Why would an atheist come to Christ, if not to avoid hell?

[JGG]

There isn't a demonstration available to show you God, sorry. But if you look into some of the other understandings of God that philosophers like Plato produced you will realize there is a reason for that. After you get up to speed on a rational understanding of God then we could discuss its limits.

So how do you plan on discussing this rational God then? How do we verify that such a God is indeed rational?

I have studied several "understandings of God" I have not found any of them to be particularly rational.

To help me understand the limits of God, what is bigger than God?

 

[ElijahW]

So how do you plan on discussing this rational God then? How do we verify that such a God is indeed rational?

I have studied several "understandings of God" I have not found any of them to be particularly rational.

To help me understand the limits of God, what is bigger than God?

I didn't plan on discussing it. I assumed you were familiar with it enough to change your response from "explain" to "demonstrate", which meant you were aware enough to ask for empirical evidence for spiritual elements, as the standard routine for denial of anything but matter. What is the possibility that you are unaware of the contributions of Socrates and Plato on Western thinking? I'm sure you are aware of what I consider a rational understanding but since it can't be proven with a material demonstration it's easy for you to disregard as irrational.

 

[JGG]

I didn't plan on discussing it. I assumed you were familiar with it enough to change your response from "explain" to "demonstrate", which meant you were aware enough to ask for empirical evidence for spiritual elements, as the standard routine for denial of anything but matter. What is the possibility that you are unaware of the contributions of Socrates and Plato on Western thinking? I'm sure you are aware of what I consider a rational understanding but since it can't be proven with a material demonstration it's easy for you to disregard as irrational.

No, I'd have to see where you take it before I can comment on it. And since it apparently cannot be demonstrated or explained I would necessarily have to disregard it as irrational.

 

[ElijahW]

No, I'd have to see where you take it before I can comment on it. And since it apparently cannot be demonstrated or explained I would necessarily have to disregard it as irrational.

It can be explained but that's not the demand that is being made, you want physical proof for something that isn't physical, and when you don't get what can't be had you say that is your justification to doubt its existence.

"SOCRATES: Take a look round, then, and see that none of the uninitiated are listening. Now by the uninitiated I mean the people who believe in nothing but what they can grasp in their hands, and who will not allow that action or generation or anything invisible can have real existence." Theaetetus
​

 

[JGG]

It can be explained but that's not the demand that is being made, you want physical proof for something that isn't physical, and when you don't get what can't be had you say that is your justification to doubt its existence.

Then razzle dazzle me with an explanation. If it's a solid, well thought-out, explanation, that doesn't involve intuition, unsubstantiated claims, and faith, and uses solid logic, then perhaps I will accept it. Demonstrations are simply far preferable.

SOCRATES: Take a look round, then, and see that none of the uninitiated are listening. Now by the uninitiated I mean the people who believe in nothing but what they can grasp in their hands, and who will not allow that action or generation or anything invisible can have real existence." Theaetetus

To be fair, the Theaetetus is more likely the work of Plato than Socrates, as much of Socrates' "metaphysical" thoughts are actually the work of Plato.

Nevertheless, it doesn't particularly matter who said it, do you think this quote explains something?

Let me give you another "Socrates" quote: "I only know that I know nothing."

 

[ElijahW]

Then razzle dazzle me with an explanation. If it's a solid, well thought-out, explanation, that doesn't involve intuition, unsubstantiated claims, and faith, and uses solid logic, then perhaps I will accept it. Demonstrations are simply far preferable.

I'll try.

Let's start with matter and work our way back I guess. Before Socrates, materialism was the dominate thinking coming from the natural philosophers. Democritus and Heraclitus popularized atomic theory and that all things change, respectively. This is the thinking that you subscribe to and was popular until Socrates put forward that it wasn’t all things that change but all things that we can perceive with our senses that change. This is where the divide is made between spirit and matter that creates platonic duality.

It may not seem like much but it changes the whole conversation because while the materialists denied the existence of the gods, the platonic idealists didn’t but instead said that the nature was different then presented in the poetry about them. They moved the understanding from anthropomorphic entities, to non physical and non temporal entities that are understood now as the unchanging laws behind the physical universe. If these laws are real or not can’t be proven, because there is no way to test for them in the physical, because if they are real they are what is producing the physical so there is nowhere to look where they will be absent. You can’t prove them and can’t disprove them so it becomes a matter of faith despite some people like Heisenberg thinking quantum mechanics is leaning the understanding of the universe back towards Plato.

Now if you understand the limits of your perception and consider the possibility that the spiritual side of the universe exists, (Not in the superstitious understanding of the spiritual realm you are familiar with but a rationally understood ordering principle at work to produce the phenomenon we see in the universe.) we can move to understanding the nature of God and the impossibility in proving it. All spiritual elements are unified in that they can’t be separated because they don’t have bodies but God is distinguished from gods as being the first spiritual element whose activity produces the proceeding spiritual elements.

Technically if you believe in the big bang or the universe having a beginning, then you believe in God because whatever happened in the beginning we label “God”. If you believe that God is no longer active but what happened in the beginning only happened once till the universe was created then you are a deist. If you believe that what happened in the beginning is still happening because we have no reason to believe it stopped then you are panentheist. In order to get away from the God concept you have to put forward a universe has existed for an an infinite amount of time, which on the surface seems impossible.

To be fair, the Theaetetus is more likely the work of Plato than Socrates, as much of Socrates' "metaphysical" thoughts are actually the work of Plato.

Nevertheless, it doesn't particularly matter who said it, do you think this quote explains something?
Let me give you another "Socrates" quote: "I only know that I know nothing."

It was meant to point out that it has been known for a long that having a metaphysics conversation with a materialist is a waste of time. It’s always going to be where is the proof, and by that I mean material evidence.

 

[JGG]

I'll try.

Let's start with matter and work our way back I guess. Before Socrates, materialism was the dominate thinking coming from the natural philosophers.

