Omniscience and quantum mechanics

[ephraimanesti]

Which puts strains on the idea that God is 'good'.

MY DEAR FRIEND,

How so? God has graciously created a universe full of all things necessary for our health and well being, and He has given us the intelligence and competence to unlock its mysteries and avail ourselves of His bounty. Medical treatments certainly come under the above heading of "unlocked mysteries"--especially when God guides the mind and hands of the physician.

i know without a doubt that God does indeed work miracles when necessary--in situations when normal physical laws disallow a solution to the problem which is being addressed and a full reliance on God's Power is the only solution. i have experienced more than my share of these miracles, as have family members, friends, and a multitude of my brothers and sisters in Christ. However, putting God to the test, as in the cases you mention which the press love to exploit, is a sin as per the temptations of Jesus chronicles in Matthew 4:5-7.

God is, in my humble estimation, is "GOOD" way beyond our limited ability to comprehend the full extent of His "GOODNESS." i fully expect that we will spend eternity in the process of investigation of God's Grace--some, while doing so, being blessed beyond measure and others, while doing so, being self-tormented beyond belief.

I appreciate your honesty.

You alone hold the key to your Heart. i have a feeling you have no clue as to what is inside and are no more competent to identify what the missing ingredient is which has led to your emptiness than i am.

My suggestion would be to USE THE KEY and find out the cause of your spiritual disability and remedy the situation!

I don't suppose God could knock a little louder? Despite my deconversion from Christianity, I haven't stopped listening for God.

You "haven't stopped listening for God". Oh really?! Here you are in a Christian Web Site, assuming a wiccan alter ego and arguing for all you are worth against He Whom you claim to be listening for. Huh?

Incidentially, there is no such thing as a "deconversion from Christianity." Those who become Christian are re-formed into a New Creation and are fundamentially changed into the image of their Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ. They would no more think of returning to the old man than a butterfly would think of turning back into a catapillar or a pickle could be turned back into a cucumber. Its an impossibility! Whatever you were in your former incarnation, it certainly wasn't a "christian." Possibly you learned a few things about God, but, as you well know, minds can change. Transformed hearts, however, don't.

I have to ask: in what way are we 'hiding'? I'm quite vocal about my willingness to believe, given a reason to.

While all the while you disparage God and those who have entered into His Kingdom. Come on now! Your vocalizations carry no weight under the circumstances in which you make them--especially to God.

I've done that. Not a lot happened, so I got back up.

Luke 11:9-13 + Luke 18:1-8 Worked for me!

A BOND-SLAVE OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[Wiccan_Child]

MY DEAR FRIEND,

How so? God has graciously created a universe full of all things necessary for our health and well being, and He has given us the intelligence and competence to unlock its mysteries and avail ourselves of His bounty. Medical treatments certainly come under the above heading of "unlocked mysteries"--especially when God guides the mind and hands of the physician.

i know without a doubt that God does indeed work miracles when necessary--in situations when normal physical laws disallow a solution to the problem which is being addressed and a full reliance on God's Power is the only solution. i have experienced more than my share of these miracles, as have family members, friends, and a multitude of my brothers and sisters in Christ. However, putting God to the test, as in the cases you mention which the press love to exploit, is a sin as per the temptations of Jesus chronicles in Matthew 4:5-7.

God is, in my humble estimation, is "GOOD" way beyond our limited ability to comprehend the full extent of His "GOODNESS." i fully expect that we will spend eternity in the process of investigation of God's Grace--some, while doing so, being blessed beyond measure and others, while doing so, being tormented beyond belief.

Which, again, puts strains on the idea that God is good. He may have given us a world in which we can solve our problems, but he has also given us a world in which he have problems. Moreover, you yourself admit that he is willing to let people suffer in torment for all eternity. How can that be deemed 'good' without a perverse and corrupt morality?

You alone hold the key to your Heart. i have a feeling you have no clue as to what is inside and are no more competent to identify what the missing ingredient is which has led to your emptiness than i am.

My suggestion would be to USE THE KEY and find out the cause of your spiritual disability and remedy the situation!

Which begs the question: how do I 'use the key'?

You "haven't stopped listening for God". Oh really?! Here you are in a Christian Web Site, assuming a wiccan alter ego and arguing for all you are worth against He Whom you claim to be listening for. Huh?

Pretty much, though I'm hardly arguing for all I'm worth. I do this as a past-time, a way to bolster my own intellectual abilities (as an example, my English skills have improved massively; just take a lot at some of my earliest posts! ) and to engage in fascinating discussions.

I don't necessarily argue against God, though I've certainly found myself on that position. I argue what I believe to be true; not because I'm rebelling against what I know to be the Truth of Christianity (or some such), but because I genuinely believe it.

Incidentially, there is no such thing as a "deconversion from Christianity."

Yes, I thought you might jump on that phrase. I've heard the arguments before, that a deconverted Christian was never True Christian™, etc. Suffice to say, I disagree.

While all the while you rail against God and against those who have entered into His Kingdom. Come on now! Your vocalizations carry no weight under the circumstances in which you make them--especially to God.

I couldn't give to whits about what God thinks of me. Do you worry about what Lord Krishna thinks about you?

 

[heymikey80]

I'm sure I don't need to cite examples of children and babies in extreme suffering. Do you think they deserve what they get? Does the baby who gets burned alive deserve what they got?

On the contrary, you end up with an interesting contradiction philosophically. If this is the primary point of ethics, you can pretty-much establish that it's satisfied by the children or babies not existing, and thus not suffering.

And actually, by the way, this is a great argument for a painless suicide -- if it were true. But it's not.

In any event, the point behind this is that the argument you're making to eliminate pain isn't valid as ethics. But we knew that, in fact it's been known that since the 18th century at least when philosophers determined that emotions were not the basis for ethics.

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

You claimed in your case there were exceptions -- yet for another, there are no exceptions. Thus: hypocrisy.

In what way is my opinion implausible? In what way is it implausible to consider the minimisation of suffering to be morally good?

A bait & switch? ah.

Y'ever broken an egg for a chick? Anyone know what happens when you relieve that suffering?

There are a variety of ways people suffer that are perfectly legitimate; experiences define people, including the suffering experiences.

In your example, I would stop the man: his suffering is less than the suffering he would cause. Thus, suffering has been minimised.

OK, granted the shift to quantitative minimization. That's very different from actually halting suffering, and at best a gambit. How do you know he wouldn't kill or deflect someone who causes even greater suffering?

And how do you know that someone who's omniscient doesn't know a very odd sequence of events on its face, that halts or reverses the suffering for some?

Your logic is flawed. My point is that, in my opinion, suffering exists, and that directly or indirectly causing unnecessary suffering is immoral. The world is not inherently immoral, but it does contain those who have done immoral things.

Ah, but there's the point. If minimal suffering is all there is to ethics -- God shouldn't have created.

So it's not all there is, there must be ethical motivations beyond and more important than suffering.

Hence my reasoning.

And even I agreed that I too was inherently immoral, how does that invalidate my opinion? A nasty man can still be correct.

"Nasty". Hm. About what's nasty and what's not? And how to embrace the truly un-nasty?

What if immorality is a trap door? and, ah, isn't it? There's no guilty person in prison. Everyone's there "unjustly".

