why is the idea inferior to the reality then?
and i find this interesting... there is actually a religion based on macgyver. Its called MacGyverism and is based mainly in Utah. Don't believe me? Check it out for yourself.
Religion vs. Science
Moderator: Community Team
Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
Ok people, I HAVE to throw my 2 cents in now. I will respond to each writer in turn.
Freakshow--As an quasi-atheist myself, I feel your pain, but I think your arguments are a bit emotional and flawed. Basically, I think the facts of human history seem to show no difference between religion and "science" in the question of "which kills more people?" The USSR, China, and Cuba were/are all 100% atheistic nations, yet human history has never seen nations kill more of their own people. It is estimated that Stalin alone may have killed over 20 million people. The bottom line here is that people will always kill each other due to the scarcity of resources on this planet--as long as there are things to fight over people will fight for them. Thus I do not think the current Muslim atrocities, the crusades or anything else will show that atheism/science based ideology will lead to fewer people being killed--people get killed because other people want their stuff-period. Whether it is an inner city kid killing another for cool shoes or a jacket, or the US going after the middle east for oil, or the terrorists bombing America because we are rich, or 2 jackals fighting over a piece of meat, violence is part of human and natural existence--get over it.
This leads me to my next point. The science v. religion debate is fruitless because both ask and answer different questions. Religion addresses questions about the meaning of life, among other things, while science adresses questions about the natural world. What many people are upset about is that religion is encroaching into science's inquiries, and trying to answer questions about the origin of man, etc. I think that this objection is well founded because science tries to objectively use inductive logic to build on our current knowledge, while creationists just blindly follow a book that was written between 1000 and 3000 years ago (I do not want to get into the "when the bible was written" debate in this thread--too time consuming).
argyll72--Everyone who has a college education has had some brushes with Anselm, Descartes, Aquinas, etc. My undergrad degree was in philosophy and public policy, so I kind of know my way around these guys. I imagine that you might have had some brushes with a seminary (as have I), and it is admirable that you have taken the time to look to some great thinkers of the past for answers. I will address the main arguments you posted. I understand you are not necessarily positing them, just putting them out there--thank you.
Anselm
This is all in his head--he is a solipsist. I don't really care what goes on between your ears or anyone else's, I (and good philosophers) want to know what is going on in the real world.
Descartes
The reason there are few Cartesian philosophers alive today is because it is very doubtful to solely use proof from one's mind to prove anything. To be intellectually honest, you have to use both induction and deduction to show anything of substance about the real world. This is why using only formal logic, Aristotle showed a plucked chicken is a man. Why? Because Proposition #1=Men are featherless bipeds. Proposition #2=A plucked chicken is a featherless biped. THEREFORE, a plucked chicken is a man. This is the same kind of logic as Proposition #1=the highest thing you can think about is perfect. Proposition #2=there can be nothing higher that the highest thing you can think about. THEREFORE, there is a perfect being--presto, there is your god. Once again the problem with this kind of thinking is that it exists 100% in the mind and tell us NOTHING about our "real world" of senses.
Aquinas' 5 proofs--Aquinas is still popular with the Catholic church, but widely abandoned by current philosophers. My response to his 5 "proofs" of the existence of god.
1--The unmoved mover
This is nice argument, but even if it is true, this at best shows that there WAS a god that existed, not that there is a god. What if the unmoved mover died? There seems to be more evidence for deism than theism.
2--Efficient causality
Once again, proof that a god DID exist, not that he DOES. Also this is purely circular, what caused the efficient cause?
3--The Necessary cause
What caused the necessary cause? *crickets chirping* There are only two possibilities. Either the world came from something or it has always existed--so what? This shows us nothing about the world today.
4--The gradation of things (Aristotle's "Chain of Being")
This is a purely subjective, ad hoc determination. Fire is no longer the hottest thing we know of, but even if it was, how does this comparison of things lead us to god? Could the world be like the Greeks thought, that "man is the measure of all things"? This seems more rational than deciding that we will name a thing "god" and call it the highest thing.
5--Intelligent design of the world
This is circular and false. The world is good because we call it good, but it isn't so good for things lower on the food chain. This is like what they say in "The Big Lebowski"--"Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear eats you.” The world and the state of nature, are neither empirically good or bad, they just ARE.
FishFleas--I understand this is not the flaming thread, so please take this in the nicest way possible. YOU SUCK. For the love of the God you believe in, the universe if you don't, or anything else that will motivate you--TAKE A LOGIC CLASS (a writing class would help as well). I don't know where you live, but the places I have lived in (Hawaii, Kansas, and North Carolina) you can take a logic class at a community college for about $150. If you choose not to do this, the standard college logic text is "Introduction to Logic" by Carl Cohen and Irving M. Copi. You can buy it on Half.com of about $5, and it would keep you from looking like a complete jackass when talking to college educated people (your English communication skills notwithstanding). This would be well worth your time and money, purely because of the fact that it would help you communicate with other human beings rationally, and it would help you put your incoherent mess of thoughts to rest. There are few, if any, cogent arguments in your long ramblings and that is why few people actually responded to them. Oh, and by the way, an 11 year old (Maxisgr8) corrected your writing--yikes!!!
Also, if Lack makes you the CC chaplain, I will hunt you down and kill you and lack (just kidding, killing you would be an inefficient use of my time and resources, and I need lack to keep my CC addiction alive).
