A Challenge

[cristheseeker]

Do they?
My faith is monotheistic and our view of god is quite different from the book based faiths view.

I think your statements over-generalize

wa:do

you believe in god dont you? you believe that he is the beginning and the end, the creator of anything and everything. that he is ultimate goodness, ultimate justice, ultimate mercy, infinitely powerful etc.

well so does every sect of every monotheistic religion.

it is a general belief. and thats what im using, a common point of agreement, because from there on religionists start to disagree. starting with jesus and going all the way down to less important issues, such as how we should dress, wether we should wear jewelery, etc.

so what is your point? would you like me to rewrite my example using your specific beliefs? get real.

 

[painted wolf]

you believe in god dont you? you believe that he is the beginning and the end, the creator of anything and everything. that he is ultimate goodness, ultimate justice, ultimate mercy, infinitely powerful etc.

Creator is also ultimate evil, ultimate injustice, cruelty, Death... yada yada...

Differences start way before you get to something like Jesus.

My point is that you overgeneralizing... not only in your own arguments but also in your treatment of the responses you have been getting.

You are in danger of making enemies of potential allies.

wa:do

 

[cristheseeker]

in that case you are clearly in the minority, most monotheists do not think of god as evil. nonetheless you still believe in an ultimate limitless allpowerful god.

my example served the purpose of proving that just like we have descriptions/characteristics for nature, we also have descriptions/characteristics for god.
so if you want to make the point that nature follows those characteristics(which i disagree with) then for fairness sake you must also think that god follows his characteristics.

in other words, if you want to point out that nature has limits/laws that it follows, then you must also point out that god has limits/laws that he follows.

and if you want to argue that all laws must originate from a law giver, then both nature and god must have follow some other "being's" law.

and im not here to make friends or enemies.

 

[painted wolf]

Ultimate limitless allpowerfull... who am I to say?
and yeah, I'm used to being in the minority.

God and nature are inseparable, so yes, then god has limits. Creator (God) is those limits.

I don't see Creator as a "lawgiver" so much as the process. Creator and creation are one and the same, Creator is simply the sum of the individual parts.

And laws do not have to come from a lawgiver... natural 'laws' are simply the constraints on a system acting in balance. Objects can no more fall up, than light can simply go faster.

You seem to have a very authoritarian view of things... to require that natural law needs a celestial law maker to craft them.

wa:do

 

[cristheseeker]

"You seem to have a very authoritarian view of things... to require that natural law needs a celestial law maker to craft them"

Actually i dont have an authoritarian view at all. pureX does, and you can clearly see that in his initial post. im trying to make him understand that intelligence is not needed in order for nature to exist, just like most religionists think that a "higher intelligence" is not needed in order for god to exist

 

[painted wolf]

Do you deny the existence of "natural laws" like gravity, speed of light, evolution?

wa:do

 

[cristheseeker]

i do not deny the existence of natural laws. i simply believe they only exist in our minds, to help us make sense of nature, in the sense that nature does not follow these laws but rather IS these laws along with a whole lot more

it is actually similar to your belief, only without the god part. you believe that creator and creation are one and the same. well i believe that natural laws are part of nature (one and the same)

so i view them from a different perspective. i think they are mere descriptions or characteristics of nature for our limited minds to be capable of understanding nature. nature does not follow, is guided, or obeys them. nature is. and those laws are only descriptive not prescriptive. the law of gravity for example is not really a law. it is merely a seemingly constant characteristic of the world we live in. the law of gravity does not order an object to move towards the center of the earth. it simply explains the reasoning behind the object's movement. and to think that the object "fell to the ground" so as to obey the law of gravity is like looking out a window thinking the world outside is only as big as the window frame you are looking out of(your limited line of sight)

so i dont think nature is ruled/governed by some superior creator/designer's laws, and that many of those PRESCRIPTIVE laws have now been discovered(as descriptive laws) by humanity.

though it very well might be, i dont know for sure. thats why im agnostic. all im pointing out to pureX is that his is not the only way of thinking.

 

[cristheseeker]

let me provide an example.

lets say my body represents nature and my organs represent the various parts of nature(oceans,mountains, animals, vegetation etc)

my heart does not follow the law of "blood pumping" it simply does it because thats what it does, and because it can. my brain does not tell it what to do. my heart does what it does regardless of what i think or want it to do. i can not tell it to stop, and i can not tell it to pump to the beat of my favorite song.

and even if my brain could tell my heart what to do, which is clearly not the case, it would still be internal. part of nature, or in this example, part of my body.

so i would govern myself, just like nature would follow its own laws.

