A Christmas Story

[civilwarbuff]

I think I do. It’s what defense attorneys use when they can’t deal with the facts presented against their client.

“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like "<heck>"
Carl Sandburg

 

[redleghunter]

After trying to put this into words this synopsis does a far better job....
The Euthyphro dilemma is actually a false dichotomy. That is, it proposes only two options when another is possible. The third option is that good is based on God’s nature. God appeals to nothing other than his own character for the standard of what is good and then reveals what is good to us. It is wrong to lie because God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), not because God had to discover lying was wrong or that he arbitrarily declared it to be wrong. This means that God does not declare something to be good (ignoring his own nature) or say that something is good by nature (recognizing a standard outside of himself). Both of these situations ignore the biblical option that good is a revelation of God's nature. In other words, God is the standard of what is good. He is good by nature, and he reveals his nature to us. Therefore, for the Christian, there is no dilemma since neither position in Euthyphro’s dilemma represents Christian theology.
What is the Euthyphro dilemma? | CARM.org

And that was spot on. What the source does not mention is God created all things perfect and mankind in his/her rebellion chose to disobey wanting to become like God.

We are all children of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Praise be to God He sent His Son to make all things new again.

 

[civilwarbuff]

And that was spot on. What the source does not mention is God created all things perfect and mankind in his/her rebellion chose to disobey wanting to become like God.

We are all children of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Praise be to God He sent His Son to make all things new again.

To quote someone.....that was spot on.....

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Hi Nihilist,


This I don't know.

OK, fair enough. That does mean you need to treat it as uninspired, I presume.

I see the Bible as perfect art. It counts on the collaboration of man, I think. The interaction between man and the word is part of the performance, as I see it.

And an index is required to understand the art, then, if that's how you want to view it. Regardless, considering the Bible to be art casts serious doubt on the main issue: is the Bible true?

Jesus never said this (your "*" added to verse 21)

Yes, I understand that. If he had, there would be no need for an index, asterisks, or some kind of correction. Obviously it needs to be there if you insist that Christians are not supposed to sell all that they have and give money to the poor.

and he didn't intend this to be meant.

I quoted that portion of scripture in direct response to when you said,

"The important things - Jesus's teachings concerning salvation, for example - can be read the way they are written, in my opinion."

Reading the passage as it is written, with no asterisk or external reference of any sort, there will surely be some who interpret that as advice for all Christians. After all, what part of "Do this and you will be rewarded in heaven" applies to the rich young ruler and yet not to anyone else?

It could be that the message out of that passage was for this person only, though... and for other people that value money too high.

Thomas

The very fact that you don't know exactly what the passage means proves me right - there needs to be an external reference to help us interpret what Jesus plainly said.

 

[Tone]

Not really. Argumentum ad populum. Logical fallacy. Try not to do those on a debating forum.

That was just a side note I pointed out to you.

So you don't have any evidence for God's existence. Thought not.

I presented my own existence as evidence...I mean we're speaking on the order of existence here, aren't we?

There's certainly a lot we don't know about the brain, but there's plenty we do know as well. And one of the things we know is that the brain is really, really good at fooling itself.
So if you're going to say "I know that God exists because I have experienced His presence," you're saying the same thing that many, many others have said, others who believed things that you do not believe, but who use exactly the same "reasoning" as you do.

An argument from personal experience, in short, is no argument at all.

Yes, the Bible says as much:

Psalm 14:1
"1For the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt; their acts are vile. There is no one who does good."

Jeremiah 17
"9The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure— who can understand it?"

An argument from personal experience is quite fitting since we are searching for the existence of the Creator, Who we deem as a Personal Being.

 

[Tone]

Not exactly. I am interested in quality evidence for the existence of God.

Oh wow, so in other words I'm not a player (user) in your eyes...just an NPC...my life story doesn't entail any "quality".

Supposing a Muslim told you that Christianity was mistaken, that Allah was the true God. "How do you know?" you might ask, and, "Why should I believe you?"
"Because it says so here," he answers, showing you a copy of the Koran.

Would you find his argument convincing? Of course not. But he is sincere in his belief.

No, I would not find this argument convincing, because merely pointing at words inked on dead trees cannot demonstrate that Allah exists. I would have to have a personal existential experience,which lined up with the words...in other words, the multifariousness of my being would have to be met with.

So no, I'm not particularly interested in your conversion story. I'm interested in your reasons for why Christianity is true and God is real.

