The whole God and Evil thing with God.

[viole]

Of course

So, if He has two choices, one of which is less perfect than the other, can He possibly choose it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

I'm not sure if hope is enough of a reason to believe in god though.

Nope but a reality without God is so meaningless and depressing that the evidence for God should not be easily disregarded or ridiculed. I was not making an argument for God's existence, merely what impact his existence would have concerning the points you made. If you want arguments for God's existence then you need to let me know your radically changing the context of the discussion.

 

[viole]

Nope but a reality without God is so meaningless and depressing that the evidence for God should not be easily disregarded or ridiculed. I was not making an argument for God's existence, merely what impact his existence would have concerning the points you made. If you want arguments for God's existence then you need to let me know your radically changing the context of the discussion.

Well, the impact, if any, is not necessarily based on His existence. But on the belief in His existence.

Suppose for a second that God does not exist, but you firmly believe in Him, without knowing that He does not exist. Does this state of affairs remove magically all the meaning you feel for life?

How can this state of affairs possibly depress you?

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Well, the impact, if any, is not necessarily based on His existence. But on the belief in His existence.

1. Only his actual presence would entail the existence of objective moral duties and values.
2. True belief in him would simply reflect this.
3. False belief in God's existence would have no ability to create actual objective moral values and duties.

I told my brother twice to open a discussion with you but I think he has been out of town for work.

Suppose for a second that God does not exist, but you firmly believe in Him, without knowing that He does not exist. Does this state of affairs remove magically all the meaning you feel for life?

I was speaking about eternal significance, meaning, and purpose. Not about our mere perceptions of those things.

There are about 2 and a half contexts here.

1. My feeling the universe has a purpose is powerless to actually give it one.
1.5 Even if I believed the universe had a purpose with every fiber of my being, without God it would still lack any actual purpose.
2. If God exists then the universe has meaning and purpose whether or not I believe in that God or not.

BTW I assume you know what type of God I am referring to by now.

How can this state of affairs possibly depress you?

Ciao

- viole

Since your conclusion does not reflect either conclusion I gave, nor do I see it as a coherent third option it has little effect on me. Impacts me about as much as square circles do.

 

[Bird123]

What is your reason for believing or disbelieving in god then?

Beliefs exist in order to patch the gap of missing facts. Without beliefs, we would lock up just like my old computer when all the facts were not known. As I see it, beliefs only point a direction by which one could search for the facts.

Why does one search for the facts about anything? Curiosity, a need to know, a desire to know how everything works and just acquire more knowledge. These along with religion not adding up completely were some of the reasons for my journey to Discovery.

Religion has taught people generations upon generations that Belief is what is important. I see this as very very wrong. How can a belief ever be more important than facts? If everyone chose to stop at beliefs, mankind would have never discovered anything. On the other hand, I think lots of people do not want to discover anything. For most, I think it's about having it made or having it easy. As we all know, in order to really discover it takes work.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

Nope but a reality without God is so meaningless and depressing that the evidence for God should not be easily disregarded or ridiculed. I was not making an argument for God's existence, merely what impact his existence would have concerning the points you made. If you want arguments for God's existence then you need to let me know your radically changing the context of the discussion.

Alright then what arguments do you have in favor of god then?

 

[soma]

The soul embraces everything, all of creation not just the good parts so what it wants from us are the things that we love to do because that is what awakens our love, joy and inner peace in life. This helps us to become conscious that there is another experience on another frequency beyond the physical reality that our mind lives in. The Christian who recognizes this state will no longer see a vengeful God that is willing to send people to hell for eternity because we go beyond our hellish thoughts of right and wrong. Our mind no longer does away with the things we don’t like, but accepts things the way they are at the time of being. We can’t make progress in life blaming and condemning others that is fear talking so we need to quiet the mind to hear the soul. The wisdom of the soul knows the way while the mind is concerned with the responsibilities and undertakings at hand so expresses itself with thoughts and feelings in order to take charge of our walking the path.

 

[1robin]

Alright then what arguments do you have in favor of god then?

Let's start at the beginning. About 15 billions years ago every atom in the universe came into existence.

1. Nature can be it's own cause of existing.
2. Nothing in nature can fully explain it's self.
3. There is no such thing as a possible infinite regress of causation.
4. There for the source of the universe is not natural, it transcends nature, or is supernatural.
5. The universes cause must me space less, timeless, unimaginably powerful, moral, personal, and unimaginably intelligent.

How did bronze age men describe God perfectly without even knowing the questions? You will not find a better conclusion than God for the cause of the universe in any field of study.

Here are two classic examples on my argument above, the Kalam, and Leibniz:
Confusing the Leibnizian and Kalām Cosmological Arguments

 

[viole]

1. Only his actual presence would entail the existence of objective moral duties and values.
2. True belief in him would simply reflect this.
3. False belief in God's existence would have no ability to create actual objective moral values and duties.

I told my brother twice to open a discussion with you but I think he has been out of town for work.

I was speaking about eternal significance, meaning, and purpose. Not about our mere perceptions of those things.

There are about 2 and a half contexts here.

1. My feeling the universe has a purpose is powerless to actually give it one.
1.5 Even if I believed the universe had a purpose with every fiber of my being, without God it would still lack any actual purpose.
2. If God exists then the universe has meaning and purpose whether or not I believe in that God or not.