 

[ephraimanesti]

Which, again, puts strains on the idea that God is good. He may have given us a world in which we can solve our problems, but he has also given us a world in which he have problems.

Hope this might answer your question. Forgive the length, but given the length of this Thread taint much:

HOME ALONE​

Probably the most often reoccurring question I get from people who are struggling with the existence of God concerns the issue of evil and human suffering. It’s kind of hard to believe in God when He lets us screw up the world so badly. It’s like kids wreaking havoc because they’re home alone. Yeah, the kids should have been more responsible, but the parents should have known better. Or were they absolutely oblivious to what their kids were capable of?

The short version of the argument sort of goes like this: If there is a God, why does He allow such horrible things to happen?

So let’s say there is no God.

If we agree that there is no God, is there still evil in the world? Are we still living on a planet filled with violence? Is our history still marred by murder, oppression, and corruption? Are there still hundreds of millions of people starving while we callously throw away our leftovers?

If there is no God, is there still evil?

The answer, of course, is yes.

Well, if there is no God and we still have a problem of evil, who should we hold responsible?

The good thing about God is that we can blame Him for everything.​

But the question remains: Who’s to blame?

Who’s to blame that millions of people are going to die of AIDS in Africa? That millions of children are left orphaned and starving without any help or hope? That women are set on fire in India so that their husbands can be free to marry someone else and pick up another dowry? That millions of people are buried in the killing fields of Cambodia? That millions of children are living in urban garbage dumps throughout Latin American, homeless and alone?

There’s no God, so we can’t blame Him.

Now that we’ve eliminated God, who’s left?

All we have left is us.

Part of our problem in making sense of life is that we can’t even make sense of ourselves. We want to blame God because we don’t want to take responsibility for our mess. We stop believing in God because He won’t change it. Is it possible that God does, in fact, exist, and we are still fully responsible for the human condition?

Is it possible that God created us with the power to create the world of our choosing?

In truth it is not we who have a right to be mad at God, but it is God who has a right to be mad at us. Usually what follows is our God-is-still-to-blame catch-22. Even if it’s our fault, why doesn’t God fix it? Exactly how would He do that? Let’s consider the options.

For God to create a perfect world, there seems to be a limited number of scenarios possible. The first scenario is, He could just get rid of all of us. That would pretty much fix the problem right away. I’m personally not for that one, so let’s move on to the next option. He could control our every thought, our every emotion, our every motive, our every action. Because He’s God, He could do it in such a way that we would feel as if we have free will.

We would be the products of a divinely created illusion, a utopia. This version would be a planet-wide version of the Stepford Wives, you know, the place where everything is perfect because you really can’t choose for yourself. I’m not for a world where we do not have free will, where choosing is an illusion. I am personally grateful that God has created us as thinking creatures with the capacity to choose.

For God to create us in such a way that we can choose that which is good, true, and beautiful, He must also allow us the freedom to choose that which is corrupt, false, and destructive.

Most of us want God to fix every wrong choice we made without taking from us our right to choose wrongly. We want to make God into our own personal pooper-scooper, following right behind us, cleaning up our mess. God lets us make our bed and makes us lie in it.

There is another option, however. Given that there is a God, He cares about humanity, and He is deeply troubled by the human condition, how could God proceed to actively engage the human dilemma? If God refuses to take from us our free will and He refuses to leave the world in its present condition, what can He do?

Here’s an interesting possibility: He could change our hearts. He could take us through a process that would move us from greed to altruism, that would move us from indifference to compassion, that would move us from hate to love, that would move us from apathy to activism. If He could change us, He could change the world (other version: By changing us, He can change the world).

There was once a Roman citizen named Saul of Tarsus who was a religious fanatic and murderer, and he eventually had an encounter with Jesus Christ. He is best known as Paul. He turned from a life of condemnation and violence to becoming a champion of love, hope, and faith.

It may seem way too simple, but the world will change when we change.​

--from SOUL CRAVINGS
by Erwin Raphael McManus​

 

[ephraimanesti]

Moreover, you yourself admit that he is willing to let people suffer in torment for all eternity. How can that be deemed 'good' without a perverse and corrupt morality?

This statement is, of course, a deliberate perversion of the Truth and blasphemy against our God Who IS Love. As Scripture states, "He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (II Peter 3:9)

He ultimately even gave His dearly beloved only begotten Son to insure that no one had to suffer the loss of God's presence--"For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)

He has, in a word, done everything in His power, short of overruling our freewill engendered choices--such as denying His existence--to save us from the eternal torment of being forced to exist without being able to avail themselves of His Love--which, though it continues to exist and be expressed for all eternity, is not accessible to the hardened heart of those who have refused that freely offered Love on earth.

Which begs the question: how do I 'use the key'?

Humbly fall on your knees before your Lord, God, and Creator, confess your sins, ask His forgiveness, and then FOLLOW DIRECTIONS to the letter from there on out.

Pretty much, though I'm hardly arguing for all I'm worth. I do this as a past-time, a way to bolster my own intellectual abilities (as an example, my English skills have improved massively; just take a lot at some of my earliest posts! ) and to engage in fascinating discussions.

Sounds like a desperate feeding of the ego to me.

I don't necessarily argue against God, though I've certainly found myself on that position. I argue what I believe to be true; not because I'm rebelling against what I know to be the Truth of Christianity (or some such), but because I genuinely believe it.

Actually, you argue against what you DESIRE to be true. People who are certain of falsehood do not go to such extremes to rail against something that is non-existant as atheists do against their Creator--as if the magic of their denials will make Him somehow disappear (at least from their consciousnesses).

Think of the hours wasted in this Forum asserting the non-existence of the Creator of existence. Such effort is merely a rather transparent attempt to convince oneself, because it is certain that Christians, because of their personal experiences and relationship with God, aren't buying the silliness. What you are doing is called, if you will excuse the saying, "Preaching to the choir."

Where else can you find this phenomenon? i don't see anybody incessantly deprecating day after day, thread after thread, the existence of santa claus, the easter bunny, or the tooth fairy. If you were as certain as you claim to be that God does not exist, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Yes, I thought you might jump on that phrase. I've heard the arguments before, that a deconverted Christian was never True Christian™, etc. Suffice to say, I disagree.

Of course you do. Your disagreement, however, changes nothing.

I couldn't give to whits about what God thinks of me. Do you worry about what Lord Krishna thinks about you?

No. i don't worry about what Lord Krishna thinks about me because i know for a fact that he/she/it does not exist, nor do i waste my time at Hindu websites railing against the possibility of Lord Krishna's existence because i know that existence is impossible.

You, on the other hand, don't appear to bear that certainty regarding God's existence. Cheer up--that unacknowledged lack of certainty is a good thing. Means your heart is not completely hardened and there is still hope for you being able to find your way our of the darkness into God's awaiting Light.

JUST DO IT!​

i'm rootin fer ya!​

A BOND-SLAVE OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[Chesterton]

Honestly, Ephraim, I've never seen Wiccan do anything I'd call "railing". Far from it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I've got a lot of big posts to respond to, but rest assured, I'll get around to you all .

 

[ephraimanesti]

Honestly, Ephraim, I've never seen Wiccan do anything I'd call "railing". Far from it.

MY BROTHER,

After consulting my Webster's, i see that you are correct. "Railing" is indeed too strong a term and i apologize.