The one argument that someone did respond to is the issue of the truth or falsity of the bible. I think that this argument is kind of irrelevant to this discussion because, regardless of if it is true or false, would it change anyone's opinion in this thread? The theists will still be theists, and the atheists will still be atheists. Actually, when I talk to Christians, I generally concede that all the bible's factual claims are true--so what? Plato wrote Republic, Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo etc., about 2500 years ago, yet whether what he said, (factually) is true or false, or whether he even actually existed (I think he did) are completely irrelevant. The reasons that the Bible, Republic, Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo etc., are still read today is because they are great human literature. For that reason, showing that the bible is true or false does not matter AT ALL, in the context of a religion v. science argument or an atheism v. theism debate. In any case, to convince me to be a Christian would take you FIRST proving a god exists, something the bible assumes is true. Which leads me to:
WinterTwlight--I think it is safe to say that one of your assertions is wrong. You could never prove (or disprove) the existence of the perfect monotheistic god posited by Christians, Muslims, and Jews. Why? 2 reasons--1)The element of faith dooms their inquiry. Whether or not you "prove" OR "disprove" the existence of god, they will continue to believe, because they believe in believing. 2)As I have shown above, most "proofs" for the existence of god are based on either logical fallacies, OR complete disregard for evidence from the real world. Pure logic us useless without verification from the world (see the featherless biped example above).
On the other hand you could never DISPROVE the existence of god because the proposition "god exists" is the same as, "there is a giant banana plaster goo midget unicorn in the sky." I can’t "disprove” this inductively, because I can't scour every bit of the universe to search for a "giant banana plaster goo midget unicorn in the sky." So I think we are at a stalemate on the prove/disprove question.
However, I think that the atheists win this round becuase, a la occam's razor, why would you believe in somthing that is unprovable? It seems useless, and I can't think of any other examples of things rational people believe that are totally unprovable (scientology aside, but are these really rational people?).
You seem like quite an admirable, inquisitive, and awesome person, yet you have doomed yourself with the ultimate Sisyphean task. The "rock" of the existence of god, faces the huge "hill" you have placed in front of it--the hill of foundational ethics. I was just like you 8 years ago, but I have sinse given up hope of finding a perfect ethical system.
I admire your quest for a god that makes the moral rules, but this inquiry will fail. I blame your search on our culture that insists that there must be a god to have an objective standard of morality--this is simply untrue. There could easily be absolute moral rules that are embedded in nature or people (I don't think this is true, but you have to admit this COULD be a "moral law" that people just follow, much like animals comply with certain social norms).
The core dilemma is this. If there is an all powerful, all good god, why does he allow evil to exist? If he were all good, then he would use his power to stop evil--seeing as he does not, he must be either less than all powerful OR less than all good. There are 2 common responses to this argument
1)God makes the rules, and the way the world currently works IS all good, but we humans are just too stupid to understand how. This is VERY dissatisfactory. Why would this all powerful, all good creator tantalize us with a moral sense, just to taunt us with unexplained evil?
2)God will make all the evil in the world better in the end. This is also unsatisfactory, because it does not explain the injustice done to people in the meantime. Are we just to suffer until we die, when we finally get the big picture? That sucks, and still seems to be unjust--a temporary injustice is injustice nonetheless.
I think that if you are a deist, that is a better position to be in, but you seem to be left with some of the same questions. I mean assuming that this moral lawgiver made moral rules, why the f*ck doesn’t he enforce them? A rule without enforcement is no rule at all.
This is why I have given up on foundational ethics--they are just to hard to defend and harder to live by. Why should I obey rules that an external rule giver made, just because he says so, when he does nothing if I disregard them?
I think a better position is to be a humanistic atheist (I‘m really more of an uncaring humanistic agnostic, I think the search for god is irrelevant to living a good human life, although the process is great for intellectual growth). The moral rules are made by people for people. As you said, there are certainly similarities between cultures in their moral codes, and I think this is directly related to the needs of all human beings. Since we are all similar, why wouldn’t the moral rules we create be similar? This just makes sense, and it dispenses with the problems of looking for an ultimate higher power that we could never really know that much about (see above discussion about inductive vs. deductive logic).
Hoff--You are a true philosopher, whether you know it or not. Asking open, honest questions is the best way to find out things about yourself and the world around you. Keep looking.
So that is all I have for now, good luck in your searches for meaning, god etc. I have found that if you are intellectually honest and ready to listen to the good arguments you can find some resolution to these questions for yourself, although the process of deciding the individual moral questions can be exhausting. Also, I have found that religion still has at least some positive functions for people today (i.e. community building, relationships, career networking etc.)
Freakshow--As an quasi-atheist myself, I feel your pain, but I think your arguments are a bit emotional and flawed. Basically, I think the facts of human history seem to show no difference between religion and "science" in the question of "which kills more people?" The USSR, China, and Cuba were/are all 100% atheistic nations, yet human history has never seen nations kill more of their own people. It is estimated that Stalin alone may have killed over 20 million people. The bottom line here is that people will always kill each other due to the scarcity of resources on this planet--as long as there are things to fight over people will fight for them. Thus I do not think the current Muslim atrocities, the crusades or anything else will show that atheism/science based ideology will lead to fewer people being killed--people get killed because other people want their stuff-period. Whether it is an inner city kid killing another for cool shoes or a jacket, or the US going after the middle east for oil, or the terrorists bombing America because we are rich, or 2 jackals fighting over a piece of meat, violence is part of human and natural existence--get over it.
This leads me to my next point. The science v. religion debate is fruitless because both ask and answer different questions. Religion addresses questions about the meaning of life, among other things, while science adresses questions about the natural world. What many people are upset about is that religion is encroaching into science's inquiries, and trying to answer questions about the origin of man, etc. I think that this objection is well founded because science tries to objectively use inductive logic to build on our current knowledge, while creationists just blindly follow a book that was written between 1000 and 3000 years ago (I do not want to get into the "when the bible was written" debate in this thread--too time consuming).
argyll72--Everyone who has a college education has had some brushes with Anselm, Descartes, Aquinas, etc. My undergrad degree was in philosophy and public policy, so I kind of know my way around these guys. I imagine that you might have had some brushes with a seminary (as have I), and it is admirable that you have taken the time to look to some great thinkers of the past for answers. I will address the main arguments you posted. I understand you are not necessarily positing them, just putting them out there--thank you.
Anselm
This is all in his head--he is a solipsist. I don't really care what goes on between your ears or anyone else's, I (and good philosophers) want to know what is going on in the real world.