BTW I assume you know what type of God I am referring to by now.

Since your conclusion does not reflect either conclusion I gave, nor do I see it as a coherent third option it has little effect on me. Impacts me about as much as square circles do.

Well, you were talking of depressing realities and the impact that the existence of God would have on our lives. Now. Today. On this earth. It would be a no brainer to postulate an impact in the afterlife, obviously.

I don't think that it is necessary for Him to exist, in order to have these things now. And not being depressed, or whatever. He could exist, but it is not necessary. What is necessary is to believe that He does.

If people find meaning in the existence of God or in eternal life, or on the existence that there are objective moral values or in the confidence that there is an ultimate plan for everything, and that this is not only a pointless brute fact of existence, etc. etc. then all those qualities are provided by belief in God. Not necessarily on His actual existence.

So, you can be a nihilist by not believing in God (and He exists) or a person full of meaning by believing in Him (and He does not exist).

Therefore: depression, nihilism, absurdism, if any, are not causally related to the existence of God but, at best, to the belief in Him. To the hope that He exists. For, what is faith if not shared hope?

And this why I suspect that many religious people consider the belief more important than the actual existence. Which, in my opinion, is warranted if they really think that society would fall apart in a world of miscredents. My little old question to you, seems to confirm that.

You lose this belief, even under the premise that God exists, and you might have to find new values, if you do not want to succumb to absurdism. If you can. And if you can, and not just sit there waiting around to die, you will also be a Übermensch.

Willkommen.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Well, you were talking of depressing realities and the impact that the existence of God would have on our lives. Now. Today. On this earth. It would be a no brainer to postulate an impact in the afterlife, obviously.

Yes, believing (or evidence based reasoning) that we may be able to live on in eternal state of grace after we physically die would provide hope while in this life. It would also mean that human life has inherent value and sanctity, that inherent rights actually exist, the ultimate justice will be meted to Hitler and Billy Graham instead of our actions having no eternal consequences, etc.......... If God does not exist then mankind would suffer a huge net loss.

I don't think that it is necessary for Him to exist, in order to have these things now. And not being depressed, or whatever. He could exist, but it is not necessary. What is necessary is to believe that He does.

If I thought that that Stalin's sins and Florence Nightingale's merits would never be punished or rewarded I would not find that uplifting. I did not say that people couldn't find temporal hope in some trivial things like money, cars, or even drugs. I am saying that without God our little hopes and dreams all end in annihilation by an uncaring and purposeless universe. I do not find inevitable howling voids comforting, do you? Most people want to turn their back on the mushroom cloud and shock wave and stare into a snow globe. I had to deal with death at an early age, and by facing it and considering it instead of concentrating on the snow globe, I discovered a being who is greater that the rushing void and who may save me from it.

If people find meaning in the existence of God or in eternal life, or on the existence that there are objective moral values or in the confidence that there is an ultimate plan for everything, and that this is not only a pointless brute fact of existence, etc. etc. then all those qualities are provided by belief in God. Not necessarily on His actual existence.

There are three contexts here.

1. God's existence - this is the context I have been posting in.
2. Belief in God whether he exists or not. This is the context you viewed my statements in.
3. The non belief in a God whether one exists or not.

In context one, murder would actually be wrong, and would be met with justice.
In context two, murder would be considered to be objectively wrong.
In context three, murder would not be objectively wrong, and should not be considered objectively wrong. It is merely a social fashion in this context.

I rank their desirability in the same order I listed them.

So, you can be a nihilist by not believing in God (and He exists) or a person full of meaning by believing in Him (and He does not exist).

That is at least true sometimes and for something, but on average what I described holds true.

Therefore: depression, nihilism, absurdism, if any, are not causally related to the existence of God but, at best, to the belief in Him. To the hope that He exists. For, what is faith if not shared hope?

Since I think the existence of everything requires God to exist I disagree somewhat, however what you said does have merit. It such a broad brush your using I am unsure where to draw the line. Faith is not identical to hope. Faith leads to being born again, being born again leads to hope. It is what you have faith in that provides hope. I could have faith that no God exists but that would give me nothing to hope for.

And this why I suspect that many religious people consider the belief more important than the actual existence. Which, in my opinion, is warranted if they really think that society would fall apart in a world of miscredents. My little old question to you, seems to confirm that.

I agree, however Christianity is unique (at least in my experience) in that it demands and offers everyone who actually believes an experience with God. All religions say dial a certain set of numbers and hope we got them right when we die, Christianity alone (at least of the major faiths) demands and offers the experience where the person on the other end of the line actually picks up and confirms the number you dialed. Some other faiths offer it to extremely rare individuals, Christianity offers it to every Christian.

You lose this belief, even under the premise that God exists, and you might have to find new values, if you do not want to succumb to absurdism. If you can. And if you can, and not just sit there waiting around to die, you will also be a Übermensch.

Willkommen.

I didn't understand this. If I can't see the specific statement of mine being responded to it is hard to know the context of the response.

