Questions 1-43: Vessel and Krehlic.
Offline List of questions about God, religion and the supernatural have been compiled by IG over the years as well as some interesting ones by readers.
I will try to reference the Bible as little as possible and just give possible answers.. since that is all that is required-- I'm not trying to prove my religion just disprove the claim that these questions have no answers and that they somehow show religious beliefs to be irrational.
I'm only half way through at the moment. I need to go to sleep.. got class in the morning. Oh. And rationality is the practice of reason. Reason is using, and holding, non-contradictory basis for a certain belief. I have my (what I believe to be) non-contradictory basis for my beliefs as well as you, yours. We are both rational. I am a member of the Rational Responders Squad. 
Now for the game of logic to being. As well as perhaps opening of my eyes or yours as to how ignorant we both are.
1. If Jesus fulfilled all the OT prophecies so well, why didn't the Jews recognize him as the messiah? - Francois Tremblay
Some did and some did not-- was it necessary according to older testament prophecy that all hebrews accept the Messiah? In fact I'm pretty sure the opposite is true (the opposite being 'not all' not 'none.'
2. If Gen 3:24 is true, why hasn't anyone found the Cherubims and the " flaming sword which turned every way"?
Why hasn't the missing link been found? We are, of course, assuming that the flaming sword is in fact still there.. I don't believe there is any reference in the Bible the eternality of a physical sword.
3. It's been proven that modern humans originated from Africa. Yet, the Adam and Eve story claims the first Humans lived in a garden in Eden, near 4 rivers. ( Most of which no one can find). One of these rivers mentioned is the Euphrates, which runs through Iraq, Syria and a portion of Turkey. What's the truth? Did man come out of Africa or near the Euphrates River? - The Infidel Guy
Proven is used pretty lightly here. If by proven you mean that the earliest, scientifically dated fossils of a human species was discovered in Africa, okay-- then perhaps. But.. 100 years ago it was not 'proven' that humans originated in Africa.. nor 400 years ago that the earth was round-- so please, lets wait another 10,000 years before we claim scientific 'proof'. Oh.. and as for the lack of an exact replica of the geographically described area in the Bible. My response: Pangea doesn't exist either, are we discounted the possibility of a geographically changing earth?
4. When the believer gets to Heaven, how can Heaven be utter bliss when people they love and care about are burning in Hell ? - The Infidel Guy - [Note: Some say God erases your memories of them, but if God erases your memory, you as Mr. Joe /Jane Smoe ceases to exist.]
You're assuming the belief in a Hell is essential to the Christian belief. Not so.. Most Christian denominations essential dogmas is that Jesus saves rather than God punishes. Ask most Christians which one of those beliefs is of upmost importance to them.. or essential to them. I would guess that it is more likely the former. Currently many denominations do not believe in idea of everlasting hellfire burning sinners forever. Want more explanation on this idea?
5. How can a God have emotions, i.e. jealousy, anger, sadness, love, etc., if he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent? Emotional states are reactionary for the most part. How can God react to us if he is all-knowing and has a divine plan? - IG [Note: Indeed, many religious texts display their gods this way . Listen to the An Emotional Godshow.]
Love is reactionary? But I digress... I'm assuming you refer to the many instances in the Bible in which human writers describe God. Projection perhaps? An in the cases where it is a quote accredited to God himself, well.. I would only use this conditional statement. If God is real, and all those things you mention, would he be better trying to describe himself using the ideas and terminology of his level or that of a lower life form? I suppose the same thing can be exampled by a Professor of Quantum Physics talking with a 9 year old kid. Reasonable answer?
6. Why would God create a place such as hell to torture sinners forever when he foreknew who would disappoint him? - IG [Note: Some say you have a choice, but this misses the point. If God hates sin so much, why create Adam and Eve when he knew they'd sin? The only conclusion I can come up with, if Yaweh exists, is that he wanted sin to enter the world.]
Look to the answer 4 for a half response to the rest I would say only this: I disagree with use of the word hate, but I'll continue answer. People shouldn't have kids. How can it be love to birth a human being into such a world? Where they are most guarenteed to disappoint you at some point? You might contend that God is all knowing, perfect 'forsight,' however, I would present this possibility.. at somepoint let us say that a perfect form of genetic prediction comes into being in which you can predict the intelligence, physical condition, and even 'social utility'.. abort all babies that don't meet up to the highest standards, more or less loving? In other words.. does one have kids, 'create' as it were, so that those kids will succeed in the way they want, or is it to give life?
7. "God is all merciful," we hear quite often. Wouldn't it be more merciful of God to simply snap sinners out of existence rather than send them to hell? Or better yet, since he's all-knowing, not allow them to be born at all? - IG
ON GOD'S LOVE & HELL
1.) God's love is superlative.
2.) God's love of man exceeds man's love of self.
3.) Man's love of self prohibits torture.
4.) Considering God's greater love for us, Hell (eternal torture) is illogical.
5.) See answers 4 and 6.
8. Muslims are supposed to pray 5 times a day towards Mecca. Each prayer includes a variety of ritualism and posturing. If a muslim astronaut were to land on Mars. Prayer to Mecca would be ritualistically impossible due to the rotation of Earth and Mars. Are Muslims stuck here in Earth? IG [Note: Since this was first posted, a Muslim astronaut was faced with this very dilemma. The authoritative clergy informed him to pray as he normally would. I see this no where in the Koran. You see? Religions must change, or die out. It's interesting to note that, in the Koran, the moon is believed to be in the lowest Heaven, the level for those that barely made it to Heaven. Surah 71:15-16. One problem, no man can supposedly get to Heaven until they die. Yet, we've been to the moon. Our satellites beyond that.]
Let's wait until we get to Mars. As for defending the Muslim fair-- I cannot, for, I am not Muslim-- but perhaps they have some answer.
9. Why haven't we seen God reattach severed heads, restore someone who was burned alive or regrow amputated limbs? Surely these would be miracles difficult to deny. - Adam Majors and IG [Note: The typical answer is that man doesn't dictate God's actions. The conundrum here however is that, if God wants us to "know" him, then surely feats such as those mentioned above would be happening all over the world. Until they do, I'll remain an atheist.]
You're assuming, for one, that miracles will equate to conversion, or perfect belief in God-- yet, even in the Bible there is testament to the idea that this may not be the case. Forgive me for using the Bible in this case.. but I must, seeing as it's one of the few places that miracles exist, and the only place that is relevant to me answering these questions. Judas betrayed Jesus even though he had witness miracles.. as well as Isrealites continually rebelled against God even though they were witness to miracles. That's fine that you believe that miracles equate to conversion of the relevant kind, but I just mean to say, this is not necessarily the case.. since, well, there haven't been miracles in my time-- neither, do I believe, should they be the basis for faith.
10. Why does God entrust the spreading of 'His' word to sinners? Why doesn't he do it himself? - IG [Note: Surely God would have known that not everyone would be convinced by the reality[sic] of his Bible. If God loves us so much, we are all going to Heaven. If God knew that I would be an atheist, and he doesn't like atheists, he shouldn't have allowed me to come into existence. But he did. Therefore, I must be serving the will of God, for I exist. Smiling]
See answers 4 and 6.
Furthermore, if indeed this world, is as some theologians believe, a universal example of the effects of sin-- an experiment in sin as it were-- started by a challenge of the Devil to God, a challenge which was in essence life would be better this way than that, then so be it. In this experiment people choose to be people of truth, love, and right, or not. At the end of time, if the belief of some Christians be right, then God will have the choice to bring people into Heaven-- I personally believe that his decision will be more yours then his. Yes, he loves all, and so it's only a matter of whether at the end of time whether you wish to spend the rest of existence with God or be wiped from existence.
A type of absolute Euthanasia as it were.
As for the spreading of his word.. why not do it himself. Even a scientist keeps his experiment affecting actions to a designated minimum until it reaches it's proper time to bring it to an end-- otherwise he risks destroying the purpose of the experiment in the first place.
Furthermore x2, these 'what if God X' are questions that assume that God exists. In the case of these questions.. I would seriously ask. 'If God exists in the sense that he is omniscient and all those other things, what do you know that he doesn't about what would be best or most likely to bring about the salvation of our eternal souls?"
Of course this presumes that he is interested in these sort of things.
Now it would be a legitimate to ask a question, "If God is X, then why would he do Y." Such as the question of hell of eternal punishment and coinciding that with the idea of a loving God (Biblical concept)-- that's a tough thing to do. I could use the same answer I gave for this one.. however, the concept of eternal punishment for temporal sins is so contradictory to me when related to a loving God.. that I probably wouldn't.
11. In II Kings 2-23/24 we read about God sending 2 she-bears to attack children for calling the prophet Elisa bald, which he was, the bears killed 42 of the children. Was this a good thing to do? -- Brandon and IG[Note: I have heard some argue that the boys were a gang. So?! I didn't read anywhere in that passage where they laid a finger on the guy . Also, what kind of bears are these that can kill 42 kids? Super Bears? Surely the kids had to be running away.]
This one would probably require the longest response.. so if you still need a response at the end of all these questions-- just say. "SEE 11" And I'll get back to it.
12. I have often heard from many believers that even Satan has a presence in the church, which is why even in church people can still have impure thoughts. If Satan can find his way in the church, how do Christians know that Satan didn't find his way into the Bible and twist the whole book? After all, men did vote on which books would make the Holy Bible. - The Infidel Guy
Church is made up of people. Book is made up of paper. At some particular moment in time you may find a church that's laymen have no impure thoughts at that moment, however, probably wouldn't last for very long... it's temporary. As for the Bible, it would only require a certain, large, yes, amount of individual moments to get the pages written down-- then, the book is removed from time. The fact that those people who wrote it were sinners, filled with impure and imperfect thoughts, does not change the fact that they could have had independent moments of divine inspirations at a particular moment in time. Same for those men who voted for those books to institute into what is now known as the Holy Bible.
13. Why did God allow Lot and his daughters to escape from Sodom and Gomorra when he destroyed it only to later have Lot and his daughters engage in incestuous fornication. (Genesis 19:30-36) - Disillusioned [Note: To have intercourse with daddy dearest of course.]
God leads.. he doesn't control. I'm not sure the representation of a imperfect man being imperfect does anything. I'm not sure I see condoning of the action within the verses.. only that it happened.
14. Genesis 1:28-29 shows that man and all the animals were first created herbivorous. Most young-earth Christians (ones that believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old) say that the fall of man resulted in carnivorous animals ( hence death of animals). So, why did God punish the animal kingdom, making animals kill and devour each other because of man's mistake? Or, if you're an old-earth Christian (one that accepts that animals existed on earth for billions of years before man came on the scene) then how come fossils show carnivorous animals existed before man? - http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/contact.htm.
Hm. Not sure what I believe in this case. Would I be fine with the idea that death occurred before the fall of man? Hm. Probably. Adam was immortal for a time because of his connection with God, not because of any sort of intrinsic characteristic. If animals had this same relationship also, then yes, their would seem to be some sort of oddity with the idea that animals were immediately punished for Man's sin. However, even as now the animal kingdom is affected by the actions of man (a member of the kingdom), so I would see no reason why it wouldn't be the same back then. I have no problems with the idea that animals adapted within their own species to a new world of limited resources.. therefore developing into carnivorous animals over time through means of natural selection.
As for the idea that carnivorous animals existed before man.. once again, I admit that you may be right and I maybe wrong (actually I think this might be the first time I said it).. but consider for a moment my answer to number 3.