To be fair, natural philosophers, suggests that materialism is a necessity.

Democritus and Heraclitus popularized atomic theory and that all things change, respectively. This is the thinking that you subscribe to and was popular until Socrates put forward that it wasn’t all things that change but all things that we can perceive with our senses that change. This is where the divide is made between spirit and matter that creates platonic duality.

So those things we can't perceive are unchanging?

It may not seem like much but it changes the whole conversation because while the materialists denied the existence of the gods, the platonic idealists didn’t but instead said that the nature was different then presented in the poetry about them. They moved the understanding from anthropomorphic entities, to non physical and non temporal entities that are understood now as the unchanging laws behind the physical universe. If these laws are real or not can’t be proven, because there is no way to test for them in the physical, because if they are real they are what is producing the physical so there is nowhere to look where they will be absent. You can’t prove them and can’t disprove them so it becomes a matter of faith despite some people like Heisenberg thinking quantum mechanics is leaning the understanding of the universe back towards Plato.

So what you're getting at here is that these things may exist, or may not exist. That seems rational. However, if we say that they do exist just on faith, then we make that statemnt arbitrarily, and we cannot also say that it is rational.

Now if you understand the limits of your perception and consider the possibility that the spiritual side of the universe exists, (Not in the superstitious understanding of the spiritual realm you are familiar with but a rationally understood ordering principle at work to produce the phenomenon we see in the universe.)

Again, while considering the possibility that a spiritual side of the universe exists may be rational, claiming that a spiritual side does exist simply on faith, is arbitrary and irrational.

We then move to understanding the nature of God and the impossibility in proving it. All spiritual elements are unified in that they can’t be separated because they don’t have bodies but God is distinguished from gods as being the first spiritual element whose activity produces the proceeding spiritual elements.

Okay, how do we know that things without bodies are indistinguishable from other things without bodies in the spiritual realm?

Technically if you believe in the big bang or the universe having a beginning, then you believe in God because whatever happened in the beginning we label “God”.

I wouldn't exactly label myself as someone who believes in the big bang, as I have rudimentary understanding of it, and cannot adequately judge whether I actually believe it or not.

If you believe that God is no longer active but what happened in the beginning only happened once till the universe was created then you are a deist.

That might be so, but a deist wouldn't necessarily say that God exists.

If you believe that what happened in the beginning is still happening because we have no reason to believe it stopped then you are panentheist. In order to get away from the God concept you have to put forward a universe has existed for an an infinite amount of time, which on the surface seems impossible.

Not necessarily. We are working with a very loose concept of God. For instance I know several pantheists who would say that God does not exist, as simply labelling existence as God is redundant, and unnecessary. I would suggest that labelling God as first cause runs the same problem.

You have also separated God so far from it's classical, and common definition that the vast majority of actual theists would argue that your definition is not God. In fact, I'm having trouble finding a common definition of God that supports yours.

It was meant to point out that it has been known for a long that having a metaphysics conversation with a materialist is a waste of time. It’s always going to be where is the proof, and by that I mean material evidence.[/QUOTE]

That might be so, however, I am not strictly a materialist. I am however agnostic, and have serious problems claiming knowledge and making intended factual statements about things I don't believe I understand.

 

[ElijahW]

To be fair, natural philosophers, suggests that materialism is a necessity.

As opposed to what?

So those things we can't perceive are unchanging?

Yeah, that’s the basic idea behind platonic duality.

“For the images which are presented to the sight in executed things are subject to dissolution; but those which are presented in the One uncreate may last for ever, being durable, eternal, and unchangeable” Philo Allegorical Interpretation
​

2 Cor 4:18 “As we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.”
​

So what you're getting at here is that these things may exist, or may not exist. That seems rational. However, if we say that they do exist just on faith, then we make that statemnt arbitrarily, and we cannot also say that it is rational.

Again, while considering the possibility that a spiritual side of the universe exists may be rational, claiming that a spiritual side does exist simply on faith, is arbitrary and irrational.

I agree that there is no certainty to be had but by definition “faith” is the belief in the unseen but if that belief is rational or not, depends on if reason is used to support that belief, in comparison to the reason to support the other option. For example not having any empirical evidence for spiritual elements is a common reason to believe in pure materialism but when considering physical evidence of non physical entities isn’t possible that becomes irrational reasoning for that belief.

Okay, how do we know that things without bodies are indistinguishable from other things without bodies in the spiritual realm?

They aren’t distinguished in that they are separated by time and space with bodies. They are distinguished by their effect, similar to as Paul points out “Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit;”

I wouldn't exactly label myself as someone who believes in the big bang, as I have rudimentary understanding of it, and cannot adequately judge whether I actually believe it or not.

It’s not about understanding the current theories of how the universe started but having an opinion if the universe had a beginning at all, or has the universe been around for an infinite amount of time. On the surface a universe that has been around an infinite amount of time is impossible because it is an imaginary number that has no end.

That might be so, but a deist wouldn't necessarily say that God exists.

Yep, they can say that what started the universe was temporary.

Not necessarily. We are working with a very loose concept of God. For instance I know several pantheists who would say that God does not exist, as simply labeling existence as God is redundant, and unnecessary. I would suggest that labeling God as first cause runs the same problem.

You have also separated God so far from it's classical, and common definition that the vast majority of actual theists would argue that your definition is not God. In fact, I'm having trouble finding a common definition of God that supports yours.

I would say that a pantheist isn’t speaking about God but the universe, but if you are speaking of the creative principle of the universe then you are speaking of God. Regardless if you think it is a guy with a white beard in the sky who hates pork or you think of it in more rational terms. You may be correct about the majority are working with a superstitious understanding of God but that isn’t the understanding that Christianity is founded on.