 

[viole]

Yes, believing (or evidence based reasoning) that we may be able to live on in eternal state of grace after we physically die would provide hope while in this life. It would also mean that human life has inherent value and sanctity, that inherent rights actually exist, the ultimate justice will be meted to Hitler and Billy Graham instead of our actions having no eternal consequences, etc.......... If God does not exist then mankind would suffer a huge net loss.

Why? You are assuming that there is something at stake here.

If I thought that that Stalin's sins and Florence Nightingale's merits would never be punished or rewarded I would not find that uplifting. I did not say that people couldn't find temporal hope in some trivial things like money, cars, or even drugs. I am saying that without God our little hopes and dreams all end in annihilation by an uncaring and purposeless universe. I do not find inevitable howling voids comforting, do you? Most people want to turn their back on the mushroom cloud and shock wave and stare into a snow globe. I had to deal with death at an early age, and by facing it and considering it instead of concentrating on the snow globe, I discovered a being who is greater that the rushing void and who may save me from it.

You see? You speak of thing that might be uplifting or not. Related to hope and whatnot. It is sufficient to believe, to be uplifted. It does not necessitate actual existence of thr object of belief.

There are three contexts here.

1. God's existence - this is the context I have been posting in.
2. Belief in God whether he exists or not. This is the context you viewed my statements in.
3. The non belief in a God whether one exists or not.

In context one, murder would actually be wrong, and would be met with justice.
In context two, murder would be considered to be objectively wrong.
In context three, murder would not be objectively wrong, and should not be considered objectively wrong. It is merely a social fashion in this context.

Well, yes. Almost. In context three, it is possible that our rejection of murder, or other things that might affect our existence, is hard wired in our brains, our natural machines, for merely survival reasons, not necessarily societal.

Ever noticed how things become less controversial, when it comes to the survival of our genes? Talk about not burning babies alive and everyone agrees. Talk about gay marriage and things become suddenly fuzzy.

So, believing that killing children is wrong might also be kind of objective. As objective as the way our synapses evolved and react to external stimuluses.

Since I think the existence of everything requires God to exist I disagree somewhat, however what you said does have merit. It such a broad brush your using I am unsure where to draw the line. Faith is not identical to hope. Faith leads to being born again, being born again leads to hope. It is what you have faith in that provides hope. I could have faith that no God exists but that would give me nothing to hope for.

How can the existence of everything require God, if God is something?

I agree, however Christianity is unique (at least in my experience) in that it demands and offers everyone who actually believes an experience with God. All religions say dial a certain set of numbers and hope we got them right when we die, Christianity alone (at least of the major faiths) demands and offers the experience where the person on the other end of the line actually picks up and confirms the number you dialed. Some other faiths offer it to extremely rare individuals, Christianity offers it to every Christian.

An experience with God? Something more than the number you dialed?

Let's test it. What does God think of the death penalty? Or whether Hell is infinite torture or not. Or what about the age of the earth? Or a literal Adam and Eve? I am sure you also asked Him about that global deluge.

I will compare your answers with someone else who also claims to have the same experiences with the Christian God. For, they are common to all Christians, as you said.

I didn't understand this. If I can't see the specific statement of mine being responded to it is hard to know the context of the response.

I was addressing the importance of belief as a giver of values. And what we can do to find alternatives now that (the belief in) God has died. Well, maybe it is not completely dead, but I saw dead people in better shape than it, at least here.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Why? You are assuming that there is something at stake here.

What? Is this some kind of juxtaposing faith with the fulfillment of faith? If not I do know of another thing's existence having more at stake.

You see? You speak of thing that might be uplifting or not. Related to hope and whatnot. It is sufficient to believe, to be uplifted. It does not necessitate actual existence of thr object of belief.

I do not really get what your gaining if I conceded to what your saying. Yes belief in a Yahweh type God would give hope even if he didn't exist. Since it was me that said a long time ago that even if we knew the bible was wrong we were better off to pretend it does. However I don't see the reason that your basically repeating that. That is also why I prioritized the contexts the way I did.

1. No God and no faith in God, bad.
2. Faith in God even if he does not exist, bad but much better.
3. Evidence based belief in God (Yahweh) and his actual existence is the closest to infinitely better as can possibly exist.

Your response seems to be that since we can get some benefits from #2, we don't even need to consider #3.

Well, yes. Almost. In context three, it is possible that our rejection of murder, or other things that might affect our existence, is hard wired in our brains, our natural machines, for merely survival reasons, not necessarily societal.

If it is so universally hard wired why have there been 300 years out of the last 5000 without a major war, why do we kill our young in the womb on an industrial scale, why were the great atheistic utopias of the 20th century more bloody than the previous 19 centuries combined.

I believe we have a God given conscience but that we deny to differing levels. From Genocide to jaywalking. I believe this perfectly describes the moral data we have.

Ever noticed how things become less controversial, when it comes to the survival of our genes? Talk about not burning babies alive and everyone agrees. Talk about gay marriage and things become suddenly fuzzy.

That is because in more secular places morality is untethered from it's objective foundations. It is then relative and subjective so it follows social fashions instead of truth. There are exceptions to the religion being objective good (even a true religion), and secularism being subjective and bad, but with secularism there is no actual good to be or evil to avoid. Why would we allow a doctor to kill a baby in the womb but not throw it in a fire? There are no fixed points in secularism concerning morality. Even if a religion gets it wrong, there is a right to strive for.