I'm not saying that all geological science is wrong, just that it isn't as absolute as some state it to be. It is a theory created to coincide with facts, not a fact unto itself. Such as.. a coin on the table here. There is a coin on the table: Fact. I put it there: Theory. My roommate put it there: Theory.
15. Many Christians believe that God is a thinking being, that he solves problems and makes a way for them when troubles come. Does God Think? If God is thinking, did he know his thoughts before he thought them? If so, again, where is his freewill and how is God thinking at all if everything seems to be one uncontrollable action/thoughts. - The Infidel Guy [Note: I'd say a God cannot think at all. To do so, would strip him of omniscience. Thinking is a temporal process.] ON GOD'S ATEMPORALITY
1.) God, an atemporal being, created the Universe.
2.) Creation is a temporal processes because X cannot cause Y to come into being unless X existed temporally prior to Y.
3.) If God existed prior to the creation of the Universe he is a temporal being.
4.) Since God is atemporal, God cannot be the creator the Universe.
[Note: I guess I should also note here that a timeless being would be without the proposition of past, and future. But to be omniscient, God must know the past and future. Hence a God that is atemporal and omniscient cannot logically exist. Smiling]
I believe that this question might be ignoring the possibility that the concept of atemporal means something other then what he is presuming it means. I don't know the scientific concept of atemporal, or even if it can be scientific, but.. I can use semantics. Atemporal is likened to amoral, without time, without morals. Without morals does not mean that the individual being described by the word amoral does not exist within a moral world, rather that he is not self-restricted by morals. Likewise, atemporal does not mean that the individual is not existent within a temporal world, rather that he self-restricted by time. Time is a measurement between two points. We say an hour because it's six minutes, we say minutes because it's the number of degrees the earth rotates in a given amount of "time."
If God is eternal, with no beginning, and predictably without end, then he is arguably atemporal, without time. For his existence cannot be measured.. but not that he does not have an effect on the given state of the world in our time. (Once again, my understanding of time.)
16. I have often heard that faith is all that is neccessary to believe in God and accept the Bible as true. If this is true aren't all supernatural beliefs true since they also require "faith"? - IG ON FAITH
1.) A prerequisite to believe in a Faith is faith.
2.) Having faith is all that is required to accept a Faith (belief) as true.
3.) All Faiths are true.
[Note: Of course all Faiths aren`t true, but this is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from a person that states that, "Faith" is how one knows God.]
No. How did this question even make the list?!
1.) A prerequisite to believe in a Faith is faith.
2.) Having faith is all that is required to accept a Faith as true.
3.) Nothing.
Your two premises do not lead to a deduction of any kind. 1 and 2 in this case do.
1.) All tennis players are women.
2.) Alice is a woman.
3.) Alice is a tennis player.
My head just hurts with this one... to accept as true and to be true are two exclusive things. I have no problems with saying that a Muslim has faith in his Faith, and that *can be sufficient means for him to accept his Faith as true. Does that make it true? No. Neither does my faith make mine true.
So don't make invalid deductions just because..
1.) Pills are good for you.
2.) Pills are made by doctors.
3.) The horse jumped over the moon.
Beh.. this one makes me a bit irked.
17. Why didn't God just kill Adam and Eve after the Fall and start from scratch? Actually, if God is all-knowing wouldn't he know that man would need to be killed eventually anyway, (the biblical flood)? Why create Adam and Eve at all? - [email protected] and [email protected] ON THE GARDEN OF EDEN
1.) God is omniscient (all-knowing).
2.) God knew that before he created man that they would eat of the tree of knowledge.
3.) God placed the tree of knowledge in the Garden anyway.
4.) God wanted sin to enter the world.
[Note: If God didn`t want sin to enter the world, why create Adam and Eve at all? He knew what would happen. Why place the forbidden trees in the Garden in the first place?]
This one seems to be a rehash of an earlier one. If I'm incorrect.. get back to me. See answers 7 and 10.
18. If a spirit is non-physical but the human body is physical, how does a spirit stay in our bodies? - IG ON SPIRITS
1.) Spirits are not physical entities.
2.) Brains are physical entities.
3.) Past experiences are stored in our physical brains, we call that, Memory..
4.) Injury can damage portions of the physical brain that store memory and can alter or erase memories completely.
5.) If human spirits exist... after death, spirits can have no memory.
[Note: Some will say the spirit stores physical memories as well, but if true, the spirit would have to be physical at least to a degree. How could a non-physical spirit store, physical memories?]
How are we talking about the rules of a non-physical entity? What.. can you tell me in one case that a non-physical entity could not be restricted into a physical entity? or one that did? Non-physical is the much the same as saying supernatural.. meaning, indescribable with natural or physical terminology.
Futhermore, the concept of a Spirit is universal among Christian denominations. Some believe it to be a conscious thing living inside of you, some others believe it to be a non-conscious poetic idea of Life given by God, that returns to him upon death. Both of these interpretations have basis in biblical theology.
19. Does God know his own future decisions? If God is all-knowing he actually shouldn't have any decisions to make at all. Nor can he choose anything over something else. For that would mean that he is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. In fact, he can't even think if this is the case. Since he can't DO anything, he might as well not exist. - IG ON GOD'S IMMUTABILITY - Unchangingness
1. If God exists, then he is immutable.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at a later time not have that intention.
4. For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at a later time, after the creation, no longer have the intention to create it.
5. Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything (from 3 and 4).
6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5) - Theodore M. Drange
I would contend that God's unchangingness resides in his loving nature. That is where my faith resides-- one in his character. In much the same way that I have *faith in my doctor to do what is good even though I do not fully comprehend the mechanisms which he uses. Such as... sticking a knife into me and taking out a part of my body (e.g. appendix).
As for this attempt at deductive logic.
1.) Agreed.
2.) Agreed.
3.) Not agreed. The important concepts of this are under what contexts we understand immutable. To say that at one point I have an intention and at the next I no longer have that intention, is in fact a change of intention, then so be it. But I would have to disagree. For instance. If my intention at a particular moment is to create.. and therefore I create a soapbox, does this mean that my intention was never to create? or never to create a soapbox? No. Tis true that I might not choose to create another soapbox.. but so be it, it is not a change of character.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/immutable
Immutable
adjective
1.) not subject or susceptible to change or variation in form or quality or nature.
To say that God's intention to create the universe is his nature, or form, or quality is not reasoned in your logical progression.
Think of it this way.
1.) If a doctor is a good doctor, he looks for the best interests of his patients.
2.) If a patient is sick and a doctor can help, he will.
3.) If a doctor helps a patient then at a later time he will not help that patient.
4.) Doesn't matter.
5.) Doesn't matter.
6.) There for the doctor is not a doctor.
Albeit I'm attempting to use logic in all these cases to contest other logical propositions.. I do not mean to imply that logic is a cure all in and of itself. My reason for this is that there are many cases in which logic just fails to explain things.. these are known as paradoxes. For instance: The Arrow Paradox.
20. If God is all-knowing, how could he be disappointed in His creation? -- [email protected] [Note: Indeed, wouldn't God know that before the creation of our Universe what creatures would disappoint him? That being the case why create those creatures at all? Also, in knowing absolutely the behavior of humans before creation, God cannot be disappointed either... for this world is exactly as he has planned it to be. If it's not, why create us at all?]
See Answer 5.
Futhermore:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disappointed
Disappointed
adjective
1.) depressed or discouraged by the failure of one's hopes or expectations.
I hope and expect that my father will act honorably-- even though I know that he will not always live up to my expectations and hopes. I will be disappointed if ever he acts contrary.
21. God struck down the Tower of Babel angry at the intent of the people that built them, if this is the case, many of the great pyramids ( which are bigger than any ziggurat) around the world should be rubble also, yet many still stand today. Were not the Egyptians and many other ancient pyramid builders reaching toward God /The Heavens? - IG [Note: In actuality, many of the Pharaoh's believed that, via their pyramids, they would become God's themselves.]
The conditions necessary for life beginning from abiological substances (a theory of science) require different conditions then are now existent. Thus the same principal can be applied to explain why at one time an action was deemed necessary and another time not. The only thing that would need to be established in this scenario is the disparity of time and conditions between the building of the tower of babel and pyramids.
Also.. what do ziggurats have to do with the Tower of Babel? If the biblical story is true, then the culture existent at the time would, could, be considerably different then any culture that created the ziggurats or pyramids. Much taller perhaps? But thats a side note.
22. In the watchmaker analogy, a watch is used to show us intelligent design and compares that to the Universe as evidence of design. We know watches are designed because we have past experience with watches, as well as with other man made objects. My question is: What Universe is the Intelligent Design proponent using to compare this Universe with to draw such an analogy? What God did he see create a Universe? - IG
I don't agree with this analogy in the first place. In infinite time infinite space.. the watch could have been made as we see it now. You through a bunch of stuff into a tornado.. infinite time. All things become zero... mathematically speaking-- which, in the case of a Godless world, everything would be brought down to.
23. Why did God flood the earth to remove evil? It didn't work! Evil came right back, God should have known that would happen! So why did He bother? - PhineasBg [Note: A good example of how quickly sin returned, was Noah getting drunk just after they discovered land.]
See Answers 10 and 12. Put them together.
24. If the garden of Eden was a perfect paradise as xians claim, then why did Eve even want to eat the fruit? Wouldn't a perfect place provide everything a person would want or desire and thus she would want nothing? - keyser soze [Note: Why were the trees there in the first place? Of course they love to throw the serpent into the equation. But ummm..who let the serpent into the Garden?... and why would God create such a creature knowing he would cause man's fall? Hmm.. God must have wanted the fall to happen.]
See Answer 10. If not here, then somewhere. (I'm not one to believe in only one instance of creation, here Earth. It would seem somewhat illogical that God would create all this space and only one earth like planet. I do however believe that we were the only ones to fall. It needed to happen somewhere in my belief, and if it didn't happen here, then this exact conversation would be happening somewhere else.
I think its sort of ingrained into human nature to be curious. A child touches fire even though his parent tells him not to.. so on. In this case.. what was unknown was the knowledge of good and evil. So be it. Now we know to some extent.. although.. I'm sure we haven't carried it out to it's full conclusion.
25. Why would an all-powerful god become flesh in order to sacrifice himself to himself so that his creation might escape the wrath of himself. Couldn't god, in his infinite wisdom, come up with something a little more efficient? - [email protected] ON THE BODY OF CHRIST
1.) God?s flesh was known as Jesus.
2.) Flesh cannot enter into Heaven (according to Paul)
3.) God is no longer Jesus.
4.) Jesus doesn?t exist.
(Note: Many at this point will state that the spirit lives on so therefore Jesus lives. This really depends on what you believe about Jesus. Is Jesus the son of God or God in flesh? If Jesus is merely the son there is no problem.However, if Jesus ?is? God himself, we do. You see, Jesus is called Jesus because of the attribute of Flesh. If Jesus = God (who is spirit) then the entity known as Jesus ceases to exist. The flesh/body of Jesus, no longer exists and the spirit of God is still the unchanging spirit of God. No Jesus at that point. The Flesh, called Jesus, is dead.)
1.) Agreed.
2.) Hm.. need a verse but, I'll tentatively agree.
3.) Where did this come from?
4.) And this?
I don't understand the structure of this.