 

[PureX]

if you believe that nature does have laws that it follows, then you must also agree that god has laws that he follows. otherwise you are a hypocrit in presenting your argument.

Why? I see no correlation between these that would lead us to make such a presumption. And even if it were so, so what? Perhaps God has limitations.

you assume that laws actually exist in nature/universe/cosmos. and yet your assumption conveniently stops here and does not apply to god. why? does god not follow laws? if so, prove he doesnt, i have already proven he does.

I stopped there because it doesn't matter to my proposition whether or not God has limitations or not.

i think you are confusing me with the author of this thread.

Perhaps so, sorry about that.

... wouldnt it also be logic that causes us to presume that those laws of god exist. and that the evidence for that presumption, and for those laws. is our experience of GOD HIMSELF". (for those who actually experience, or claim to have a relationship with god)

For those people, that is so. And in fact they do tend to follow that "logic". However, their experience of "God" is subjective, while our collective experience of natural phenomena is objective.

you see, it is silly for me to expand my argument with you to this level , since nature we can actually physically observe where as the god concept is not observable, and so anybody can make any claims about god, without anyone else being able to disprove them. so im basically wasting my time with you and your assumption that while nature is subject to laws, god is not.

The fact that nature can logically be taken as evidence for the existence of "God" remains, however. It is not "my" argument. It simply is a fact. What you want to do about it is up to you.

I personally can't sweep it under the rug. I have to acknowledge that this fact exists, even though I don't know what conclusion to draw from it. Many things in life remain a mystery to me. The existence of "God" is just one more of them. But just because I can't explain doesn't mean I can explain it away, either.

We could debate the possible nature of God, if God exists, but I don't see much point in it as at the outset we would both have to acknowledge that we don't really know. In which case we'd be basing the discussion of personal preferences. And I'm not sure what value such a discussion would have.

how do you know that nature/universe/cosmos actually follows laws and is limited? and not just appears to be following laws, because of our own mental limitation?

Because existence is not completely chaotic. It has order, and limitation, and structure, and character.

how do you know that nature/universe/cosmos does not follow ITS OWN laws?

It does. The question is what is the source. Why these laws and not others?

how do you know that nature follows the laws set by god? because thats clearly what you are implying.

I am simply using the term "God" in this instance, to refer to this mystery source.

how do you know that god himself does not actually follow laws?

I don't.

you seem to think god is exempt from the logic you apply to nature..and that is dishonest.

Not exempt, but beyond the reach of our logic.

but say you are right, and nature does follow laws, based on our observations of it..... you must surely think that god also follows laws based on our observations of him in genesis, he followed the laws of reason or thought, action/reaction, in creation. he first planned, then acted, and finally analyzed his creation saying "it was good".

The "God" I was referring to is not the religious concept referred to in holy books.

who's laws did god follow in creating existence? his own?

Presumably.

then why can nature not also follow its own laws?

Nature is energy expressing itself. It's only phenomena. We are discussing the source, and purpose of the specific characteristics of that that phenomena.

if god followed his own laws in creating existence, and therefore did not require a law giver himself, then why cant cosmos also follow its own laws and not need a law giver itself?

The "cosmos" (all that is) perhaps can. But the physical universe is only phenomena. It's only energy expressing itself. The fact that there are limitations to this expression of energy lead us to contemplate the source of these limitations, and the purpose of them. They lead us to contemplate "God".

 

[Falvlun]

This is a lovely string of words but I don't see much logic there - just another question from a dog on it's way to the vet.

How is it not logical to question the inconstistencies in a religion that claims Absolute Truth?

No offense intended - I consider myself much like my dog going to the vet as well.

But the point is that you believe you are a dog, that there is a master, and that there is a vet to which you are being taken. There is no evidence that any of these things are true.

So, basically, because you already believe the dog/vet/master theory, you can not question the dog/vet/master theory. Doesn't that seem a little scary to you?

 

[Kathryn]

How is it not logical to question the inconstistencies in a religion that claims Absolute Truth?



But the point is that you believe you are a dog, that there is a master, and that there is a vet to which you are being taken. There is no evidence that any of these things are true.

So, basically, because you already believe the dog/vet/master theory, you can not question the dog/vet/master theory. Doesn't that seem a little scary to you?

