would not appear to be any reason to try, s ...[text shortened]... rwards that I will be able to make a rational decision based on the presented evidence.
-mike
The point of this post is to highlight the fact that using the sort of logic that applies to day-to-day existence to disprove the fantastical notions posited by religion may not be as logical as it seems. And if our logic is dependent upon a predicted state (ie. the existence of a god) agreeing with our knowledge of previous states, then we have no basis for comparison in saying that there is or is not a god. All possibilities lie outside the realm of human experience, so it's neither more nor less logical to take one side of the argument over another
I was focusing on the part about something being 'outside human experience' and trying to press why you thought that just because something was outside of the bounds of our normal experience it would be just as rational to believe it as not. Sorry for the confusion. If I get you right, you're claiming that it is irrational to either believe in God or reject belief out of hand, and the only rational thing to do is to go study and then evaluate based on evidence. Many atheists claim to have done this, arguing that any accounting of the evidence that does not directly presuppose the existence of God is insufficient to make belief in God rational.
13 Mar 03
Originally posted by bbarrYes! That's exactly what I was trying to convey. I apologize for any confusion. The atheist claim of the need to presuppose the existence of God in order to prove it may very well be true. That being said, there <b>must</b> be some evidence of the existence of god if he does. The reason why I claim this is that god is defined as the creator of everything, and as such has had a hand in interacting with the current universe, even if whatever god is exists outside the bounds of our universe. If god has not interacted with the universe, then its existence is meaningless - if it is not able to directly manipulate any events (even if it's only a single event, the creation of the universe) then it would seem to me to fail the test of what constitutes being a god.
Interesting, this is what you wrote before:
I was focusing on the part about something being 'outside human experience' and trying to press why you thought that just because something was outside of the bounds of our normal experience it would be just as rational to believe it as not. Sorry for the confusion. If I get you right, you're claiming that i ...[text shortened]... oes not directly presuppose the existence of God is insufficient to make belief in God rational.
Every event leaves some trace of its occurrence, no matter how faint or small that trace is. Therefore, there should exist somewhere, sometime, some evidence for the existence of a god. That is, unless I fail to understand something about the nature of a god at a fundamental level, which is a distinct possibility.
-mike
14 Mar 03
Originally posted by rwingettI think we have had a misunderstanding here. I did not mean to convery that your argument was not wanted, but rather that I am unable to see why you correlate my complimenting bbarr on his philosophical stance with my own opinions of theology. The two statements are intended to come from different mindsets, and it is my burden as a person not to let one influence the other. While you may acertain for yourself whether or not I can do so, I don't see where you find basis for your statement that the compliment was derived from an openess to my other statements.
I do not see how my comment was out of line. I merely made an inference based on what I have read thus far. If you think it is false, then be prepared to state why you think it is false. If you want to discuss a matter, then you must be prepared to entertain arguments that are contrary to your own. You can not ask (in a public forum) to discuss a matter only with people who agree with you.
If it sounds as if I do not appreciate your opinions then I apollogize, for that was not my intent. I believe I misinterpreted your statement to be based upon a theological motive that lacked basis (for example you might read some of the earlier posts some aetheists have made). If I wrongly catagorized your statement as illogical slander, then please accept my apollogies and let us start fresh. Please speak your peace, for I invite your ideas regardless of what they are and hope we both might glean some understanding.
14 Mar 03
Originally posted by legionnaireI'm very glad you brought this up, for I think this is one of the most misunderstood books in the Old Testament. First off, I run my disclaimer again that I am but a man who speaks what he thinks and you should read the scriptures for yourself if you want to know the truth about them. I am only a man.
Since I don't believe this argument is being limited to the context of the New Testament, you may have a hard time justifying any moral superiority in god's actions from the book of Job. I've yet to meet anyone seriously religious who can offer an explanation to god's actions in those stories other than the maddening 'the lord works in mysterious ways.'
-mike
I presume from your post that you are one of the many who think that it was God who caused Job harm. The entire first two chapters infer that it is not Gods hand that did the harm, but rather that God ALLOWED Satan to do these things. It is infered throughout the first part of the book and is specifically stated as such in Chapter 2, verse 6 where the Almighty states directly to Satan that Job is in his hand (but he will not let him kill him). God did not harm Job. Satan harmed Job. God just did not obstruct Satan. I know there are a lot of people who will disagree with me on this one, but it is plainly stated as such in the texts as I have read them. It is my understanding that the book of Job is meant to show that God does not do any of the harm in the world, but that he does permit Satan to do it. Despite his allowance of the evil, God makes even the wicked events work for good in the end for his servants (see Chapter 5) just as he gave Job twice what he had before in the end (see Chapter 42). Why God permits evil to be done is covered slightly in this text, but is more poignantly put forth in other texts (which I would be happy to discuss).
There are accounts from my own life that I could use to illustrate the point if you would like. I hope this is clear enough and helps to show that God did not do any harm, but rather healed the harm done.
For bbarr,
So long as we're poking our nose into the book of Job, I found a reference for you in Chapter 42, verse 2. I hope to have a good list for you soon, but here's one to start you off while I look for the specific chapters and verses of others. A large part of the dialouge from Chapter 28 onward talks about the power of God. Not your specific requested statements, but a good read nonetheless. 🙂
14 Mar 03
2 edits
Originally posted by OmnislashNow I'm a bit confused. What precisely is the moral difference between causing someone suffering directly and allowing someone to suffer when it could easily have been prevented? Suppose I go down to the beach, grab some poor sap and drown him. Obviously I've acted morally reprehensibly. But suppose I go down to beach and happen upon some poor sap drowning in the shallows. If I just stand back and watch him drown, when at very little cost to myself (inconvenience, wet clothes) I could wade into the shallows and pull him to shore, isn't my lack of action also morally reprehensible? On the traditional christian perspective, God is a very powerful creature. He could whip the Devil in a cage match. So if God just stands back and watches Job suffer, when at very little cost to Himself He could alleviate that suffering by intervening in the Devil's machinations, then isn't God's lack of action also morally reprehensible? I presume you would claim that God allowed this evil to occur because it brought about some greater good (Job got double what he had before, or something like that). But if God is so powerful, why did He need Job to suffer in order to bring about this greater good? Couldn't God just bring about the greater good itself, the same way He brought about the whole world, through an act of His will? If God isn't morally perfect, then of course this isn't a problem. If God just isn't powerful enough to stop the Devil, then again this isn't a problem. But If God is either morally imperfect or insufficiently powerful to stop the machinations of the Devil, then in virtue of what is he deserving of worship?
[I presume from your post that you are one of the many who think that it was God who caused Job harm. The entire first two chapters infer that it is not Gods hand that did the harm, but rather that God ALLOWED Satan to do these things
Thanks for your attention to these questions, I've been wondering about these issues for some time.
Bennett
14 Mar 03
The book of Job is a very perplexing and offers a complicated God that as you say, Bennett, participates or is complicitus in Job's suffering. Help me out with the logic here as it may not make any sense. But we read in Genesis that mankind was made in God's image. If we as part of God's creation have a "shadow" or a part of ourselves that is broken, is it not fair to ask the same question of God? We sometimes ask for life to be completely on our terms and go our way. The reality is that life does not. The Christian message is not about everything going "right." It is about, at least in Job, finding God in the whirlwind (chaos). Or as I sometimes will ask my patients "if you don't get the healing/cure you want, what then and where is God for you?" Again, let me say that the essence of the Christian message in not about outcomes, but rather relationship and meaning in the midst of whatever. I think Jung had something to say about God's shadow in Job. Kirk