Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
All the lint being pulled out of the belly buttons around hereWhat is it in what he said that tickles your repentant funny bone?
eudaimonia,
Mark
I will not discuss this issue because it falls in the realm of general apologetics and I don't want to see this thread closed. Please stay within the realm of philosophy and stick to the "general deity" argument.
As to the rest of your post, you talk about design as if it is obvious, which it is not. We aren't talking about a symphony of instruments that can only play music with someone plucking the strings. At best, we're talking about hearing a bunch of birds singing, and it sounds kind of like a melody you know. Plenty of well reasoned people don't see the patterns that you do, and it isn't about being in denial. If God wanted it to be obvious, he would have made it obvious, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. For some reason, if God exists, he wants to be elusive.
If you already believe in design, especially if you believe very strongly, you're going to see design wherever you can. If you don't believe in design, you'll have to be shown real evidence of design to believe in it. Bias changes perceptions and humans are great at spotting patterns, even patterns that aren't there.
If 'philosophy' and 'science' are construed broadly as a sincere attempt to make sense of the cosmos and the human condition, then I don't see why we would have a "good laugh" at it.If you are a repentant man, and you worship Jesus, you will know for sure one day, and you will look back and have a good laugh at all this philosophy
The question then is how do we distinguish a universe that is designed from one that isn't. We know that cars are designed because that's what our experience tells us. By contrast, we have no experience of universes "coming to be" and we are still very much ignorant about the conditions necessary for that happen. Design is an option. We can't rule it out definitively, at least not yet. But the evidence for design appears to be scant at best and it all falls back to the same fundamental problem: how to differentiate a designed universe from one that has formed through natural processes. If design is to gain credence as a viable hypothesis, then proponents of design must address this issue. Otherwise design remains speculative.My apologies for bringing up Christ on a Christian forum, but I honestly thought it necessary at that juncture, and did not bring it up as a starting point for debate, as you can probably tell ... but rather, to point out that the issue should not lie where the poster was claiming it lied.
Yes, I'm sure there are many "reasoned people" on both sides of the fence regarding whether elements of design are obvious in nature or not. And yes, I land on the side that says they are. And although what you say may be true about some people believing first, and then seeing the evidence for what they believe after the fact, that is not necessarily the case. As you probably know, presuming bias on the part of your opponent in particular or his sources is an argument you would have to prove to make stick. So it's useless to just throw it around like that.
Regardless, if my counter-argument is that you do not need to see direct evidence of the Creator doing the work, but only the elements of design that come from a designer, then in the right forum and at the right time, you or anyone is free to challenge that by requiring I show examples of those elements. Nothing wrong with that.
If God wanted it to be obvious, he would have made it obvious, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. For some reason, if God exists, he wants to be elusive.
All the lint being pulled out of the belly buttons around here
Not my rules.My apologies for bringing up Christ on a Christian forum...
Given his omniscience, he already knew whether someone would be drawn into a relationship with him or not, prior to creating them. In other words, he knew which individuals would "choose" him and which wouldn't before he created them. If the consequence for not choosing him is damnation, then he created certain individuals knowing that they would never choose him and would therefore be damned for eternity. How is this different to creating them for damnation?Yes and no.
<Warning: Christian Philosophy follows>
To God, there is a clear difference between being pushed into something, and being drawn towards something. Big difference between love-making and having "love-making" forced upon you. So you are free to reject what God offers you, which is ultimately Himself. God gave you that independence, and gave you your own mental space, and respects that space.
He could easily make Himself undeniable to you so that you would have to choose between Him (on the one hand) and giving up your rational mind in the face of indisputable evidence (on the other). But His design is to draw you to Him. Is that being "elusive"? To some degree, yes. But for those who are drawn to Him, they must be drawn for the right reasons. That is the nature of the relationship He wants with them.
When I asked you what a universe ruled by nature, and free from intelligent design would look like you said:As you probably know, presuming bias on the part of your opponent in particular or his sources is an argument you would have to prove to make stick. So it's useless to just throw it around like that.
You stated that it is impossible, even in your imagination, to fathom a universe that doesn't comply with your beliefs. That is bias.I personally don't think it is possible. Reason doesn't support it.
The question then is how do we distinguish a universe that is designed from one that isn't. We know that cars are designed because that's what our experience tells us. By contrast, we have no experience of universes "coming to be" and we are still very much ignorant about the conditions necessary for that happen. Design is an option. We can't rule it out definitively, at least not yet. But the evidence for design appears to be scant at best and it all falls back to the same fundamental problem: how to differentiate a designed universe from one that has formed through natural processes. If design is to gain credence as a viable hypothesis, then proponents of design must address this issue. Otherwise design remains speculative.
I hope you aren't starting from the assumption that we don't already appreciate the beauty and majesty of the cosmos and that we need someone to show it to us. Quite frankly that would be very condescending.I agree 100%.
For the last 20+ years I have been personally trying to get a project off the ground called "Eternal Connections", which in a nutshell tries to show the many intricate connections between the Christian understanding of God and His work in nature, Psychology, all of the arts and sciences. Believe me, it is hard to get even other Christians on board with this because they just want you non-believers to hear the gospel and repent (which is at the crux of it all, yes). But like God, I think non-believers should be drawn by all the wonders God has to offer.