So, believing that killing children is wrong might also be kind of objective. As objective as the way our synapses evolved and react to external stimuluses.

I believe killing babies for convenience to be wrong as well as homosexuality, and a thousand other moral duties we all fail at times to keep, that is why we need a savior instead of a biologist. The biological roots of morality would add too much complexity to this post. We can drop everything and discuss it, or drop it, but I can't do both.

How can the existence of everything require God, if God is something?

You know my positions so well by now I do not feel like I have to include every possible detail by now.

In the sense of causation God never began to exist and so requires no cause, everything else did and does.
All things that exist have an explanation of their existence internal to or external to themselves. No subsection of nature contains it's own explanation in an ultimate sense, God is his own explanation of existence. What's called a necessary being, properly basic, or a brute fact.

You know all this, why are you appealing to semantics?

An experience with God? Something more than the number you dialed?

You know very well I am referring to being born again.

Let's test it. What does God think of the death penalty? Or whether Hell is infinite torture or not. Or what about the age of the earth? Or a literal Adam and Eve? I am sure you also asked Him about that global deluge.

I said he picked up the phone, I didn't say he answered every question you have. However I will give you my own interpretation of Biblical doctrine for those questions.

1. He regrets the death penalties but probably agrees that it is necessary in certain cases. In fact you can find a hundred stories in the OT alone which bear out this dual attitude directly from God to men. Regrettably necessary.
2. Hell will be thrown into the lake of fire in the end times and in my opinion annihilated. I can back up any of this with scripture if necessary.
3. He does not state an age of the Earth, or even of man. The best conclusion I have seen is that Adam was the first human with a soul and existed around 5000 years ago.
4. I do not know whether the word interpreted as world means the globe or as it is translated in other places only part of the ANE, and I can't decide whether it's allegory or literal. The further back you go the fuzzier my certainty gets.
5. I didn't ask him any of these questions, I asked him to save me, and spent the next three days in his presence.

Why do you expect a finite creature like me to have total knowledge concerning the mind and actions of a infinite being? The solar system isn't big enough for a virtual library of all facts. Aquinas said that the only thing humans can know about God's nature are what he isn't. I can't picture eternity, infinite power, or omnipresence.

I will compare your answers with someone else who also claims to have the same experiences with the Christian God. For, they are common to all Christians, as you said.

Not as defined by me, you, or them, but by Christ. Christ defines a Christian in a conversation with Nicodemus in John 3 (I believe). Take about ten minutes to read.

I was addressing the importance of belief as a giver of values. And what we can do to find alternatives now that (the belief in) God has died. Well, maybe it is not completely dead, but I saw dead people in better shape than it, at least here.

Ciao

- viole

Christianity alone grows by the equivalent of the population of Nevada every year. Islam is growing even faster because you become one when your born and if you try to get out in many nations you can be killed. Faith for better or worse is quite alive.

I think it was Voltaire that predicted Christianity would be dead in 50 years. It wasn't but Voltaire was and I think his house is used to print bibles out of. I have heard that story often but have never confirmed it.

What are you doing? Muhammad Ali used to throw "punches in bunches" in the last seconds of any round he thought was close to impress the judges. I thought you were sailing off into the sunset.

 

[viole]

I do not really get what your gaining if I conceded to what your saying. Yes belief in a Yahweh type God would give hope even if he didn't exist. Since it was me that said a long time ago that even if we knew the bible was wrong we were better off to pretend it does. However I don't see the reason that your basically repeating that. That is also why I prioritized the contexts the way I did.

1. No God and no faith in God, bad.
2. Faith in God even if he does not exist, bad but much better.
3. Evidence based belief in God (Yahweh) and his actual existence is the closest to infinitely better as can possibly exist.

Your response seems to be that since we can get some benefits from #2, we don't even need to consider #3.

Of course you can consider #3. It is simply not necessary to provide the (alleged) benefits you are mentioning.

If it is so universally hard wired why have there been 300 years out of the last 5000 without a major war, why do we kill our young in the womb on an industrial scale, why were the great atheistic utopias of the 20th century more bloody than the previous 19 centuries combined.

Because a three days old assemble of duplicating cells is not generally perceived as your young. And I was talking of burning kids alive, not aborting embryos. Do you think people, in general, make no difference between the two?

That is because in more secular places morality is untethered from it's objective foundations. It is then relative and subjective so it follows social fashions instead of truth. There are exceptions to the religion being objective good (even a true religion), and secularism being subjective and bad, but with secularism there is no actual good to be or evil to avoid. Why would we allow a doctor to kill a baby in the womb but not throw it in a fire? There are no fixed points in secularism concerning morality. Even if a religion gets it wrong, there is a right to strive for.

I told you. A full born kid represents and investment. A lot of energy has been consumed and now we have a reliable vessel for our genes. All those things are evolutionary trade-offs that are translated into the structure of our brain. Like pain, we have no control over it.

I believe killing babies for convenience to be wrong as well as homosexuality, and a thousand other moral duties we all fail at times to keep, that is why we need a savior instead of a biologist. The biological roots of morality would add too much complexity to this post. We can drop everything and discuss it, or drop it, but I can't do both.

