Should an ex-Christian be able to explain why?

[cloudyday2]

I think sometimes when we focus on something hard enough it becomes more than 3d. For example, if you focus on a quarter, you can almost imagine your finger gliding across the eagle and feeling the bumps of the wings even though you're not touching it. 3d becomes 4d, like you can feel it too. With people I think the dimensions can get really complex and you feel like you are there, rather than in the next room. Each creak of the chair, each clink of the fork, each thud of a glass. All the missing parts of the story you can't see just kind of flood in and take form like you are seeing it happen. Then it starts to feel like you are actually in proximity to what you are focusing on, as if you could just reach out and touch it. That might have been the point where you experienced.

Hmmm. For me it was just that I was angry and I suddenly starting repeating in my head "damn you, damn you, damn you" with all my heart in the hatred. Then I felt almost like something in my mind said "are you sure about this?", and I thought "yeah, damn you, ...". Then it was like that something in my mind said "o.k." and I felt something suddenly happen (hard to explain). Then I thought to myself "I hope I didn't do something harmful to my father. I didn't mean it..." etc.

So then a few months later he was diagnosed with terminal cancer, and he suffered for about five years. At some point I started worrying that I might have caused it somehow. It's silly, but it bothered me.

 

[Chriliman]

A true utterance exists. The concept of truth existing on its own is incoherent. If this is difficult to grasp, think of it this way. Does maybe exist? Of course not. Maybe is a thing you say when you’re not sure if a statement reflects reality accurately or not. It’s exactly the same with truth. Truth is how you describe a statement that accurately represents reality.

I’m not saying truth can exist on it’s own, I’m saying it can exist in the form of an utterance or in the form of a thought in the mind. If this is what you’re saying too then we agree.

However, it’s still illogical to say ‘truth doesn’t exist’

 

[Chriliman]

Dp

 

[gaara4158]

I’m not saying truth can exist on it’s own, I’m saying it can exist in the form of an utterance or in the form of a thought in the mind. If this is what you’re saying too then we agree.

However, it’s still illogical to say ‘truth doesn’t exist’

If you think truth can exist on its own, please show it to me.

 

[gaara4158]

[dp]

 

[gaara4158]

I am well aware of necessary truths and contingent truths, but whether or not there was an ulterior motive is irrelevant. You were trying to counteract through faulty logic which I was pointing out to you.

It would indeed be fine to alter your statement to say truth exists as an abstract concept, and I think that perhaps would be a sensible approach as it would certainly provide some leeway to one that is cautious of absolutes in the realms of Truth.

If that helps you understand what I meant, consider my statement altered.

 

[gaara4158]

Dp

 

[Sanoy]

Hmmm. For me it was just that I was angry and I suddenly starting repeating in my head "damn you, damn you, damn you" with all my heart in the hatred. Then I felt almost like something in my mind said "are you sure about this?", and I thought "yeah, damn you, ...". Then it was like that something in my mind said "o.k." and I felt something suddenly happen (hard to explain). Then I thought to myself "I hope I didn't do something harmful to my father. I didn't mean it..." etc.

So then a few months later he was diagnosed with terminal cancer, and he suffered for about five years. At some point I started worrying that I might have caused it somehow. It's silly, but it bothered me.

There are things in this world besides good angels. But whatever we have done in this world can be forgiven, and the debt that comes with the feeling of Guilt can be paid.

 

[Sanoy]

double post. Somethings up with the forums. If you hit post and nothing happens, it posted it's just slow.

 

[gaara4158]

Not to get too aggressively Neoplatonic, but if God exists, God is the underlying nature of existence, the ultimate reality which every contingent thing has as its source. If truth refers to the way things are, then God as the ultimate expression of the way things really are, is the actual object of any independent search for truth.

You can say "If God exists, God is the underlying nature of existence," no problem. But can it go the other way? "If there is an underlying nature of existence, it is God." That's where he seemed to be going with this. You can label it God if you want, but I don't see why this underlying nature would necessarily carry all the theological baggage the label "God" carries with it.

 

[gaara4158]

Not to get too aggressively Neoplatonic, but if God exists, God is the underlying nature of existence, the ultimate reality which every contingent thing has as its source. If truth refers to the way things are, then God as the ultimate expression of the way things really are, is the actual object of any independent search for truth.