Can we agree on "deprecate?" i have censored my posts to this effect. Thanks for the heads up!

IN CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[Wiccan_Child]

On the contrary, you end up with an interesting contradiction philosophically. If this is the primary point of ethics, you can pretty-much establish that it's satisfied by the children or babies not existing, and thus not suffering.

And actually, by the way, this is a great argument for a painless suicide -- if it were true. But it's not.

Why not?

In any event, the point behind this is that the argument you're making to eliminate pain isn't valid as ethics. But we knew that, in fact it's been known that since the 18th century at least when philosophers determined that emotions were not the basis for ethics.

Which is an entirely subjective opinion, no more valid than my own. To declare it a fact is naïve at best.

A bait & switch? ah.

Y'ever broken an egg for a chick? Anyone know what happens when you relieve that suffering?

There are a variety of ways people suffer that are perfectly legitimate; experiences define people, including the suffering experiences.

None of which can't be achieved without suffering, especially for an omnipotence like God.

OK, granted the shift to quantitative minimization. That's very different from actually halting suffering, and at best a gambit. How do you know he wouldn't kill or deflect someone who causes even greater suffering?

The premise is that we minimise suffering. If we do something that leads to greater suffering, then how have we minimised suffering?

And I disagree that halting suffering altogether is different from minimising suffering: the former is the logical extreme of the latter.

Ah, but there's the point. If minimal suffering is all there is to ethics -- God shouldn't have created.

So it's not all there is, there must be ethical motivations beyond and more important than suffering.

Hence my reasoning.

Your reasoning rests on the very shaky premise that God should have created. Well, why should he have? As anyone can plainly see, the world is a violent place filled with evil and suffering. If I were an omnipotent being, I would do my best to ensure that no one suffered, but God conspicuously doesn't.

"Nasty". Hm. About what's nasty and what's not? And how to embrace the truly un-nasty?

It was a kitsch phrase to emphasise a point.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Think of the hours wasted in this Forum asserting the non-existence of the Creator of existence.

I have never once asserted the non-existence of a Creator. And I would hardly call these hours 'wasted'; I thoroughly enjoy my time here.

Where else can you find this phenomenon? i don't see anybody incessantly deprecating day after day, thread after thread, the existence of santa claus, the easter bunny, or the tooth fairy. If you were as certain as you claim to be that God does not exist, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

There is an important difference between Santa Claus and God: we both agree that, espistemology aside, the former doesn't exist, but we disagree about the latter.

No. i don't worry about what Lord Krishna thinks about me because i know for a fact that he/she/it does not exist, nor do i waste my time at Hindu websites railing against the possibility of Lord Krishna's existence because i know that existence is impossible.

I find it hard to believe you know, you truly know, that Lord Krishna does not exist.

 

[ephraimanesti]

I have never once asserted the non-existence of a Creator.

Hey bro!

My bad. i thought your little icon with the darkened in brain area indicated that you were of the atheist persuasion. Forgive me!

i hope you're not involved in some sort of Matrix-like cult. If so, God can help.

And I would hardly call these hours 'wasted'; I thoroughly enjoy my time here.

Why? What's the thrill of spending so much time and energy trying vainly to debunk other peoples' beliefs. Christians preach the Gospel because God has placed this responsibility--privilege, actually--on their shoulders: i.e., to attempt, to the best of their abilities, to pass on to others what they themselves have received from God's Grace full hands. What's your motivation?

There is an important difference between Santa Claus and God: we both agree that, espistemology aside, the former doesn't exist, but we disagree about the latter.

The real difference, of course, is that Santa Claus can be PROVEN to not exist by meerly sneaking downstairs at 3am and catching mommie eating the cookies and drinking the milk you left for Santa--while God's existence cannot be so disproved.

Whenever the existence of God is averred by a believer, the first words out of the mouth of the atheist (i know you aren't one, but bear with me) is "prove it," knowing full well that His existence cannot be either proven or disproven using the much-worshipped "scientific method" and the required material evidences this limited system of measuring reality requires.

My retort--a fair one, i feel--would be "you disprove it" using the same "rules of evidence" which you set for others. Given that the Universe gives ample evidence of an Intelligent Designer behind its existence, should not the onus be on the one who chalks all existence up to a series of cosmic accidents provide some concrete evidence of same above and beyond their empty wishes?

I find it hard to believe you know, you truly know, that Lord Krishna does not exist.

Well of course you do! That is the price you pay for rejecting the idea of the existence of absolute Truths which are true--or false, as the case may be--irregardless of our beliefs or desires regarding them.

Nonetheless . . . .

A BOND-SLAVE OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Hey bro!

My bad. i thought your little icon with the darkened in brain area indicated that you were of the atheist persuasion. Forgive me!

'Atheism' means one is not a theist. I do not affirm the existence of gods (like a theist), but that doesn't mean I affirm the non-existence of gods either.

Obviously, some people do affirm the non-existence of gods, and they are called strong atheists. But most of us are weak atheists: we sit in the middle ground, affirming neither extreme.

So I am an 'atheist' insofar as I am not a theist; that's all the term means. I realise a lot of theists think it means someone who actively denies that God exists, who affirm that God doesn't exist with the same zeal as the theist, but that simply isn't the case. Or rather, it's not how most self-proclaimed atheists would define the word 'atheist', nor indeed how most theists define it.

Why? What's the thrill of spending so much time and energy trying vainly to debunk other peoples' beliefs. Christians preach the Gospel because God has placed this responsibility--privilege, actually--on their shoulders: i.e., to attempt, to the best of their abilities, to pass on to others what they themselves have received from God's Grace full hands. What's your motivation?

The discussion itself. I don't play Devil's advocate, and I don't argue for the sake of arguing. But there is nonetheless a pleasure in discussion and debate. For instance, I enjoy debating with a creationist about evolution and creationism. I enjoy debating with anyone who has a different opinion to me, not because I'm dogmatically trying to convert everyone, but because the debate itself is enjoyable. I quite frankly couldn't give two hoots about whether they convert to my view or not.

And, as my thread shows, one can interact with the CF community without having to go on the offensive. A light-hearted Q&A is just as good.

The real difference, of course, is that Santa Claus can be PROVEN to not exist by meerly sneaking downstairs at 3am and catching mommie eating the cookies and drinking the milk you left for Santa--while God's existence cannot be so disproved.

I disagree that Santa Claus is actually disproven by that. Seeing your mother eat the cookies doesn't disprove Santa: it only proves that your mother ate the cookies. Santa, for all we know, could be at someone else's house.

But Santa has been disproven beyond all reasonable doubt, and I'd worry about anyone who disagreed with that. God has not: he remains stubbornly elusive, with absolutely no evidence pointing to his existence, or even to his non-existence.

Whenever the existence of God is averred by a believer, the first words out of the mouth of the atheist (i know you aren't one, but bear with me) is "prove it," knowing full well that His existence cannot be either proven or disproven using the much-worshipped "scientific method" and the required material evidences this limited system of measuring reality requires.

My retort--a fair one, i feel--would be "you disprove it" using the same "rules of evidence" which you set for others. Given that the Universe gives ample evidence of an Intelligent Designer behind its existence, should not the onus be on the one who chalks all existence up to a series of cosmic accidents provide some concrete evidence of same above and beyond their empty wishes?

