Which world is better: the world with no God or the world where the gospel is true?

MrsFoundit · Jan 30, 2020

Clizby WampusCat said:
Why can't you tell me what you believe and why? Why are you a christian?

I already did tell you. You are asking "Why can't you tell me?"

Silmarien · Jan 30, 2020

Clizby WampusCat said:
You made a claim. You claimed here that "something must necessarily exist" and you used as a reason for this your belief that something cannot come from nothing. I am questioning your reason for your belief of necessary existence. If you are going to use your belief that something cannot come from nothing that must be substantiated and I don't see how you can do that unless you have all knowledge.

Let's take another tack here. Wave your hand in front of your face and then answer this question: Do you believe that your hand exists? If the answer is yes, you seem to be making a claim about the existence of your hand. Can you prove that you are not a brain in a vat imagining that you have a hand? Clearly you cannot make the claim that your hand exists unless you have all knowledge.

I consider the principle of sufficient reason--i.e., that everything must have a reason, cause, or ground--to be a first principle. I do not see how it can be rationally denied, and therefore I am justified in operating as if it were true, just as you are justified in operating as if your hand actually exists. "Having all knowledge" is not a reasonable epistemology standard, unless you don't think any belief about anything is ever justified.

MrsFoundit · Jan 30, 2020

Clizby WampusCat said:
Faith in anything.

Faith, means "trust", and I quite agree.

Faith (trust) in maths, when used appropriately, will be really useful, you will be fine with that.

Faith (trust) in anything, no discretion as to what, no logical deduction, or principle applied, just a wandering random trust in anything at all, that will get a person into a pickle, yes.

dlamberth · Jan 30, 2020

MrsFoundit said:
You need maths for pure true or false. Nothing else can do it, everything else that could involves faith, but you do not want that.

If I'm understanding the direction of this, when looking at the spiritual world of what is true and false, math and faith are not the only ways forward. Being that Love has been brought up I'll use that as an example. Depending on where one goes with it, Love can very much be a spiritual trajectory that's "experienced" outside of math or even faith. For instance, William Johnston in "The Inner Eye of Love: Mysticism and Religion" talks about riding Love like an arrow to the Heart of God. The Mystical Sufies talk about the Religion of Love. Poets write about Love. Songwriters sing about Love. There's a lot of other examples out there. The point I'm hoping to get to is that it's the "experience" of Love that more directly informs us on the Truth of Love and what Love is. Math and Faith are certain kinds of knowing, but not the only kind.

Clizby WampusCat · Jan 30, 2020

Silmarien said:
Let's take another tack here. Wave your hand in front of your face and then answer this question: Do you believe that your hand exists? If the answer is yes, you seem to be making a claim about the existence of your hand. Can you prove that you are not a brain in a vat imagining that you have a hand? Clearly you cannot make the claim that your hand exists unless you have all knowledge.

I have said many times on this site that you cannot know anything with 100% certainty. The reason is solipsism as you have described above. I agree with you here. I have no solution for it but I assume reality is real and solipsism is not true because I have no other choice if I want to live my life. I make no claim that reality is real I assume it because I have no other choice at the moment.

I consider the principle of sufficient reason--i.e., that everything must have a reason, cause, or ground--to be a first principle. I do not see how it can be rationally denied, and therefore I am justified in operating as if it were true, just as you are justified in operating as if your hand actually exists. "Having all knowledge" is not a reasonable epistemology standard, unless you don't think any belief about anything is ever justified.

I am going to rebut this but I am not so sure I am right. I am curious of your response. I may change my mind.

I never said all knowledge is a standard of belief. I said you would have to have all knowledge to know that something cannot come from nothing.

When you say "I do not see how it can be rationally denied" I see this as a problem, a fallacy. You justify your belief in necessary existence by reason that you don't know how something can come from nothing. I see this as me telling you I believe your name is Gina, you ask why I believe your name is Gina and I say I cannot think of any other name you could have. This is a fallacy. Just becasue I don't know other names does not mean your name is Gina. I should have the position that I don't know what your name is, which is my position.