“That which always maintains the same nature, and in the same manner, and is the cause of all other things—that, indeed, is God.” Justin Martyr Dialogue with Typhro the Jew.
​

The constant understanding of the spiritual elements may not have been in the majority but those who could read, write and leave us texts weren’t going to take poetry literally, producing superstitious (classic) understandings of the gods. The accusation that if the understanding of God isn’t what was assumed by opponents then it isn’t God goes back to Socrates and the early Christians.

“Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity.” Justin First apology.
​

That might be so, however, I am not strictly a materialist. I am however agnostic, and have serious problems claiming knowledge and making intended factual statements about things I don't believe I understand.

Certainly you don’t want to try to form an opinion until you have considered and researched the positions. What you don’t want to do is be familiar with the conversation and still demand physical proof for spiritual elements or act like you are incapable of forming an opinion so you are agnostic.

 

[JGG]

As opposed to what?

Supernatural philosophers. Naturalism and materialism might as well be the same thing.

Yeah, that’s the basic idea behind platonic duality.

“For the images which are presented to the sight in executed things are subject to dissolution; but those which are presented in the One uncreate may last for ever, being durable, eternal, and unchangeable” Philo Allegorical Interpretation
​

2 Cor 4:18 “As we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.”
​

I agree that there is no certainty to be had but by definition “faith” is the belief in the unseen but if that belief is rational or not, depends on if reason is used to support that belief, in comparison to the reason to support the other option. For example not having any empirical evidence for spiritual elements is a common reason to believe in pure materialism but when considering physical evidence of non physical entities isn’t possible that becomes irrational reasoning for that belief.

So, if God doesn't change, then God is not intelligent. God does not interact. God cannot create.

They aren’t distinguished in that they are separated by time and space with bodies. They are distinguished by their effect, similar to as Paul points out “Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit;”

Effect on what?

It’s not about understanding the current theories of how the universe started but having an opinion if the universe had a beginning at all, or has the universe been around for an infinite amount of time. On the surface a universe that has been around an infinite amount of time is impossible because it is an imaginary number that has no end.

I don't really have an opinion, both seem plausible to me. However, if I did favour one over the other, without knowledge to base my opinion on such an opinion would hardly be rational. However, I wouldn't say that infinity is an imaginary number, however, it is just not a number we can rationalize. Nor would I say that the universe has been around for an infinite amount of time. Besides, if "God" is unchanging, then He would have to be infinite, right?

I would say that a pantheist isn’t speaking about God but the universe, but if you are speaking of the creative principle of the universe then you are speaking of God.

I don't think they would. I believe a pantheist would say that the creative element of the universe is the sum total creativity of all the beings that have the capacity to be creative.

Regardless if you think it is a guy with a white beard in the sky who hates pork or you think of it in more rational terms. You may be correct about the majority are working with a superstitious understanding of God but that isn’t the understanding that Christianity is founded on.

Okay, but I don't see how we are getting closer to rational terms. In fact, I seriously doubt that we can rationalize such a "force" at all. Whehter it be a man in the sky with a beard, or whatever, the idea that we could put it into rational terms seems highly unlikely.

“That which always maintains the same nature, and in the same manner, and is the cause of all other things—that, indeed, is God.” Justin Martyr Dialogue with Typhro the Jew.
​

The constant understanding of the spiritual elements may not have been in the majority but those who could read, write and leave us texts weren’t going to take poetry literally, producing superstitious (classic) understandings of the gods. The accusation that if the understanding of God isn’t what was assumed by opponents then it isn’t God goes back to Socrates and the early Christians.

“Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity.” Justin First apology.​

But, surely you recognize that Justin's (that hurts, that's my namesake), concept of the most true God is still just a superstitious understanding. He is still merely elevating his own concept above others. We don't know that he is any more correct than the ancient Vedic philosophers.

​

Certainly you don’t want to try to form an opinion until you have considered and researched the positions. What you don’t want to do is be familiar with the conversation and still demand physical proof for spiritual elements or act like you are incapable of forming an opinion so you are agnostic.

Why not? When push comes to shove, all these positions are merely opinion. None of them can actually be truly rationalized, and so no one position is any better than the others. All suggest that we somehow understand something that we can't possibly comprehend. I will never have all the research, I will never have considered every possible opinion, or every possible option, so why not admit that I really don't know, and cannot know?

When I demand physical proof, I'm essentially saying "how do you know without evidence?" Why is the position that God is an unchanging spiritual force that cannot be detected, more rational than God is an old guy, with a long beard, who hates pork, living in the clouds, that cannot be detected? How are either one more rational than the claim that B.B. King is actually God?

I have long favoured the early Vedic tradition, which is not far removed from pantheism (but mixed with what would be Taoism), but that is only to say that I like it. The problem is that it begins with a set of presupositions that are simply taken on faith. It is not my opinion, I don't believe it, I certainly wouldn't make the claim that it is factual, rational, or correct. It is merely a position that interests me.

 

[ElijahW]

Supernatural philosophers. Naturalism and materialism might as well be the same thing.

Who do you have in mind?

So, if God doesn't change, then God is not intelligent. God does not interact. God cannot create.

Not intelligent like like a person is, or interact in that the behavior of God changes in response to your behavior. The creative process is constant, not temporary like waving a wand. The constant creative activity of God not only produces what you see out in the physical world but what you see within the mind. All the ideas including the voice inside your mind that sounds like you is also produced by the constant activity of the first principle we label God.

It is through this activity that we can have a personal relationship with God and come to know the truth through his Word/Logos/Christ, which is the label we give to the spiritual element that we have access to in the mind. The Logos isn’t just responsible for order found in the world but to order found in the mind, and through our participation with that activity within the mind, we can start to separate the different ideas we are exposed to, into something that can coherently explain what is going on around us.

Effect on what?

Everything. The form and order of the physical is thought to be produced from spiritual activity.

I don't really have an opinion, both seem plausible to me. However, if I did favour one over the other, without knowledge to base my opinion on such an opinion would hardly be rational. However, I wouldn't say that infinity is an imaginary number, however, it is just not a number we can rationalize. Nor would I say that the universe has been around for an infinite amount of time. Besides, if "God" is unchanging, then He would have to be infinite, right?