You contradict yourself. First say that science cannot prove the existence of God, but then you say that there is ample evidence of an intelligent designer. Which is it?

And as to your second point, I have seen nothing which might be considered evidence of the existence of an intelligent designer. The onus, then, remains on you to cite such evidence.

I'm more than willing to go into a discussion about evidence for evolution/ID, if you wish. It's my thread, after all .

Well of course you do! That is the price you pay for rejecting the idea of the existence of absolute Truths which are true--or false, as the case may be--irregardless of our beliefs or desires regarding them.

Nonetheless . . . .

I accept that absolute truth exists; as the trite riddle goes, "Is "There is no absolute truth" absolutely true?". 1 + 1 = 2 is an absolutely true statement, and we can know its truth with 100% certainty.
But in the real world, we have a problem: there is an inherent and insurmountable epistemological barrier preventing us from knowing anything more than our own existence (I know I exist, you know you exist, but I don't know you exist). No matter how much my senses tell me you exist, there is nonetheless a chance that my senses are wrong. More generally, no matter what your mind perceives, there is a chance that it's simply wrong. Perhaps your senses missed something, or perhaps we're all brains in jars wired up to a virtual reality, Matrix style.

The point is that you cannot know with 100% certainty whether Lord Krishna exists because, without a logical disproof, the possibility will always remain. Most Christians I've talked to acknowledge this, and they acknowledge the possibility that they may be wrong.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I didn't mean it wouldn't be "good" as in "useful", but we were talking about definitions and I meant, by definition, an act is not unselfish if it's done for one's self. The result could be good even if the act wasn't. Giving something in order to get something is just a commercial transaction. I happen to believe capitalism is good as in "practical", but I'd never say capitalism is good as in "virtuous".

So what determines morality? To what is a moral label applied? The result, or the act? The means, or the ends?

He doesn't have to save us. And it's not a perversion of love for Him to offer salvation.

True, but the way in which he does it is so convoluted, and the offer is so indistinguishable, that he may as well not offer it at all. We come back to the eternal question: if Christianity is true, why is it no different from all the other religions? If God is willing to interfere as he did when Jesus was born, why not just click his fingers and say "Right, you're all saved. No one's going to Hell, because that place is just nasty"? I don't understand why belief in Jesus is so important. If nothing else, why not save the morally good, rather than just those who were lucky enough to be born into a Christian nation?

How would that not mean the universe is mindless? Yes thoughts still happen, just as supernovas happen, but thoughts can be no more true or false than a supernova, regardless of how we feel about them.

Well, thoughts about things can still be true or false. My thoughts about mathematics may ultimately arise from biochemical reactions in my brain, but that doesn't mean that when I think "1 + 1 = 2", the statement is void of a truth value. The origin of our thoughts doesn't determine whether their true or false; that's determined on our own merits.

It's like saying that Shakespeare wasn't an author because all he did was splash fat and oil onto tree pulp.

Thoughts or statements about things can be true or false (in a historical sense), or right or wrong, but things themselves cannot be. If thoughts have no supernatural basis, then thoughts are physical/chemical things, just like every thing else. Therefore a physical/chemical event or process cannot be true or false. Each thought comes into being because of a cause - a previous physical/chemical event (not necessarily a previous thought - we know sights, smells, an old song, the state of our digestion, can all influence our mental state).

If a scientist tells me that the universe is all physics and chemistry, which are governed by immutable laws, I (being not quite as smart as the average bear, but having watched enough Sham-Wow commercials to be able to pick up on the glaringly obvious) recognize that that has to include his own brain. I might ask him "do you accept your naturalistic conclusion because it's true?" If he were honest, he'd have to answer, "True or false doesn't enter into it. I have no choice but to conclude what I conclude, because my mind is all physics and chemistry, which are governed by immutable laws". I in turn would have to conclude that science is nonsense.

I disagree. That our brains are biochemical doesn't change the fact that they can perform science. There is an inherent uncertainty that we're just making it all up as we go along, but that epistemological detail is always there, even if our thoughts are somehow supernaturally 'real'.

Being not free means being something other than human (or human with greatly diminished capacity). I'm not sure there could be human-style consciousness without freedom. Part of me wants to agree with you, but trying to think it through, I'm not really sure what it would mean.

What it means to be human isn't a particularly special thing. What, really, is so good about us?

If we were smarter, we wouldn't have invented philosophy. It only makes people nuts.

If we were smarter, we wouldn't need philosophy .

And recreational sex is indicative of intelligence? Given my pre-Christian lifestyle, that would make me smarter than Einstein, Hawking and Wilt Chamberlain put together!

Haha .
My point was that you have to be a certain level of smart to engage in recreational sex. I believe that level is about 0.2 Einsteins.

You can probably guess my answer. I think animism is revelation and/or correct interpretation. And it's still with us today. The emotion of awe which accompanies the idea of six trillion miles, and which gets more awful-er by knowing you can multiply that a billion times again... Sounds from the deep ocean which are creepy... (that was you that said that, wasn't it?) Rightly or wrongly, we take our universe personally. Einstein admitted it, Dawkins even admits it; no matter how dumb or smart we are, we all poeticize reality, and I think we're right to do so.

We do at that, and, to be honest, I'm not sure why we do. I don't see any reason why we would feel awe at looking into the night sky, or over the Grand Canyon, but nonetheless we do.

Well we're a bit premature discussing this. But if it is void of life, it shows we're really, really special, as opposed to just special.

True, I'll grant you that.

You already know I don't agree with the "strong" and "weak" adjectives for atheist. I'm sure we agree that Dawkins is an atheist. To me that means he believes there's no God. If it means something different to you, that's fine.

I suppose it doesn't actually matter what we believe about Dawkins' beliefs.

I strongly disagree.

How so?

Well, be more creative then. Come up with a safe, happy lie. Something like atheistic naturalism/materialism should work. Add a subtle flourish of pantheism to explain the inexplicable and make the medicine go down.

Each to their own, I guess. I can't make myself believe something, if only because I don't want to. If I actively lie to myself, I'd be undermining the principles I base my life on, and I don't exactly want to do that .

Besides, if we explained the inexplicable with some superstitious fluff, we'd have nothing left to explore. We'd have explained everything.
Science works by acknowledging the gaps. Bunging them up with fluff doesn't advance our knowledge.

But, if I truly think that what I'm feeling is wholly explicable by how the garden works and how my brain works, then I have to realize that my feeling is an illusion. It wouldn't be accurate to say the garden is beautiful, I'd have to say the garden appears beautiful. We can argue whether or not those two thoughts mean the same thing, but for a naturalist/materialist, I think they have to mean strictly the latter. A natualist has to come down on the side that says all is appearances, and can't suppose that an abstract concept such as beauty actually exists.

I disagree. The naturalist can quite easily say the garden is beautiful without saying that beauty actually exists. He can explain the garden's beauty, he can say why he considers it beautiful, but that doesn't change the fact that, to him, it is beautiful.

Okay, but I don't think they/you are just countering a claim for the sake of countering it. You see this so much in the Ethics forum. Someone's always posting about some incident or idea in order to show how some group of people are bad, or their ideas are wrong. One time it's homosexuals, next time it's Christians, then it's Muslims. Someone's always having to defend and assert that they are moral people. It's a rare individual (in fact I don't think I've never seen one) who will, with no rationalization or justification, say something like "yes, I treat people unfairly, so what?"