See question 10 as well as 5 (applications of emotions and 'wrath'
Coupled with this: I can only speak of my own theology which some denominations hold. And I will now be speaking with a religious tone. The plan of salvation was not so much to send Christ here to earth to die, but rather to send him here to live. Through his life people understood God in a new way as well the extent to which God loved, and the lengths to which he would go to be with his people, his creation. At a particular moment in time, mainly the Roman Empire, the advent of Christ was able to spread quickly. The death of Christ may have been for seen from the beginning, thus reason to be placed into older testament prophecy, however, this was not the purpose of Christ.
If it was.. then the question could become more potent by asking-- if the purpose of Christ was to die for our sins, why didn't he do it at the age of 5? or 10? or.. whatever?
26. After 9/11 a lot of people have been tossing around " god bless america". Why do they keep saying this? From the looks of it god hasn't blessed anything. If god had blessed america, the 9/11 event would've never happened. Theists seem to give the answer of "everything is part of gods big plan". If everything is part of gods big plan, why are we after Bin Laden? Wasn't he and other terrorists just carrying out gods desired plan? So it seems that Bin Laden/ terrorism isnt our enemy, but god . - [email protected] [Note: Unfortunately many religious nuts believe they are fulfilling their God's plan by going to war.]
Lots of people say "part of God's plan" without considering the implications they are making. Perhaps they do mean it in the way you are inferring, perhaps they don't. Me personally, I don't. When I say this I do not mean that every particular instance is part of God's plan, but rather the situation we are in is. For instance, consider question 10 again. If we are indeed an 'experiment,' then this is part of a plan, even as an experiment is a plan of a scientist. It does not mean that every instance within the experiment was hoped for, or drawn out beforehand by the scientist, only that the experiment has it's limitations it's restrictions, but everything else is led to chance.
Even so this.
As for the "God Bless America".. I'm not sure I understand your contention. To say "God Bless something" is not to say that God has blessed something.. or that he will.. or that he ever has.
(My personal opinion is that he has-- in so much that all good things come from him, in as much as all warmth (feeling) comes from heat (scientific description of energy).)
27. Christians say that God is NOT the author of confusion. Can you say, Tower of Babel? - The Screaming Monkeys
Christians say? Does not mean true. If there is some biblical basis for this belief that he is not the author of confusion.. then so be it, I will address now: Evil things happen in the space that exists between God and the absence of God. If confusion did in fact happen at this point at time, it does not mean that God directly created it by a snap of his finger.. but *could merely mean that he pulled away his presence at the behest of a nation who was unwilling to trust him (that unwillingness expressed through the production of the tower).
But in any case, it has to be reasoned through the Bible how God is not, or cannot be, the creator of confusion. Or how somehow confusion is contradictory to some fundamental aspect of God's immutable character.
28. If Noah's flood supposedly covered the earth for a year, regardless of whether or not all the animals could fit on the ark, what the heck happened to all the plants? Can you imagine a cactus surviving under 4 miles of water for a year? I can't either! - Kyle Giblet [Note: With God all things are possible. Oh wait, except in Judges 1:19.]
*Worldwide flood is not a necessary premise for the belief in God.
However I will try and address it anyways. Wait.. no, I can't.. unless somehow the building blocks of plant species were included in the ark, seeds mainly. Earlier time, smaller species diversification.
Good question though.
29. The highest rainfall ever recorded in a 24 hour period was 47inches in the Reunion Islands in 1947 (during a severe tropical storm). To cover the whole earth to a depth of 5.6 miles, and cover the mountain tops (i.e. Mount Everest), it would need to rain at a rate of 372 (three hundred and seventy two) inches per hour, over the entire surface of the earth. Can rain fall at such an astronomical rate? Where did all the water come from?? Where did it all go to??? And would not the dynamics of the earth be so out of balance (tides etc.) that the earth would become so unstable that it would wobble off into outer space???? - [email protected]
See Answer 28.
Wow.. thats a huge amount of rain in 24 hours. That would've been sweet to be there. Um.. secondly, see Answer 21. Time changes all. Tis true. The world pre world-wide flood might have been hugely different geographically then now. A huge amount of water dumped on the earth would indeed create valleys as well as the corresponding mountains as water slowly soaks into unsaturated terrain. Think.. erosion, except on a grand scale. Water from below, water from above. Arguments based on the believe that pre-flood and post-flood worlds were exactly the same, or even similar is difficult to make.
So let me say this. If the world now, oceans and all, is exactly how it was before the flood.. then yes-- I wouldn't not be able to rationalize a worldwide flood (assuming that your assumptions about wandering off into space are correct-- and that water, cannot, in fact fall at 372 inches, or that 372 inches is necessary scientifically, to cover this world, in this time.)
30. What do Muslim women get in Paradise? - IG [Note: Some Muslims I have interviewed about this say that Muslim women will get the same thing men get or equal value. Smiling Oh really? So Muslim women will get 72 virgin men? lol. If Muslim men get 72 virgins, where are all these virgin women coming from? What of their freewill? Is Allah creating these women to be slaves to the men in Paradise?]
Not a Muslim. Can't answer.
31. In the "Last Days" Jesus is supposed to appear in the clouds. How are the Christians on the opposite end of the world going to see him? Are there going to be millions of Jesus'? What about people that work underground? What about people in deep space? - [email protected]
Um.. I ask you-- if Jesus comes in the last days, in the clouds, are you really going to care about how it happens? The mere fact that a supernatural being is floating down from the sky is happening would seem to imply that the very rules of nature are not applicable anymore.
Furthermore, I don't presume to claim as absolute my understanding of the second coming based of biblical interpretations in fact true-- only that he will come, and every eye shall see.
32. The Bible says that God is a jealous God . How is this an example of a moral absolute of which man is supposed to follow? - IG ON GOD`S JEALOUSY
1.) "God is love." 1 John 4:8.
2.) "Love is not jealous." 1 Cor 13:4
3.) "I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God." Exodus 20:5.
4.) The Christian god cannot logically exist.
(NOte: Basically love is NOT jealous, yet god is jealous, then God can`t be love. But if god IS love he cannot be jealous. Be he is.)
However, I find it difficult to address an argument that presumes that the language of both the older testament and the newer testament should coincide perfectly. I would apply my answer to 5 to this question with regards to Exodus 20:5. As for the evidence stated in 1 and 2 I say, yes.
33. A true Muslim man is not supposed to do anything that the prophet Muhammad didn't do. If one remembers there was a big debate over whether or not Muslims should eat Mangos. If this is true, why in the Hell were these Islamic Fundamentalists flying airplanes? - IG
Not a Muslim. Wow.. these questions are higher weighed against Christians. Muslims are lucky.
34. If the earth was covered by a complete global flood, every living creature killed except those surviving on the ark, why are there many completely unique animal species in Australia that are found no where else indigenously on the earth? - [email protected]
See Answer 28.
But once again I will address for those who would wish to believe in a worldwide flood.
Evolution. Natural Selection. Diversification. Extinction.
I have no problems believing in these things.. even as the bible does not. Evolution within species as been tested time and time again.. and seems to be an accurate description of how things are. However, cross species diversification has not been (to my knowledge).
35. If god is omniscient and " god is love," why would he allow a child to be conceived, knowing that that child would one day reject him and spend eternity burning in a lake of fire?- TiredTurkeyProd
Why is this answer being asked over and over again? I mean.. I guess I understand why. But I will address again. See Answer 4, 6, and 10.
36. Revelations is supposed to take place on Earth. What if we colonize the moon or Mars or inhabit a self-sustaining space station? Do we escape "judgement"? -- Ray Sommers [Note: No we don't Ray... and of course we all know that if there is any intelligent life out there besides us, they are all going to Hell too. Eye-wink]
Let's wait until we colonize the moon and then I will get back to this one.
37. Isaiah 40:28 says, "...the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is he weary?" If this is true, why did God rest on the seventh day?- IG
To sanctify (theological term meaning to make holy, holy meaning-- to set aside) a day in which ones should rest. Lead by example I always say. 
38. Everytime I go to a funeral the preacher and guests always say that " God " has called that person to Heaven or they say, " God said it was time to come home", or some such variation. If God is calling these people "home", why are we putting the murderers of these victims in prison? How can we punish a man or woman for doing God's will? - IG
Hm. Interesting question. Of course. This seems to be a legal one as well. If you do God's will this does not mean that the state cannot still punish you, or that its duty is to punish you depending on their respective laws.
However... once again I state. Just because a Christian, even a pastor, states something as if he knew God's mind, doesn't not mean that he is fact speaking God's mind.
I don't agree with this concept of death.
See Answer 26 for more.
39. Does God have a gender? In most churches, God is predominately referred to as a "he"? - IG [Note: The Bible says God is male, but what does this mean? Does God have a penis? Does he have hormones that dictate his gender? Smiling]
See Answer 5.
If he were something other than a man or a woman.. how exactly would he go about explaining that to a human being? Any thoughts? Perhaps when you figure out how to tell a fish he's wet-- then you can get back to me.
40. Why can't we wait until we get to Heaven to worship God? Why would it be too late? - IG
Another great question. Hm.. let me ponder.
I can't claim to be right on my rationale.. but of course-- all these questions need is a rational response.
So here is mine.
Perhaps because those who do not to choose to worship God, or whatever measures one must do to attributes of morality they must have in order to be in heaven, will not wish for those things even in Heaven.
I would liken it to this.. for me, personally, I have no interest in serving Hilter, no interesting in learning his ways, no interest whatsoever in coming into closer communion with him-- if it turns out that Hitler is God... I would have a tough time say.. 'Yah, okay Hitler, take me to heaven.. let me see you point of view.'
I'd probably say.. 'Thanks, but no thanks. Here I come non-existence!'
41. What is the purpose of prayer? What can a finite being on Earth possibly tell an omnipotent, omniscient deity that he doesn't know already? - IG ON PRAYER
1.) Humans can?t change God?s mind for he has a divine plan and is unchangeable.
2.) Prayer can't change God's mind.
3.) Prayer doesn't change anything.
(Prayer may make you feel better emotionally, but it doesn`t change God`s mind.)
Prayer doesn't change God, it changes me. paraphrased from C.S. Lewis writings. If it is only for emotional comfort.. then so be it. Even Jesus (once again I go to the Bible) prayed to God for a change in the plan, but even he submitted to how things needed to be. Some people pray for deliverence from challenges.. others just for strength. Think self-hypnotism.
42. Some say Jesus was the all-knowing God. Jesus would have known then that when he died he'd be in heaven in less than 3 days to rule. If Jesus is alive and ruling today, what did he sacrifice? -- Cyndy Hammond
Hm. Go ask Bill Gate to give all that he has and to go live in the poorest nation of Africa.. and that if he does that for 33 years-- he'll get back all that he had in the first place. "Now.. times that by infinite and take it to the depths forever and you'll barely have a glimpse." Second part quoted from Meet Joe Black.. a film.
43. God knows that men are sinners, untrustworthy and evil, why does God leave it up to fallible man (clergy..etc) to teach others about his word? Why would he put our eternal souls at risk if he loves us so much? - The Infidel Guy and Danno778
See Answer 10.
- Login to post comments
Offline I have left out points on which we have agreed. That should help with the length.
vessel wrote:RhadTheGizmo wrote:Vessel wrote:"One's" in my above quoted sentence was meant to refer to the god's existence. There would be no reason to ever contemplate a god's existence. There is plenty of reason for one to contemplate one's own existence, just not a god's. And contemplating one's own existence does not lead one to a god if one doesn't already have a concept of a god.Ah. Now I See.