After you spend some time looking into and thinking on this subject, you can’t help but have an opinion, even if that opinion changes from day to day. The infinite is imaginary in that it can’t exist in the physical. It is impossible for the universe to have been around for an infinite amount of time. It can’t be rationalized because it isn’t a reasonable suggestion.

Time is a measurement of change and God doesn’t change so there can’t be an infinite amount of time before the universe is created. Time begins with the creation of the universe.

I don't think they would. I believe a pantheist would say that the creative element of the universe is the sum total creativity of all the beings that have the capacity to be creative.

There is no creative element, which would make them panentheists, there is the property of the One to create.

Okay, but I don't see how we are getting closer to rational terms. In fact, I seriously doubt that we can rationalize such a "force" at all. Whehter it be a man in the sky with a beard, or whatever, the idea that we could put it into rational terms seems highly unlikely.

I don’t know what reason you would have to make that assumption.

But, surely you recognize that Justin's (that hurts, that's my namesake), concept of the most true God is still just a superstitious understanding. He is still merely elevating his own concept above others. We don't know that he is any more correct than the ancient Vedic philosophers.

I agree that labeling it “true” is extremely presumptuous but what makes you assume he has a superstitious understanding?

Why not? When push comes to shove, all these positions are merely opinion. None of them can actually be truly rationalized, and so no one position is any better than the others. All suggest that we somehow understand something that we can't possibly comprehend. I will never have all the research, I will never have considered every possible opinion, or every possible option, so why not admit that I really don't know, and cannot know?[

When I demand physical proof, I'm essentially saying "how do you know without evidence?" Why is the position that God is an unchanging spiritual force that cannot be detected, more rational than God is an old guy, with a long beard, who hates pork, living in the clouds, that cannot be detected? How are either one more rational than the claim that B.B. King is actually God?

I have long favoured the early Vedic tradition, which is not far removed from pantheism (but mixed with what would be Taoism), but that is only to say that I like it. The problem is that it begins with a set of presupositions that are simply taken on faith. It is not my opinion, I don't believe it, I certainly wouldn't make the claim that it is factual, rational, or correct. It is merely a position that interests me.

It’s all schtick and deceptive. It’s an opinion but an opinion that is a test of your ability to use reason. Your understanding of the world around you and your ability to explain why you have that understanding is how a person of reason identifies another like-minded individual, from the majority who are just parroting words they’ve heard with no thought about what they are actually saying.

I personally don’t think there is any intrinsic value in one view being right or held over the other, and try to switch between idealism and materialism so I don’t get too attached to one or the other. But to act like you don’t have an opinion is just an excuse to not support a position and go on with the schtick of asking for evidence of the other side, when in reality you are already aware there is none to be had, and this is really just a fun game to play with believers, instead of a serious pursuit of the truth. Can you explain the Tao rationally, or can you explain why you don’t believe in the Tao rationally is the only acceptable conversation to make, while acting like you need more evidence to make a decision is going to cause the shaking of some heads.

 

[Ronald]

"If Hell is not eternal and not a place of punishment eternally, then Jesus dying on the cross was in vain. There was no reason for Him to take away the sins of the world.

Hell is the Lake of Fire and more of an event than an eternal torture chamber. When you are thrown in, both spirit and soul are destroyed. So, whether a complete destruction or eternal suffering of the soul exists, Christ is saving you from it either way and offering eternal life.
Fear God, is the beginning of wisdom. That means take Him seriously. Your motivation will not come from a threat of Hell. As he draws a soul to himself, the motivation comes from truth that is revealed to you usually within a series of events and people that come into your life that you cannot pass off as chance. Things happen because God begins to reveal himself to you and you begin to realize this as He lifts the veil over you eyes. HInt: Faith comes by the word. So, be open and read (the gospel of John is a good place to start). As an atheist, give God the benefit of the doubt with a simple prayer: "If you exist, show me!" Then drop the pre-conceived doubts and read like a child, in humility. That shows that your door is open. If it isn't, then He won't come in. He doesn't force himself on anyone. You have to invite Him in and He will come in and sup with you. Open the door man ... or not and wonder why enlightenment never happened to you.

 

[JGG]

I'm just saying, you're condemning natural scientists for contemplating nature, and not the supernatural.

Not intelligent like like a person is

Intelligent how then?

or interact in that the behavior of God changes in response to your behavior.

Interaction necessarily requires a response to something. That's what interaction is. So how does God interact with us without responding to us? How does God interact with us without changing?

The creative process is constant, not temporary like waving a wand.

A process also requires change. It requires starting and ending, which are both changes. How does God go from being a God who has not created the universe, to being a God who has created the universe, without changing?

The constant creative activity of God not only produces what you see out in the physical world but what you see within the mind. All the ideas including the voice inside your mind that sounds like you is also produced by the constant activity of the first principle we label God.

Firstly, activity is also change. Something cannot be active and unchanging. Secondly, why would I believe that the voice inside my mind that sounds like me is not produced by me? Does that not seem like the simpler, more obvious, and more likely explanation?

It is through this activity that we can have a personal relationship with God and come to know the truth through his Word/Logos/Christ, which is the label we give to the spiritual element that we have access to in the mind.

How do we have access to the spiritual element in our mind?

The Logos isn’t just responsible for order found in the world but to order found in the mind, and through our participation with that activity within the mind, we can start to separate the different ideas we are exposed to, into something that can coherently explain what is going on around us.

You will likely have to define "The Logos" for me, and explain how it brings order to the world and mind. I do not necessarily see order in the world, and certainly not in the mind.

Everything. The form and order of the physical is thought to be produced from spiritual activity.

If it is specifically non-physical how can spiritual activity be responsible for the physical?

After you spend some time looking into and thinking on this subject, you can’t help but have an opinion, even if that opinion changes from day to day.

