• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

God?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dasein

Guest
The athiest plays russian roulette with all barrels loaded. He can't win. If the athiest is wrong and I'm right - the athiest has everything to lose. If I'm wrong and he is right I have nothing to lose. Using plain logic here. Another book is, You Can Lead an Athiest to Evidence but You Can't Make Him Think, by Ray Comfort/I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Athiest by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek.

If this is an argument in the style of Pascal's Wager, I think there's so much wrong here that it needs to be mentioned.
Firstly, depending on what you are required to sacrifice for religion, if the atheist is right then you could lose out, by sacrificing certain freedoms for a cause that proved incorrect. A very minor point.

Secondly, there are many Gods that one could believe in. There are many religions that one could believe in even if they decide on, say, the Abrahamic God. Even past this there are many ways of living out a religion and deciding on how to interpret your religious text and so on. It could be that a mistake at any of these points lands you in as much trouble as the atheist! So the choice isn't

  1. Believe in God, be saved.
  2. Don't believe in God, burn in Hell
Rather it's much more fine-grained, and 1 has many paths that could potentially lead to losing out in this most important of wagers.
Turns out Pascal wasn't brilliant at gambling...
 
Upvote 0
D

Dasein

Guest
I agree that there are problems with our normal words when applying them to God. The words we tend to use are just used because they are the easiest way to explain it to the average person who doesn't spend time thinking about these contradictions. I think is partly because we havn't the words or understanding to talk about these things which are outside our experence, but also because I worded it badly.

Nothing but agreement from me so far!

I would say then that God is a being which instantly acts according to His nature which would seem to us like consciousness. I think Benevolence could be said to be the human attribute of God, meaning that if God was human this is what He would be, as seen in Jesus. I suppose for God the Father it would mean in the instant eternity that He sees us it is His instant reaction of 'love' towards us. This is how best my limited understanding understands it at least.

Though I am biased because this is in line with what I already think, this is an excellent response! What a wonderful way of thinking about religious language as somehow analogous. It would explain why we speak how we speak also, as well as its importance.
I don't wish to merely pick out the opinions on this site which I already believe, and I'm looking for development of my own ideas as much as reinforcement or embellishment of already held opinions, but in this instance I'm happy for the reinforcement!

I agree that these word do 'anthropomorphosise' God but they are the best words to practically understand Him. Philosophy/Theology may give better literal explanations, but are not so practically helpful.

"Anthropomorphosise"...horrible word, I know :p!
Again, I'm afraid that there is merely more agreement on my part here. I find that there are often clashes with how I feel and the beliefs which I act out when reading the Bible or praying or going to Church, and those beliefs I consider myself to have upon theological or philosophical reflection. I'm inclined to agree that these statements, however philosophically dubious, are the most practically useful for expressing beliefs about the divine and for preaching, services and the like.

The book I read which was all about the reasons to believe in the ressurection was called 'More than a Carpenter' by Josh McDowell. I may be able to give an overview of the reasons here if you want, though I could not do it anywhere near as well as the book.

Purely for the fact that I've already used far too much time this evening replying on this website to be able to read another book at the moment, I would be extremely grateful if you could summarise for me. I'll keep it in mind that it will only be a substitute for the real thing.

What is it you find hard to 'come to grips with' with events such as the ressurection and virgin birth?

Roughly because they are events which, devoid of religious context, I would never even consider in believing if I had not witnessed them with my own eyes. Even then I may be considered to doubt my senses.
There seem to be enough reasons to collectively explain away what actually happened without resorting to admitting the events. It seems preferable not to have to admit such improbable events purely on the basis of the metaphysical can of worms it opens up.
Just as I would seek to deny the initial appearance of a magic trick, even if I didn't know how it was done, a similar analogy could be applied here. The sheer improbability of the event(s) lead me to seek other explanations.
 
Upvote 0
D

Dasein

Guest
I'm not sure literal vs analogous or symbolic is the right language. Rather we should be look for the full reality of which our best is an image and to which it points. The love-of-God is the reality to which the best of human love points, the mercy-of-God is the reality to which the best of human mercy points. We are trying to understand something of the real person by looking at his image, his statue.

After reading this, I apologise for mis-understanding your previous post, this has made your meaning a lot clearer. This is another appealing way of understanding religious terms and language, and another good way for me to better understand it. :)

Maybe meta- would be a better prefix. I don't think there is a prefix to say the thing to which x points, or the reality of which x is the image.

As a follow-on from what I previously said, I was primarily attempting to use the word symbolic in the manner in which Paul Tillich uses it; a sign which participates in the reality of that which it symbolises. I do like this idea of a statue or an image, however.:thumbsup:

A self-contradicting statement if taken to it's logical conclusion. ;)

Indeed! Though I believe that Eckhart was a mystic, and mystics have never been a group to shy away from contradictions! :D
 
Upvote 0
S

solarwave

Guest
Nothing but agreement from me so far!

Though I am biased because this is in line with what I already think, this is an excellent response! What a wonderful way of thinking about religious language as somehow analogous. It would explain why we speak how we speak also, as well as its importance.
I don't wish to merely pick out the opinions on this site which I already believe, and I'm looking for development of my own ideas as much as reinforcement or embellishment of already held opinions, but in this instance I'm happy for the reinforcement!

Well I'm glad you agree. This post is all very positive which makes a nice change since on this site it is much easier to find people who disagree than agree. I agree that its a good idea not just to take my word for it and to search for a better explaination, but at the same time I may just happen to have hit the nail on the head this time. :p


"Anthropomorphosise"...horrible word, I know :p!
Again, I'm afraid that there is merely more agreement on my part here. I find that there are often clashes with how I feel and the beliefs which I act out when reading the Bible or praying or going to Church, and those beliefs I consider myself to have upon theological or philosophical reflection. I'm inclined to agree that these statements, however philosophically dubious, are the most practically useful for expressing beliefs about the divine and for preaching, services and the like.

Yeah is it even a word.....

Roughly because they are events which, devoid of religious context, I would never even consider in believing if I had not witnessed them with my own eyes. Even then I may be considered to doubt my senses.
There seem to be enough reasons to collectively explain away what actually happened without resorting to admitting the events. It seems preferable not to have to admit such improbable events purely on the basis of the metaphysical can of worms it opens up.
Just as I would seek to deny the initial appearance of a magic trick, even if I didn't know how it was done, a similar analogy could be applied here. The sheer improbability of the event(s) lead me to seek other explanations.

Well out of religious context it is scientifically impossible (though not logically impossible) for these events to happen. So would I be right that your problem is that there isn't any reason to believe these events happened as they say if they can be explained away by natural means? I think the virgin birth is the most difficult (well for me anyway) since apparently it can be translated as young woman rather than virgin. I have no problem with this since it would just mean that Jesus was born naturally which I dont see a huge problem with. Still a young woman in that culture would have been a virgin and it could be assumed if God choose Mary that she would be someone who kept the law and so would not have had sex, which is also implied. So really the virgin birth, I think, must be believed by faith which is gained from things that can be better proven, like the resurrection and personal relationship with God.

I will try and explain as best as I can my understanding of the resurrection in another post.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.