I'm not sure how righteousness would play into this, but a fair amount of popular theology out there really is just mashed up versions of Platonism. What's going on isn't a word game; it's an alternative philosophical system that's become very alien to the modernist mindset. (Though admittedly a lot of people aren't self-conscious of what the system they're operating under really looks like, and then things get strange.)

You could say that if God exists, God is the underlying nature of existence. That seems to wash just fine. But does it work if you run it backwards? Could you say that if there is an underlying nature of existence, that is God? It seems to me that no matter what the case, there must be some underlying nature of existence, even if it's completely alien and unknowable to us or just an undiscovered facet of reality that allows universes to occur spontaneously. Should we give something so ambiguous and unknown the same label carried by YHWH, Zeus, and Ra? I don't think that's clearly appropriate, but that's where I think NM was going with it. To me, this kind of reasoning sounds more like "let's probe the remaining mysteries yet unsolved by humankind and see if we can't call one of the answers God" than "here's one definition of God, now let's see if we can detect it in reality."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You could say that if God exists, God is the underlying nature of existence. That seems to wash just fine. But does it work if you run it backwards? Could you say that if there is an underlying nature of existence, that is God? It seems to me that no matter what the case, there must be some underlying nature of existence, even if it's completely alien and unknowable to us or just an undiscovered facet of reality that allows universes to occur spontaneously. Should we give something so ambiguous and unknown the same label carried by YHWH, Zeus, and Ra? I don't think that's clearly appropriate, but that's where I think NM was going with it. To me, this kind of reasoning sounds more like "let's probe the remaining mysteries yet unsolved by humankind and see if we can't call one of the answers God" than "here's one definition of God, now let's see if we can detect it in reality."

Who ya' gonna call...for that? (i.e. to detect the BIG "it"?)

 

[gaara4158]

Who ya' gonna call...for that? (i.e. to detect the BIG "it"?)

I don't know, but I have a feeling it's going to take more than the Ghostbusters.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You could say that if God exists, God is the underlying nature of existence. That seems to wash just fine. But does it work if you run it backwards? Could you say that if there is an underlying nature of existence, that is God? It seems to me that no matter what the case, there must be some underlying nature of existence, even if it's completely alien and unknowable to us or just an undiscovered facet of reality that allows universes to occur spontaneously. Should we give something so ambiguous and unknown the same label carried by YHWH, Zeus, and Ra? I don't think that's clearly appropriate, but that's where I think NM was going with it. To me, this kind of reasoning sounds more like "let's probe the remaining mysteries yet unsolved by humankind and see if we can't call one of the answers God" than "here's one definition of God, now let's see if we can detect it in reality."

I would think that either the former or the latter would be dampened quite a bit by our cognitive application of Methodological Naturalism. But, if I.D. Christians, on the one hand, and Philosophical Naturalist Atheists, on the other, want to try to assume that the universe as we know it just needs to be dug into and excavated for any of its Divine or Purely Materialist properties, I guess I can't do much about it other than grab some popcorn, a chair, and an alarm clock, just in case I snooze for too long.

Then again, I guess if one wants to entertain the notion of someone like Frank Close, a theoretical physicist who thinks that it may be possible for the universe itself to become conscious, then that too could be an interesting form of speculation. Again, I'm not sure that the BIG "it" is detectable either way, or that we should spend all that much time on that micro or macro level of physical refinement. No, if Christianity is true, I'd think that any epistemological evidence we might have in this world would have to be of a median, humanly proximate nature, and one that people yearning to be Christian--in all eras--could claim to perceive in some ways so as to be relevant.

 

[Silmarien]

It seems to me that no matter what the case, there must be some underlying nature of existence, even if it's completely alien and unknowable to us or just an undiscovered facet of reality that allows universes to occur spontaneously.

Well, I think it would have to do more than allow universes to occur spontaneously. It would have to at least under certain circumstances keep them from spontaneously ceasing to exist, otherwise you're committed to the position that this one could at any given moment vanish for no reason whatsoever. Which is a hard thing to swallow unless you're the type of fullblown philosophical skeptic who thinks that there's every possibility that if you jump, you might just float off into space one day.

I would agree that Necessary Being doesn't in and of itself entail theism, though.

Should we give something so ambiguous and unknown the same label carried by YHWH, Zeus, and Ra? I don't think that's clearly appropriate, but that's where I think NM was going with it. To me, this kind of reasoning sounds more like "let's probe the remaining mysteries yet unsolved by humankind and see if we can't call one of the answers God" than "here's one definition of God, now let's see if we can detect it in reality."