Descartes
The reason there are few Cartesian philosophers alive today is because it is very doubtful to solely use proof from one's mind to prove anything. To be intellectually honest, you have to use both induction and deduction to show anything of substance about the real world. This is why using only formal logic, Aristotle showed a plucked chicken is a man. Why? Because Proposition #1=Men are featherless bipeds. Proposition #2=A plucked chicken is a featherless biped. THEREFORE, a plucked chicken is a man. This is the same kind of logic as Proposition #1=the highest thing you can think about is perfect. Proposition #2=there can be nothing higher that the highest thing you can think about. THEREFORE, there is a perfect being--presto, there is your god. Once again the problem with this kind of thinking is that it exists 100% in the mind and tell us NOTHING about our "real world" of senses.
Aquinas' 5 proofs--Aquinas is still popular with the Catholic church, but widely abandoned by current philosophers. My response to his 5 "proofs" of the existence of god.
1--The unmoved mover
This is nice argument, but even if it is true, this at best shows that there WAS a god that existed, not that there is a god. What if the unmoved mover died? There seems to be more evidence for deism than theism.
2--Efficient causality
Once again, proof that a god DID exist, not that he DOES. Also this is purely circular, what caused the efficient cause?
3--The Necessary cause
What caused the necessary cause? *crickets chirping* There are only two possibilities. Either the world came from something or it has always existed--so what? This shows us nothing about the world today.
4--The gradation of things (Aristotle's "Chain of Being")
This is a purely subjective, ad hoc determination. Fire is no longer the hottest thing we know of, but even if it was, how does this comparison of things lead us to god? Could the world be like the Greeks thought, that "man is the measure of all things"? This seems more rational than deciding that we will name a thing "god" and call it the highest thing.
5--Intelligent design of the world
This is circular and false. The world is good because we call it good, but it isn't so good for things lower on the food chain. This is like what they say in "The Big Lebowski"--"Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear eats you.” The world and the state of nature, are neither empirically good or bad, they just ARE.
FishFleas--I understand this is not the flaming thread, so please take this in the nicest way possible. YOU SUCK. For the love of the God you believe in, the universe if you don't, or anything else that will motivate you--TAKE A LOGIC CLASS (a writing class would help as well). I don't know where you live, but the places I have lived in (Hawaii, Kansas, and North Carolina) you can take a logic class at a community college for about $150. If you choose not to do this, the standard college logic text is "Introduction to Logic" by Carl Cohen and Irving M. Copi. You can buy it on Half.com of about $5, and it would keep you from looking like a complete jackass when talking to college educated people (your English communication skills notwithstanding). This would be well worth your time and money, purely because of the fact that it would help you communicate with other human beings rationally, and it would help you put your incoherent mess of thoughts to rest. There are few, if any, cogent arguments in your long ramblings and that is why few people actually responded to them. Oh, and by the way, an 11 year old (Maxisgr8) corrected your writing--yikes!!!
Also, if Lack makes you the CC chaplain, I will hunt you down and kill you and lack (just kidding, killing you would be an inefficient use of my time and resources, and I need lack to keep my CC addiction alive).
The one argument that someone did respond to is the issue of the truth or falsity of the bible. I think that this argument is kind of irrelevant to this discussion because, regardless of if it is true or false, would it change anyone's opinion in this thread? The theists will still be theists, and the atheists will still be atheists. Actually, when I talk to Christians, I generally concede that all the bible's factual claims are true--so what? Plato wrote Republic, Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo etc., about 2500 years ago, yet whether what he said, (factually) is true or false, or whether he even actually existed (I think he did) are completely irrelevant. The reasons that the Bible, Republic, Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo etc., are still read today is because they are great human literature. For that reason, showing that the bible is true or false does not matter AT ALL, in the context of a religion v. science argument or an atheism v. theism debate. In any case, to convince me to be a Christian would take you FIRST proving a god exists, something the bible assumes is true. Which leads me to:
WinterTwlight--I think it is safe to say that one of your assertions is wrong. You could never prove (or disprove) the existence of the perfect monotheistic god posited by Christians, Muslims, and Jews. Why? 2 reasons--1)The element of faith dooms their inquiry. Whether or not you "prove" OR "disprove" the existence of god, they will continue to believe, because they believe in believing. 2)As I have shown above, most "proofs" for the existence of god are based on either logical fallacies, OR complete disregard for evidence from the real world. Pure logic us useless without verification from the world (see the featherless biped example above).
On the other hand you could never DISPROVE the existence of god because the proposition "god exists" is the same as, "there is a giant banana plaster goo midget unicorn in the sky." I can’t "disprove” this inductively, because I can't scour every bit of the universe to search for a "giant banana plaster goo midget unicorn in the sky." So I think we are at a stalemate on the prove/disprove question.
However, I think that the atheists win this round becuase, a la occam's razor, why would you believe in somthing that is unprovable? It seems useless, and I can't think of any other examples of things rational people believe that are totally unprovable (scientology aside, but are these really rational people?).
You seem like quite an admirable, inquisitive, and awesome person, yet you have doomed yourself with the ultimate Sisyphean task. The "rock" of the existence of god, faces the huge "hill" you have placed in front of it--the hill of foundational ethics. I was just like you 8 years ago, but I have sinse given up hope of finding a perfect ethical system.
I admire your quest for a god that makes the moral rules, but this inquiry will fail. I blame your search on our culture that insists that there must be a god to have an objective standard of morality--this is simply untrue. There could easily be absolute moral rules that are embedded in nature or people (I don't think this is true, but you have to admit this COULD be a "moral law" that people just follow, much like animals comply with certain social norms).
The core dilemma is this. If there is an all powerful, all good god, why does he allow evil to exist? If he were all good, then he would use his power to stop evil--seeing as he does not, he must be either less than all powerful OR less than all good. There are 2 common responses to this argument
1)God makes the rules, and the way the world currently works IS all good, but we humans are just too stupid to understand how. This is VERY dissatisfactory. Why would this all powerful, all good creator tantalize us with a moral sense, just to taunt us with unexplained evil?