I haven't seen one either. I think most people in E&M are smart enough to know that broad-brushing is an ugly and fallacious tactic, though.

My simple little answer is that God has left conscience within us all, and which is kind of His representative voice. That would explain why we all agree that bad is bad, even when we sometimes disagree about what is bad.

If we all have this little voice, why do we disagree on what is bad? Why is our concept of morality so very dependant on where we grew up?

How can you say that's not illogical? It violates the very basis of mathematics, doesn't it?: one thing is not another thing, and two things are not one thing.

The laws of mathematics are more general than that, to the point where quantum mechanics is logically valid. It is common sense, not mathematics, that says something can't be in two places at once. Mathematically, there's no reason why it couldn't be.

Because it's a wholly natural event or process, and natural events and processes can't be right or wrong.

But they can be true or false. Our perception of reality is, at the end of the day, either true or false: either what I see really is what exists, or it isn't. Whether my perception is ultimately spiritual or biochemical doesn't change that fact.

We perceive that the truth of logic is independent of perception. In other words, logic appears not to depend on appearance. In other words, we're guessing and gambling.

Again, the logic of logic is self-evident (and tautologous).

Morality and immorality are not so linked to this world, and don't really require actions. Immoral actions are really only symptoms or manifestations of true immorality which is a state of being, or an attitude of the mind. That's why Christ said if you hate a man in your heart, it's the same as if you'd killed him. That's why Christians will say a gossip is as bad as a murderer. There may be an extreme difference in the results of external acts in the real world, but in the soul where the acts originate, there is no spectrum; only two attitudinal states: towards God, or towards self. The former attitude tends toward life, health and happiness, the latter towards death and misery.

I disagree. While it's simply a matter of opinion what exactly is called 'moral' (the act or the intent or what have you), it's not necessarily the case where an attitude 'towards God' will tend towards life, health and happiness. There are a variety of studies that attempt to index happiness and prosperity, and they all tend to show that secularised nations of sceptical atheists cool are the happiest. I think Norway is the top of a lot of happiness tables.

That doesn't mean religious people are necessarily unhappy. But rather, religion doesn't really make someone that much happier.

 

[ephraimanesti]

'Atheism' means one is not a theist. I do not affirm the existence of gods (like a theist), but that doesn't mean I affirm the non-existence of gods either.

MY BROTHER,

Sounds like you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

i have heard this "straddling the fence" definition before, and i have been unable to corrobrate or verify it in any of my dictionaries--the generally recognized sources for the meaning of English words. For example, my Webster's Third Internation Dictionarly, Volume 1, defines "ATHEISM" as, "A disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity; the doctrine that there is neither God nor any other deity; godlessness."

So, i find it very good news indeed that your heart is not hardened completely in regards to the possible existence of a Higher Power in the Universe. In light of this, i do, however, given the need for truth in advertising, think you might want to down-grade yourself to AGNOSTIC so people will know who they dealing with and not make the same judgmental mistakes i have in responding to your questions in the past. Forgive me!

With my "new" knowledge, let us press forward!

Obviously, some people do affirm the non-existence of gods, and they are called strong atheists. But most of us are weak atheists: we sit in the middle ground, affirming neither extreme.

Unfortunately, an inability to commit will not be an excuse on Judgment Day when these ideas and ideals with be reviewed in great detail.

So I am an 'atheist' insofar as I am not a theist; that's all the term means. I realise a lot of theists think it means someone who actively denies that God exists, who affirm that God doesn't exist with the same zeal as the theist, but that simply isn't the case. Or rather, it's not how most self-proclaimed atheists would define the word 'atheist', nor indeed how most theists define it.

This, my brother, is getting REALLY convoluted. i think that you are either teasing, mocking, taunting, or playing with me. At least i hope so! The alternative would be that you yourself are not sure what you believe or where you stand--and that's a scary concept to me given the stakes.

The discussion itself. I don't play Devil's advocate, and I don't argue for the sake of arguing.

Of course you do. There is no other possible reason for the waste of time.

But there is nonetheless a pleasure in discussion and debate. For instance, I enjoy debating with a creationist about evolution and creationism. I enjoy debating with anyone who has a different opinion to me, not because I'm dogmatically trying to convert everyone, but because the debate itself is enjoyable. I quite frankly couldn't give two hoots about whether they convert to my view or not.

Then, to me, it is an exercise in meaninglessness and a waste of time and potential.

And, as my thread shows, one can interact with the CF community without having to go on the offensive. A light-hearted Q&A is just as good.

When the topics dealt with are NOT "light-hearted" and trivial but have eternal dire implications, is a lack of a serious orientation towards them appropriate, or is life just another "reality show" put on accidentially by the cosmos for our amusement?

I disagree that Santa Claus is actually disproven by that. Seeing your mother eat the cookies doesn't disprove Santa: it only proves that your mother ate the cookies. Santa, for all we know, could be at someone else's house.

Then your mother is wrong Wrong WRONG and needs to be told so in no uncertain terms!

But Santa has been disproven beyond all reasonable doubt, and I'd worry about anyone who disagreed with that. God has not: he remains stubbornly elusive, with absolutely no evidence pointing to his existence, or even to his non-existence.

Then, according to the "scientific method" of evaulating evidence, the evidence for and against is about equal would you agree, and if so, doesn't Pascal's Wager come into play?--

An Explanation of “Pascal’s Wager”

The Wager is described by Pascal in the Pensées this way:

Let us consider the paraphrased translation of Pascal. "God either exists or He doesn't. Based on the testimony, both general revelation (nature) and special revelation (Scriptures/Bible), it is safe to assume that God does in fact exist. It is abundantly fair to conceive, that there is at least 50% chance that the Christian Creator God does in fact exist. Therefore, since we stand to gain eternity, and thus infinity, the wise and safe choice is to live as though God does exist. If we are right, we gain everything, and lose nothing. If we are wrong, we lose nothing and gain nothing. Therefore, based on simple mathematics, only the fool would choose to live a Godless life." Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have nothing to lose. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

In his Wager, Pascal provides an analytical process for a person to evaluate options in regarding belief in God. This is often misinterpreted as simply believing in God or not. However, as Pascal sets it out, the options are two: live as if God exists, or do not live as if God exists. There is no third possibility.

Therefore, we are faced with the following possibilities:

* You live as though God exists.
+ If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
- If God does not exist, your loss is nothing.

* You do not live as though God exists.
- If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
o If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.

With these possibilities, and the principles of statistics, Pascal has demonstrated that the only prudent course of action is to live as if God exists. It is a simple application of game theory (to which Pascal had made important contributions).

You contradict yourself. First say that science cannot prove the existence of God, but then you say that there is ample evidence of an intelligent designer. Which is it?

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world." (Psalms 19:1-4)

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the Godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities -- His eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Romans 1:18-20)

And as to your second point, I have seen nothing which might be considered evidence of the existence of an intelligent designer. The onus, then, remains on you to cite such evidence.

So again, if the evidence for and against the existence of God is pretty much equal, why in the world, all things being pretty much equal, would you knowingly choose chaos and meaningless over order and meaning as far as evaluating such momentous (at least i consider them so) questions as "why am I here?", "what is the meaning of my life?", "am I a god or an animal?" etc. are concerned?