Now, someone at some point (and most probably many people at many points as these type of beliefs seemed to have popped up all over) must have contemplated a god's existence unprompted, but it does not mean that contemplating this god was in any way necessary.
Wait. Then perhaps I don't see. I was assuming the idea you applied to yourself (That being that you would have no reason to contemplate the existence of God if one did not mention the existence of God to you) was universal. If you did not mean for it to be universally applied, then so be it-- if so. Then the remained of your explanation is addressing a different issue-- that is whether or not the creation of a character in the likeness of gods or God was necessary, rather than then the explanation of why it was created if there was no reason too.
I mean for it to be universal. I think I see where the confusion enters the picture however. I say no reason, but I mean no necessary reason. We can contemplate our own existence without being led necessarilly to a concept of a deity. We can likewise contemplate everything of which I am aware. That someone added the concept of a deity at some point by no means makes it a necessary component. Had it never been added, I see no reason to think it would be missed. Basically it offers nothing necessary is what I was saying.
So you reason is the need for companionship led man to use the natural facilities of imagination to create a God/gods character/s. Possible I suppose-- not necessary.
Not necessarily companionship, but lack of scientific explanation. I consider all god's to be god's of the gaps.
Neither is there question to which I am aware that leads to the necessary conclusion that is *no God.
I don't claim there to be. I simply claim that without a question that leads necessarily to god, to consider a god to exist is pure faith. To not consider a god to exist is simply seeing no reason to consider one to exist. It requires no faith. It is simply the state of not possessing that unevidenced belief. No different than not believing in anything else for which there is no question that leads us to its existence.
As for the contention that theist move from question to question and use imagination to answer them; scientists move from question to question by using experimentation and investigation-- I must contend, in part.Mainly the connection between experimentation and investigation. All experimentation is investigation but not all investigation is experimentation.
Science, for the most part use experimentation to develop theories. However, there are certain instances where only investigation is mainly used because experimentation cannot. For instance. The Big Bang Theory is a scientific theory as well as the theory of the progressive evolution of man from ape.
There is no experiment that has reproduced this transition or any similar transition (cross-species evolution).. and is, according to my understanding, a product of investigation and supporting facts. In much the same way as a case is built-- circumstantial evidence.
Theist use this form of investigation, in some cases, to move from question to question. Using circumstantial evidence to support a certain idea. Of course.. circumstantial evidence can only go so far-- and as criminal cases prove time and time again, there are always other possible scenarios that would have produced the same facts.
Yes, and science allows for these facts to lead to a new conclusion at any time. Religion does not. With evolution we see evolutionary changes as far as genetic differences within a species that are a result of 'mutations' and can see how that would allow certain members in a population an advantage in a particular environment and then extrapolate those small changes over X amount of time and see that a new species would be the result. If however this was shown to be incorrect by new data the conclusion that evolution through natural selection can account for the varied life we see today would change. In religion if the data changes the conclusion remains god.
As for experimentation.. only so far as some Christians try and use to discount scientific theory. Which.. well-- is what experimentation is used for anyways... to disprove something, not necessarily prove it.
But they use it to reach a presumed and unalterable conclusion which makes it necessarily faulty experimentation. Its bad science.
However.. you do make a good distinction. Although.. per my answer to 28 or something-- God is not necessarily supernatural and science cannot discount the possibility that it may come to find a natural, albeit it very powerful, being with the ability to create matter. Like you said.. science has no stated Goal.. it's only limitations lie within sciences ability to describe something using it's own terminology-- which is constantly changing. (consider the emergence of quantum physical vocabulary.. as well as string theory.)
It could. It could discover a nearly infinite number of things but until it does, to hold to them as existing, seems odd.
Vessel wrote:We must trust our experience to be an accurate representation of reality, not because we choose to, but because byQuote:decidingNot because we choose to but because by deciding.....?
Yes, but you can't just pick out the word "deciding" but must look at the context in which it is being used. I'm not saying we do decide. I'm saying that if we we're to try to decide we would have to use the same means to decide that we are calling into question. You actually answer this yourself in the reason as religion thread but seem to have trouble with it here. It is the same concept.
Vessel wrote:whether or not to trust our experiences as an actual representation of reality we are employing the means by which we experience reality."I think, therefore I am." Yes. You are because you are thinking. I would agree with this. But that does not mean to say that "I am, because you think I am." That is the idea of reality that I was addressing.
It is the same thing. I am experiencing reality in the same way I am experiencing my own existence. I must use the means by which I call reality into question to determine whether or not reality is real. I have no choice to believe or not believe in reality. I must consider what I know as reality 'as reality' because I have no other way to know it.
Vessel wrote:We do not have the option of not trusting our experiences as an actual interpretation of reality.We don't? You accept your reality and the schizophrenic his and the witch docter his. Is this to say that all of you are equally as unable to make a choice as to what is real, and what is not?
We all experience the same reality. That is my reality. Because the schiz experiences delusions does not mean he experiences another reality. The only way I can experience him is with the tools with which I experience reality, as that is the only way in which I am equipped to experience him. Whether or not his tools coincide with mine is wholly unimportant since as I experience you and him you both experience the same reality as I do. That is the only thing that can possibly be relevant to me as that is all I can possibly experience.
Once again. "I think therefore I am" I have agreed with this. But it does not address the reality of things other than your existence.
It does in the only way it can no matter what your worldview.
Wait.. which one? The one about "I think therefore I am" or the one about "You are because I think you are."?
Neither one of those is a choice. They are both necessary.
I'm using in the legal sense of something taking for granted. These assumptions are either stated.. or not.
But you are not using assumption in the traditional sense when you apply it to people accepting the way in which they experience reality. If this was what we meant by assumption then why differentiate it from evidence or reason or reality?
Sorry. I can be unclear at times-- as many people are.
Because something is irrational does not mean it is illogical. Thinking that green dwarves inhabit my trash can is irrational. It is in no way illogical.
Once again. Just pointing out the concept of irrationality.. and how, in order to say that a person is irrational, one must argue that he is illogical-- contradictory in some part of his belief.
No. That is not what irrational means.
Ah. I misunderstood you then. I point then again to my statement about reality. You are having a conversation with me because you believe me to be real for no other reason then you have choosen to believe that things affecting you are real and seperate entities.
No. As I have pointed out, it is not a matter of choosing it is a necessity.
"I think therefore I am": Agreed. Necessarily true. (at least I haven't heard a good argument against it)"I think you are therefore you are": Agreed. But not necessarily true-- indeed a choice.
Not a choice. And it is not 'I think you are therfor you are'. It is '"I think therefor I am and what I experience is necessarily iinseperable from me."
"I think the Bible is divinely inspired therefore it is.": I don't necessarily agree with this. But it is a as valid an assumption (something taken for granted) as the one above, although not as self evident as the first.
No it is not. There are many other ways in which the bible can come about. There is no other way which you could experience reality except as the way you experience it with the tools you with which experience it. If that is not what reality is then you can not experience it. There is no choice in the matter.
I had a conversation without a chimpanzee yesterday when I was asleep. And then I woke up.. dangit-- perhaps you haven't woken up yet?
if that is the case I would know when I woke up. If not it is irrelevant. I can only experience what I can expoerience.
You need to assume that I am infact real... in the sense that I am a seperate entity and not a figment of your imagination.
I do not need to assume you are real. You are real in the only way you can be real. You are real as far as I know using the only methoid available to me to tell if youi are real. Anything else is wholly unimportant as it is impossible for me to know. It is not choice but necessity.
Vessel wrote:You would contend that Religion has none? And I don't mean to suggest that Religion must have a superior benifit to other things-- or even a unique benifit.. only a benefit. Continued below:No. These have benefits.
Vessel wrote:There are no such benefits with theism. I can be good and loving and peaceful and charitable without theism. I can not drive to the casino without gasoline being as that my car runs on gasoline. I can not have an equal chance of surviving infection and as quick a recovery from infection without antibiotics.True-- you cannot drive. You can walk. True.. you would not have an equal chance. But a chance nonetheless, as well as a bacterial evolution that would be severely retarded by the absence of antibiotics (possibly). (I do not mention vaccines.. different issue.)
A chance is not an equal chance and walking is not driving my car. I can achieve the exact same thing by the exact same method with or without religion. It is useless in unique abilities aside from allowing people to believe in an afterlife and a god both of which hold very dangerous possibilities.
So.. if religion does have some benifit (not necessarily unique) then our debate would have to turn which one is more efficient. Then we would need to weigh cost and benefits.. etc.
No because the benefit of driving my car to the casino is a unique benefit. It is not the same as walking to the casino. The benefit is getting better quicker and easier, not simply getting better. You arbitrarily set the benefit at arriving at the casino or getting better and discarded the unique benefits and then said that they didn't exist.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
- Login to post comments
Offline
I have left out points on which we have agreed. That should help with the length.
Good idea. (Can be removed)
vessel wrote:RhadTheGizmo wrote:Vessel wrote:"One's" in my above quoted sentence was meant to refer to the god's existence. There would be no reason to ever contemplate a god's existence. There is plenty of reason for one to contemplate one's own existence, just not a god's. And contemplating one's own existence does not lead one to a god if one doesn't already have a concept of a god.
Ah. Now I See.
Now, someone at some point (and most probably many people at many points as these type of beliefs seemed to have popped up all over) must have contemplated a god's existence unprompted, but it does not mean that contemplating this god was in any way necessary.
Wait. Then perhaps I don't see. I was assuming the idea you applied to yourself (That being that you would have no reason to contemplate the existence of God if one did not mention the existence of God to you) was universal. If you did not mean for it to be universally applied, then so be it-- if so. Then the remained of your explanation is addressing a different issue-- that is whether or not the creation of a character in the likeness of gods or God was necessary, rather than then the explanation of why it was created if there was no reason too.
I mean for it to be universal. I think I see where the confusion enters the picture however. I say no reason, but I mean no necessary reason. We can contemplate our own existence without being led necessarilly to a concept of a deity. We can likewise contemplate everything of which I am aware. That someone added the concept of a deity at some point by no means makes it a necessary component. Had it never been added, I see no reason to think it would be missed. Basically it offers nothing necessary is what I was saying.
Agreed. This is a rational response. Very possible that no one would miss it. Possible that some might. The inability to think of a reason of why something would be missed of something that is in-fact here (the belief, not God himself) does not necessarily equate to the lack of reason. I guess.. I would liken this to saying.. I see no reason why I would miss my mother if she died-- does not mean that in fact, I would not miss her if she died. (If Agreed.. you can remove)
So your reason is the need for companionship led man to use the natural facilities of imagination to create a God/gods character/s. Possible I suppose-- not necessary.
Not necessarily companionship, but lack of scientific explanation. I consider all god's to be god's of the gaps.
Agreed. Possible explanation for the creation of theism. But we're speaking of "not necessarily"s.. so I would contend that "all god's to be god's of the gaps" to not necessarily be the correct explanation-- even though it could be. Even so much as I would say that "all god's are real" to not necessarily be the correct explanation-- even though it could be. This is not meaning to be a statement of faith, but rather a belief in possibles reasons to questions and facts as we have presented them so far. Specifically, that people believe in God. That is all at this moment. Irrational or not (not established for the moment). (Agreed? If so. Then remove.)