Do you think that aborting a three days old fetus is equivalent to burn a three years old baby alive?

In the sense of causation God never began to exist and so requires no cause, everything else did and does.
All things that exist have an explanation of their existence internal to or external to themselves. No subsection of nature contains it's own explanation in an ultimate sense, God is his own explanation of existence. What's called a necessary being, properly basic, or a brute fact.

Well, you still me owe me a satisfactory answer to my question about the ultimate uncaused cause of your will. Any will.

BYW, can a necessary being like God cause contingent things? I am interested to know whether the processes that led Him to create the Universe were necessary or contingent.

I said he picked up the phone, I didn't say he answered every question you have. However I will give you my own interpretation of Biblical doctrine for those questions.

1. He regrets the death penalties but probably agrees that it is necessary in certain cases. In fact you can find a hundred stories in the OT alone which bear out this dual attitude directly from God to men. Regrettably necessary.
2. Hell will be thrown into the lake of fire in the end times and in my opinion annihilated. I can back up any of this with scripture if necessary.
3. He does not state an age of the Earth, or even of man. The best conclusion I have seen is that Adam was the first human with a soul and existed around 5000 years ago.
4. I do not know whether the word interpreted as world means the globe or as it is translated in other places only part of the ANE, and I can't decide whether it's allegory or literal. The further back you go the fuzzier my certainty gets.
5. I didn't ask him any of these questions, I asked him to save me, and spent the next three days in his presence.

So, your personal relationship reduces to: Please save me, please save me, please save me, etc. etc? That seems a bit boring, especially for God. I am sure He does not like to repeat Himself.

And I am not interested in Biblical doctrine. You claim to have a personal relationship with the alleged author of that book. What a great opportunity to bypass the middle book (with all those metaphors and whatnot) and get straight to the core of important issues.

Why do you expect a finite creature like me to have total knowledge concerning the mind and actions of a infinite being? The solar system isn't big enough for a virtual library of all facts. Aquinas said that the only thing humans can know about God's nature are what he isn't. I can't picture eternity, infinite power, or omnipresence.

You don't need to have total knowledge of an infinite mind. You just have to ask Him a few [yes/no] questions, as I expect to be possible if "personal relationship" has some meaning. Then I will cross-check with other Christians having the same relationship.

Sorry to use empirical methods, but this "personal relationship" story is not very convincing. And it is not convincing because you Christians disagree on pretty basic stuff, and that disagreements should not exist if you really had a personal relationship that goes beyond "please save me" repeated ad infinitum.

Not as defined by me, you, or them, but by Christ. Christ defines a Christian in a conversation with Nicodemus in John 3 (I believe). Take about ten minutes to read.

Christianity alone grows by the equivalent of the population of Nevada every year. Islam is growing even faster because you become one when your born and if you try to get out in many nations you can be killed. Faith for better or worse is quite alive.

I think it was Voltaire that predicted Christianity would be dead in 50 years. It wasn't but Voltaire was and I think his house is used to print bibles out of. I have heard that story often but have never confirmed it.

What are you doing? Muhammad Ali used to throw "punches in bunches" in the last seconds of any round he thought was close to impress the judges. I thought you were sailing off into the sunset.

Oh, I have a couple of days off. So, I spend them debating still a little bit.

viole

- viole

 

[1robin]

Of course you can consider #3. It is simply not necessary to provide the (alleged) benefits you are mentioning.

It is the difference between someone's mistakenly sending a promise to adopt card to the wrong child, and an orphan actually seeing his adoptive parents arrive to pick him up. Both kids may get some level of hope from either events but the second kids hope with be far greater when that car pulls in than the first kid staring at an empty road years later. You try to digitize analogue arguments.

Because a three days old assemble of duplicating cells is not generally perceived as your young. And I was talking of burning kids alive, not aborting embryos. Do you think people, in general, make no difference between the two?

I didn't say how many days old the child was. Do you think calling it an embryo would make abortion right if it has a soul, do you think calling it a person would make burning it wrong if it didn't have a soul. You seem to adopt what you prefer and then use language to make whatever it was sound justified. This is a modern phenomena referred to as virtue signaling. At least the name is modern.

I think some people have differing opinions about almost everything. As your buddy Chesterton pointed out most of us agree what things are wrong (killing), we just differ on which wrongs to excuse (this time based on what label you apply).

Tell me exactly what moment or what size a cluster of cells has to be at one second before (can be killed at will) and the following second (to kill would be murder), and how you know any of that?

I told you. A full born kid represents and investment. A lot of energy has been consumed and now we have a reliable vessel for our genes. All those things are evolutionary trade-offs that are translated into the structure of our brain. Like pain, we have no control over it.

That sounded so Orwellian that I doubt every conclusion I make about what it means. Are you saying that what makes a justifiable homicide into a murder depends on it's relative value or cost to another.

Do you think that aborting a three days old fetus is equivalent to burn a three years old baby alive?

In what context?

Who's position is more reasonable?

1. I have no idea at what point a human life may be extinguished without moral cost, so I gamble for life and moral responsibility and suggest we do not kill any of them for the sake of convenience.
2. You have absolutely no idea what point a human life can be extinguished without moral cost, but you say the heck with and gamble on death arbitrated by semantics.