You're assuming that I haven't questioned it, for starters. I HAVE questioned it, and lived with the consequences.

Just as you can say that I can give you no evidence that God DOES exist, you can give me no evidence that He DOESN'T.

This is called an impasse.

By the way, don't read too much into my dog analogy. I also believe that I am a child of God and heir to His kingdom.

 

[painted wolf]

i do not deny the existence of natural laws. i simply believe they only exist in our minds, to help us make sense of nature, in the sense that nature does not follow these laws but rather IS these laws along with a whole lot more

So... gravity is just in our heads rather than a result of weak interaction between atoms?
How is it we can measure gravity then? Why, if it is just describing the movement of an object, is gravity stronger in some places on Earth and weaker in others?

lets say my body represents nature and my organs represent the various parts of nature(oceans,mountains, animals, vegetation etc)

my heart does not follow the law of "blood pumping" it simply does it because thats what it does, and because it can. my brain does not tell it what to do. my heart does what it does regardless of what i think or want it to do. i can not tell it to stop, and i can not tell it to pump to the beat of my favorite song.

and even if my brain could tell my heart what to do, which is clearly not the case, it would still be internal. part of nature, or in this example, part of my body.

so i would govern myself, just like nature would follow its own laws.

Your example is false.
Your brain (the Medulla oblongata specifically) tells your heart to pump.

wa:do

 

[Falvlun]

You're assuming that I haven't questioned it, for starters. I HAVE questioned it, and lived with the consequences.

I don't doubt that you have questioned it at some point. From previous posts I've read of yours, you seem to be intelligent and honest about your beliefs.

It's just that your response to any apparent contradiction or inconsistency or what have you is: "We can't question that because our understanding is so incomplete". It just sounds like a cop-out.

The response to incomplete understanding shouldn't be "You don't know, so don't bother asking." The whole point of asking is to make your incomplete understanding more complete. Furthermore, how does answering a question incorrectly, or misleadingly, further the understanding of the asker? Why wouldn't God want us to know as best as our understanding can allow?

But I forget... I'm just a dog and shouldn't be questioning the methods of my master...

Just as you can say that I can give you no evidence that God DOES exist, you can give me no evidence that He DOESN'T.

This is called an impasse.

How do you give evidence of non-existence? I can point to a rock and say "He is not there"; I can point to the sky and say "I don't see him there". But I can't ever hope to point to everything in this universe (or outside of it ) in my lifetime. Show me where God is, so I can narrow down the search.

If I told you there was a purple sock eating monster in my dryer, would it be up to me to prove that it is actually in there, or you to prove to me that it is not in there? If I show you my dryer, and you don't see a purple sock-eating monster, would not that be evidence that it doesn't exist? What if I say that you must believe that the sock-eating monster is in there before you can see it. What would you say then?

Furthermore, it's not simply a matter of you proving God's existence. According to your own arguement, you must also prove all the other Gods don't exist. Are you not as atheistic as I, with the one exception?

By the way, don't read too much into my dog analogy. I also believe that I am a child of God and heir to His kingdom.

Ok. That's cool.

I'm just concerned that the dog analogy is how you go about explaining any apparent strangeness. Does an almighty God really need to dodge legitimate questions?

 

[emiliano]

I was a Christian for most of my life, understanding science and evolution has made me much happier.

Are you sure that you ever were really a Christian? Do you know what been a Christian is?
How much of science and evolution do you really understand?

 

[BucephalusBB]

Are you sure that you ever were really a Christian?

Are you going to say here that real christians don't lose faith and thus you cannot have a christian getting happier with science? Because then it's easy to claim win right?

 

[emiliano]

youve just found one. no, not me. DAN BARKER.
go to the bookstore and pick up his book. "godless" (how an evangelical preacher became one of america's leading atheists.)
he was an active evangelist for 19 years!! he was also one of the most famous christian songwriters (wrote "mary had a little lamb") he slowly "converted" to atheism during a 5 year quest of enlightenment and reason, and now, is happier than ever. he actually said, that abandoning his religion has freed up his mind, and regrets having wasted 19 years of his life in a "mental prison". again, pick up his book or just you tube some of his debates.
but you are right, you can not "officially" find a christian who's life is improved by science, because although that is true for a vast majority of christians out there(i was one too), no one will admit it because of fear of rejection from their community, in most cases THEIR ONLY COMMUNITY. so its fear of hummiliation and rejection that keeps them "in the closet". though they are in fact agnostic/even atheists in their mind.