Neither is there question to which I am aware that leads to the necessary conclusion that is *no God.
I don't claim there to be. I simply claim that without a question that leads necessarily to god, to consider a god to exist is pure faith. To not consider a god to exist is simply seeing no reason to consider one to exist. It requires no faith. It is simply the state of not possessing that unevidenced belief. No different than not believing in anything else for which there is no question that leads us to its existence.
The first part would seem to agree with my question above. But the rest of it I will ask for more info.
To consider a god to exist is faith based. (Agreed. Whether that faith is rational or not is a different issue. And whether it is purely faith based is a different issue-- at least I consider it to be. For instance.. while I agree with your statement below I do not agree with a statement one that would be constructed like this. "There is no reason to consider a god to exist, and therefore it is purely faith based." The definition of reason, used as a noun, means basis or cause for some belief, action, or.. etc. There is no limitations to what this basis could be. You may not accept what someone else professes to be experiential reason to believe in a God as reason for you, but that does not mean that it is not reason for them. And as long as those reasons are not contradictory, then it is rational as well. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rational http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reason .)
To not consider a god to exist is simply seeing no reason to consider one to exist. (Agreed. Remove? I would however contend that you accept other things for no more independently verifiable reason then that of the theist who says they consider God to exist because that is the only way in which they know to understand reality.)
As for the contention that theist move from question to question and use imagination to answer them; scientists move from question to question by using experimentation and investigation-- I must contend, in part.
Mainly the connection between experimentation and investigation. All experimentation is investigation but not all investigation is experimentation.
Science, for the most part use experimentation to develop theories. However, there are certain instances where only investigation is mainly used because experimentation cannot. For instance. The Big Bang Theory is a scientific theory as well as the theory of the progressive evolution of man from ape.
There is no experiment that has reproduced this transition or any similar transition (cross-species evolution).. and is, according to my understanding, a product of investigation and supporting facts. In much the same way as a case is built-- circumstantial evidence.
Theist use this form of investigation, in some cases, to move from question to question. Using circumstantial evidence to support a certain idea. Of course.. circumstantial evidence can only go so far-- and as criminal cases prove time and time again, there are always other possible scenarios that would have produced the same facts.
Yes, and science allows for these facts to lead to a new conclusion at any time. Religion does not. With evolution we see evolutionary changes as far as genetic differences within a species that are a result of 'mutations' and can see how that would allow certain members in a population an advantage in a particular environment and then extrapolate those small changes over X amount of time and see that a new species would be the result. If however this was shown to be incorrect by new data the conclusion that evolution through natural selection can account for the varied life we see today would change. In religion if the data changes the conclusion remains god.
Agreed. The conclusion that god remains is an aspect of *most religious searches for truth. And since science, as we now understand it and God, cannot disprove the existence of a supernatural being. However, the same language you use.. evolution "would allow".. evolution through natural selection "can account".. is the same wording that I believe Christian should use when speaking of God. The existence of God "could account" for this.. or "can account" for that. And even as scientific theories are disproved by the contradiction of evidence, and reason based off that evidence, so such is religion which tenants must adhere to the construct it has created for itself. In this construct, in the Christian sense, it is that God is loving in the purest of senses. If at some point someone presents me with evidence that would seem to suggest that God is not loving. Then I would either have to refute, accept and change my picture of God, or accept and do away with my picture of God.
I do not believe science and religion to be exact in every way. Only the belief that, in their ideal states, they both should be rational. (e.g. irrational response to the question. Why did God do X? R: Because he did it or Because he is God. Is not answering the question-- and in one case it is circular logic, a fallacy, irrational. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irrational . Definition 3.)
As for experimentation.. only so far as some Christians try and use to discount scientific theory. Which.. well-- is what experimentation is used for anyways... to disprove something, not necessarily prove it.
But they use it to reach a presumed and unalterable conclusion which makes it necessarily faulty experimentation. Its bad science.
However.. you do make a good distinction. Although.. per my answer to 28 or something-- God is not necessarily supernatural and science cannot discount the possibility that it may come to find a natural, albeit it very powerful, being with the ability to create matter. Like you said.. science has no stated Goal.. it's only limitations lie within sciences ability to describe something using it's own terminology-- which is constantly changing. (consider the emergence of quantum physical vocabulary.. as well as string theory.)
It could. It could discover a nearly infinite number of things but until it does, to hold to them as existing, seems odd.
Vessel wrote:We must trust our experience to be an accurate representation of reality, not because we choose to, but because byQuote:deciding
Not because we choose to but because by deciding.....?
Yes, but you can't just pick out the word "deciding" but must look at the context in which it is being used. I'm not saying we do decide. I'm saying that if we we're to try to decide we would have to use the same means to decide that we are calling into question. You actually answer this yourself in the reason as religion thread but seem to have trouble with it here. It is the same concept.
Vessel wrote:whether or not to trust our experiences as an actual representation of reality we are employing the means by which we experience reality.
"I think, therefore I am." Yes. You are because you are thinking. I would agree with this. But that does not mean to say that "I am, because you think I am." That is the idea of reality that I was addressing.
It is the same thing. I am experiencing reality in the same way I am experiencing my own existence. I must use the means by which I call reality into question to determine whether or not reality is real. I have no choice to believe or not believe in reality. I must consider what I know as reality 'as reality' because I have no other way to know it.
Logically, they are not the same.
Construct X
1.) I Think
2.) Therefore, I am.
I'm taking for granted that I think-- an assumption http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assumption . Because of this I can deduce that I am. This is something I consider self-evident.
Construct Y
1.) I think you are.
2.) Therefore you are.
This I do not. For just because I think something is, does not mean it is. If this were the case then I could say that:
Construct Z
1.) I think you are. (You=God)
2.) Therefore you are. (You=God)
I don't think you would accept this idea this construct. But it is necessary if you accept X and Y as the same.
Premise: If X is true then Y is also true.
Premise: Z is the application of Y.
Deduction: Therefore Z is true.
Once again I will state. I believe Construct X to be self evident. Construct Y is accepted by choice.
Vessel wrote:We do not have the option of not trusting our experiences as an actual interpretation of reality.
We don't? You accept your reality and the schizophrenic his and the witch docter his. Is this to say that all of you are equally as unable to make a choice as to what is real, and what is not?
We all experience the same reality. That is my reality. Because the schiz experiences delusions does not mean he experiences another reality. The only way I can experience him is with the tools with which I experience reality, as that is the only way in which I am equipped to experience him. Whether or not his tools coincide with mine is wholly unimportant since as I experience you and him you both experience the same reality as I do. That is the only thing that can possibly be relevant to me as that is all I can possibly experience.
Agreed. If by saying this you mean reality is *not necessarily* universal. Or maybe thats not what you are saying.
"Whether or not his tools coincide with mine is wholly unimportant since as I experience you and him you both experience the same reality as I do." I do not understand this. Are you meaning to tell me that a person who feels, in all the same ways that you feel any piece of matter in this world, a green dwarf is on his shoulder is experiencing the same reality as you?
I apologize, but I will not more clarification on this part.
Once again. "I think therefore I am" I have agreed with this. But it does not address the reality of things other than your existence.
It does in the only way it can no matter what your worldview.
Wait.. which one? The one about "I think therefore I am" or the one about "You are because I think you are."?
Neither one of those is a choice. They are both necessary.
I'm using in the legal sense of something taking for granted. These assumptions are either stated.. or not.
But you are not using assumption in the traditional sense when you apply it to people accepting the way in which they experience reality. If this was what we meant by assumption then why differentiate it from evidence or reason or reality?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assumption
Assumption is something taken for granted. It is the basis of reason. As well as necessary to accept things as evidence as well as defining reality.
I guess that would be my point.
And that only one self evident assumption exists.. that being. "I think therefore I am." Everything else is by choice.
Sorry. I can be unclear at times-- as many people are.
Because something is irrational does not mean it is illogical. Thinking that green dwarves inhabit my trash can is irrational. It is in no way illogical.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irrational
1. without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
3. not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical.
reason:
1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.
3. the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.
It is not irrational in and of itself. Green dwarves can rationally inhabit a trash can unless you make other assumption to logically deduce (within your construct) that they do not.
For instances.
Assumption/premise: Dwarves do not exist.
Deduction: Dwarves are not in his trash can.
Once again. Just pointing out the concept of irrationality.. and how, in order to say that a person is irrational, one must argue that he is illogical-- contradictory in some part of his belief.
No. That is not what irrational means.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irrational
Ah. I misunderstood you then. I point then again to my statement about reality. You are having a conversation with me because you believe me to be real for no other reason then you have choosen to believe that things affecting you are real and seperate entities.
No. As I have pointed out, it is not a matter of choosing it is a necessity.
Look again. Readdress. I maybe wrong in my construction of an argument.
"I think therefore I am": Agreed. Necessarily true. (at least I haven't heard a good argument against it)
"I think you are therefore you are": Agreed. But not necessarily true-- indeed a choice.
Not a choice. And it is not 'I think you are therfor you are'. It is '"I think therefor I am and what I experience is necessarily iinseperable from me."
Oh.. if this is in fact what you are saying. Then I guess this explanation is better then the previous. But even so:
What you experience is inseparable from you. Agreed. But that this experience constitutes reality, in the sense as I believe you would define (as the end all. It is not a hallucination nor a dream nor a computer generated image. etc), is not as inseparable from the self-evident premise of "I think therefore I am."
If they are inseparable, and reality is universal. Then there would seem to be some sort of contradiction when I would lay claim to include God in my experience.
"I think the Bible is divinely inspired therefore it is.": I don't necessarily agree with this. But it is a as valid an assumption (something taken for granted) as the one above, although not as self evident as the first.
No it is not. There are many other ways in which the bible can come about. There is no other way which you could experience reality except as the way you experience it with the tools you with which experience it. If that is not what reality is then you can not experience it. There is no choice in the matter.
I had a conversation without a chimpanzee yesterday when I was asleep. And then I woke up.. dangit-- perhaps you haven't woken up yet?
if that is the case I would know when I woke up. If not it is irrelevant. I can only experience what I can expoerience.
Agreed. However, if you agree that the possibility exist-- how can you therefore say that you have no choice in the matter as to what you consider to be real? Wherever more then one possibility exists for any given, one must choose which possibility to believe, or not consider at all, one of the given possibilities.
You need to assume that I am infact real... in the sense that I am a seperate entity and not a figment of your imagination.
I do not need to assume you are real. You are real in the only way you can be real. You are real as far as I know using the only methoid available to me to tell if youi are real. Anything else is wholly unimportant as it is impossible for me to know. It is not choice but necessity.
Premise: If real then can be experienced.
Counterpositive: If it cannot be experienced, it is not real.
I would agree with both these tenants. They coincide with my idea of reality.
However.. within your sentence it does not state that:
Premise: If can be experienced then real.
This would be an incorrect reversal. An irrational inference. A logical fallacy.
You experience me, therefore you assume that I am real because it is the only way that I can be real. But this is not consistent with the only assumption that we have stated is not accepted by choice, and is the only assumption that you can believe, without allowing me other avenues to argue. (See above). "I think therefore I am." "I am is inseparable from what I experience." These are different wordings of the same self-evident premise.
To say that I am real because you experience me is a new assumption. One I do not accept. And once again... leads to a conclusion of mine.
