Near perfect existence

[DogmaHunter]

Now you see why Jesus Christ is so important to us.

No. That bit is part of the contradiction.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Mercy means not getting what we deserve and justice is getting what we deserve.

Right, so... opposites of one another.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You mean you have come up with a hypothesis which attempts to explain a particular phenomenon, i.e. a tree smoking and split.

Yes. And here's the kicker: the hypothesis is build using data of reality.
The reality of electricity, conductors, storms, lightning, etc.

The hypothesis is not some legend in a bronze-age book that can only be bought into on bad evidence (=faith).

No, it's a model of reality being applied to phenomena in reality.

You have offered an explanation for what you have observed in the world.

...using reality. Not bronze-age myths and legends.

Reality has no ability to devise explanations.

But it provides the data to come up with explanations. And the explanations must relate to reality. Otherwise, it explains nothing.

Sentient human beings do this. Reality is the subject of our observations and explanations, not the observation or explanation itself.

Yep. In contrast to bronze-age legends and myths, wich is not the result of observation and testing, but rather of "dreams" and "visions" and such.

 

[Chriliman]

I wonder why you didn't just bring this up in the first place. It's pretty much exactly what I've been saying:


Could have saved me the time of coming up with a way to portray the opposite side of the story.
I still wonder though, couldn't God, in all his perfectly just omniscience, have come up with a better way to free the Hebrews and satisfy his lust for glory without the wholesale slaughter of innocent lives?

If God is perfectly just, which I believe he is, who are you to question his actions? Are you perfectly just?

Make no mistake, he wants us to question him so he can show us how perfect his justice is. If we don't question him then he has no reason to give answers.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If God is perfectly just, which I believe he is, who are you to question his actions?

A human with a brain who doesn't just swallow whatever a bronze age legend has to say.

Are you perfectly just?

We don't have to be to realise that justice ("perfect" or otherwise) is suspended when mercy is given.

Again, it's what the words mean.

Either justice prevails, or mercy is given. You can't have both at the same time.

Make no mistake, he wants us to question him so he can show us how perfect his justice is.

What's he waiting for?

If we don't question him then he has no reason to give answers.

It seems to me that your entire position is to make it clear that we puny humans are in no position to question this bronze age mythical entity.... And that we even shouldn't question it and instead just swallow it blindly.

Why else would you repeatedly come back to "we humans can't understand it" and "who are you to question this?"?

Consistency isn't your strong point, is it?

It almost looks like you are re-inventing your position every new post, making it all up on the spot as you go along.... All the while completely forgetting (or ignoring) whatever you said previously.

 

[Chriliman]

We don't have to be to realise that justice ("perfect" or otherwise) is suspended when mercy is given.

Again, it's what the words mean.

Either justice prevails, or mercy is given. You can't have both at the same time.

If a perfectly just God created you then you are condemned because of sin. The penalty of sin is death and without mercy there is only eternal death. If this is actually true, would you be glad to accept God's mercy made possible through Jesus Christ?

I've already explained how it's reasonable to believe an eternal infinite God is a possible explanation for the universe. The reason it's a possible explanation is because we finite humans can never know that an eternal infinite God does not exist. The important concept to grasp here is eternal and infinite. We humans cannot comprehend these qualities, but we know they are possible, therefore, it's reasonable to apply them to God, especially since He has said He has these qualities Himself.

What's he waiting for?

Good question. I'd say for you personally, he's waiting on you to ask Him from a humble honest place in your life. There's a reason we experience time and that reason is to learn the truth. But learning the truth and accepting the truth are two very different things.

It seems to me that your entire position is to make it clear that we puny humans are in no position to question this bronze age mythical entity.... And that we even shouldn't question it and instead just swallow it blindly.

I just said He wants us to question Him so He can teach us.

Why else would you repeatedly come back to "we humans can't understand it" and "who are you to question this?"?

Consistency isn't your strong point, is it?

It almost looks like you are re-inventing your position every new post, making it all up on the spot as you go along.... All the while completely forgetting (or ignoring) whatever you said previously.

I take different approaches based on what you say to me in the hopes that something I say will trigger your interest. I think it's good that you're asking these questions, but remember I'm not God, but I get my knowledge from Him because I ask for His guidance and wisdom. This doesn't mean you will respond to what I have to say in a positive way, but the point is to get you to think. Guess what! God wants us to think for ourselves, that's why He gave us brains! He gave us souls so that we can be deeply connected to Him after we accept Him as true.

I don't think you can deny that we've had some interesting conversations, even though we're still working to get to the truth. I have no doubt that we'll get there someday. It just might not be me who helps you get there, but maybe someone else in your life.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If a perfectly just God created you then you are condemned because of sin.

That makes about as much sense as "if the moon is made out of cheese, then the sun shines".

The penalty of sin is death and without mercy there is only eternal death. If this is actually true, would you be glad to accept God's mercy made possible through Jesus Christ?

You call that "mercy", I call that "blackmail".
In any case, it is irrelevant. Try to stick to the point being made.

Being that "mercy" and "justice" are mutually exclusive.
When mercy is present, justice is suspended.