I think it is different than me saying I assume reality is real and solipsism is not real because I am not making a claim about how reality is but I am making a claim that the reality we live in is true based on the fact that I have no other choice if I want to live in this reality. I am not claiming it is true and I am not justified in believing it based on evidence but on the circumstances of the situation. If someone proves solipsism is true or false I will then change my belief.

The way I see it is that you are making an unnecessary, unwarranted assumption about reality and I am making a necessary assumption about reality.

Like I said this is up for discussion and I am interested to hear your response and have more discussion.

Silmarien · Jan 30, 2020

Clizby WampusCat said:
I never said all knowledge is a standard of belief. I said you would have to have all knowledge to know that something cannot come from nothing.

You would also have to have all knowledge to know that the hand before your face is real and not a figment of your fevered imagination. That means this is not a valid objection.

Clizby WampusCat said:
When you say "I do not see how it can be rationally denied" I see this as a problem, a fallacy. You justify your belief in necessary existence by reason that you don't know how something can come from nothing. I see this as me telling you I believe your name is Gina, you ask why I believe your name is Gina and I say I cannot think of any other name you could have. This is a fallacy. Just becasue I don't know other names does not mean your name is Gina. I should have the position that I don't know what your name is, which is my position.

I switched from "something cannot come from nothing" to the more formalized principle of sufficient reason (i.e., that everything must have a reason, cause, or ground). This principle is, amongst many other things, required for empirical science to function, since if scientists denied that there had to be an underlying reason that experiments turned out one way instead of an other, all of science would come to a grinding halt.

For a different example, imagine a group of street magicians sharing magical tricks on the street. One of them begins to perform magnificent illusions that the others cannot figure out, and when they ask him how he does these tricks, he claims that he uses real magic. Should the other magicians accept the possibility that their colleague actually has magical powers, or should they operate according to the principle of sufficient reason and assume that there is a rational explanation behind his tricks? (Mind you, even the notion that the magician is actually performing real magic doesn't immediately break the principle of sufficient reason, since he would presumably be the cause of the magic. This makes denying the principle of suffficient reason more radical than accepting the possible of magic.)

Again, I think denying the principle of sufficient reason is far more extreme than entertaining solipsism. This has nothing to do with whether someone is named Gina or Clara or Genevieve. If modern atheists are operating under the assumption that we are not justified in assuming that random street magicians aren't genuine sorcerers, I think there is an enormous problem with the underlying epistemology.

Clizby WampusCat said:
I think it is different than me saying I assume reality is real and solipsism is not real because I am not making a claim about how reality is but I am making a claim that the reality we live in is true based on the fact that I have no other choice if I want to live in this reality. I am not claiming it is true and I am not justified in believing it based on evidence but on the circumstances of the situation. If someone proves solipsism is true or false I will then change my belief.

The way I see it is that you are making an unnecessary, unwarranted assumption about reality and I am making a necessary assumption about reality.

This is a deeply problematic, somewhat uncritical statement. The unfounded assumptions that you just happen to hold are somehow justified, but assumptions that for whatever reason you do not share are therefore unnecessary and unwarranted? I would assume that there are genuine solipsists out there who do not see any reason to assume that reality is genuine, and they would consider your assumptions unnecessary and unwarranted.

The other problem is that you are always operating under the assumption that everyone except you is making a claim. I would not say that the principle of sufficient reason needs to be true, but that our minds are hardwired to accept that it is true, which puts it in the same category as the denial of solipsism. (Though I think that the success of the scientific project actually provides very good evidence that the principle of sufficient reason is true, since the whole thing hasn't collapsed into unintelligibility just yet.)

quatona · Jan 31, 2020

public hermit said:
Imagine two possible worlds:

World 1
In this world there is no God. There is no afterlife and we are not held accountable for the way we have lived.

World 2
In this world, not only does God exist, but the gospel us true. Jesus truly lived, died for our sins, and rose again. In this world there is an afterlife and we are held accountable for the way we have lived.

So, which world is best, World 1 or World 2? Please give reasons for your choice.

I like world 1 better. I have no use for Gods, and I prefer stuff to be finite.
(What you mean by "being held accountable for the way we lived" I still do not understand.)