Okay, then my opinion is that I don't know nearly enough to form a firm opinion.

The infinite is imaginary in that it can’t exist in the physical. It is impossible for the universe to have been around for an infinite amount of time. It can’t be rationalized because it isn’t a reasonable suggestion.

So now you're suggesting that because infinity doesn't exist in the physical it is imaginary, and not rational?

Time is a measurement of change and God doesn’t change so there can’t be an infinite amount of time before the universe is created. Time begins with the creation of the universe.

Are you suggesting that God existed before time?

There is no creative element, which would make them panentheists, there is the property of the One to create.

You'll have to explain what that means.

I don’t know what reason you would have to make that assumption.

Because rationalization requires understanding, and we clearly do not understand.

I agree that labeling it “true” is extremely presumptuous but what makes you assume he has a superstitious understanding?

Why does he label others' understanding as superstitious?

It’s all schtick and deceptive. It’s an opinion but an opinion that is a test of your ability to use reason. Your understanding of the world around you and your ability to explain why you have that understanding is how a person of reason identifies another like-minded individual, from the majority who are just parroting words they’ve heard with no thought about what they are actually saying.

I personally don’t think there is any intrinsic value in one view being right or held over the other, and try to switch between idealism and materialism so I don’t get too attached to one or the other.

But a view which is not right or wrong is not rational. It is intrinsically biased by values, taste, intuition, timing, etc...

But to act like you don’t have an opinion is just an excuse to not support a position and go on with the schtick of asking for evidence of the other side, when in reality you are already aware there is none to be had, and this is really just a fun game to play with believers, instead of a serious pursuit of the truth.

I ask for physical evidence, because that's the only kind which is really unbiased. Physical evidence is the same between you and I reagrdless of bias, intuition, or belief. If you're going to claim to know the truth then you're going to have to convince a skeptic somehow. Otherwise you're just saying "trust me, I know better than you." I don't understand why believers get so offended when we ask for evidence of things. You would ask for evidence if I tried to sell you a bridge. Christians ask for evidence of other religions. But if I ask for evidence of your God, you become offended.

You started by saying that anything non-physical is unchanging. How do you know? Because Plato/Socrates said so? You've created rules for this non-physical realm, but where do they come from?

I don't need to have an opinion. I can have ideas, and that's all well and nice. But I feel that an opinion should be based on fact. I don't have facts. I fully admit not only that I don't know, but that I can't possibly know. The only opinion I have is that every God concept I have encountered seems wrong because ultimately it requires that I pretend to understand something, I can't possibly understand. Having an opinion is only that, an opinion. It's not truth, it is not a pursuit of the truth. It is simply having an opinion. What's true will be true regardless of my opinion on it. How can I have an opinion that I don't believe in?

If I have an opinion on it, (and I once did) then I would have to ask myself, "why do I think is true?", and then I would have to look for evidence for why I think something is true. The only truth I have been able to rely on is "I don't know" because I really don't.

Can you explain the Tao rationally, or can you explain why you don’t believe in the Tao rationally is the only acceptable conversation to make, while acting like you need more evidence to make a decision is going to cause the shaking of some heads.

I don't understand the sentence, there seems to be three questions but I can't pick them apart.

No, I cannot explain "Taoism" rationally, which is precisely why I specifically say that I don't believe it. It's not rational. It isn't actually supposed to be rational. I simply like it, and the Vedic tradition because they generally stop short of claiming truth. It doesn't set out to teach, set rules, or make commandments. The Vedic texts offer no rewards or punishments. Instead it just presents ideas to consider, and then accept or reject. But I don't believe, or claim that any of them are true.

And you never did answer my question: You asserted that you knew the rational God. Why is your concept of God rational, and the undectable old man in the sky not? Just because the majority of believers parrot someone else without understanding does not make it irrational. Someone championed that idea at some point, just as you champion yours now. Why is yours rational, while theirs is not?

 

[JGG]

Hell is the Lake of Fire and more of an event than an eternal torture chamber. When you are thrown in, both spirit and soul are destroyed. So, whether a complete destruction or eternal suffering of the soul exists, Christ is saving you from it either way and offering eternal life.
Fear God, is the beginning of wisdom. That means take Him seriously. Your motivation will not come from a threat of Hell. As he draws a soul to himself, the motivation comes from truth that is revealed to you usually within a series of events and people that come into your life that you cannot pass off as chance. Things happen because God begins to reveal himself to you and you begin to realize this as He lifts the veil over you eyes. HInt: Faith comes by the word. So, be open and read (the gospel of John is a good place to start). As an atheist, give God the benefit of the doubt with a simple prayer: "If you exist, show me!" Then drop the pre-conceived doubts and read like a child, in humility. That shows that your door is open. If it isn't, then He won't come in. He doesn't force himself on anyone. You have to invite Him in and He will come in and sup with you. Open the door man ... or not and wonder why enlightenment never happened to you.

Why would I give this God the benefit of the doubt over say Muhammad, or the Thetans of Scientology?

 

[oi_antz]

Why would I give this God the benefit of the doubt over say Muhammad, or the Thetans of Scientology?

Hi JGG, I think you need to concentrate on comprehending who and what Christ is. Until you understand that then all you will have is this question.

 

[JGG]

Hi JGG, I think you need to concentrate on comprehending who and what Christ is. Until you understand that then all you will have is this question.

I suspect a Muslim and Scientologist would each say something similar about their respective figurehead, don't you think?

 

[ElijahW]

I'm just saying, you're condemning natural scientists for contemplating nature, and not the supernatural.

I wasn’t condemning natural philosophy at all, but getting you to try to understanding Christianity as being produced from the contributions on natural philosophy and recognize that the supernatural philosophers, whoever they may, be didn’t leave us texts or have an impact on the movement in discussion.

Intelligent how then?