I've already explained how it's reasonable to believe an eternal infinite God is a possible explanation for the universe. The reason it's a possible explanation is because we finite humans can never know that an eternal infinite God does not exist. The important concept to grasp here is eternal and infinite. We humans cannot comprehend these qualities, but we know they are possible, therefore, it's reasonable to apply them to God, especially since He has said He has these qualities Himself.

This circular argument from ignorance is as besides the point as it could possibly be.

Good question. I'd say for you personally, he's waiting on you to ask Him from a humble honest place in your life. There's a reason we experience time and that reason is to learn the truth. But learning the truth and accepting the truth are two very different things.

In order for me to "ask" this god anything, I'ld have to already believe this god exists.

So, that again is nonsensical.
You're asking me to believe first so that I can be justified in believing after that.

It's basically an invitation to engage in confirmation bias.

I just said He wants us to question Him so He can teach us.

But whenever we put these questions forward, you start yapping about how it is "incomprehensible" to us and how we instead should "just believe it".
What's that about?

I take different approaches based on what you say to me in the hopes that something I say will trigger your interest.

The problem is that these "different approaches" are mutually exclusive and contradictory. You won't "trigger my interest" by engaging in such practices.

In fact, by doing this, you are only confirming my reasons for being an atheist.

I think it's good that you're asking these questions, but remember I'm not God, but I get my knowledge from Him because I ask for His guidance and wisdom. This doesn't mean you will respond to what I have to say in a positive way, but the point is to get you to think.

Perhaps you should do a little thinking of your own, first....

Guess what! God wants us to think for ourselves

Clearly, in your theology, this isn't true.
Otherwise, he wouldn't be punishing people for not believing things on bad evidence.
Any god who wants us to think for ourselves and who would reward rationality over gullibility, would understand that no human could rationally believe the bronze-age myths of christianity, judaism and islam.

Any god who values rationality and critical thinking would understand that "faith" is not a good reason to accept anything.

But what we see in your theology is the exact opposite.
This god DOES reward gullibility.
This god DOES reward believing things on bad evidence.
This god DOES punish critical thinking (in the worst possible way imaginable).
This god DOES punish rational reasoning.

See? This is, again, a very contradictory thing that you say.
On the one hand, you say that your god wants us to think for ourself and to be rational, but on the other hand, he will punish you for eternity unless you believe something on extremely bad evidence.

It makes zero sense.

, that's why He gave us brains! He gave us souls so that we can be deeply connected to Him after we accept Him as true.

It's called confirmation bias.
And, as just explained, to accept him as "true", one needs to engage in an extreme leap of faith - which is irrational.

"using your brain" and "critical thinking" does not lead to believing bronze-age legends on faith.

I don't think you can deny that we've had some interesting conversations

Actually, I can.
I can honestly state that nothing you have ever put forward was remotely "interesting" for me.

It's the same old theistic jibber-jabber that I hear from other theists (in the sense of: the same logical fallacies, the same contradictory nonsense, the same PRATT's - only disguised in a slightly more intellectually-sounding package then the average faith-based statements).

, even though we're still working to get to the truth.

Unlike you, I don't consider truth to be something that is simply handed to us through "dreams" and "visions".

I have no doubt that we'll get there someday. It just might not be me who helps you get there, but maybe someone else in your life.

If those other people in my life also have nothing but their "beliefs" to share, then they will bump into the same wall that you are bumping into right now.

 

[anonymous person]

Yes. And here's the kicker: the hypothesis is build using data of reality.
The reality of electricity, conductors, storms, lightning, etc.

The hypothesis is not some legend in a bronze-age book that can only be bought into on bad evidence (=faith).

No, it's a model of reality being applied to phenomena in reality.



...using reality. Not bronze-age myths and legends.



But it provides the data to come up with explanations. And the explanations must relate to reality. Otherwise, it explains nothing.



Yep. In contrast to bronze-age legends and myths, wich is not the result of observation and testing, but rather of "dreams" and "visions" and such.

Are you trying to convert us?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Are you trying to convert us?

To what?

 

[anonymous person]

To what?

To his worldview.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

To his worldview.

Which is?

 

[anonymous person]

Which is?

Ask him.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ask him.

To my knowledge, explicit attempts to convert others are against the rules. Are you suggesting that DogmaHunter is breaching the rules?

 

[anonymous person]

To my knowledge, explicit attempts to convert others are against the rules. Are you suggesting that DogmaHunter is breaching the rules?

No.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If God is perfectly just, which I believe he is, who are you to question his actions? Are you perfectly just?

Based on that standard, if you are not perfectly just, then your belief that God is perfectly just would count for nothing.

And if God is not perfectly just, how just would we have to be to realize this?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

You call that "mercy", I call that "blackmail".
In any case, it is irrelevant. Try to stick to the point being made.

Being that "mercy" and "justice" are mutually exclusive.
When mercy is present, justice is suspended.

Depends what the justice is serving. If justice is being served because of guilt then yes mercy is not present, but if justice is being served because of good commendable actions and works, then mercy can be present.