2)God will make all the evil in the world better in the end. This is also unsatisfactory, because it does not explain the injustice done to people in the meantime. Are we just to suffer until we die, when we finally get the big picture? That sucks, and still seems to be unjust--a temporary injustice is injustice nonetheless.
I think that if you are a deist, that is a better position to be in, but you seem to be left with some of the same questions. I mean assuming that this moral lawgiver made moral rules, why the f*ck doesn’t he enforce them? A rule without enforcement is no rule at all.
This is why I have given up on foundational ethics--they are just to hard to defend and harder to live by. Why should I obey rules that an external rule giver made, just because he says so, when he does nothing if I disregard them?
I think a better position is to be a humanistic atheist (I‘m really more of an uncaring humanistic agnostic, I think the search for god is irrelevant to living a good human life, although the process is great for intellectual growth). The moral rules are made by people for people. As you said, there are certainly similarities between cultures in their moral codes, and I think this is directly related to the needs of all human beings. Since we are all similar, why wouldn’t the moral rules we create be similar? This just makes sense, and it dispenses with the problems of looking for an ultimate higher power that we could never really know that much about (see above discussion about inductive vs. deductive logic).
Hoff--You are a true philosopher, whether you know it or not. Asking open, honest questions is the best way to find out things about yourself and the world around you. Keep looking.
So that is all I have for now, good luck in your searches for meaning, god etc. I have found that if you are intellectually honest and ready to listen to the good arguments you can find some resolution to these questions for yourself, although the process of deciding the individual moral questions can be exhausting. Also, I have found that religion still has at least some positive functions for people today (i.e. community building, relationships, career networking etc.)
An idea is something that doesn't exist yet. It is just a thought. But if something exists then it is real and you can experience it not just think about it.Hoff wrote:why is the idea inferior to the reality then?
and i find this interesting... there is actually a religion based on macgyver. Its called MacGyverism and is based mainly in Utah. Don't believe me? Check it out for yourself.
Example: a new car design. You can have a drawing of a car with all the dimensions and all the cool features of the car. But if you don't actually have that car to drive then it's just an idea. You can't experience the car when it is on paper. You can only experience it if it exists and you can drive it.
I hope this helps.
So is MacGyverism kinda like Peter's Griffin's First United Church of the Fonz?
-argyll72
Last I checked I wasn't trying to publish any books here. I never claimed to be great at English and that is irrelevant to this thread. I personally feel you are coming accross worse than I. Some of the greatest writers I've read use others to proof their work. I'm an artist at heart, and for the record I aced my English courses at the University I attended.
In regards to the connections between the Bible and Science. My purpose and maybe you missed it was to show how the Bible, which is a center to a number of religions, does directly tie into Science. It has provided answers to alot of scientific questions, that science hasn't even been able to explain. It also has supported science in areas too. This was merely 1 of the angles I was coming from to show the direct connection to science from religion.
Religion may be more of of spiritual realm and science of the physical, however almost any religion you can name directly ties the two together. If A is connected to B, is not B connected to A? This is NOT the same as if a square a rectangle isn't a rectangle a square. As the first instance is talking about connections. I would not argue that science IS religion only that it is directly connected to it and vice versa.
There is no reason to attack me like that in your post. I did state numerous times that if you needed more clarification or wanted to discuss it more then PM me. I forgive you for the comments, but I would appreciate you take more care in your statements next time. Thanks.
In regards to the connections between the Bible and Science. My purpose and maybe you missed it was to show how the Bible, which is a center to a number of religions, does directly tie into Science. It has provided answers to alot of scientific questions, that science hasn't even been able to explain. It also has supported science in areas too. This was merely 1 of the angles I was coming from to show the direct connection to science from religion.
Religion may be more of of spiritual realm and science of the physical, however almost any religion you can name directly ties the two together. If A is connected to B, is not B connected to A? This is NOT the same as if a square a rectangle isn't a rectangle a square. As the first instance is talking about connections. I would not argue that science IS religion only that it is directly connected to it and vice versa.
There is no reason to attack me like that in your post. I did state numerous times that if you needed more clarification or wanted to discuss it more then PM me. I forgive you for the comments, but I would appreciate you take more care in your statements next time. Thanks.
-
Banana Stomper
- Posts: 422
- Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:39 pm
- Location: Richmond, Virginia
- Contact:
I have a little problem here. You question the existence of a god by the existence of evil. But what then is evil? What then are you trying to explain? What determines evil if there is no supreme moral law? For evil to exist, there must be some definition of what is good, what is the opposite of evil. I'm afraid that evil cannot exist alone. Evil is no monopole, it is like the magnet. The south needs the north, evil needs good.yozapower wrote:
The core dilemma is this. If there is an all powerful, all good god, why does he allow evil to exist? If he were all good, then he would use his power to stop evil--seeing as he does not, he must be either less than all powerful OR less than all good.
If we assume there must be good, what determines what good is? Can it be society? Today the practice of sacrificing human beings for some reason or another is an appalling thought, but at one time or another that was considered good. It was considered moral to slaughter your own people for the sake of pleasing the gods.
We cannot argue the existence of god by bringing up evil, because in doing so you argue that there is no good because of the existence of good.
-
Banana Stomper
- Posts: 422
- Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:39 pm
- Location: Richmond, Virginia
- Contact:
God created everything and it was good. But in his creation he gave it free will to choose good or evil. Because of free will he remains all powerful and all good. As a Christian I am waiting for the eschaton (when everything is put back into order by God). We are able to hope for the eschaton because Jesus Christ paid the ransom for the penalty of sin. He was resurrected and that is why we can have a hope for the eventual eschaton.The core dilemma is this. If there is an all powerful, all good god, why does he allow evil to exist? If he were all good, then he would use his power to stop evil--seeing as he does not, he must be either less than all powerful OR less than all good.