I do not need to assume that God is real. He is real in the only way that he can be real. (my experience)
As stated above.. you have allowed for a possibility that I am not. Even as I would say the monkey I had a conversation with in my dream was not real (in the sense that I use the word "real"
and even as I would say it is possible that God is not.Beyond the self evident assumption.. everything else is accepted by choice.
Vessel wrote:You would contend that Religion has none? And I don't mean to suggest that Religion must have a superior benifit to other things-- or even a unique benifit.. only a benefit. Continued below:No. These have benefits.Vessel wrote:There are no such benefits with theism. I can be good and loving and peaceful and charitable without theism. I can not drive to the casino without gasoline being as that my car runs on gasoline. I can not have an equal chance of surviving infection and as quick a recovery from infection without antibiotics.
True-- you cannot drive. You can walk. True.. you would not have an equal chance. But a chance nonetheless, as well as a bacterial evolution that would be severely retarded by the absence of antibiotics (possibly). (I do not mention vaccines.. different issue.)
A chance is not an equal chance and walking is not driving my car. I can achieve the exact same thing by the exact same method with or without religion. It is useless in unique abilities aside from allowing people to believe in an afterlife and a god both of which hold very dangerous possibilities.Quote:So.. if religion does have some benifit (not necessarily unique) then our debate would have to turn which one is more efficient. Then we would need to weigh cost and benefits.. etc.
No because the benefit of driving my car to the casino is a unique benefit. It is not the same as walking to the casino. The benefit is getting better quicker and easier, not simply getting better. You arbitrarily set the benefit at arriving at the casino or getting better and discarded the unique benefits and then said that they didn't exist.
What you are saying here is that it is a "unique benefit" to be able to get to the casino quicker and easier.
When you use the word unique.. do you not mean incomparable to other things? So how could you use the words quicker and easier, which are intristically comparative, for a unique benefit?
I state this because.. we can try to have an argument about which is better, easier, quicker to bring about any benefit which you perceive theism to have and that atheism can replace.. but-- that would be kind of hard.
I'm not sure I want to say my moral journey was easier, better, quicker, more fulfilling then yours.... where would that go?
- Login to post comments
but rather to protect. At any point in time when there was nothing to protect or that purpose was fulfilled.. then what need would there be for the angel anymore?
RhadTheGizmo, can you edit your post, and change the color of all the red text to something a little more on the white side? The red text is almost unreadable with the default theme.
Naw. It actually seems like it would be pretty hard to do. Perhaps this is because I'm on a Mac but the 'edit' menu for my original post doesn't give me the option to change the color of text as easily as it did when I originally posted it.
I apologize.
I actually thought red would be easier than a white color since it's easily distinguishable from white.
Copy and paste into a text editor?
If it proves to be a huge problem I'll change it in the morning when I wake up.. or later in the afternoon.
I'll axe the current thread and start anew with non-red responses.
Alright.. nevermind-- I guess it wasn't that hard once I got the hang of it.
Thanks for the color change, RhadTheGizmo.
There's a a lot to go through here, but I have some questions and comments about your answer to #4.
What then is Jesus saving us from? If I'm not going to be punished, why should I care about Jesus at all?
It is true that Christians have de-emphasized the hell bit. I think this is a modern trend in response to secular ethics. This is a case of Christians changing their beliefs to make it more palatable to the current moral climate. While I have no problems with change, Christians who jettison hell have, IMHO, no claims to absolute truth anymore because they're making their beliefs relative to the culture they're in.
I'm going to start going through some of these - at least the first few. I don't have a problem with many of them, but just find them simply irrelevant.
I may go on and address some more later.
Irrelevant. In fact, if the Bible said that all the Jews recognized Jesus as the Messiah, I would be pointing it out as ridiculous.
True, there is no mention of eternity, but are angels not eternal? Even if the Garden of Eden disappeared or grew wild or whatever, along with the tree of life, and there was no longer a need for the Cherubim and it's flaming sword, you would think it would take time. There is no mention of the cherubim and the flaming sword again after Gen 3:24.
Another thought - do you not find it odd that the cherubim had a flaming SWORD? A tool/weapon that would not have even existed during this time if the Bible were true. Why would the physical manifestation of one of God's angels be wielding a human weapon that hadn't even been invented? The writer of the story was obviously familiar with swords.
You are arguing that we cannot trust in scientific evidence because it hasn't been around as long as the Bible? Evidence is evidence, something that the Bible lacks. You suggest waiting 10,000 years to claim proof. I'd say science is much further down that road than religion. After all, according to the Bible the earth is 6,000 years old. So, theists have made no progress in the realm of proof since the beginning of time?
Hell IS essential to Christian belief. Christians are taught to love Jesus because he died for them. What is it you think "Jesus saves" people from if not from hell? Jesus is Christians' "savior", their ticket to heaven. If those who aren't 'saved' are not going to hell, then nothing is lost by not believing.
Honestly, I've never heard a Christian argue that Hell is not real or is not a part of their religion.
So, your reasoning on why God has emotion is that it is by mans' description? We seem to understand just fine how emotionless he should be. Why did God create a flood to kill the world, save Noah and his family? If he had no emotion he wouldn't want nor desire any outcome. If God has no desire or emotion, why did he create man in the first place? He couldn't have cared either way, that is, unless he was emotional, just like the Bible says.
Also, if God wanted us to understand and believe, wouldn't he have given us the ability to?
You compare the creation of man by God to the conception of children. First of all, we don't torture our children for all eternity when they screw up. If God is omnipotent and omniscient then there is no such thing as free will - only the illusion of free will. So, essentially, God would be creating people for the specific purpose to suffer and burn in hell.
Referring to the last line; if God creates humans for the same reasons people have children, then that suggests desire, a quality that God logically cannot have.
Ok, see my answer to 6.
I believe the question was pointing to an obvious problem; that, unknown to early Muslims, it is not always possible to point towards Mecca. They would have never dreamed it was possible to leave Earth. The Quran makes no mention of it.
But yea, you're not a Muslim, so it isn't relevant to you.
I believe this question was referring to modern day. When it comes to the miracles in the Bible, there isn't any evidence for those alone, other than the Bible itself. You said you don't believe there are miracles happening today, anyway. So this argument should be irrelevant to you.
Many people tend to see miracles everywhere they go. They pray for something to happen, and if it does happen then they attribute that event to God and call it a miracle. The problem with these people is that they get all excited about things that would likely happen anyway. When things don't happen the way they prayed for then they often say it was God's will or leave him out of it entirely.
When it comes to sickness, people think their improvement or cure is the work of God. But what the argument you have posted was saying is that nothing impossible ever happens. The sicknesses that go away are ones that would likely have gone away anyway.
Again, you can refer to my answer to your answer to 6.
This suggestion that God and Satan are wagering on peoples' actions reminds me of, more than anything, Greek mythology, giving the gods human qualities, which suggests borrowed ideas and concepts for Bible stories. This is apparent in Job where God and Satan have conversations and bet on Job's choices - ridiculous.
First of all, if you believe in the Bible, God is OMNISCIENT. There is no reason for an experiment or a demonstration. God would know all outcomes. Nothing would be a mystery to him.
Also, as stated before, if you believe in the Bible, Hell is real. There would be no euthanasia, only eternal torture.
And as for the rest of your suggestions; I really don't care becuase I don't believe in God.
Flying Spaghetti Monster -- Great Almighty God? Or GREATEST Almighty God?
A reoccuring theme among your responses is the idea that hell is essential for a Christian to believe in. That somehow if hell didn't exist, them there would be no purpose for Jesus.
True. It maybe true that that the idea of no hell is a *modern day adaptation that lead Christians further from truth (granted, we maybe delusional at the moment anyways).. however, in the case of saying this, I would be equally as justified in saying that the opposite is true, that some Christians modern understanding of Scripture is more accurate than past understandings. More on Hell later.
I make no assumptions about absolute truth. Even my belief in God is not an assumption of absolute truth.. but a faith statement (faith in this case desognating a choice.)
So.. with that I continue.
"Irrelevant. In fact, if the Bible said that all the Jews recognized Jesus as the Messiah, I would be pointing it out as ridiculous."
Then what the point of the question? The question asked something which assumed a premise (in this case the implication that Jews needed to accept the messiah).
So I gave my response saying that they have (Seeing that "Jews" are not one indiscrimate, singular entity but a race of people) to a degree.
And I further stated that if the assumption was that all Jews, according to prophecy, needed to accept the messiah, then this was in fact a faulty premise according to some theologians.
How is that irrevelant?
"True, there is no mention of eternity, but are angels not eternal? Even if the Garden of Eden disappeared or grew wild or whatever, along with the tree of life, and there was no longer a need for the Cherubim and it's flaming sword, you would think it would take time. There is no mention of the cherubim and the flaming sword again after Gen 3:24.
Another thought - do you not find it odd that the cherubim had a flaming SWORD? A tool/weapon that would not have even existed during this time if the Bible were true. Why would the physical manifestation of one of God's angels be wielding a human weapon that hadn't even been invented? The writer of the story was obviously familiar with swords."
True. Angels are eternal. But the purpose of the Angel at the entrance to the garden of eden was not to "be" (singular word for "are"
but rather to protect. At any point in time when there was nothing to protect or that purpose was fulfilled.. then what need would there be for the angel anymore?
I'm answering of course with one possible answer to your question.
As for it not being mentioned later than the third chapter. I apologize for the cherubim not being mentioned over and over again through the first however many books and chapters... and I accept this as evidence that he did not exists and that he had no relevant purpose for being in the story at all. (I'm being sarcastic for rhetorical purpose.)
As for the sword comment.. I suppose I can answer in two ways.
Either I could say: If there was a God, why would he need to be limited by the technological progress of man? In this case.. why would it be contrary to logic that he have a sword before a sword was created by man?
Furthermore, I believe it was Answer 6 that stated that the Bible was written by man looking back and forth from there respective times, gathering information as many historians do (I'd imagine). True.. my faith dictates that this was divinely inspired, but still translated by man.
Once again I give a conditional statement. If God exists, infinite that he would be, would he speak to man in his terms or in theirs? A description of a sight as a flaming sword by a writer at the beginning of the bronze age would be just as rational as a prophetic vision about nuclear weapons by a 1st century writer as "Fire from Heaven."
I guess what I'm getting at is.. the belief in God does not rest on the existence, now, of a flaming sword. And seeing as there are possible, rational, responses to this question.. then.. what is its importance?
"You are arguing that we cannot trust in scientific evidence because it hasn't been around as long as the Bible? Evidence is evidence, something that the Bible lacks. You suggest waiting 10,000 years to claim proof. I'd say science is much further down that road than religion. After all, according to the Bible the earth is 6,000 years old. So, theists have made no progress in the realm of proof since the beginning of time?"
Untrue. I never said that you couldn't trust scientific evidence. I stated that the questioner shouldn't have thrown around the word 'proof' so easily. Also. The bible does not age itself, or the world, some people believe 6000, some people believe 10000, some believe more, most with some rational using hebrew texts and their understandings of how geneologies are created.
And.. if you infered from my first answer that I was trying to say that the Bible "proves" better then scientific evidence-- this would be a false inference.
"Prove"ing is an idea even scientists try to stay away from.. they much more favor "supporting evidence" and what not.
...maybe I'm wrong.
To continue though... my purpose was only once again to state the Irrevelance of the question in the first place based off of scientific ideals (not biblical). The questioner asked.. "How do you explain this in the Bible when science has proven this?" So I stated.. what as science proven (in this case)?