And what this poor fellow does now? Is he successful? Is he a failure at this as well? It seems to me that he just changed the subject of his preaching, I wonder why? He can have your money, not my money, I am selective on the type of books that I invest money on? There are many failed preacher that write book, they don’t appeal to me, thank but no thanks. I read another book written by a famous scientist that claims that many scientist a believers but keep it a secret for fear of humiliation and rejection, so there you are!

 

[Falvlun]

He can have your money, not my money, I am selective on the type of books that I invest money on? There are many failed preacher that write book, they don’t appeal to me, thank but no thanks.

You could go to a library and borrow it for free...

 

[Karl R]

you (a person who communicates has experiences with and feels the presence of god daily)

Where did I say that I had these experiences daily? I've had three significant experiences in my life. That's less than one per decade.

so lets say that an atheist comes to you ... and says : "hey, karl, i can feel that a god does not exist, i have had a personal experience that showed me that a god does not exist".

I work in the legal field. Proving a non-event (i.e. proving a phone call didn't occur) is impossible. Providing any evidence in support of a non-event is very difficult. (If I tap every phone that someone is likely to use and record every minute, I can prove that the phone call didn't occur on those phone lines ... but I can't prove that it didn't occur on a phone line that I didn't think to tap.)

would you respect his personal experience as evidence and take his word for it?

If a person says, "I have seen no evidence of god, therefore I choose not to belive in god." I would respect their position as a rational one. I can respect positions that I disagree with.

you wouldnt even believe another theist, from a different religion, say muslim, if he told you of his personal inner experience that allah exists and mohammad is his prophet,

I would be skeptical of his experience (just like I'm skeptical of any supernatural phenomenon). But since I've had a personal experience with the divine, it makes sense that someone else (such as a muslim) might as well, so I couldn't just dismiss it out of hand.

My own personal experiences have provided evidence (to me) that a theistic god exists. They shed no light on whether my religion (or any other) accurately understands god.

based on your own truth you know that everyone else’s experiences are dillusions.

Based on my own experiences, I know that everyone else's experiences are plausible. I'm skeptical of any one's individual claim (since people sometimes lie about these things), but overall I'm convinced that they happen to other people ... and not just those who believe like I do.

Especially since I'm not sure there is anyone else who believes exactly what I do.

What you fail to realize is that just like them, you are also subject to dillusion.

Actually, that possibility occurred to me immediately. If the atheists are correct, it would be the likely explanation for my experiences.

Even though neither of us can rule out the possibility that I'm delusional, you might want to dispose of your assumption that I'm irrational/illogical. The two are not necessarily linked.

As a final comment, you're making a lot of assumptions about what I believe. There are a lot of people on this forum with non-traditional beliefs. If you assume that you know precisely what someone believes based on a label, then you're going to make a lot of flawed assumptions.

On the other hand, a lot of the other people posting on this thread have assumed that your handle is "christ seeker", even though the spelling (and your label as an agnostic) make it more likely that it should be "cris the seeker". I'd have to say you have a lot of company in making quick assumptions.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Just as you can say that I can give you no evidence that God DOES exist, you can give me no evidence that He DOESN'T.

This is not quite a fair representation. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist. This is why you spend very little of your time trying to disprove the existence of a Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster who invisibly follows you at a distance of 3 feet. You cannot prove such a monster is not waving his noodly appendages behind you right now. Neither can I prove to you that the FSM does exist. Would you really describe that as "an impasse"? Or, would you say that such a fantastic claim places the burden of proof on me to show that such a Flying Spaghetti Monster exists? Especially if Iexpect you to start believing it too or to change your behavior based on moral dictates from the FSM.

 

[darkendless]

And what this poor fellow does now? Is he successful? Is he a failure at this as well? It seems to me that he just changed the subject of his preaching, I wonder why? He can have your money, not my money, I am selective on the type of books that I invest money on? There are many failed preacher that write book, they don’t appeal to me, thank but no thanks. I read another book written by a famous scientist that claims that many scientist a believers but keep it a secret for fear of humiliation and rejection, so there you are!

Invest your hard earned money on a book called "The Science of the Earth" by Dan Peterson, avaliable at Angus and Robertson bookstores. As i recall you completely dismiss religion. So this might enlighten you a little.

I'd love to bring you to university one day (well this was 1st year physics) where i think 7 out of 8 lecturers laughed at the concepts of God because of their incompatability with physics and logic. Im sure you'd get a kick out of it