MrsFoundit · Jan 31, 2020

Clizby WampusCat said:
No scientist I know of is saying that as a fact. They are a lot of hypothesis about what nothing is, is nothing possible etc. When a believer says scientists believe something came from nothing they are inaccurate. And if there are some that say this you are right they need to give sufficient evidence for it.

The issue is not what scientists are saying, it what atheists are saying.

public hermit · Jan 31, 2020

quatona said:
I like world 1 better. I have no use for Gods, and I prefer stuff to be finite.
(What you mean by "being held accountable for the way we lived" I still do not understand.)

We are created for everlasting life in the Presence of God who is Love. The way we live and what we do prepares us for that or not. Have we lived loving God and others? That is the standard to which we are held. How Christ fits into that I have already said in the previous post to which you can refer.

You have no use for God, and you prefer things being finite. Do you have a preference for what is good as opposed to what is not? Is what is true a matter of your preference? What exactly are you seeking in the actual world? Is meaning and purpose more than preference? Does it matter how others are treated? Do they matter at all, why or why not? How do you see things based on World 1?

MrsFoundit · Jan 31, 2020

dlamberth said:
If I'm understanding the direction of this, when looking at the spiritual world of what is true and false, math and faith are not the only ways forward. Being that Love has been brought up I'll use that as an example. Depending on where one goes with it, Love can very much be a spiritual trajectory that's "experienced" outside of math or even faith. For instance, William Johnston in "The Inner Eye of Love: Mysticism and Religion" talks about riding Love like an arrow to the Heart of God. The Mystical Sufies talk about the Religion of Love. Poets write about Love. Songwriters sing about Love. There's a lot of other examples out there. The point I'm hoping to get to is that it's the "experience" of Love that more directly informs us on the Truth of Love and what Love is. Math and Faith are certain kinds of knowing, but not the only kind.

I personally regard experience of love as a very effective source of wisdom, but it is not accessible to anyone who believes that love is no more than a bit of brain activity. My post was addressed to a person who has already demonstrated that diminishing love to "a bit of brain activity" is all the respect for love they possess.

If I seem to have misunderstood your point, please feel free to say so.

quatona · Jan 31, 2020

public hermit said:
Do you have a preference for what is good as opposed to what is not?

That depends and differs a lot. Sometimes I prefer things that do me no good.

Is what is true a matter of your preference?

No - but if I am not mistaken, you started a thread asking about our preferences. Actually, I was wondering why you did that.

What exactly are you seeking in the actual world?

At what point in time?

Is meaning and purpose more than preference?

They are completely different concepts.

Does it matter how others are treated?

To me? Sure.

Do they matter at all, why or why not?

To me? Sure. I´m not sure why I would have to justify it to you.

How do you see things based on World 1?

Pretty much the same as I would see them based on World 2.

quatona · Jan 31, 2020

MrsFoundit said:
The issue is not what scientists are saying, it what atheists are saying.

Creatio ex nihilo is an inherently theistic concept.
Never heard an atheist saying that something came from nothing.

MrsFoundit · Jan 31, 2020

quatona said:
Never heard an atheist saying that something came from nothing.

I have.

Eight Foot Manchild · Jan 31, 2020

quatona said:
Creatio ex nihilo is an inherently theistic concept.
Never heard an atheist saying that something came from nothing.

Me neither. I’ve heard a lot of crappy apologetics that argue *as if* that’s what atheists believe, but never from an actual atheist, in the same sense that the apologist means.

quatona · Jan 31, 2020

MrsFoundit said:
I have.

I guess the two of you had a nice talk, then.

MrsFoundit · Jan 31, 2020

Eight Foot Manchild said:
that’s what atheists believe, but never from an actual atheist, in the same sense that the apologist means.

How do you know what sense the apologist means?

public hermit · Jan 31, 2020

quatona said:
No - but if I am not mistaken, you started a thread asking about our preferences.

This thread is about which world is better, which world is best. It may be that the best world is not the actual world. It may be that the world we prefer is not the one that is best. Your assertion that what is true is not a matter of what you prefer bears this out.