Intelligent in that all the ideals/ideas are produced from God’s activity. Not intelligent like a person, where ideas aren’t constant or collected, but streaming in small packages as they appear to us in the mind.

Interaction necessarily requires a response to something. That's what interaction is. So how does God interact with us without responding to us? How does God interact with us without changing?

Interaction between two things may require that but we are discussing something that is causal of another thing, which is a one-way effect.

A process also requires change. It requires starting and ending, which are both changes. How does God go from being a God who has not created the universe, to being a God who has created the universe, without changing?

What are the options on the table for ways your understanding of God could change?

Firstly, activity is also change. Something cannot be active and unchanging. Secondly, why would I believe that the voice inside my mind that sounds like me is not produced by me? Does that not seem like the simpler, more obvious, and more likely explanation?

How is activity also change? Why can’t an action be continuous?

I don’t know what you mean by produced by you but the ideas being an emergent property from matter is the simpler explanation IMO. On cross-examination, explaining what we are actually perceiving in the mind becomes difficult but still not evidence they are prior to matter. Platonic and Christian philosophy recognize emergent ideas (unclean spirits, demons)but still believe that the ideals are a part of the process that leads to matter and emergent ideas.

How do we have access to the spiritual element in our mind?

Via the soul. The actual observer has the ability to perceive the temporal outside activity and also perceive a constant mathematical structure behind the universe in the mind.

You will likely have to define "The Logos" for me, and explain how it brings order to the world and mind. I do not necessarily see order in the world, and certainly not in the mind.

The Logos goes by a lot of names but is usually considered the intermediary between God and creation, though it has a couple of views on the actual function, depending on if you believe the universe started in a chaotic state that needed order, or a unified state that needed division. Either/or may be a fallacy there as well with some.

If the universe started at a singularity then the Logos is understood as what divided everything up and that process of division is still ongoing creating the diversity we see in the universe. If the universe is thought to have started in a state of chaos then it is what caused the initial ordering from chaos to order.

Comparing that to your mind, you’re collecting sensory information from the world but you aren’t viewing it as a unified or a chaotic picture but instead are incorporating a process to break it down into a multitude of parts so that you can have a better understanding of what is going on outside your mind your mind.

If it is specifically non-physical how can spiritual activity be responsible for the physical?

I don’t know what the physical is without spirit. What is your understanding of the physical?

Okay, then my opinion is that I don't know nearly enough to form a firm opinion.

I would agree but when you are informed you won’t be able to play the agnostic "prove-it" game and will have to be able to reason out your position.

So now you're suggesting that because infinity doesn't exist in the physical it is imaginary, and not rational?

Yep, believing in something that isn’t possible is irrational in my mind.

Are you suggesting that God existed before time?

I’m saying that time is understood as a measurement of change and no change occurred until the universe was created.

You'll have to explain what that means.

Pantheists believe the universe and God are synonymous because they don’t believe in there being a beginning to the universe typically. They don’t believe in there being any creative principle to the universe as in this created the universe but instead that it is a property of the universe to be able to create. A panentheist believes in a creative principle that is distinct from the creation.

Because rationalization requires understanding, and we clearly do not understand.

I don’t know why you would assume we can’t understand this unless you are demanding physical proof as part of your definition of understanding.

Why does he label others' understanding as superstitious?

Because then, as it is now, instead of reason people were forming their opinions about the spiritual elements based on portrayals of gods in poetry and art. Now why did you label Justin's understanding superstitious?

But a view which is not right or wrong is not rational. It is intrinsically biased by values, taste, intuition, timing, etc...

It shouldn’t be based on taste or values but reason. No, you can’t prove it right or wrong but that shouldn’t scare you away from positions that require you to demonstrate reasoning instead of resting on the evidence validating what you think. Looking for excuses to not expressing your opinion because there isn’t evidence to prove it one way or the other is just fear of being scrutinized.

I ask for physical evidence, because that's the only kind which is really unbiased. Physical evidence is the same between you and I reagrdless of bias, intuition, or belief. If you're going to claim to know the truth then you're going to have to convince a skeptic somehow. Otherwise you're just saying "trust me, I know better than you." I don't understand why believers get so offended when we ask for evidence of things. You would ask for evidence if I tried to sell you a bridge. Christians ask for evidence of other religions. But if I ask for evidence of your God, you become offended.

You started by saying that anything non-physical is unchanging. How do you know? Because Plato/Socrates said so? You've created rules for this non-physical realm, but where do they come from?

I don't need to have an opinion. I can have ideas, and that's all well and nice. But I feel that an opinion should be based on fact. I don't have facts. I fully admit not only that I don't know, but that I can't possibly know. The only opinion I have is that every God concept I have encountered seems wrong because ultimately it requires that I pretend to understand something, I can't possibly understand. Having an opinion is only that, an opinion. It's not truth, it is not a pursuit of the truth. It is simply having an opinion. What's true will be true regardless of my opinion on it. How can I have an opinion that I don't believe in?

If I have an opinion on it, (and I once did) then I would have to ask myself, "why do I think is true?", and then I would have to look for evidence for why I think something is true. The only truth I have been able to rely on is "I don't know" because I really don't.

Granted physical proof would be preferred but if you are discussing a subject where none is going to be possible asking for the impossible is going to be called into question.

Begging the question the spiritual realm exists, in what way could there be change?

I’m skeptical of you being unable to understand the concept of God in discussion. I don’t know you but I know that I’m pretty stupid so it’s not something that requires an advanced intellect, but does require some study and contemplation. I’m also skeptical of you not having an opinion already. I agree that you aren’t informed enough on this subject to have an informed opinion but I think that opinions are generally formed before we have all the available information. Maybe you don’t really have an opinion but when you start asking for physical evidence, people are going to assume that you do have an opinion and know enough to ask for the kind of evidence you already know can't be provided.

What “fact” is your maxim that opinions need to be based on physical proof to be able to speak about them?

I don't understand the sentence, there seems to be three questions but I can't pick them apart.