I believe in Jesus, in the sense that I'm sure that someone in ancient Isreal was named Jesus and taught followers an alternative form of Judism. I think that all the stuff about Miricles, reincarnation, and being the son of god were just exagerations created in the course of the hundreads of years after his death. That said while I agree with some of the things that the bible teaches there are other things which I don't.
"CAN YOU DIG IT?"
-thegrimsleeper
-thegrimsleeper
Banana yoza was arguing about evil that pertained to christian faith. He/she didn't say that only suffering existed in our world, they questioned why God would create a system and then allow these principles or practices that go against Him.
To say that it just makes pure people go to heaven is a very egotistical approach to life that a lot of humans believe. People should wake up and realize that we only believe we are God's greatest creation because of the way we are socialized. There are no indisputable cases that prove humanity is the greatest creature around.
As far as not being able to comprehend an all powerful being, this could just be a lack of perspective. People 50 years ago could not fathom the idea of the internet. Going back further you can see how the way people think and view the world changes. What will be the explanation if one day humanity can travel to distant stars or control a suns cycle?
Something I was wondering is if anyone is aware of Nostradomos' prophecies? I found an interesting correlation between them and some other sources if anyone wants to discuss it.
To say that it just makes pure people go to heaven is a very egotistical approach to life that a lot of humans believe. People should wake up and realize that we only believe we are God's greatest creation because of the way we are socialized. There are no indisputable cases that prove humanity is the greatest creature around.
As far as not being able to comprehend an all powerful being, this could just be a lack of perspective. People 50 years ago could not fathom the idea of the internet. Going back further you can see how the way people think and view the world changes. What will be the explanation if one day humanity can travel to distant stars or control a suns cycle?
Something I was wondering is if anyone is aware of Nostradomos' prophecies? I found an interesting correlation between them and some other sources if anyone wants to discuss it.
"We spend as much effort on indifference as our parents spent in the war."
Wiesel and others fear this...
Wiesel and others fear this...
-
WintersTwilight
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 4:18 pm
- Location: Nowhere
I will begin by addressing Banana on the subject of predestination.
I do not believe in predestination. I have often wondered, as you have, about the forces that work upon our bodies and brains. I do not want to go to far into predestiantion at this time because I am trying to stay close to the topic of the existance of God.
"If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." - Professor Haldane, Possible Worlds, p. 209
Yozapower,
I would like to clear up on the front end that although you use logic to show that a chicken is a man, you also use logic to come to the conclusion that the first logical deduction was wrong. We know that a man is more than just a biped without feathers. It does not take much insight to realize that.
Now let us take a look at what has been called the "core dilemma". According to this dilemma, if God is good and God is all-powerful, then there would be no pain, suffering, or evil. This is a very good argument; however, we must know what we mean when we make such a statement. Let us first look at the nature of the Divine Omnipotence:
By omnipotence I am assuming that we mean the power to do all or everything. When we use the word impossible, we usually imply a supressed clause beginning with the word "unless". (e.g. It is impossible for me, with a broken leg, to get up my stairs, unless I have some help from a friend.) There are, however, some impossibilities which carry their impossiblity within itself. These intrinsical impossibilities can not even be performed by omnipotence. If you said that God can give a creature free will, and at the same time withhold free will from it, you have succeeded in saying nothing about God. "You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power." Omnipotence can do all things, but intriniscal impossibilities are not things, they are nonentities. Nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God. Meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning by prefixing them with the two words "God can".
"The freedom of God consists in the fact that no cause other than Himself produces His acts and no external obstacle impedes them--that His own goodness is the root from which they all grow and His own omnipotence the air in which they all flower." -C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, p. 27
Now let us observe what we can about the Divine Goodness. When speaking of God's goodness, we usually mean His lovingness, and by lovingness we usually mean His kindness. It is true that there is kindness in love, but this kind of kindness, apart from love that we attribute to God leads to a certain indifference to its object. In some cases this kindness can lead to the ready removal of its object. (e.g. Men who are kind to animals kill them to prevent suffering.) "Kindness, merely as such, cares not whether its object becomes good or bad, provided only that it escapes suffering."
Nature as such has a certain fixed quality. It is this quality that allows for human pain and suffering. This can easily be explained by free will. One can imagine a world without pain in which no one is harmed by their neighbor. If a man chose to strike his neighbor with a stick, the stick may become soft or limp. In such a world, the choices that a man can make have no consequences. Without consequences there is no choice.
I understand that all of these presuppos the existance of God. The reason is because this "core dilemma" presupposes the existance of such a being. It even gives qualities to that being. (i.e. Omnipotence and Goodness.) This "core dilemma" does not say anything about the existance of a God.
One more thing that I would like to clear up is that I do not believe that evil is the opposite of good. At least, not in the same way that other opposites exist. Good seems to be able to exist without evil, but evil cannot exist without good. All things done by men that are evil were done for something good. (e.g. Murder for retribution, stealing to eat, etc.) It may be argued that some men do evil for the sake of evil. Such men (if any exist) are mad or lunatics. I would then point out that:
"To find out what is natural, we must study specimens which retain their nature and not those which have been corrupted." -Arostotle, Politics, I, v, 5
A much more compelling thought is that there is a sense of good and evil in humanity.
I do not believe in predestination. I have often wondered, as you have, about the forces that work upon our bodies and brains. I do not want to go to far into predestiantion at this time because I am trying to stay close to the topic of the existance of God.
"If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." - Professor Haldane, Possible Worlds, p. 209
Yozapower,
I would like to clear up on the front end that although you use logic to show that a chicken is a man, you also use logic to come to the conclusion that the first logical deduction was wrong. We know that a man is more than just a biped without feathers. It does not take much insight to realize that.