I'm more than willing to go into a discussion about evidence for evolution/ID, if you wish. It's my thread, after all .

Part of growing into spiritual maturity is learning how to share!

I accept that absolute truth exists; as the trite riddle goes, "Is "There is no absolute truth" absolutely true?". 1 + 1 = 2 is an absolutely true statement, and we can know its truth with 100% certainty.
But in the real world, we have a problem: there is an inherent and insurmountable epistemological barrier preventing us from knowing anything more than our own existence (I know I exist, you know you exist, but I don't know you exist). No matter how much my senses tell me you exist, there is nonetheless a chance that my senses are wrong. More generally, no matter what your mind perceives, there is a chance that it's simply wrong. Perhaps your senses missed something, or perhaps we're all brains in jars wired up to a virtual reality, Matrix style.

Perhaps an application of "ACHEM'S RAZOR" might be a help in your struggle to define, delineate, and reality.

The point is that you cannot know with 100% certainty whether Lord Krishna exists because, without a logical disproof, the possibility will always remain. Most Christians I've talked to acknowledge this, and they acknowledge the possibility that they may be wrong.

i would have to posit that they have not come face to face (spiritually speaking) with the Living God yet.

PEACE AND SUCCESS TO THOSE WHO SEEK!​

ephraim

 

[Wiccan_Child]

i have heard this "straddling the fence" definition before, and i have been unable to corrobrate or verify it in any of my dictionaries--the generally recognized sources for the meaning of English words. For example, my Webster's Third Internation Dictionarly, Volume 1, defines "ATHEISM" as, "A disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity; the doctrine that there is neither God nor any other deity; godlessness."

I refer you to Wikipedia's excellent article on atheism ("Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist"), and to Google's succinct list of definitions. I'm personally not a fan of Webster's.

Unfortunately, an inability to commit will not be an excuse on Judgment Day when these ideas and ideals with be reviewed in great detail.

Since I don't believe in 'Judgement Day', I'm not concerned.

This, my brother, is getting REALLY convoluted. i think that you are either teasing, mocking, taunting, or playing with me. At least i hope so! The alternative would be that you yourself are not sure what you believe or where you stand--and that's a scary concept to me given the stakes.

I assure you, I'm well aware of what it is I believe in (or, rather, what I don't believe in). Suffice to say, I do not believe in Christianity (or any brand of theism); I do not believe that any god exists. Neither do I believe that gods don't exist; I am well aware of the possibility that any proposed deity could exist in reality, so I do not actively affirm their non-existence.

I straddle the fence, as you put it. This isn't insecurity or indecisiveness; there is simply nothing swaying me one way or the other.

Of course you do. There is no other possible reason for the waste of time.

It amuses me that you're trying to dictate what I can and cannot find enjoyable.

Then, to me, it is an exercise in meaninglessness and a waste of time and potential.

Irrelevant. I find it meaningful, which is all that matters, since we're discussing why I am here.

Leisurely pursuits are rarely productive. But my time here is productive: I have refined my beliefs and my ability to express them, my English skills have improved dramatically, I have made several friends here on the forums, I have been exposed to ideas and beliefs that I otherwise would never have encountered, etc.

It also provides me with a place to talk to Christians about their beliefs. This very thread is an example of that.

When the topics dealt with are NOT "light-hearted" and trivial but have eternal dire implications, is a lack of a serious orientation towards them appropriate, or is life just another "reality show" put on accidentially by the cosmos for our amusement?

Life is whatever we make it. If we want to enjoy it, we have to go out any enjoy it.

Then, according to the "scientific method" of evaulating evidence, the evidence for and against is about equal would you agree, and if so, doesn't Pascal's Wager come into play?

Not in the slightest.

An Explanation of “Pascal’s Wager”

The Wager is described by Pascal in the Pensées this way:

Let us consider the paraphrased translation of Pascal. "God either exists or He doesn't. Based on the testimony, both general revelation (nature) and special revelation (Scriptures/Bible), it is safe to assume that God does in fact exist. It is abundantly fair to conceive, that there is at least 50% chance that the Christian Creator God does in fact exist. Therefore, since we stand to gain eternity, and thus infinity, the wise and safe choice is to live as though God does exist. If we are right, we gain everything, and lose nothing. If we are wrong, we lose nothing and gain nothing. Therefore, based on simple mathematics, only the fool would choose to live a Godless life." Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have nothing to lose. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

In his Wager, Pascal provides an analytical process for a person to evaluate options in regarding belief in God. This is often misinterpreted as simply believing in God or not. However, as Pascal sets it out, the options are two: live as if God exists, or do not live as if God exists. There is no third possibility.

Therefore, we are faced with the following possibilities:

* You live as though God exists.
+ If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
- If God does not exist, your loss is nothing.

* You do not live as though God exists.
- If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
o If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.

With these possibilities, and the principles of statistics, Pascal has demonstrated that the only prudent course of action is to live as if God exists. It is a simple application of game theory (to which Pascal had made important contributions).

I'm surprised you're using Pascal's wager; it's logical flaws are well documented.

• It presumes that, if God exists, then the afterlife must also exist.
• It presumes that there are two possible afterlifes: eternal reward, and eternal punishment.
• It presumes that the criterion by which one's afterlife is determined is how one lives one's life (namely, whether one lives as if God exists or not).
• It presumes that living as if God exists is eternally rewarded upon death if God exists.

None of these assumptions are known to be true. For example, it's entirely possible that God's criteria for determining who gets what afterlife is not based on how one lives one's life, but rather how moral you have been. It's entirely possible that, even if God does exist, we cease to exist upon death.

Pascal's wager is the quintessential false dichotomy, and I'm surprised you can't see that.

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world." (Psalms 19:1-4)

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the Godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities -- His eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Romans 1:18-20)

The Bible could claim the sea is made of apples for all the good it would do.

So again, if the evidence for and against the existence of God is pretty much equal, why in the world, all things being pretty much equal, would you knowingly choose chaos and meaningless over order and meaning as far as evaluating such momentous (at least i consider them so) questions as "why am I here?", "what is the meaning of my life?", "am I a god or an animal?" etc. are concerned?

You answered your own question. As far as you're concerned, they're important. To me, they're just mildly interesting questions to ponder. I do not consider one's answer to them to be of any real importance.

I choose to believe in a chaotic and meaningless universe because, as far as I can tell, there is nothing to imply the contrary. To believe in order and meaning, I would first have to see evidence that such order does indeed exist.

Perhaps an application of "ACHEM'S RAZOR" might be a help in your struggle to define, delineate, and reality.

Is that the same as Occam's razor? I've never seen it spelt like that. If you do mean Occam's razor, then it doesn't apply: all things are not equal. Of the various possibilities, one is monumentally more probable than the rest: the hypothesis that what we see is real (or, at least, a close enough approximation of reality).

Obviously I don't believe that we are brains in a jar, but I must acknowledge that such a scenario is at least possible. It's exceedingly improbable, obviously, but nonetheless remotely possible.

i would have to posit that they have not come face to face (spiritually speaking) with the Living God yet.

I don't see why that would change anything. No matter what God does to try to convince you he exists, there always exists the possibility that the entity isn't God. There exists the possibility that this entity, which claims to be God, is in fact just a powerful being who seeks, for whatever reason, to trick you.
It's a remote possibility, but it does show that you don't actually know it's God talking to you; there is always some uncertainty.