The hypothetical question/response would be this. If the Bible is true, inspired word of God, perfect in and of itself, throughout history, then how foolish would it be to ask for it to reconcile itself with something that claims itself to be temporal and subject to change. (Science and it's laws.)
Now.. if scientists claim there beliefs unopen to change-- well then this would be a completely different story and I would be answering the question differently. Mainly saying.. "Look how many times scientists have changed their mind!" But.. they don't, so I don't need to say this.
Another way to put this is this. You are in essence asking me to Reconcile Mathematics with Anthropology..... that's going to be fun.
"Hell IS essential to Christian belief. Christians are taught to love Jesus because he died for them. What is it you think "Jesus saves" people from if not from hell? Jesus is Christians' "savior", their ticket to heaven. If those who aren't 'saved' are not going to hell, then nothing is lost by not believing.
Honestly, I've never heard a Christian argue that Hell is not real or is not a part of their religion."
I think you make a strong statement when none can be made. Christians are taught to love Jesus because he first love them. Verse straight out of the Bible. But I digress.
In answer to your what does Jesus save you from if not from hell. Perhaps this can be answered by saying that Jesus saves you from a eternity that lacks him.
Granted.. if you feel nothing is lost by not existing for eternity, then-- by all means.. nothing is lost by not believing.
As for the "dieing for them part" let me state two possible situations.
Jesus loves man. Wishes to show man how much he loves him. Only way he can do this is by coming to earth in manner in which man would understand, mainly as man. Man kills him.
Jesus loves man. Wishes to save man. Only way that he can save man is by dieing to fulfill some blood oath. Comes to earth. Dies.
In both these instances it could accurately be said that "Jesus died for them." One semantical understanding refers to his intention in being there to die, the other refers to his actual dieing.
http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html
As an example of at least one denomination that argues the non-existence of a eternal, punishing hell. Number 27.
"So, your reasoning on why God has emotion is that it is by mans' description? We seem to understand just fine how emotionless he should be. Why did God create a flood to kill the world, save Noah and his family? If he had no emotion he wouldn't want nor desire any outcome. If God has no desire or emotion, why did he create man in the first place? He couldn't have cared either way, that is, unless he was emotional, just like the Bible says.
Also, if God wanted us to understand and believe, wouldn't he have given us the ability to?"
I never said God was emotionless. I implied that the belief that mans description of God is imperfect due to the difficulty of describing the workings of an infinite being. (I try to stay away from poetics.. in this case I fail). That is why I gave an example of the kid with the quantum physics professor. Ask a kid to describe the workings of a quantum physics professor.. far less.. the workings of his biological father. The kid would then, most likely, describe the individual in terms that he understands. Whether these terms are accurate or not is a different issue... but then again-- the question doesn't ask me if I believe them to be accurate or not. If it did, I'd be giving another answer.
As per your last part. I do have the power to believe and understand. Or do I not?
"You compare the creation of man by God to the conception of children. First of all, we don't torture our children for all eternity when they screw up. If God is omnipotent and omniscient then there is no such thing as free will - only the illusion of free will. So, essentially, God would be creating people for the specific purpose to suffer and burn in hell.
Referring to the last line; if God creates humans for the same reasons people have children, then that suggests desire, a quality that God logically cannot have."
Refer to Answer 4 once again. As for the implication of God and desire. Where has the proposition that God cannot logically have desire been established?
He has a desire to create. And so he does. Hm. If you're refering to the immutableness of God.. and that logical deducation.. refer to question 23.. or whatever it was.
" Ok, see my answer to 6."
See Answer 4.
"I believe the question was pointing to an obvious problem; that, unknown to early Muslims, it is not always possible to point towards Mecca. They would have never dreamed it was possible to leave Earth. The Quran makes no mention of it.
But yea, you're not a Muslim, so it isn't relevant to you."
Agreed. We found common ground. In that it's not relevant to me I mean.
"I believe this question was referring to modern day. When it comes to the miracles in the Bible, there isn't any evidence for those alone, other than the Bible itself. You said you don't believe there are miracles happening today, anyway. So this argument should be irrelevant to you.
Many people tend to see miracles everywhere they go. They pray for something to happen, and if it does happen then they attribute that event to God and call it a miracle. The problem with these people is that they get all excited about things that would likely happen anyway. When things don't happen the way they prayed for then they often say it was God's will or leave him out of it entirely.
When it comes to sickness, people think their improvement or cure is the work of God. But what the argument you have posted was saying is that nothing impossible ever happens. The sicknesses that go away are ones that would likely have gone away anyway."
Hm.. I never said miracles don't happen. I said that I do not believe miracles should be, or can be, the basis for faith. Two very different things.
"Again, you can refer to my answer to your answer to 6.
This suggestion that God and Satan are wagering on peoples' actions reminds me of, more than anything, Greek mythology, giving the gods human qualities, which suggests borrowed ideas and concepts for Bible stories. This is apparent in Job where God and Satan have conversations and bet on Job's choices - ridiculous.
First of all, if you believe in the Bible, God is OMNISCIENT. There is no reason for an experiment or a demonstration. God would know all outcomes. Nothing would be a mystery to him.
Also, as stated before, if you believe in the Bible, Hell is real. There would be no euthanasia, only eternal torture.
And as for the rest of your suggestions; I really don't care becuase I don't believe in God."
Again. Refer to Answer 4.
Furthermore. I don't believe that this experiment is for Gods benefit, but rather the universe as a whole , as well as man-- difficult as it may be to understand.
But even as the pain of learning the fire burns is a painful lesson to learn for a child, so is that sin is evil one difficult to ingrain I'd imagine.
Furthermore, similarities between Greek mythology and the Bible do exists... however, they depart on a couple points.
1.) The purpose of the wager. One proposes entertainmet, the other proposes universal education.
2.) The character of God. Greek mythology is usually filled with stories of man reaching out to God at their own peril. The other a story of God reaching out to Man at His own peril.
I digress..
"What then is Jesus saving us from? If I'm not going to be punished, why should I care about Jesus at all?"
True. I believe that a belief in God based solely on the fear of punishment is a belief not worth having. And therefore you would not care about the existence of Jesus as all, because you feel his relevance to life only resides within his ability to punish-- then there is no reason to care in the absence of hell. As for the question as to what he is saving us from.. look at my answers below.
"It is true that Christians have de-emphasized the hell bit. I think this is a modern trend in response to secular ethics. This is a case of Christians changing their beliefs to make it more palatable to the current moral climate. While I have no problems with change, Christians who jettison hell have, IMHO, no claims to absolute truth anymore because they're making their beliefs relative to the culture they're in."
I touch on this a bit in the pretext to answering questions below. But let me give a bit more of my observations. If a Christian claims to have complete absolute truth on all issues regarding the character of God and the idea of salvation.. and then changes it-- then he is indeed being dishonest and loses credibility when claiming absolute truth the next time.
I find the studying of Bible to be more of a scientific excersize then anything else. The words *are written-- that is a fact (not the content of their writings)-- and I am interpreting these fact as new light and understanding comes to me.
I do not claim to have absolute truth, neither do many other Christians. (I said many, not most
Yah.. I got to get to class now.
I basically agree with you here.
I agree once again. This is the sort of religious belief I'm against, claims of absolute knowledge. Like it or not, all religions change over time. My only concern with moderate-to-liberal Christians is they seem to get upset when we call bullshit on the absolutist. I don't understand why they want to defend them.
Like I said, I don't have much of a problem with reinterpreting the bible. The thing is, it becomes just another human endeavor, prone to error and change. Many Christians would balk at this, especially the evangelical strain in the U.S..
I've only skimmed your post below. I'll read it tomorrow when I'm more awake.
"I agree once again. This is the sort of religious belief I'm against, claims of absolute knowledge. Like it or not, all religions change over time. My only concern with moderate-to-liberal Christians is they seem to get upset when we call bullshit on the absolutist. I don't understand why they want to defend them."
I believe in the existence of absolute truth-- I do not believe that anyone can claim to *know that they have a hold of it.
Religion, even as science (not saying that science is a religion, necessarily), each, seems to be a search for truth. Both are rational-- even though their respective followers may not be all the time.
I just don't believe the argument is as simple as many people make it out to be. Christians say.. you're wrong, read the Bible, trust God. And Atheists tend to say.. you're wrong, you're not being rational, look at these questions, they're unanswerable!
Niether is necessarily the case-- at least I don't believe it to be so. Which is why I hold problems with the Blasphemy Challenge
But this is not the time or the place for this. It just seems to me to be purposefully disrespectful, and there is no need to be.. granted-- fundamentalist Christians, at times, are equally as disrespectful, and therefore perhaps this whole debate is just reactionary.... and has lost rational and reason a long time ago. Let's hope not.
I digress.
Good night to you Rage.
I edited it a bit-- it was badly written the first time. I have that problem. I'm only human, not necessarily inspired by God in each and every word.
If no human being can claim to hold absolute truth then what is its worth? I know the value of objective truth and it is completely reconcilable with my atheistic worldview, but I fail to see how the theistic idea of absolute truth can hold any value when it can not be absolutely known. Its existence is completely irrelevant and therefor there is no reason to ever consider its existence.
Wrong. If I had never heard of the concept of a god I would have no reason to ever contemplate one's existence. The fact that I live and breath and walk around and touch matter and feel heat and see colors and experience emotion leads me to contemplate these things scientifically, the best proven method of inquisition available to me as a human. This is the position I start from. One of knowing nothing and seeing where necessity leads me. It has never led to needing toconsider the possibility of a deity existing.
It is just that simple. Well, not including the questions, it is actually simpler than needing those. Christians say read a book witten by something you have no reason to believe exists and trust in something you have no reason to believe exists, and atheists say trust in what you can see, hear, feel, smell, taste, and the information your human mind extrapolates from the data recieved by all those natural senses.
Why should I or anyone else respect anyone's belief in a god or gods? What inherehtly beneficial properties does such a belief hold that we should consider it untouchable? I can point you to an inherent danger it has.
Such a belief is without question the single best way to motivate a group of otherwise peaceful decent human beings into an irrational unaccepting oppressive mob. When one believes that they are doing what is desired by the only entity of any real importance or power in existence, the only source of life, good, love, and truth, then they are in a frame of mind that has the potential to be unrivaled in its ability to do harm. That alone, to me, outwieghs any consideration I should have for respecting the existence of this utterly unnecessary belief .
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
You are right. My wording was not fully accurate. Perhaps I should said this.. I believe in an absolute truth even thought I believe that, at this time, no one can claim to *know for a certainity what it is.
If this be true, then how would that first person first come to contemplate his own existence? I do believe that one can rationalized the rise of religion and the idea of contemplating ones own existence as a function of consciousness-- however, this premise seems to imply there is no way that one could come to question his own existence if he had never heard of the concept of God. In which case my original question is asked.
Perhaps. I see nothing wrong with your mode of reasoning in this part. But my original statement was only meant to suggest that both Religion and Science are continuous searches for truth.
I would have to disagree with this-- at least with what I feel to be the implication. I'm going to get very philosphical for a moment in presenting this thought.
You say that Christians say read a book that there is no reason to believe is true, and to believe in a God that there is no reason to believe in.
Christians do say read a book. The accepting of it as truth is a choice, a statement of faith and an acceptence of a premise with no other rational other then you choose to do so.