I wouldn't say the word God is completely inappropriate, since the Abrahamic traditions got tangled up with Greek philosophy 2000 years ago, and the concept is tied really pretty closely to the Aristotelian notion of an Unmoved Mover or the Neoplatonic One that is beyond being, beyond form, and absolutely simple. We're not talking about Zeus and Ra anymore, at the very least. (YHWH is trickier, since at points the Old Testament is really anthropomorphic and at others it isn't.) How much additional theological baggage is brought to the idea depends on the individual, and obviously it can be pushed in a number of different ideas. There are traditions out there that are more characterized by negative theology (defining God by what he is not rather than what he is), though this is unfortunately somewhat rare in Western Christianity.

Though I think it's worth pointing out that the mysteries of reality aren't necessarily problems to be solved. We've gotten so caught up in the idea that the universe is something to be categorized, understood, and ultimately mastered that living in it kind of gets lost somewhere along the way.

 

[Chriliman]

If you think truth can exist on its own, please show it to me.

I don’t think that. I think truth can exist through sentient beings.

 

[Rodan6]

Hmmm. For me it was just that I was angry and I suddenly starting repeating in my head "damn you, damn you, damn you" with all my heart in the hatred. Then I felt almost like something in my mind said "are you sure about this?", and I thought "yeah, damn you, ...". Then it was like that something in my mind said "o.k." and I felt something suddenly happen (hard to explain). Then I thought to myself "I hope I didn't do something harmful to my father. I didn't mean it..." etc.

So then a few months later he was diagnosed with terminal cancer, and he suffered for about five years. At some point I started worrying that I might have caused it somehow. It's silly, but it bothered me.

You are already progressing as God has intended. You seek the TRUTH. God is the absolute of truth. In your heart you are aware that your thoughts had no power to cause harm to your Father. You have also observed and correctly concluded there are a number of errors in traditional Christian doctrines. You do not appear to be burdened with a need to find justifications for ANY particular religious doctrines. On the contrary, your posts seem to indicate a sincere desire to find answers--where ever you can find them. Today, you may lack faith in God, but as you are willing to pursue logical truths, you will eventually find what I call "logical faith". This faith is a thousand times more powerful than the blind faiths of so many half-hearted religious worshipers of our time.

May God bless you in your journey.

 

[gaara4158]

I don’t think that. I think truth can exist through sentient beings.

If you mean a sentient being can discern a true statement from an untrue statement by running it through a set of axioms, then I agree.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you mean a sentient being can discern a true statement from an untrue statement by running it through a set of axioms, then I agree.

I think the problem here (and I don't see that you're guilty of this, really) is that many people confuse the general concept of "truth" with a vague reference to "reality." I think we need to keep these concepts separate. What do you think?

 

[GenemZ]

Should a person who transitioned from believing Christian to disbelieving ex-Christian be able to clearly explain why this happened? For example, "I became convinced that such and such essential Christian belief is false."

Many atheists will say that the burden of proof is on Christians and non-belief should be the default when the proof is absent. But ex-Christians are a special type of non-believers. They are not blank slates waiting for verifiable truths to be written upon them. They have scribbled-out their previous writing, and it seems to me that this scribbling might require some explanation to be considered justifiable.

When I try to ask myself why I don't believe, I can only shrug my shoulders. I just don't believe anymore. I'm not sure why. This bugs me.

You might not believe anymore because the mainstream teachings we find almost everywhere are very poor for someone who desires depth of understanding.

 

[gaara4158]

I think the problem here (and I don't see that you're guilty of this, really) is that many people confuse the general concept of "truth" with a vague reference to "reality." I think we need to keep these concepts separate. What do you think?

I agree. It’s important to dig deep to find out exactly what it is we mean by “truth” and “reality” if these concepts are going to be so central to the arguments we’re discussing.

 

[cloudyday2]

You might not believe anymore because the mainstream teachings we find almost everywhere are very poor for someone who desires depth of understanding.

It's mostly the history that rules-out Christianity for me. I do NOT mean Christianity's history of abusing Christian heretics and non-Christians. I mean the history that argues against divine inspiration shaping either Judaism or Christianity. The religions evolved gradually and clumsily over centuries. That isn't what I would expect to see if divine inspiration was a factor.