Well, you still me owe me a satisfactory answer to my question about the ultimate uncaused cause of your will. Any will.

I have answered that many times, there is a cause, just not one quantified by physics alone. Its called agent causation, look up the pure mathematician Lennox, if anyone has quantified it, he would be the best bet.

BYW, can a necessary being like God cause contingent things? I am interested to know whether the processes that led Him to create the Universe were necessary or contingent.

What is BYW? Why do you keep insisting that being a Christians necessitates that the finite Christian know every detail concerning how an infinite mind works. Scientists don't even know that much about Earth as you seem to think I know about it's creator. However if you look up Craig's work he talks about God being person, personal in that context meaning a being with free will, who can chose to act or not.

So, your personal relationship reduces to: Please save me, please save me, please save me, etc. etc? That seems a bit boring, especially for God. I am sure He does not like to repeat Himself.

What the heck? I think we were talking about salvation at one point, then you asked me a series of questions about God's nature or actions, I gave the best answers I could (not being God), then you made some bizarre characterization about my own salvation which seemed to be firmly planted in mid air. Your response is so far removed from anything I ever said I do not know what to do with it.

And I am not interested in Biblical doctrine. You claim to have a personal relationship with the alleged author of that book. What a great opportunity to bypass the middle book (with all those metaphors and whatnot) and get straight to the core of important issues.

I know my brother as well, doesn't mean I can skip biology class and explain every single atom he is composed of. What are you talking about? If you want me to paraphrase some NT doctrine that I have personal experience with then at some point your going to have to stop talking what will eventually happen to hell. I never been there, but I have been saved (but nothing about it had to do with anything in your bizarre description of it above).

You don't need to have total knowledge of an infinite mind. You just have to ask Him a few [yes/no] questions, as I expect to be possible if "personal relationship" has some meaning. Then I will cross-check with other Christians having the same relationship.

God is not my waiter, he doesn't come running when I ring a bell, in fact many of the times I need him he can't be found. However that does not mean I have not been in his presence on occasion. If you want to get a detailed description of why God does not run around answering everyone's question then read the book of Job.

Sorry to use empirical methods, but this "personal relationship" story is not very convincing. And it is not convincing because you Christians disagree on pretty basic stuff, and that disagreements should not exist if you really had a personal relationship that goes beyond "please save me" repeated ad infinitum.

Did you use the same "empirical methods" to justifying early pregnancies for the sake of convenience? Do you only accept scientific theories that have 100% agreement on 100% of their claims? You seem to me to reside on the fringe of most scientific theory. How much empirical evidence you got from other universes?

Being born again is like being in love.
If someone asks a large group of people it would probably break down something like.
1. Those that actually have will probably have similar descriptions. Differences in magnitude, etc... but the same thing.
2. Those that haven't but may believe they are want so bad to have been, they may even say they have. However their descriptions will be all over the chart.
3. Both groups will probably have different ideas on how to maintain a marriage.

The worst possible conclusion is that there is nothing to the concept of being "in love".

Oh, I have a couple of days off. So, I spend them debating still a little bit.

viole

- viole

That's funny, you only debate when your off, and I only debate when I am at work. I debate when the equipment is offline. I guess I can thank the inadequacies of science for the time to debate.

 

[viole]

It is the difference between someone's mistakenly sending a promise to adopt card to the wrong child, and an orphan actually seeing his adoptive parents arrive to pick him up. Both kids may get some level of hope from either events but the second kids hope with be far greater when that car pulls in than the first kid staring at an empty road years later. You try to digitize analogue arguments.

the problem is that I do not see any car car pulling.

I didn't say how many days old the child was. Do you think calling it an embryo would make abortion right if it has a soul, do you think calling it a person would make burning it wrong if it didn't have a soul. You seem to adopt what you prefer and then use language to make whatever it was sound justified. This is a modern phenomena referred to as virtue signaling. At least the name is modern.

If it had a soul? I am not sure. But I think I would be much better off if I had been aborted and if I had a soul. Don't you think so? True, I would spend eternity in Heaven without having appreciated what evil is and without exercising my free will, but is that really so bad? Free will seems to be pretty dangerous.

I think some people have differing opinions about almost everything. As your buddy Chesterton pointed out most of us agree what things are wrong (killing), we just differ on which wrongs to excuse (this time based on what label you apply).

He is not my buddy, lol.

Tell me exactly what moment or what size a cluster of cells has to be at one second before (can be killed at will) and the following second (to kill would be murder), and how you know any of that?

I have no idea. Somewhere between > 1 second and < 9 months. So, I can tell you that stopping a cell duplicating process after one day, is not killing.

That sounded so Orwellian that I doubt every conclusion I make about what it means. Are you saying that what makes a justifiable homicide into a murder depends on it's relative value or cost to another.

Nope, I am telling you why our brains are wired in such a way.

In what context?

Who's position is more reasonable?

1. I have no idea at what point a human life may be extinguished without moral cost, so I gamble for life and moral responsibility and suggest we do not kill any of them for the sake of convenience.
2. You have absolutely no idea what point a human life can be extinguished without moral cost, but you say the heck with and gamble on death arbitrated by semantics.