 

[ephraimanesti]

I'm personally not a fan of Webster's.

Nor am i of on-line definitions which contradict other sources more reliable. But it is, of course, a mote point, given your confession of fence-straddling--you appear to be neither fish nor fowl.

Since I don't believe in 'Judgement Day', I'm not concerned.

i understand--unfortunately.

I assure you, I'm well aware of what it is I believe in (or, rather, what I don't believe in). Suffice to say, I do not believe in Christianity (or any brand of theism); I do not believe that any god exists. Neither do I believe that gods don't exist; I am well aware of the possibility that any proposed deity could exist in reality, so I do not actively affirm their non-existence.

Huh?

I straddle the fence, as you put it. This isn't insecurity or indecisiveness; there is simply nothing swaying me one way or the other.

In other words, "Nothing matters and so what if it did."

It amuses me that you're trying to dictate what I can and cannot find enjoyable.

i would certainly not presume to dictate--i'm just observing.

Irrelevant. I find it meaningful, which is all that matters, since we're discussing why I am here.

Sad but true.

Leisurely pursuits are rarely productive. But my time here is productive: I have refined my beliefs and my ability to express them, my English skills have improved dramatically, I have made several friends here on the forums, I have been exposed to ideas and beliefs that I otherwise would never have encountered, etc.

i have had similar experiences as by-products of my visits here, so i will willingly concede your point.

There are, however, more productive ways to achieve the same ends.

It also provides me with a place to talk to Christians about their beliefs. This very thread is an example of that.

Why do you care what Christians think when you have already dismissed our beliefs as, at best, groundless?

For example, i would never think of seeking out a Atheist Website to talk to atheists about their beliefs--or rather lack of same. i have already learned as much as i care to about those non-beliefs in my early years of seeking the Truth. Why would i want to hang out and discuss them further, day after day, thread after thread, post after meaningless (to me) post when i have already investigated them and hold them to be false?

Life is whatever we make it. If we want to enjoy it, we have to go out any enjoy it.

We can see the world mankind has created through using this philosophy--don't you read newpapers or watch the evening news? Life as WE make it is demonstrably death! We are devolving, not evolving, down the slippery slope to self-extinction.

"Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die" is a recipe for suicide.

Not in the slightest.

I'm surprised you're using Pascal's wager; it's logical flaws are well documented.

There are NO logical flaws. The primary reason why the Wager is so difficult for some to accept is that it makes perfect sense and fits quite well the reality of an unbeliever's situation--especially one like yourself who is stuck on the fence and unable to commit to either proposition.

• It presumes that, if God exists, then the afterlife must also exist.
• It presumes that there are two possible afterlifes: eternal reward, and eternal punishment.
• It presumes that the criterion by which one's afterlife is determined is how one lives one's life (namely, whether one lives as if God exists or not).
• It presumes that living as if God exists is eternally rewarded upon death if God exists.

None of these assumptions are known to be true. For example, it's entirely possible that God's criteria for determining who gets what afterlife is not based on how one lives one's life, but rather how moral you have been. It's entirely possible that, even if God does exist, we cease to exist upon death.

Pascal's wager is the quintessential false dichotomy, and I'm surprised you can't see that.

It is an exact fit for what God has chosen to reveal to us and are held to be true, in one form or another, by most--if not all--of the world's religious belief systems.

Human beings are hard-wired by their Creator to believe and accept transcendental realities and to seek them out and accept them when encountered. All praise to God, those who believe in nothing are a miniscule minority of our world's population.

The Bible could claim the sea is made of apples for all the good it would do.

The Bible deals with Spiritual Truths, not silliness.

You answered your own question. As far as you're concerned, they're important. To me, they're just mildly interesting questions to ponder. I do not consider one's answer to them to be of any real importance.

Well, it's not really about me and you, it is about belief in the meaningful existence of human beings created in the Image and Likeness of their Creator, as opposed to a belief regarding the meaningless lives of evolved animals who are nothing but cosmic accidents.

I choose to believe in a chaotic and meaningless universe because, as far as I can tell, there is nothing to imply the contrary. To believe in order and meaning, I would first have to see evidence that such order does indeed exist.

Take a Biology, Astronomy, or Physics 101 class WITH AN OPEN MIND and you, too, will be praising our Creator for the miraculous work He has done in speaking all of this into existence!

Is that the same as Occam's razor? I've never seen it spelt like that.

It apparently can be spelled either way--plus several others. Don't know why. i picked the first one Google handed me. See what happens when you rely on on-line sources for information!

If you do mean Occam's razor, then it doesn't apply: all things are not equal. Of the various possibilities, one is monumentally more probable than the rest: the hypothesis that what we see is real (or, at least, a close enough approximation of reality).

This holds true for physical/material objects. It does not apply to spiritual realities which are not amenable to detection by the physical senses but are just as real--and i would hold, more so--than the material.

The eyes of the heart are much more sensitive then our physical orbs--and much more valuable and important. Physical blindness is sad; spiritual blindness is disasterous!

Obviously I don't believe that we are brains in a jar, but I must acknowledge that such a scenario is at least possible. It's exceedingly improbable, obviously, but nonetheless remotely possible.

My, my, my--aren't we open minded though. Just about anything is possible--except the existence of God, of course.

I don't see why that would change anything. No matter what God does to try to convince you he exists, there always exists the possibility that the entity isn't God. There exists the possibility that this entity, which claims to be God, is in fact just a powerful being who seeks, for whatever reason, to trick you.

If it is God Whom you are HONESTLY, HUMBLY, and TOTALLY seeking, He allows nothing to interfere with that process. "But if from there you seek the Lord your God, you will find Him if you look for Him with all your heart and with all your soul." (Dt 4:29)

Worked for me!

It's a remote possibility, but it does show that you don't actually know it's God talking to you; there is always some uncertainty.

No, my brother, there is absolutely NO uncertainty--ever! The Holy Spirit extremely adept at doing His job.

A BOND-SLAVE OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[Wiccan_Child]

In other words, "Nothing matters and so what if it did."

That's not even remotely what I said.

Why do you care what Christians think when you have already dismissed our beliefs as, at best, groundless?

Because while I don't share your beliefs, I nonetheless find them interesting.

For example, i would never think of seeking out a Atheist Website to talk to atheists about their beliefs--or rather lack of same. i have already learned as much as i care to about those non-beliefs in my early years of seeking the Truth. Why would i want to hang out and discuss them further, day after day, thread after thread, post after meaningless (to me) post when i have already investigated them and hold them to be false?

That's for you to decide. I frankly couldn't care less. If you want to post in an atheist forum, be my guest.

We can see the world mankind has created through using this philosophy--don't you read newpapers or watch the evening news? Life as WE make it is demonstrably death! We are devolving, not evolving, down the slippery slope to self-extinction.

I disagree. Over the millennia, human quality of life has improved greatly. We have, for instance, gone from a life expectancy of about 20 to a life expectancy of about 75.

There are NO logical flaws. The primary reason why the Wager is so difficult for some to accept is that it makes perfect sense and fits quite well the reality of an unbeliever's situation--especially one like yourself who is stuck on the fence and unable to commit to either proposition.

Hilarious. I present a point by point rebuttle, and your only comeback is: Nuhuh.