No, I cannot explain "Taoism" rationally, which is precisely why I specifically say that I don't believe it. It's not rational. It isn't actually supposed to be rational. I simply like it, and the Vedic tradition because they generally stop short of claiming truth. It doesn't set out to teach, set rules, or make commandments. The Vedic texts offer no rewards or punishments. Instead it just presents ideas to consider, and then accept or reject. But I don't believe, or claim that any of them are true.

And you never did answer my question: You asserted that you knew the rational God. Why is your concept of God rational, and the undectable old man in the sky not? Just because the majority of believers parrot someone else without understanding does not make it irrational. Someone championed that idea at some point, just as you champion yours now. Why is yours rational, while theirs is not?

I was saying you need to be able to articulate your belief or your disbelief rationally, and looking for justification for ignorance on the subject is unacceptable.

The rational understanding is based on reason. The irrational understanding is based on art. The understanding I have of God comes from asking the required questions and trying to come up with reasonable answers. Not from taking artistic representation literal and anthromorphizing God.

 

[JGG]

I wasn’t condemning natural philosophy at all, but getting you to try to understanding Christianity as being produced from the contributions on natural philosophy and recognize that the supernatural philosophers, whoever they may, be didn’t leave us texts or have an impact on the movement in discussion.

Natural philosophy cannot in any way inform supernatural philosophy.

Intelligent in that all the ideals/ideas are produced from God’s activity. Not intelligent like a person, where ideas aren’t constant or collected, but streaming in small packages as they appear to us in the mind.

I'm going to look past change being a necessity of activity. That still isn't intelligence by any definition of the word. Intelligence is the ability to make choices and decisions based on information collected. Intelligence is not ideas. What you're describing is just a really big book. And people do collect ideas, they're called memories.

Interaction between two things may require that but we are discussing something that is causal of another thing, which is a one-way effect.

Then that's what I said earlier: we cannot interact with God. The problem with this is that we will never "see" or "know" God, and God can't "see" or "know" us.

What are the options on the table for ways your understanding of God could change?

I'm unsure what this question means.

How is activity also change? Why can’t an action be continuous?

Because whatever it is acting upon must change. If the actor and what it is acting upon do not change then there isn't an action. If what the actor is acting upon does change then the actor is acting on something different than what it was acting upon previously, and has also changed.

I don’t know what you mean by produced by you but the ideas being an emergent property from matter is the simpler explanation IMO. On cross-examination, explaining what we are actually perceiving in the mind becomes difficult but still not evidence they are prior to matter. Platonic and Christian philosophy recognize emergent ideas (unclean spirits, demons)but still believe that the ideals are a part of the process that leads to matter and emergent ideas.

This doesn't make much sense to me. Just explain how you know that the voice in my head, that sounds just like me, isn't actually me.

Via the soul. The actual observer has the ability to perceive the temporal outside activity and also perceive a constant mathematical structure behind the universe in the mind.

And what does the soul do? How do we interact with the soul?

The Logos goes by a lot of names but is usually considered the intermediary between God and creation, though it has a couple of views on the actual function, depending on if you believe the universe started in a chaotic state that needed order, or a unified state that needed division. Either/or may be a fallacy there as well with some.

If the universe started at a singularity then the Logos is understood as what divided everything up and that process of division is still ongoing creating the diversity we see in the universe. If the universe is thought to have started in a state of chaos then it is what caused the initial ordering from chaos to order.

Okay, but what is it? Why is it's existence necessary if we don't actually know what it does?

Comparing that to your mind, you’re collecting sensory information from the world but you aren’t viewing it as a unified or a chaotic picture but instead are incorporating a process to break it down into a multitude of parts so that you can have a better understanding of what is going on outside your mind your mind.

How does the Logos relate to this analogy? The Logos is a mind? Is it a sensory system?

I don’t know what the physical is without spirit. What is your understanding of the physical?

Matter and energy (technically just energy). How does spirit relate to that at all? For that matter what is the spirit?

I would agree but when you are informed you won’t be able to play the agnostic "prove-it" game and will have to be able to reason out your position.

Only because you assume it is possible to actually be informed.

Yep, believing in something that isn’t possible is irrational in my mind.

So, when did God begin? When will God end?

I’m saying that time is understood as a measurement of change and no change occurred until the universe was created.

Okay, did God exist before the universe was created? Did God exist before change? What occurred before the universe was created?

-If so, once the universe was created, wouldn't that be a pretty big change for God? To exist without change, and then to exist with change? What changed so that the universe was created?

-If not, was God created with the universe?

Pantheists believe the universe and God are synonymous because they don’t believe in there being a beginning to the universe typically. They don’t believe in there being any creative principle to the universe as in this created the universe but instead that it is a property of the universe to be able to create. A panentheist believes in a creative principle that is distinct from the creation.

A creative principle distinct from creation? No, I don't think so. "Creative" is simply the adjective form that accompanies the noun "Creation."

I don’t know why you would assume we can’t understand this unless you are demanding physical proof as part of your definition of understanding.

Oh, well then I am. Can you provide some other manner of objectively knowing something?

Because then, as it is now, instead of reason people were forming their opinions about the spiritual elements based on portrayals of gods in poetry and art. Now why did you label Justin's understanding superstitious?

And what is Justin's understanding based on?

It shouldn’t be based on taste or values but reason. No, you can’t prove it right or wrong but that shouldn’t scare you away from positions that require you to demonstrate reasoning instead of resting on the evidence validating what you think.

Firstly, I'm not resting on any evidence. I have no evidence at all. There is no evidence. This is the problem. What would I base my position on? Without evidence there can be no reasoning.

What reasoning lead you to make the positive claim that God is unchanging? Or that God is intelligent? Or that we have a soul? Or that the Logos exists? How can we possibly reason something without evidence?

Looking for excuses to not expressing your opinion because there isn’t evidence to prove it one way or the other is just fear of being scrutinized.