Yes. With the possible exception of gambling. Gambling what?

I have answered that many times, there is a cause, just not one quantified by physics alone. Its called agent causation, look up the pure mathematician Lennox, if anyone has quantified it, he would be the best bet.

He does not say anything about the first uncaused cause that lies at the bottom of a person's will. Can you tell me with your own words what it can be?

What is BYW? Why do you keep insisting that being a Christians necessitates that the finite Christian know every detail concerning how an infinite mind works. Scientists don't even know that much about Earth as you seem to think I know about it's creator. However if you look up Craig's work he talks about God being person, personal in that context meaning a being with free will, who can chose to act or not.

What does it mean "you seem to think I know about it's creator"? Is it maybe "you seem to think I know about its creator"?

And what is "who can chose to act or not". Is it maybe "who can choose to act or not"? Or you meant "choke"?

Let the one without sin cast the first stone, so to speak

What the heck? I think we were talking about salvation at one point, then you asked me a series of questions about God's nature or actions, I gave the best answers I could (not being God), then you made some bizarre characterization about my own salvation which seemed to be firmly planted in mid air. Your response is so far removed from anything I ever said I do not know what to do with it.

Look. I just wonder why you guys do not ask simple questions to God during those alleged close encounters.

I know my brother as well, doesn't mean I can skip biology class and explain every single atom he is composed of. What are you talking about? If you want me to paraphrase some NT doctrine that I have personal experience with then at some point your going to have to stop talking what will eventually happen to hell. I never been there, but I have been saved (but nothing about it had to do with anything in your bizarre description of it above).

God is not my waiter, he doesn't come running when I ring a bell, in fact many of the times I need him he can't be found. However that does not mean I have not been in his presence on occasion. If you want to get a detailed description of why God does not run around answering everyone's question then read the book of Job.

So, next time you are in His presence, could you ask Him those questions? Until now I make the safe assumptions that Christians do not have any close encounter with God. Or they just talk about the weather, or their own salvation.

Did you use the same "empirical methods" to justifying early pregnancies for the sake of convenience? Do you only accept scientific theories that have 100% agreement on 100% of their claims? You seem to me to reside on the fringe of most scientific theory. How much empirical evidence you got from other universes?

Nope. I am trying to assess the plausibility of the claim of Christians having personal relationships with God.

Being born again is like being in love.
If someone asks a large group of people it would probably break down something like.
1. Those that actually have will probably have similar descriptions. Differences in magnitude, etc... but the same thing.
2. Those that haven't but may believe they are want so bad to have been, they may even say they have. However their descriptions will be all over the chart.
3. Both groups will probably have different ideas on how to maintain a marriage.

The worst possible conclusion is that there is nothing to the concept of being "in love".

There is. It is also a natural adaptation. It is probably due to the fact that our children take so long to become independent that stable romantic love (til death set us apart) has been naturally selected. I suspect the feeling is mediated by hormones like oxytocin.

That's funny, you only debate when your off, and I only debate when I am at work. I debate when the equipment is offline. I guess I can thank the inadequacies of science for the time to debate.

Or you can change equipment.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

the problem is that I do not see any car car pulling.

I don't know what car car pulling means.

If it had a soul? I am not sure. But I think I would be much better off if I had been aborted and if I had a soul. Don't you think so? True, I would spend eternity in Heaven without having appreciated what evil is and without exercising my free will, but is that really so bad? Free will seems to be pretty dangerous.

Suppose the my own doctrines are untrue, since you presume them to be anyway, it shouldn't be hard. Lets say I got it wrong and some other religion is true that does not contain the concept of unaccountability, or lets say my religion was true but my belief that children go to heaven is wrong and instead they are annihilated.

The point is you and I are not all knowing. Yet I gamble for life and you for death. If that doesn't set of a trip wire in your brain then it is truly frightening.

He is not my buddy, lol.

I know, I don't even think you like him. However he always seems to apply to arguments you make and Chesterton, Muggeridge, and Lincoln make up the holy trinity of word smiths. I have to take a break I will get to the rest in a bit.

 

[viole]

Suppose the my own doctrines are untrue, since you presume them to be anyway, it shouldn't be hard. Lets say I got it wrong and some other religion is true that does not contain the concept of unaccountability, or lets say my religion was true but my belief that children go to heaven is wrong and instead they are annihilated.

The point is you and I are not all knowing. Yet I gamble for life and you for death. If that doesn't set of a trip wire in your brain then it is truly frightening.

It sets a trip wire in my brain (literally) for children, but not for a bunch of duplicating human cells. Not at all. Is that bad?

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

It sets a trip wire in my brain (literally) for children, but not for a bunch of duplicating human cells. Not at all. Is that bad?

Ciao

- viole

Exactly what is your standard? Exactly how many cells, exactly what physical location, what exact shape, what time frame, or exactly which equally arbitrary magic point is it that changes murder into the moral equivalent of cosmetic surgery? Where did you find whatever it is that you answered the former question with? I can tell you exactly where you got whatever imaginary standard your appealing to, but where is the fun in that?