Now let us take a look at what has been called the "core dilemma". According to this dilemma, if God is good and God is all-powerful, then there would be no pain, suffering, or evil. This is a very good argument; however, we must know what we mean when we make such a statement. Let us first look at the nature of the Divine Omnipotence:
By omnipotence I am assuming that we mean the power to do all or everything. When we use the word impossible, we usually imply a supressed clause beginning with the word "unless". (e.g. It is impossible for me, with a broken leg, to get up my stairs, unless I have some help from a friend.) There are, however, some impossibilities which carry their impossiblity within itself. These intrinsical impossibilities can not even be performed by omnipotence. If you said that God can give a creature free will, and at the same time withhold free will from it, you have succeeded in saying nothing about God. "You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power." Omnipotence can do all things, but intriniscal impossibilities are not things, they are nonentities. Nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God. Meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning by prefixing them with the two words "God can".
"The freedom of God consists in the fact that no cause other than Himself produces His acts and no external obstacle impedes them--that His own goodness is the root from which they all grow and His own omnipotence the air in which they all flower." -C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, p. 27
Now let us observe what we can about the Divine Goodness. When speaking of God's goodness, we usually mean His lovingness, and by lovingness we usually mean His kindness. It is true that there is kindness in love, but this kind of kindness, apart from love that we attribute to God leads to a certain indifference to its object. In some cases this kindness can lead to the ready removal of its object. (e.g. Men who are kind to animals kill them to prevent suffering.) "Kindness, merely as such, cares not whether its object becomes good or bad, provided only that it escapes suffering."
Nature as such has a certain fixed quality. It is this quality that allows for human pain and suffering. This can easily be explained by free will. One can imagine a world without pain in which no one is harmed by their neighbor. If a man chose to strike his neighbor with a stick, the stick may become soft or limp. In such a world, the choices that a man can make have no consequences. Without consequences there is no choice.
I understand that all of these presuppos the existance of God. The reason is because this "core dilemma" presupposes the existance of such a being. It even gives qualities to that being. (i.e. Omnipotence and Goodness.) This "core dilemma" does not say anything about the existance of a God.
One more thing that I would like to clear up is that I do not believe that evil is the opposite of good. At least, not in the same way that other opposites exist. Good seems to be able to exist without evil, but evil cannot exist without good. All things done by men that are evil were done for something good. (e.g. Murder for retribution, stealing to eat, etc.) It may be argued that some men do evil for the sake of evil. Such men (if any exist) are mad or lunatics. I would then point out that:
"To find out what is natural, we must study specimens which retain their nature and not those which have been corrupted." -Arostotle, Politics, I, v, 5
A much more compelling thought is that there is a sense of good and evil in humanity.
Native Americans had very similar system, yet their belief has changed a lot over the centuries. For instance the idea of the Great Spirit as a the leading god in many tribes was born only when indians needed to be more united against whites & thus they needed someone to symbolise their whole faithsystem. So the fact that indian wizards, shamans (can't remember what word you generally use in english for poppamies) dedicated their lives to remember spells & stories doesn't mean that they weren't changed. Your logic is the same as "Bible can't have errors, because those who wrote them was divinely lead". It doesn't hold water. Human mind is not a copy machine. I for instance have a couple of very emotional moments in my life few years ago and at the time I paid heed to remember those moments as well as possible, paying particular attention to some of the words that were used. But do I remember them now? No I don't. And it's been only 3 years.You have to remember though that the Jewish culture before, at the time of Jesus and after was an oral culture. There were people that had the job of remembering exactly what a person said and they would retell exactly what they said later. Through the years the stories would not change because people knew the story and if the storyteller changed the story the people would know.
Yes, I'm sure that the historical Jesus probably knew a lot more about medicine than average Joe at the time. I do believe that he probably did a lot what people back then called miracles, but would modern people call them such? Well, some of them probably would as some people tend to use word miracle on occasions like doctor saving lives.To address the miracles of Jesus. You said that should sound an alarm. For a scientifically educated person as you are and we all are, it would sound an alarm. But at the time of Jesus they did not have the field of science as we know today. It was a pre-scientific world. And these miracles were not just preformed in front of the lower uneducated class. Jesus preformed miracles in front of the Jewish religious leaders and the educated people that were skeptical.
Well my input wasn't to question anyone's belief. It's just my historian side that wanted to remind people how history is researched and what are proved & what are matter of faith.It is hard for us to imagine miracles because we don't see people healed from lifetime sickness and crippled ness. But if Jesus was who he said he was (God incarnate) then why couldn't Jesus do something that everybody else couldn't
I agree with you on this one. However as I earlier pointed out there were a lot of other Gospels as well and they were in use for 4th century until New Testament was assembled & at least half the Gospels were thrown out because they weren't coherent with the ones that were chosen as holy.In an earlier post somebody mentioned that the Gospels were different and the stories came in a different order so there for they couldn't be reliable. If you talk to a police officer about investigating a crash they will tell you that everybody has a different story of what happened. It's because they were at different angles and had a different perspective. But they all describe the same accident. If the Gospels would have said the same exact thing then it is time to worry about some funny business.
And that should include the Bible as well.You are right about kings wanting their missions to look well. It is a part of critical analysis of any text, looking at motive.
Actually this is just something you have to believe at the moment, not something you can prove to hold water. At the moment we don't know what forces govern... damn... now I'd need my physicist friends to know the correct terms. Quarks maybe? Well anyways, beyond atoms there are a lot of action going on we haven't found out a rule yet. There are still things that cannot be calculated or predicted & it is up to you to BELIEVE that we'll manage to find a rule that governs them as well.Banana Stomper wrote: Predestination.
There are four forces in the Universe. Strong Nuclear force, weak nuclear force, gravitational force, and electromagnetic force. All of these forces govern the universe, how we move, how everything moves, how particles move. Not a single one of us is apart from these laws. Now, we assume we have free will, but where does this free will force come from. What force is it that moves our arms, that moves our fingers to type. What force is posting this message right now. You can say that i am making the decision to type these words, but that would imply that somehow I altered the course of these particles, that i changed their movement. But I am not a force. I am made of of neutrons, protons, and electrons that all interact in a way governed by the laws of nature. That all must obey those four forces and can not be affected by anything other than those four forces.