You say that you prefer finitude. Obviously, others do not. People work really hard to avoid death. Well, we all do. We eat, sleep, and do what is needful to remain in existence. But, there are some things worse than death, such as a miserable existence. World 2, as I understand it, is a world where flourishing life, everlasting life with no sin nor evil, obtains. The end result of World 2 is life without anything that would make life unbearable (assuming one is fit for such a life). Are you saying that non-existence is preferable to you than that? Whatever the case, on this account, it seems World 2 is not only preferable, but better than World 1. Do you disagree?

quatona said:
They are completely different concepts.

We can take them one by one. Is meaning a matter of preference. Does what is meaningful for you and for others depend on preference? Same for purpose?

You see, part of what I am getting at is meaning and purpose and preference depend on our existence in this world. So, at the end of the day none of these are simply up to our own preference. For, we do not spontaneously generate ourselves. We are wholly dependent on factors not up to our preferences. This is true in both World 1 and World 2.

In World 1 the source of our ability to have meaning and purpose is wholly accidental, or at least it is not up to us. These things spring from accident or necessity, depending on how you look at it, none of which have anything to do with our "rathers." Meaning, purposes, preferences, are simply biological functions and mean nothing, have no purpose, and the "I" who prefers is an illusion. Now, to be fair, we might argue that there is an evolutionary meaning and purpose, but even that is not up to our preferences and the meaning and purpose is not our own. It's simply an accident, a happening, a force thrust upon us according to the species we happen to be and nothing more.

In World 2, meaning and purpose also do not depend on us. They are given, sustained, and realized in relation to the Divine Source who has the power to give such things. These too are thrust upon us, for we do not spontaneously generate ourselves, but we are created with meaning, for purpose, and the "I" who, through their own preference does or does not live in the appropriate way, is real and accountable for it.

quatona said:
To me? Sure. I´m not sure why I would have to justify it to you.

You don't have to justify anything to me. This is a conversation in which we are freely engaging with each other to learn and understand. Again, that is the meta-purpose of this thread.

I think how we consider others is relevant given how we see the world. I am curious about how you see others, given your choice of World 1 and your preference for finitude. I argued above that the "I" in World 1 is an illusion. Assuming you agree, do you see others as simply biological products of blind forces, or evolutionary forces? Is you concern for others, which I will generously assume you have, simply the end result of neurological happenings in your brain or does it matter beyond the mere sentiment you feel in your body?

In World 2, We are obligated to see others as creatures who have been brought into existence and are loved by God, as are we. How we see others and how we live in relation to them is of the utmost importance. They matter, and it doesn't depend on our preference.

quatona said:
Pretty much the same as I would see them based on World 2.

Assuming you agree with my assessment of these two worlds so far, I doubt you can see both worlds as the same. Or if you do, you are not being consistent. Based on what has been said, what meaning and purpose amount to in one world is radically different than what they amount to in the other. Do you agree?

public hermit · Jan 31, 2020

quatona said:
Creatio ex nihilo is an inherently theistic concept.

Agreed. I would argue it is almost specifically limited to the Abrahamic religions.

quatona said:
Never heard an atheist saying that something came from nothing.

It doesn't happen often, but Lawrence Krauss tried to make such an argument. Well, his "nothing" was a little more than nothing, which makes it something.

A Universe from Nothing - Wikipedia

Eight Foot Manchild · Jan 31, 2020

MrsFoundit said:
How do you know what sense the apologist means?

By talking to them.

Eight Foot Manchild · Jan 31, 2020

public hermit said:
It doesn't happen often, but Lawrence Krauss tried to make such an argument. Well, his "nothing" was a little more than nothing, which makes it something.

Then it’s not an example of an atheist arguing for ‘something from nothing’, in the same sense that we are talking about here. And Krauss would acknowledge that.

Which world is better: the world with no God or the world where the gospel is true?

Well-Known Member

Existentialist

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

Existentialist

"God"? What do you mean??

Well-Known Member

social troglodyte

Well-Known Member

"God"? What do you mean??

"God"? What do you mean??

Well-Known Member

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

"God"? What do you mean??

Well-Known Member

social troglodyte

social troglodyte

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

Similar threads