I'm not in a position to rightfully judge or be merciful to anyone and neither are you, but does this mean a being does not exist who can rightfully judge all and be merciful to those who deserve mercy? I believe this being is God and you don't, therefore, you believe finite man should be the judge of your actions and finite man should choose when to be merciful to you. But we run into a problem of the fact that no finite man can be the arbiter of correct judgment and mercy.

In order for me to "ask" this god anything, I'ld have to already believe this god exists.

So, that again is nonsensical.
You're asking me to believe first so that I can be justified in believing after that.

It's basically an invitation to engage in confirmation bias.

You wouldn't have to believe He exists, you would just have to believe He is possible and I've shown it's rational to believe an infinite eternal God is possible.

But whenever we put these questions forward, you start yapping about how it is "incomprehensible" to us and how we instead should "just believe it".
What's that about?

I'm only asking you to accept a true possibility. If you find out this possibility is impossible then you're justified to stop believing it's possible. However, if you were to discover that an eternal infinite God is impossible, this would be breaking news!

The problem is that these "different approaches" are mutually exclusive and contradictory. You won't "trigger my interest" by engaging in such practices.

In fact, by doing this, you are only confirming my reasons for being an atheist.

Atheists can't seem to get their story straight. Is that you don't believe in God or gods, or is that you have non-belief in God or gods?

If its the former, then you don't accept the truth that God exists, but you accept that God is possible. But you're left not knowing.

If it's the latter, then you don't accept the truth that God exists, but you also don't accept the truth that God does not exist, which also leaves you not knowing.

So its seems safe to say that someone who claims to atheist is just admitting they don't know if God exists or not. Your atheism has no affect of the reality of God existing or not existing.

Perhaps you should do a little thinking of your own, first....

I have thought about many things and have come to realization of what is true. An atheist can't say this and that's fine for now.

Clearly, in your theology, this isn't true.
Otherwise, he wouldn't be punishing people for not believing things on bad evidence.
Any god who wants us to think for ourselves and who would reward rationality over gullibility, would understand that no human could rationally believe the bronze-age myths of christianity, judaism and islam.

Any god who values rationality and critical thinking would understand that "faith" is not a good reason to accept anything.

But what we see in your theology is the exact opposite.
This god DOES reward gullibility.
This god DOES reward believing things on bad evidence.
This god DOES punish critical thinking (in the worst possible way imaginable).
This god DOES punish rational reasoning.

See? This is, again, a very contradictory thing that you say.
On the one hand, you say that your god wants us to think for ourself and to be rational, but on the other hand, he will punish you for eternity unless you believe something on extremely bad evidence.

It makes zero sense.



It's called confirmation bias.
And, as just explained, to accept him as "true", one needs to engage in an extreme leap of faith - which is irrational.

"using your brain" and "critical thinking" does not lead to believing bronze-age legends on faith.



Actually, I can.
I can honestly state that nothing you have ever put forward was remotely "interesting" for me.

It's the same old theistic jibber-jabber that I hear from other theists (in the sense of: the same logical fallacies, the same contradictory nonsense, the same PRATT's - only disguised in a slightly more intellectually-sounding package then the average faith-based statements).



Unlike you, I don't consider truth to be something that is simply handed to us through "dreams" and "visions".



If those other people in my life also have nothing but their "beliefs" to share, then they will bump into the same wall that you are bumping into right now.

This is where you stop making sense. If you're so convinced that a perfectly just and merciful God does not exist, why continue questioning theists? I think the answer is that you question because there are so many people who do believe a perfectly just and merciful God exists and you want to know why, but when the reason as to why is because it's true, you decide you can't accept it for some unknown reason.

As long as we believe in a perfectly just and merciful God, then you'll continue questioning. As soon as we stop believing that then we'll all go back to not knowing how we all got here and someone will consider a perfectly just and merciful God again. Could this be because it's true that a perfectly just and merciful God exists? I think it's reasonable to believe it's possible at least.

 

[Chriliman]

Based on that standard, if you are not perfectly just, then your belief that God is perfectly just would count for nothing.

I'm not perfectly just, but does that mean I can't be perfectly justified by something that is perfectly just?

And if God is not perfectly just, how just would we have to be to realize this?

If God is not perfectly just, then this God can't logically exist. Who can determine that God is not perfectly just except a perfectly just God?

 

[DogmaHunter]

To his worldview.

Unlike preaching theists, I don't feel the need to make other people believe as I do.

In fact, I think the world would be rather dull if everyone shared my own opinions.

 

[Chriliman]

Unlike preaching theists, I don't feel the need to make other people believe as I do.

In fact, I think the world would be rather dull if everyone shared my own opinions.

Ah, does this mean there's a reason we all have different opinions?

If there is a reason, what is that reason? If there isn't a reason then what's the point of having different opinions? Also, if there isn't a reason then why is life so interesting?

 

[Chriliman]

Ah, does this mean there's a reason we all have different opinions?

If there is a reason, what is that reason? If there isn't a reason then what's the point of having different opinions? Also, if there isn't a reason then why is life so interesting?

These are questions I expect my children to ask me. Should I say, it's because God does not exist? Or should I say, it's because God is possible?

Or should I tell them what I believe to be true?