Every structure of reasoning requires accepting some sort of assumption that there is no reason to believe other then the fact that you choose to do so.
For instance. That the reality we perceive is in fact real. In otherwords, to some degree, discounting the possibility that we are experiencing one giant hallucination. Ask the schizophrenic down the road to describe his reality.. I'm it might be somewhat different then yours.
But you accept it. So be it. So do I. For no other reason then I choose to do so.
Accepting this, what I consider to be a self-evident premise, is a choice I make (although I probably don't think about it much because of the very reason that I believe it be self-evident... most others would probably not either). However I would probably agree with René Descartes belief that there is only one, truly, "self-evident" premise.. in the purest sense.. that being "I think, therefore I am."
In anycase. I'm rambling. To be more concise. "I believe the Bible to describe accurate ________ (fill in the blank) because I choose to believe so."
"I believe the sensations that I experience around me to be an accurate represenation of reality because I choose to believe so."
They are premises of choice. Assumptions are everywhere. It's why conversations go on for so long. I probably have twenty assumption in this single sentence.
And assumptions, in and of themselves, cannot be contradictory-- only coupled together with other assumptions can they be made to be contradictory and therefore, irrational.
e.g. 1.) I live in a whale.
Is not irrational in and of itself.. nor is there anyreason to believe or not believe that I do or do not live in a whale unless you assume other things such as.
2.) The word whale is being used in the definitive sense, in accordance with scientifically classified species.
3.) I am a human being not an evolved frog of some sort that can type.
4.) The whale is not dead.
5.) If its not dead, a human cannot fit inside.
6, 7, 8.) Etc etc etc.
And through the acceptence of further assumptions one can say that I'm being irrational or contradictory based of those assumptions that I accept.
In this case-- you assume there is no reason to believe that the Bible was written, or influenced by God, and/or that there is no reason to believe in his existence.
I do not accept this fact.
You further assume that I accept the assumption that there is reason to believe that what you consider reality, I do as well.
Heh.. in this case you are right.
I never said the belief is untouchable.. I didn't even say that the belief itself is untouchable or somehow worthy of respect. I just contended that it is unnecessarily disrespectful. Perhaps I should have specified this comment to a greater extent by saying that it is unnecessarily disrespectful towards people.
"Unnecessarily disrespectful".. not that it is untouchable.. I just took issue with the means by which one side voiced their opinion. It would be as if.. I said to a person who believes in monogamy. "I believe in in polygamy. F* your family." The first part is necessary for a debate.. the second isn't.
"Inherent" means necessary does it not? Or insepereable? Does this mean that you have never meant a Christian group to act against the danger you just stated?
Or perhaps you just meant that the danger is always a possibility.
I would agree with that.
But then... I don't believe you agree with these assumptions, which I'm assuming are necessary for your contention.
1.) If something has an inherent danger, inherent meaning always-possibility of harm, then it should be done away with.
And if you do then..
Gasoline has the inherent danger of exploding.
Antibiotics have the inherent danger of creating more potent bacteria.
People have the inherent danger of being irrational. (This one might be pushing it
Then again.. can anyone claim to never have acted irrationally? That is.. without reason proceeding action?)
It seems apparent that there is no way for a human being to ever know absolute truth as no matter what perspective you are viewing from, it must always be from some perspective. This would lead to truth only necessarily being truth from said perspective. Absolutes are completely useless. Only objective truths can ever be known to anyone.
"One's" in my above quoted sentence was meant to refer to the god's existence. There would be no reason to ever contemplate a god's existence. There is plenty of reason for one to contemplate one's own existence, just not a god's. And contemplating one's own existence does not lead one to a god if one doesn't already have a concept of a god.
Now, someone at some point (and most probably many people at many points as these type of beliefs seemed to have popped up all over) must have contemplated a god's existence unprompted, but it does not mean that contemplating this god was in any way necessary. It seems to be basically no different than creating a character, a result of imagination not of investigation. Unlike science where we are led by one question to the next and answers come through investigation and experimentation, theism answers the questions with imagination. There is no question of which I am aware that leads necessarily to a god.
Religion, though, is the search for a truth that leads to a specific presupposed and yet unneccasry end. Science is not.
I always find it strange when someone resorts to this sort of argument. It is as if they are stretching for a strong branch on which to hang their irrationality despite the fact that they know intuitively, if not rationaly, that it is just a mirage. I think this is the kind of argument people present even though they don't actually believe it holds any water, they just think it will get them out of a sticky situation.
We must trust our experience to be an accurate representation of reality, not because we choose to, but because by deciding whether or not to trust our experiences as an actual representation of reality we are employing the means by which we experience reality. We do not have the option of not trusting our experiences as an actual interpretation of reality. It is necessary, not a choice. If we do not trust our sense as an actual interpretation of reality, then we can not trust that our 'not trusting our sense as an actual interpretation of reality' is an actual interpretation of reality.
On the point of the bible, you are right. People simply choose to believe it. It is by no means necessary.
No, as illustrated above, one is not.
Define assumptions as you are using the term. I have a feeling it is not the standard definition.
I do not see the point of this paragraph.
I do not see how this at all relates to the discussion.
I do not assume there is no reason. There simply is no reason of which I am aware. It is not an assumption. It is a matter of the fact that I am unaware of any reason to believe such a thing.
Then show me a rational reason.
No, I do not merely assume so. There is good reason to believe that what we consider to be reality is very similar. The fact that I am having a conversation with you on the internet is a very good reason. You obviously experience computers and other entities and electricity and matter and energy and language. I need not assume that what we consider our realities coincide.
Furthermore, whether or not what we consider our realities is the same is unimportant. The fact that we exist and can communicate makes it a necessary fact that our realities are indeed the same.
People don't always do only that which is necessary, that is true. Sometimes though, when people are reluctant if not completely refusing to listen to reason a little shock can be a real coversation starter. The amount of trafffic the challenge has brought to this site and the conversations it has started seem to be evidence to the fact that it was exactly the kind of tool the founders of the site hoped it would be. Whether or not anyone considers it appropriate, it was undeniably effective.
Yes, inherent. The danger is always present. Because the danger is present does not mean that it is active.
Yes.
No. These have benefits. There are no such benefits with theism. I can be good and loving and peaceful and charitable without theism. I can not drive to the casino without gasoline being as that my car runs on gasoline. I can not have an equal chance of surviving infection and as quick a recovery from infection without antibiotics.
No one can not, but that does not mean would should employ this behavior as often as possible.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
Wow.. these responses are getting long. Let's try me try to make the response smaller without losing accuracy.
I can accept this. There is no purpose in believe in absolute truth. Even if God comes and everyone goes to heaven and a thousand years pass. Even then it could be said that perhaps there is more then just God.
I did state however, that I believe in absolute truth.. not that I have a graspe of it.. nor that it is purposeful. Even as I believe in the infiniteness of the universe.. even though-- objectively-- it has no purpose either.
Ah. Now I See.
Wait. Then perhaps I don't see. I was assuming the idea you applied to yourself (That being that you would have no reason to contemplate the existence of God if one did not mention the existence of God to you) was universal. If you did not mean for it to be universally applied, then so be it-- if so. Then the remained of your explanation is addressing a different issue-- that is whether or not the creation of a character in the likeness of gods or God was necessary, rather than then the explanation of why it was created if there was no reason too.
So you reason is the need for companionship led man to use the natural facilities of imagination to create a God/gods character/s. Possible I suppose-- not necessary.
Neither is there question to which I am aware that leads to the necessary conclusion that is *no God.
As for the contention that theist move from question to question and use imagination to answer them; scientists move from question to question by using experimentation and investigation-- I must contend, in part.
Mainly the connection between experimentation and investigation. All experimentation is investigation but not all investigation is experimentation.
Science, for the most part use experimentation to develop theories. However, there are certain instances where only investigation is mainly used because experimentation cannot. For instance. The Big Bang Theory is a scientific theory as well as the theory of the progressive evolution of man from ape.
There is no experiment that has reproduced this transition or any similar transition (cross-species evolution).. and is, according to my understanding, a product of investigation and supporting facts. In much the same way as a case is built-- circumstantial evidence.
Theist use this form of investigation, in some cases, to move from question to question. Using circumstantial evidence to support a certain idea. Of course.. circumstantial evidence can only go so far-- and as criminal cases prove time and time again, there are always other possible scenarios that would have produced the same facts.
As for experimentation.. only so far as some Christians try and use to discount scientific theory. Which.. well-- is what experimentation is used for anyways... to disprove something, not necessarily prove it.
Once again.. I never said that Religion is a necessary end to anything. Religion, in the Christian, sense is the search for truth with a presuppose end, that end being the existence of God. Some believe this existence must coincide with the ideas of rationalism (mainly, that the God, if there is one, is not contradictory)-- and others do not.
However.. you do make a good distinction. Although.. per my answer to 28 or something-- God is not necessarily supernatural and science cannot discount the possibility that it may come to find a natural, albeit it very powerful, being with the ability to create matter. Like you said.. science has no stated Goal.. it's only limitations lie within sciences ability to describe something using it's own terminology-- which is constantly changing. (consider the emergence of quantum physical vocabulary.. as well as string theory.)
Any ways.. a side issue.
There might be a distinction.. kind of getting far off base from my original answers to the original questions however.
Okay.
Not because we choose to but because by deciding.....?
"I think, therefore I am." Yes. You are because you are thinking. I would agree with this. But that does not mean to say that "I am, because you think I am." That is the idea of reality that I was addressing.
We don't? You accept your reality and the schizophrenic his and the witch docter his. Is this to say that all of you are equally as unable to make a choice as to what is real, and what is not?
Once again. "I think therefore I am" I have agreed with this. But it does not address the reality of things other than your existence.
Great.. Me encanta when I actually find some common ground.
Wait.. which one? The one about "I think therefore I am" or the one about "You are because I think you are."?
I'm using in the legal sense of something taking for granted. These assumptions are either stated.. or not. Most of the time they are not.. which is why I speak of the length of conversation. Because people are working of different assumption.. and many times don't define them.
Sorry. I can be unclear at times-- as many people are.
I was meaning to point out the concept of irrationality again. Irrationality refers something being illogical which an assumption, in and of itself, cannot be.
Once again. Just pointing out the concept of irrationality.. and how, in order to say that a person is irrational, one must argue that he is illogical-- contradictory in some part of his belief.
Ah. I misunderstood you then. I point then again to my statement about reality. You are having a conversation with me because you believe me to be real for no other reason then you have choosen to believe that things affecting you are real and seperate entities.
"I think therefore I am": Agreed. Necessarily true. (at least I haven't heard a good argument against it)
"I think you are therefore you are": Agreed. But not necessarily true-- indeed a choice.
"I think the Bible is divinely inspired therefore it is.": I don't necessarily agree with this. But it is a as valid an assumption (something taken for granted) as the one above, although not as self evident as the first.
See above.
I had a conversation without a chimpanzee yesterday when I was asleep. And then I woke up.. dangit-- perhaps you haven't woken up yet?
You need to assume that I am infact real... in the sense that I am a seperate entity and not a figment of your imagination.
See above.
I would have to agree with this.
Yes, inherent. The danger is always present. Because the danger is present does not mean that it is active.
Yes.
So.. if religion does have some benifit (not necessarily unique) then our debate would have to turn which one is more efficient. Then we would need to weigh cost and benefits.. etc.
I suppose we could do that.....
Granted. I was just being facetious.