I won't go into it here and now, but to me stuff like Chaos Theory, and what you see in Fractals, the Mandelbrot Set, Lorenz Attractor, and such can provide lots of opportunities to bring out these evidences of His design. Hard to do it alone, though, with a family and a regular job, etc. And that's just one slice of one field. Talk about DNA and how all of the code to make the entire human is embedded within each cell that makes up the human. Christians need to think about how that relates to the fractal nature of organic elements and self-similarity across scale ... and bring all that stuff out for you guys to see.
It's interesting that you should say that because my impression is the opposite: the more we learn about the universe, the less appealing the teleological intuition becomes. We recognise that complex structures, like fractals, can emerge from remarkably simple rules.I think as we learn more about our universe from science, the more undeniable becomes the evidence of a designer.
I'm pleased that you are taking it seriously and are sincerely trying to build the case for design. Most of the time apologists simply present an argument for design as part of a broader apologetic. If one argument fails (e.g., design), they simply revert to another. I think it's good that you're taking the criticisms seriously and working to address them. In the end, that's the only way to make a better argument.But again, I agree with you whole-heartedly about what is needed, and am personally trying to help make what you are talking about happen. It's just difficult with so much inertia out there (pardon the pun).
Given his omniscience, he already knew whether someone would be drawn into a relationship with him or not, prior to creating them. In other words, he knew which individuals would "choose" him and which wouldn't before he created them. If the consequence for not choosing him is damnation, then he created certain individuals knowing that they would never choose him and would therefore be damned for eternity. How is this different to creating them for damnation?
When I asked you what a universe ruled by nature, and free from intelligent design would look like you said:
You stated that it is impossible, even in your imagination, to fathom a universe that doesn't comply with your beliefs. That is bias.
I hope you aren't starting from the assumption that we don't already appreciate the beauty and majesty of the cosmos and that we need someone to show it to us. Quite frankly that would be very condescending.
It's interesting that you should say that because my impression is the opposite: the more we learn about the universe, the less appealing the teleological intuition becomes. We recognise that complex structures, like fractals, can emerge from remarkably simple rules.
I'm pleased that you are taking it seriously and are sincerely trying to build the case for design. Most of the time apologists simply present an argument for design as part of a broader apologetic. If one argument fails (e.g., design), they simply revert to another. I think it's good that you're taking the criticisms seriously and working to address them. In the end, that's the only way to make a better argument.
What about those who sincerely lack belief? They're not "actively and stubbornly trying to fight against him." Instead, their doubt is sincere; the product of an honest assessment of the reasons given in support of theism. Are they also to be damned? If they are, then why did God create them in the first place? He knew from the very beginning that they would never be drawn into a relationship with him. Moreover, being omniscient, he knew exactly what would be required to establish a relationship with them. He could have easily satisfied those requirements, leading sincere nonbelievers to become sincere believers. Given that he ostensibly wants to form a relationship with every person, why doesn't he pursue such a course of action? Given the enormous importance placed on believing in the correct doctrines, why does he leave the task of preaching his word to fallible mortals whose influence only extends as far as their culture and geography allows?Boy are we getting off-topic.
It isn't different. But if you are honestly and innocently trying to find the truth, you will find Him. Only those who are actively and stubbornly trying to fight against finding Him by looking for every reason not to believe in Him will end up with the eternal separation from Him that they ultimately want. In all other cases, He will judge fairly.
That's my understanding.
These "no true scotsman" arguments are rude.But if you are honestly and innocently trying to find the truth, you will find Him. Only those who are actively and stubbornly trying to fight against finding Him by looking for every reason not to believe in Him will end up with the eternal separation from Him that they ultimately want. In all other cases, He will judge fairly.
These "no true scotsman" arguments are rude.
I am honestly looking for a clearer understanding of Christianity. I'm not hanging out on atheist websites looking for disproofs, I'm looking at a Christian website for proofs. But they don't hold water, so far as I can tell. I've hung out here, I've asked questions of Christians I know, I've even asked questions from people who have degrees in college based on nothing but their faith. I don't find reasonable answers. All I've found as an answer is "you'll find proof once you already believe". Every other bit of evidence is circumstantial at best.
Yes, you did claim that.But at least I claimed that reason doesn't support it, right?
No, I knew what you meant. It is a generalization about anyone that doesn't find God. Everyone else here who isn't a believer gave it an honest chance at proving itself, and it failed for them as well. Making that argument at all is to imply that people are not sincere if they don't come to the same conclusions.Sorry .. I meant "If one is honestly and innocently ..., one will find him". I didn't mean to direct those statements at you in particular.
The claim that we are nonbelievers because we want to sin is exemplary of this attitude. It is assumed that our nonbelief is disingenuous; that no one could sincerely examine the Christian faith and come away not believing in its doctrines.Yes, you did claim that.
No, I knew what you meant. It is a generalization about anyone that doesn't find God. Everyone else here who isn't a believer gave it an honest chance at proving itself, and it failed for them as well. Making that argument at all is to imply that people are not sincere if they don't come to the same conclusions.
What about those who sincerely lack belief? They're not "actively and stubbornly trying to fight against him." Instead, their doubt is sincere; the product of an honest assessment of the reasons given in support of theism. Are they also to be damned? If they are, then why did God create them in the first place? He knew from the very beginning that they would never be drawn into a relationship with him. Moreover, being omniscient, he knew exactly what would be required to establish a relationship with them. He could have easily satisfied those requirements, leading sincere nonbelievers to become sincere believers. Given that he ostensibly wants to form a relationship with every person, why doesn't he pursue such a course of action? Given the enormous importance placed on believing in the correct doctrines, why does he leave the task of preaching his word to fallible mortals?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?