I do not compartmentalize the rest of my existence in favor of any one. My testimony is very reasonable.

If you don't have any good reasons, then I will continue in my disblelief - and you should ask yourself why, having no good reasons to believe, do you do so.

Again, my life story is a good reason. You are not in disbelief because I don't have any good reasons...my reasons bore my belief. You must seek your own good reasons; I can only share my story with you and we will either connect on this level, or you will dismiss me as if I were as such:

 

[Tone]

the brain is really, really good at fooling itself

An argument from personal experience is quite fitting since we are searching for the existence of the Creator, Who we deem as a Personal Being.

This is why the Believer is in such a position where he/she can understand their own position and the position of those who haven't yet experienced the difference between a fooled brain (heart, soul, etc...)...closed up into itself and a new heart (born again, resurrected, etc...) that is open to a higher order of existence.

 

[redleghunter]

This is why the Believer is in such a position where he/she can understand their own position and the position of those who haven't yet experienced the difference between a fooled brain (heart, soul, etc...)...closed up into itself and a new heart (born again, resurrected, etc...) that is open to a higher order of existence.

Indeed:

Romans 1: NASB

16For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.”

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

24Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

 

[thomas_t]

Hi IA,
thank you for your work in this thread. You're strong in logic, I suppose.

No offence, Thomas, but surely as evidence for "is there an all-powerful, all-knowing, universe-creating deity in existence" the fact that your tooth got better is pretty small evidence. Don't you think?

for evidence I rather take the picture from page 3 than my tooth problem.

Of course evolution and other natural forces could have.

Even if evolution created the island, why is it so beautiful.
There is no evolutionary pressure that would command the trees to look nice under the sky or next to the water.
For me, this is evidence of a loving God. He wants it like this, cause he loves us.

Is Santa relevant? I wouldn't change anything if I knew Santa was there.
If God exists, in contrast... everyone would need to change their lives, in my opinion. For me, it doesn't matter if I can or can't disprove Santa. So I would like to avoid the question, if you allow.
Thomas

 

[thomas_t]

Hi Nihilist,

if you insist that Christians are not supposed to sell all that they have and give money to the poor.
[…]
After all, what part of "Do this and you will be rewarded in heaven" applies to the rich young ruler and yet not to anyone else?

The words directed to the rich ruler are words to someone who is sad the moment God tells him he needs to sell all he has. So, in my opinion, this passage applies to anyone that would be sad, too.
This time, no asterisk is needed.
The index is only for those who want to have further understanding concerning the details that are irrelevant to your personal salvation.

Everyone can understand salvation but for further understanding there is a need for an external reference.
This is for our protection, I assume. Those unsaved need to focus on salvation first. Later they can make the second step and understand the passages that are in need of references to be understood right.

Regardless, considering the Bible to be art casts serious doubt on the main issue: is the Bible true?

… true art, I'd say. God has the power to let arts convey truth, I think.

Regards,
Thomas​

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Hi @thomas_t,

I don't understand how it helps the conversation for you to constantly redact my comments and respond selectively to me. In doing the same I will mercifully end this dialogue.

So, in my opinion, this passage applies to anyone that would be sad, too.
This time, no asterisk is needed.

If it is your opinion, and not objective fact, then the text does not stand alone and the asterisk is needed.

You've made a lot of points that do not withstand casual scrutiny, and you've ignored many of my counterpoints. If you decide to change your approach in the future, feel free to let me know.

 

[Tone]

Oh wow, so in other words I'm not a player (user) in your eyes...just an NPC...my life story doesn't entail any "quality".

Ha ha, I was referring to video games here, since I am also involved in another discussion dealing with simulated realities. I think that using these analogies are really useful and I would like to share what another CF member (@Kaon) posted:

It is a simulation; at the very least we know that these meat sacks are not "us", and that there is something (even if it is just ego) that drives this physical vehicle to interact with other physical objects in or journey through what we call life. That is why I can say so confidently that, while our physics works, it will never be satisfactorily "solved" in the way we pursue to solve it logically. It is why despite our alleged progress, we are always two steps behind our own demise. We built intellectual systems to deal with the glaring fact that we don't know anything.

Which is why you have to forget every single system that you have learned, and forget everything you know, to begin to approach something outside of this plane of existence. Logic won't help you understand something beyond your comprehension.