What is it then that determines what i type. At some point in the past, every particle was put into motion. As science currently states, the big bang was this begining, and all of the particles that now make up the universe were set in motion. the particles that make up my fingers were set in motion. Those particles have never been affected by any force other than the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and the electromagnetic force. My brain is not free of the laws, nothing is free of these laws. What then makes me hit these keys in this order? What governs my actions, what path were they set on so that they mesh into my conversations, my posts on this forum, my moves in a game of risk?
On a personal level I have to say that I don't even want to believe in that. Predestination is a frightening thought the least. However I give it a credit. The march has been leading on that direction.
In a way I agree with you. The way Bible explains the birth of the world isn't necessarily contradicting with the reality. It is only written in language that people at Biblical times would be ready to believe. Now if someone was suddenly started going on about species evolving from others & Earth being all volcanoes billions of years ago, the least they would've done was laugh their hearts out. Bible is not a scientific handbook and it shouldn't be used as one, it wasn't the discussion alledged God wanted to have with us. God wanted to talk about different things, but had to explain unrelevant things as well - in words that people would understand.fishfleas wrote: In regards to the connections between the Bible and Science. My purpose and maybe you missed it was to show how the Bible, which is a center to a number of religions, does directly tie into Science. It has provided answers to alot of scientific questions, that science hasn't even been able to explain. It also has supported science in areas too. This was merely 1 of the angles I was coming from to show the direct connection to science from religion.
P.S. The first time Sweden ever registered all their population was in 16th century. I think I earlier wrote 17th... my bad.
The Jewish people held the art of remembering stories and what people said in the highest regard. There is no way you can compare the Native American culture to the Jewish one. The Jewish people’s oral culture is head and shoulders above the Native American’s culture in respect to oral traditions.Jucdor wrote:
Native Americans had very similar system, yet their belief has changed a lot over the centuries. For instance the idea of the Great Spirit as a the leading god in many tribes was born only when indians needed to be more united against whites & thus they needed someone to symbolise their whole faithsystem. So the fact that indian wizards, shamans (can't remember what word you generally use in english for poppamies) dedicated their lives to remember spells & stories doesn't mean that they weren't changed. Your logic is the same as "Bible can't have errors, because those who wrote them was divinely lead". It doesn't hold water. Human mind is not a copy machine. I for instance have a couple of very emotional moments in my life few years ago and at the time I paid heed to remember those moments as well as possible, paying particular attention to some of the words that were used. But do I remember them now? No I don't. And it's been only 3 years.
In the Middle East now and back in the time of Jesus the ability to recite, and write poetry was held in very high regard. It was one of the many things that were found to be attractive about a man.
I’m going to disagree with you about Jesus knowing more about medicine then the average Joe. His earthly father was a carpenter and he was also taught this trade along with this brothers. He would not have been trained in the field of medicine. The field of medicine at that time wouldn’t have made a difference any way in the healing of a blind or lame man. If they were blind or lame they had to depend on their family to take care of them or bed as many of them did. Their bones wouldn’t have been reset and there was nothing they could do for eye sight.Jucdor wrote: Yes, I'm sure that the historical Jesus probably knew a lot more about medicine than average Joe at the time. I do believe that he probably did a lot what people back then called miracles, but would modern people call them such? Well, some of them probably would as some people tend to use word miracle on occasions like doctor saving lives.
I think if we saw a lame man get up and walk after not walking his entire life we would consider it a miracle even today.
I agree with you .Jucdor wrote: Well my input wasn't to question anyone's belief. It's just my historian side that wanted to remind people how history is researched and what are proved & what are matter of faith.
There were a lot of “gospels” written in the second and third centuries that’s true. But they were Gnostic gospels and were condemned as heresy at the councils of Nicea and Constantinople. Arius was the preacher in Alexandria that was condemned for his Gnostic beliefs. His beliefs were that Jesus was only a spiritual being and not a physical being. The orthodox belief is that Jesus was fully man and fully God.Jucdor wrote: I agree with you on this one. However as I earlier pointed out there were a lot of other Gospels as well and they were in use for 4th century until New Testament was assembled & at least half the Gospels were thrown out because they weren't coherent with the ones that were chosen as holy.
These Gnostic “gospels” were written by people who were not who they claimed they were. Take the gospel of Judas for example. He hung himself before Christ was crucified so how could he possibly have written it. There is also the gospel of Peter, Mary, and Thomas.
Athanasius was the bishop of Alexandria that fought the ideas that Arius was trying to preach. Athanasius was the one that went through the books up for consideration for canonization and decided if they were legit. He canonized the books that are now in the Catholic Bible but not in the Protestant Bible. These are called the Apocrypha. The reason they are not in the Protestant Bible is because they have nothing to do with Jesus or have theological significance.
I disagree with you that the Gnostic “gospels” should be canonized. This is because they are not consistent with what the orthodox beliefs of the church are.
If you look at the creation narratives, yes there are two, in Genesis and compare them to other creation stories of different cultures there are some uncanny similarities. The Enuma Elish (Babylonian creation story) is one such document. Basically the author of Genesis took the creation story that was common in Mesopotamia at the time and rewrote it to emphasize that there is only one God. The Enuma Elish has several gods (Tiamat, Apsu, Anshar and Kishar, Anu, Ea) that had a hand in creating the world and the things in it. The book of Genesis is a theological book that is monotheistic, which was the first of its kind.In a way I agree with you. The way Bible explains the birth of the world isn't necessarily contradicting with the reality. It is only written in language that people at Biblical times would be ready to believe. Now if someone was suddenly started going on about species evolving from others & Earth being all volcanoes billions of years ago, the least they would've done was laugh their hearts out. Bible is not a scientific handbook and it shouldn't be used as one, it wasn't the discussion alledged God wanted to have with us. God wanted to talk about different things, but had to explain unrelevant things as well - in words that people would understand.