If God exists, it is probably evil. However that is conditional, what isn't conditional is the fact that since you nor anyone else has the slightest idea when or if it is morally acceptable to terminate a human life in the womb, mere convenience can't rationally justify abortion. It does not surprise me that non-theists abandon objective moral values (that's exactly what the bible says we would do), it is how casually non-theists do so. Even when it comes to taking lives on an industrial scale. You condemn God (who has all knowledge and all sovereignty) for wiping out tribes that burned their children alive and buried them in foundational offerings, then justify our (who have no ultimate sovereignty and extremely finite knowledge) destruction of millions of the most innocent human lives to have ever existed. That is either moral insanity or moral schizophrenia.

Once you uncouple morality from an objective fixed point (no matter where that point actually is) then any relative point anyone wants to plug it into is equally valid and simultaneously equally invalid. Atheism grounds either moral nihilism or anarchy.

 

[viole]

Atheism grounds either moral nihilism or anarchy.

Was Stalin Russia anarchic? I doubt it. Those guys did not even move a finger without a plan. Everything was set by very rigid rules. Break those rules and you will find yourself in much colder places than Sweden., shoveling snow til kingdome come. If you are lucky.

Ergo, Stalin is good to prove a point, while it completely fails to prove another.

But of course, true secular societies, ergo societies where you can believe in any nonsense you want, do not seem to succumb to any anarchy and nihilism. Even if they choose to not believe in any nonsense. So, your claim can be empirically dismissed out of hand.

But even if they did succumb to anarchy and nihilism. That does not prove they are not right.

Again, belief against existence of the object of the belief. Is that the reason atheists are so despised in America? Because they do not believe in any God that would motivate them to behave?

Do you think they would despise me less if I say that I believe in Mother Goose? You know, She watches everything I do, and She is very intolerant when I break the objectve values She gave me. For sure, I would start shooting people at random if I did not even believe in Her, as everybody knows.

Maybe, when invited to dinner, I should thank Mother Goose for the food I receive (although I would have liked more Champagne instead of that cheap wine) before eating, to make it more credible.

You think it would work?

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Was Stalin Russia anarchic? I doubt it. Those guys did not even move a finger without a plan. Everything was set by very rigid rules. Break those rules and you will find yourself in much colder places than Sweden., shoveling snow til kingdome come. If you are lucky.

Every time I use Stalin's USSR as an example of an atheist utopia I am told that they did not use atheism as the foundation on which they based anything they did upon. Which is it?

There is a difference between what a thing can justify and what it results in. I said atheism justifies anarchy and / or nihilism, and I have said over and over again that what it always leads to is might makes right. That would describe the USSR.

Ergo, Stalin is good to prove a point, while it completely fails to prove another.

Based on what, convenience?

The weird thing about atheism is can't be a positive foundation for anything, it is simply the utter lack of a foundation. You can't build anything with it, all you can do is undermine what other things claim to built upon.

But of course, true secular societies, ergo societies where you can believe in any nonsense you want, do not seem to succumb to any anarchy and nihilism. Even if they choose to not believe in any nonsense. So, your claim can be empirically dismissed out of hand.

I decided not to above, but here is another need for an explanation. I would say self interest (anarchy) and nihilism are the only things atheism can justify. However societies can't function (or at least flourish) on those grounds so atheists (as Ravi so eloquently states) must smuggle in the things of God while trying to shut the door before God himself can get in. Secularists have to affirm objective moral values and duties, objective meaning, inherent human rights, inherent dignity, life's sanctity, equality, etc....while simultaneously denying their only possible source. Secular nations like yours would have been swallowed up by Stalin (whatever flavor of evil he actually was) if not for the Christian US.

But even if they did succumb to anarchy and nihilism. That does not prove they are not right.

Who are they? When you do not quote 95% of my original post a lot of context goes out the window. I am not talking about how an atheist lives (they like any other group are all over the map) I am talking about what a world view's impact on moral ontology is.

Again, belief against existence of the object of the belief. Is that the reason atheists are so despised in America? Because they do not believe in any God that would motivate them to behave?

I do not share your belief they are despised in America. Our cultural stratification is pretty much the opposite today, to the way it was from our founding through the late 1940s.

Do you think they would despise me less if I say that I believe in Mother Goose? You know, She watches everything I do, and She is very intolerant when I break the objectve values She gave me. For sure, I would start shooting people at random if I did not even believe in Her, as everybody knows.

Your not claiming victimhood by proxy are you? What American Christian is currently persecuting you? I used to warn secularists up front in any discussion about morality that my claims were about the nature of morality (usually concerning 2 if then arguments) and so no one should reply to my claims with issues concerning moral epistemology. Just like you are doing. I finally realized that almost all of them went ahead and did it anyway, so I gave it up. Nothing in the single sentence of mine that you responded to has anything to do with how anyone acts.

Maybe, when invited to dinner, I should thank Mother Goose for the food I receive (although I would have liked more Champagne instead of that cheap wine) before eating, to make it more credible.

You think it would work?

Ciao

- viole

Your analogy is absurd. The weight of evidence between the two competitors is more extreme that the height difference between Olympus Mons and the average speed bump, which probably explains why I do not see even a 1 - 1 billion ratio in sincere believers between the them. However, since I know of no Mother Goose utopias that have killed tens of millions of their own citizens or kill off their own young in the womb on an industrial scale, I prefer their form of moral insanity.