It is rejected because anyone can see the flaws in its logic. It assumes that either Christianity is true, or no religion is true.
What if the Ancient Egyptian religion is true? Living like there's a God certainly won't get you into Heaven, even though the gods do indeed exist.

It is an exact fit for what God has chosen to reveal to us and are held to be true, in one form or another, by most--if not all--of the world's religious belief systems.

Human beings are hard-wired by their Creator to believe and accept transcendental realities and to seek them out and accept them when encountered. All praise to God, those who believe in nothing are a miniscule minority of our world's population.

20% is hardly a minuscule minority.

The Bible deals with Spiritual Truths, not silliness.

So does the Qu'ran. So do the Vedic texts. So does the Book of the Dead. The point is that simply claiming there is evidence of God doesn't make it so. The Qu'ran claims that martyrs are rewarded in Heaven with 72 virgins, but the mere fact that the Qu'ran claims this doesn't make it so.

Well, it's not really about me and you, it is about belief in the meaningful existence of human beings created in the Image and Likeness of their Creator, as opposed to a belief regarding the meaningless lives of evolved animals who are nothing but cosmic accidents.

Nonetheless, my answer stands.

Take a Biology, Astronomy, or Physics 101 class WITH AN OPEN MIND and you, too, will be praising our Creator for the miraculous work He has done in speaking all of this into existence!

Ah, and if I don't then I wasn't open-minded enough, right?

I find it interesting you still haven't actually presented any evidence for the existence of God. You've simply claimed it exists, threw out a few Bible verses, and then told me to be open-minded. Yep, that'll work.

My, my, my--aren't we open minded though. Just about anything is possible--except the existence of God, of course.

Where have I ever stated that the existence of God is impossible?

If it is God Whom you are HONESTLY, HUMBLY, and TOTALLY seeking, He allows nothing to interfere with that process. "But if from there you seek the Lord your God, you will find Him if you look for Him with all your heart and with all your soul." (Dt 4:29)

Worked for me!


No, my brother, there is absolutely NO uncertainty--ever! The Holy Spirit extremely adept at doing His job.

Then you don't understand my point. No matter.

 

[ephraimanesti]

MY BROTHER,

Because while I don't share your beliefs, I nonetheless find them interesting.

Why? You have heard it all before--a multitude of times, probably. What could possibly be interesting about endless repetitions of that which you have already rejected? (i am serious about this question, i can't grasp your motivation for having this conversation when it consists of old, already rejected, ideas.)

I disagree. Over the millennia, human quality of life has improved greatly. We have, for instance, gone from a life expectancy of about 20 to a life expectancy of about 75.

Do you REALLY measure the quality of life by its length? How sad!

Hilarious. I present a point by point rebuttle, and your only comeback is: Nuhuh.

It is rejected because anyone can see the flaws in its logic. It assumes that either Christianity is true, or no religion is true.
What if the Ancient Egyptian religion is true? Living like there's a God certainly won't get you into Heaven, even though the gods do indeed exist.

With minor modifications, the Wager would fit pretty much any spiritual belief system--the basic premise being that you stand to gain everything but can lose nothing by living your life by adherence to Spiritual principles. This premise holds true in this life as well as the next. If their were no next, one would still have gained a meaningful life and "lost" nothing in the process. To me Heaven and Hell are irrelevant--it is NOW that is important. Whatever follows is frosting on the cake.

20% is hardly a minuscule minority.

Come on now! 20% is a pipe dream. Of the 3 sites i checked on Google, the highest figure was 15%--and that included agnostics and "non-believers."

However, giving you the 20% out of Christian Charity, that is still a small minority in an overwhelmingly Theistic society.

The point is that simply claiming there is evidence of God doesn't make it so.

The converse is also true.

There is, however, more than ample evidence for the Truth of the Gospel. For me, the evidence consists of what my life has become under Its influence.

As St. John puts it, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched -- this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us." (I John 1:1-3a)

The Truth is proven and validated by one's experience of it.

Nonetheless, my answer stands.

Yes, it would have to. More's the pity!

Ah, and if I don't then I wasn't open-minded enough, right?

I find it interesting you still haven't actually presented any evidence for the existence of God. You've simply claimed it exists, threw out a few Bible verses, and then told me to be open-minded. Yep, that'll work.

Worked for me! The open mind lets the information in, the rational mind processes it, and the heart receives the Good News.

Piece of cake! Even a little child can do it--in fact, according to God, they do it best, perhaps because they tend to accept the obvious without a lot of unnecessary drama.

Where have I ever stated that the existence of God is impossible?

My brother--you seem to be having an identity crises. ATHEIST: "One who denies the existence of God."

Then you don't understand my point. No matter.

Well, actually i did, but the "point" was pointless.

PAX CHRISTI to you and yours,
ephraim

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why? You have heard it all before--a multitude of times, probably. What could possibly be interesting about endless repetitions of that which you have already rejected? (i am serious about this question, i can't grasp your motivation for having this conversation when it consists of old, already rejected, ideas.)

Because it doesn't consist of old, already rejected, ideas.

Do you REALLY measure the quality of life by its length? How sad!

Yes, I thought you might latch on to that, instead of responding to the point itself.
Notice I said 'for instance'. Lifespan is one way in which our quality of life has been improved. Citing one way doesn't mean that's the only way.

With minor modifications, the Wager would fit pretty much any spiritual belief system--the basic premise being that you stand to gain everything but can lose nothing by living your life by adherence to Spiritual principles.

Which spiritual principles? Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Wiccan, Scientologist? According to Christianity, only Christians are saved; living by Wiccan spiritual principles will only lead to an eternity of punishment. But the Wager quite clearly states that living by Wiccan principles will lead to eternal reward.

So not only does the Wager fall flat on purely logical grounds, it also flies in the face of the religions it's trying to support!

The basic premise is unsubstantiated. There is nothing whatsoever to indicate that, by living according to any spiritual practice you wish, you will be guaranteed a place in Heaven.

The converse is also true.

There is, however, more than ample evidence for the Truth of the Gospel.

Such as?

For me, the evidence consists of what my life has become under Its influence.

That doesn't demonstrate its veracity. At best, it demonstrates that it improves one's life, essentially making it a self-help book.

Yes, it would have to. More's the pity!

Then you concede my point?

Worked for me! The open mind lets the information in, the rational mind processes it, and the heart receives the Good News.

Piece of cake! Even a little child can do it--in fact, according to God, they do it best, perhaps because they tend to accept the obvious without a lot of unnecessary drama.

The problem with the obvious is that it's almost always false.

My brother--you seem to be having an identity crises. ATHEIST: "One who denies the existence of God."

You have your definition, I have mine. I have already spelled out my beliefs; if that doesn't conform to your definition of the word 'atheist', then it should be quite obvious that I don't fit your definition of the word 'atheist'.

I am not an 'atheist' inasmuch as you define the word, but I am an 'atheist' inasmuch as I define the word. Thus, I identify as an atheist.

It is a logical fallacy to say "He identifies as X, I define X to be Y, therefore he is Y", since what he defines as X is not necessarily what you define as X.

Honestly, must we go through this again?

Well, actually i did, but the "point" was pointless.

The point is that it is logically impossible to truly know that God exists.

 

[98cwitr]

Wiccan_Child, do you believe in Spirituality?