Last edited by argyll72 on Wed May 03, 2006 5:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Even if I agreed with that (which I don't as I haven't studied either of the matters enough) you didn't reply to my actual point. That no matter how hard you try, stories change. Even if the message doesn't change, the words do. And besides, the leading Jews didn't believe in Jesus anyhow so these highly qualified men were even at the most common - exremely rare.argyll72 wrote: The Jewish people held the art of remembering stories and what people said in the highest regard. There is no way you can compare the Native American culture to the Jewish one. The Jewish people’s oral culture is head and shoulders above the Native American’s culture in respect to oral traditions.
I’m going to disagree with you about Jesus knowing more about medicine then the average Joe. His earthly father was a carpenter and he was also taught this trade along with this brothers. He would not have been trained in the field of medicine. The field of medicine at that time wouldn’t have made a difference any way in the healing of a blind or lame man. If they were blind or lame they had to depend on their family to take care of them or bed as many of them did. Their bones wouldn’t have been reset and there was nothing they could do for eye sight.Jucdor wrote: Yes, I'm sure that the historical Jesus probably knew a lot more about medicine than average Joe at the time. I do believe that he probably did a lot what people back then called miracles, but would modern people call them such? Well, some of them probably would as some people tend to use word miracle on occasions like doctor saving lives.
I think if we saw a lame man get up and walk after not walking his entire life we would consider it a miracle even today.[/quote]
Naturally I was ready to go for mild understanding of medicine. The rest is probably just exaggeration. Stories get exaggerated once they've told a dozen times.
Yes, in council of Nicea, 4th century which is my case. Over three hundred years later was, in a nice little gathering, decided that "I think this one is holy, but you can burn that one."There were a lot of “gospels” written in the second and third centuries that’s true. But they were Gnostic gospels and were condemned as heresy at the councils of Nicea and Constantinople. Arius was the preacher in Alexandria that was condemned for his Gnostic beliefs. His beliefs were that Jesus was only a spiritual being and not a physical being. The orthodox belief is that Jesus was fully man and fully God.
And few others as well that we are aware of. Let's not forget that we're reading the history of the winners. Christianity was still young & looking for its form & the few parchments of gnostic texts that have been found does not tell the whole story. Particularly not when paper was expensive back then & you were not likely to afford all of the texts or gospels which left you to copy your favourite ones and sometimes parts of from several gospels. And we're not talking about any monks copying the books, but ordinary people doing the job quickly to have something to read for their wives and children.These Gnostic “gospels” were written by people who were not who they claimed they were. Take the gospel of Judas for example. He hung himself before Christ was crucified so how could he possibly have written it. There is also the gospel of Peter, Mary, and Thomas.
Let's do a little mind game. There are 12 gospels to go for. Let's say that there are 100 original copies of each & one man affords let's say 5 gospels. So 1200 original copies makes 240 people have some of the original texts. Then let's say that there are 50 000 people who has those texts as copied, part from here, part from there. And this goes on till the Synod of Nicea. There is decided that all the gnostic texts must be burned (ok, the burning part came a little later than that, but on the 5th century at least). Now let's say that only 10 pieces of gnostic texts survives to this day. How likely it is that they're one of the originals? Practically not possible. Whereas the holy ones are spared so you can go back, look what indeed was written in the original text & start using that one.
My point? Don't be too sure about history. And particularly don't be too sure about thing that cannot be known for sure.
I've never said that. To me it doesn't matter that much what the holy Bible holds in as I'm not a believer myself. At some days I call myself an atheist, on most days agnostic. Agnostic is probably more suiting word, as I love religious conversations and I have religious friends. My best friend's parents (and she as well naturally) was missionaries in Ethiophia, and one of my friends grew up on a tightly religious family with whom she broke ties with after they didn't approve her non-believing husband. So I think I've seen the best & and the worst religion can do to a person. If I had to choose, I'd say believing has more pro's than con's (but not much) as long as it's more about uniting people than dividing. However god, God or gods, have not convinced me and if I have to goto hell because of it, then so be it. At least I'll have good company there with over half of my friends.I disagree with you that the Gnostic “gospels” should be canonized. This is because they are not consistent with what the orthodox beliefs of the church are.
You are way over simplifying the process. It wasn’t that they just went through and picked the ones they thought were holy. There was over three-hundred years of debate on what was orthodox belief. They had to first decide if Jesus was who he said he was, God incarnate, and then they had to decide if the Holy Spirit was going to be deified. The Nicene Creed wasn’t formed until 381 at Constantinople and then affirmed at Chalcedon in 451.Yes, in council of Nicea, 4th century which is my case. Over three hundred years later was, in a nice little gathering, decided that "I think this one is holy, but you can burn that one."
-
WintersTwilight
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 4:18 pm
- Location: Nowhere
Jucdor and argyll72, I am sorry but I fail to see what either of you are trying to prove. To have a debate about religion it seems that you must first establish that there is a God. Have I missed something, or have we already concluded that a Divine Being exists?
Last edited by WintersTwilight on Thu May 04, 2006 8:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Naturally I was simplifying the process (we can debate about the over -word:)) to make my point. If for instance I say that Rome all of a sudden attacked country X, it doesn't mean that there weren't any debate about the subject before hand or that it wasn't planned before. In this case my point was that for over 300 years there were just bunch of texts that were freely copied and after the Nicean creed part of those texts were just decided to be holy & some were not. But before Nicene Creed there were no persecutions of gnostic christians that later followed. And gnostism was very widely spread, I'd say it spread as widely as catholism. For instance when Charles the Great attacked Germania he was facing mainly gnostic populations. The East Germania as far as I remember was still worshipping their ancient gods, but West Germania wasn't.argyll72 wrote: You are way over simplifying the process. It wasn’t that they just went through and picked the ones they thought were holy. There was over three-hundred years of debate on what was orthodox belief. They had to first decide if Jesus was who he said he was, God incarnate, and then they had to decide if the Holy Spirit was going to be deified. The Nicene Creed wasn’t formed until 381 at Constantinople and then affirmed at Chalcedon in 451.