[MOVED] This is all a simulated world reality that does not exist apart from us

 

[Rodan6]

No need to go too fast. Because, you see, there are lots of people who are quite confident that arguments or writing could prove (at least, as in "provide good reason to think") that God exists. I am quite open to a logical argument for God's existence, although the ones I have seen so far have not been very convincing.

That's not my premise, and I'm not sure why you think it is. My point is that if you are going to argue that God exists - which is the purpose of this forum - you need to have good reason to think so.

I'm happy for you and I to explore those. I simply disagree with the idea of starting by assuming them. The beginning of the enquiry should not be "God exists; how can I prove it?" but rather, "Does God exist? Let's examine the evidence."
Do we agree on that?

Okay. Interesting from a socio-historical point of view.

I'm sure they did. But were they correct to believe it?

Good! What were these events you witnessed that convinced you that God exists?

Um. Not necessarily a problem, but not a healthy sign. Your focus should be "Do I have sound reasons for believing the things I believe," not "is it important for others to agree with me or not?"

And...?
After all of this, Rodan, I am still waiting to see your evidence for God.

I have no evidence I can give you. My personal experiences are mine alone. I have no photos, writings or other physical evidence that I can produce. As for my personal testimony, what possible value would that be for you? You state you are open to what you call "logical argument". Your "logic" has led to the thought that you should be open to the question (existence of God)... should you discover sufficient argument/evidence. My argument is that there IS NO ARGUMENT that can PROVE the existence of God, and while I would not presume to know your own state of mind, I strongly suspect that no argument will meet your personal satisfaction. From your writings, I believe you to be both logical and sincere (but apparently at an impasse with regard to the question at hand). Thus, the question seems to be, how should one proceed?

You seem to be bothered by the usage of a premise as a means of discovery. This is a widely accepted scientific method that has enabled great progress for the scientific world. One is not supposed to believe a premise before evaluation of it. Objectivity requires that a premise represent an unknown until the time that it is proven or disproved. I can, for example use a silly premise--"the sun will not come up tomorrow". Then, when the sun in fact rises in the morning, the premise is disproved. The use of the premise is to explore a question that you desire to know the answer to. Perhaps what bothers you the most is that you don't believe any answer is possible. It sounds like a lot of work with little (apparent) likelihood of resolution. This was certainly the case for me when I took up the quest many years ago.

 

[muichimotsu]

My many years of conversing with atheists proves they must come up with their autonomous statement of faith and then can’t prove it.

The difference is I keep getting so many differing atheist faith statements, I can’t really call them all atheists.

Except atheism isn't a creed in itself, you vastly exaggerate what atheism consists of beyond not believing in God. Some atheists could believe in aliens, like Raelians, they could believe in magic and ghosts, the only common trait is not being convinced about the existence of gods

 

[muichimotsu]

And that was spot on. What the source does not mention is God created all things perfect and mankind in his/her rebellion chose to disobey wanting to become like God.

We are all children of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Praise be to God He sent His Son to make all things new again.

Equivocating God with goodness is not solving the problem, it's skirting it to make special pleading for the god entity in question to avoid really confronting the problem in its basic form. Goodness is not an essence in itself, it's a property ascribed to actions and their consequences. If God is goodness and God is a substance, you've already tried to formulate morality in terms of metaphysics, which is like trying to explain epistemology in terms of aesthetics

 

[muichimotsu]

I have no evidence I can give you. My personal experiences are mine alone. I have no photos, writings or other physical evidence that I can produce. As for my personal testimony, what possible value would that be for you? You state you are open to what you call "logical argument". Your "logic" has led to the thought that you should be open to the question (existence of God)... should you discover sufficient argument/evidence. My argument is that there IS NO ARGUMENT that can PROVE the existence of God, and while I would not presume to know your own state of mind, I strongly suspect that no argument will meet your personal satisfaction. From your writings, I believe you to be both logical and sincere (but apparently at an impasse with regard to the question at hand). Thus, the question seems to be, how should one proceed?

You seem to be bothered by the usage of a premise as a means of discovery. This is a widely accepted scientific method that has enabled great progress for the scientific world. One is not supposed to believe a premise before evaluation of it. Objectivity requires that a premise represent an unknown until the time that it is proven or disproved. I can, for example use a silly premise--"the sun will not come up tomorrow". Then, when the sun in fact rises in the morning, the premise is disproved. The use of the premise is to explore a question that you desire to know the answer to. Perhaps what bothers you the most is that you don't believe any answer is possible. It sounds like a lot of work with little (apparent) likelihood of resolution. This was certainly the case for me when I took up the quest many years ago.

The premise should not insinuate the conclusion, that's question begging, fallacious thinking

Just having the hypothesis is not enough to give it credence, it has to be tested and falsifiable by nature

Science is necessarily provisional, it isn't giving absolute dogmatic answers, unlike religion/spirituality where the claims are eternal in application, inflexible in essence

An answer is possible, but absolute certainty in that answer is a stumbling block to genuine critical thought, that's the problem in positing God as an answer and then just throwing your hands up because you can't investigate it, but are still convinced by whatever specious inference you might've made to think God is likely rather than not

 

[A_Thinker]

All I did was use the arguments I learned on Christian Forums, and it was easy to maintain my belief in Santa.

Why is Jerry so obviously intent upon disabusing Scott of his belief in Santa ? I note that parents teach their children to believe in Santa. They must believe that doing so has some inherent value.

What is gained by Scott's not believing in Santa ?

And what is your goal here ?

Even scientists concede that the survival of humanity has depended upon, in large part, our ability to prioritize EMPATHY or LOVE, so that we may be able to necessarily put aside our own self-interest, so as to work TOGETHER for the goal of the survival of the collective.

Is it any wonder that most of humanity prefers to operate, as least to an extent, in LOVE, rather than giving themselves over to the often cold grey depths of RATIONALITY ?

Is there any viable reason to choose to favor RATIONALITY over LOVE ... particularly in a world which may place no inherent moral value upon either ?

Or, perhaps, a better question is ... can RATIONALITY and LOVE coexist, ... to give humanity the advantages of both ?

Can Scott believe, and Jerry not, and yet still exist in some measure of harmony and cooperation ?

 

[muichimotsu]

Why is Jerry so obviously intent upon disabusing Scott of his belief in Santa ? I note that parents teach their children to believe in Santa. They must believe that doing so has some inherent value.

What is gained by Scott's not believing in Santa ?

And what is your goal here ?

Even scientists concede that the survival of humanity has depended upon, in large part, our ability to prioritize EMPATHY or LOVE, so that we may be able to necessarily put aside our own self-interest, so as to work TOGETHER for the goal of the survival of the collective.


Is it any wonder that most of humanity prefers to operate, as least to an extent, in LOVE, rather than giving themselves over to the often cold grey depths of RATIONALITY ?

Is there any viable reason to choose to favor RATIONALITY over LOVE ... particularly in a world which may place no inherent moral value upon either ?

Or, perhaps, a better question is ... can RATIONALITY and LOVE coexist, ... to give humanity the advantages of both ?

Can Scott believe, and Jerry not, and yet still exist in some measure of harmony and cooperation ?

And you think (seemingly) that empathy and love are not able to be prioritized without the belief in God? Rationality does not preclude emotion, they temper each other, arguably. And merely because you value rationality does not mean you will throw emotion out or necessarily treat fellow humans as means rather than ends.

The harmony and cooperation is a matter of how seriously one takes their supernatural claims relative to behavior and how confident an atheist is in terms of rational discussion. No one is above being flawed, even atheists can not apply skepticism, I'm probably guilty, but recognizing it is the first step to recovery


And you think that empathy and love are not able to be prioritized without the belief in God? Rationality does not preclude emotion, they temper each other, arguably

 

[A_Thinker]

And you think (seemingly) that empathy and love are not able to be prioritized without the belief in God?

I've not claimed such.

I, simply, refer to the offered (Santa) example of the OP.

Jerry seemed to be simply intent upon disabusing Scott's belief in Santa, ... rather than, perhaps, providing Scott with another path to supporting a life based, at least in part, upon the valuable human capacity to LOVE ...

 

[muichimotsu]

I've not claimed such.

I, simply, refer to the offered (Santa) example of the OP.

Jerry seemed to be simply intent upon disabusing Scott's belief in Santa, ... rather than, perhaps, providing Scott with another path to supporting a life based, at least in part, upon the valuable human capacity to LOVE ...

Atheism doesn't remotely promise that, not sure why anyone gets that mistaken idea except by thinking that in order to offer an answer to life's questions, it has to be a worldview, a religion. *shrugs*. Humanism, not an ugly word. Also has multiple meanings!