Yes, most specifically by myself. I'm not going to start making claims that I don't know are true. I can have an opinion over what the best movie is, or who the greatest blues guitarist is, because these subjects are subjective.

Discussions about what is true and what is not are not subjective conversations, and if they do not contain objective evidence then they can't be objective conversations either. So what's the point in having an opinion? You want me to take a subjective claim on what should be an objective topic?

Granted physical proof would be preferred but if you are discussing a subject where none is going to be possible asking for the impossible is going to be called into question.

Why would it ever be called into question? If people are making claims without evidence, that should be called into question: How do you know? We can discuss it, but not with the assumption that the claims are based in reason. Reason requires facts. Facts require evidence.

Begging the question the spiritual realm exists, in what way could there be change?

I don't understand. I don't know that the spiritual realm exists at all. Perhaps the spiritual realm is in a dynamic, constant, infinite flux that is constantly changing in every possible way for all I know. I don't get to make the rules up.

I’m skeptical of you being unable to understand the concept of God in discussion. I don’t know you but I know that I’m pretty stupid so it’s not something that requires an advanced intellect, but does require some study and contemplation.

I've been contemplating these ideas for the better part of my life. Consider the posibility that I'm not beneath you on this. The idea that there is a single concept of God to be understood is ridiculous.

I’m also skeptical of you not having an opinion already. I agree that you aren’t informed enough on this subject to have an informed opinion but I think that opinions are generally formed before we have all the available information.

Right, and we shouldn't do that. If I were a juror in a murder case, making a verdict before both sides had presented all of their evidence is not only stupid, but unethical. Why are the standards different for this?

Maybe you don’t really have an opinion but when you start asking for physical evidence, people are going to assume that you do have an opinion and know enough to ask for the kind of evidence you already know can't be provided.

Then those people are stupid. With no evidence what would I base my opinion off of? What are they basing their opinion on? Taste, values, art, pretty stories, superstition. Subjective reasoning for an objective opinion?

What “fact” is your maxim that opinions need to be based on physical proof to be able to speak about them?

Firstly, evidence, not proof. And I didn't say that opinions don't need to be. Objective opinions need to be. Otherwise, it's just subjective opinion.

I was saying you need to be able to articulate your belief or your disbelief rationally,

No, I don't. I can believe that the moon is made of play-doh if I want to. I simply cannot it claim it to be true without rational explanation. I don't have to rationalize my disbelief either. As for rationalizing disbelief, that Tao Te Ching claims that the universe is in perfect order. It doesn't explain how this is known, it just makes the claim. Thus, that is reason enough for me to not believe what follows.

and looking for justification for ignorance on the subject is unacceptable.

Why?

The rational understanding is based on reason. The irrational understanding is based on art.

Rational understanding is based on evidence, facts, and logic. Irrational understanding is due to a lack of, or faulty evidence, facts or logic.

The understanding I have of God comes from asking the required questions and trying to come up with reasonable answers. Not from taking artistic representation literal and anthromorphizing God.

A required question would be "How do I know?"

 

[Ronald]

Why would I give this God the benefit of the doubt over say Muhammad, or the Thetans of Scientology?

It's OK to examine all religions. I did and nothing else grabbed me. I studied eastern religions, and as matter of fact read Dianetics and took a class in Scientology. But from 15 to 35, I had this suspicion that there was something more about life that we couldn't see, beyond our senses. When I was younger, we sat around talking about the Pyramids, Easter Island, the Bermuda Triangle mysteries. Then I read the Edgar Cayce books, other books on astral projection and channeling. I studied evolution in college as well. So, being analytically minded and sceptical, belief me, I challenged every philosophy, religion, theory or mystery that came my way, but when I met up with Jesus, he grabbed me. I surrendered my search.
So, giving God the benefit of the doubt in a prayer and reading the book of John (20 pages) or even as much as the whole New Testament is what ... too much for you ... not worth your time? You owe it to yourself to examine everything out there. I know that in the USA, only 10% are atheists, so the majority of the people here and in the world think that there is a God. Is there any financial investment that you would bank on that only had a 10% chance of gain? Think about that.

 

[JGG]

It's OK to examine all religions. I did and nothing else grabbed me. I studied eastern religions, and as matter of fact read Dianetics and took a class in Scientology. But from 15 to 35, I had this suspicion that there was something more about life that we couldn't see, beyond our senses. When I was younger, we sat around talking about the Pyramids, Easter Island, the Bermuda Triangle mysteries. Then I read the Edgar Cayce books, other books on astral projection and channeling. I studied evolution in college as well. So, being analytically minded and sceptical, belief me, I challenged every philosophy, religion, theory or mystery that came my way, but when I met up with Jesus, he grabbed me. I surrendered my search.

I studied several Eastern religions as well, and have a fairly good, albeit severely critical, understanding of Scientology. I've read the better part of the Talmud, the Koran, The Tao Te Ching, The Baghavad Gita, and portions of the Upanishads, and parts of the Tipitaka, Dianetics, and "What is Scientology?". I was also a Christian for over 20 years. I've read the Old and New Testament several times, and went to Bible study regularly throughout my teen years.

So, giving God the benefit of the doubt in a prayer and reading the book of John (20 pages) or even as much as the whole New Testament is what ... too much for you ... not worth your time? You owe it to yourself to examine everything out there. I know that in the USA, only 10% are atheists, so the majority of the people here and in the world think that there is a God. Is there any financial investment that you would bank on that only had a 10% chance of gain? Think about that.

Well, I gave Christianity far more of a chance than most other religions, and it just doesn't ring for me. However, your analogy is poor. Just because 90% of people invest in something doesn't mean they benefit from it. And economically speaking, I stand to gain more from something that fewer people have invested in.

The idea that the majority of Americans believe in something does not necessarily make it true or worthwhile. Afterall, most of Utah is Mormon, does that mean that if I move to Utah I should join the Church of Latter Day Saints? What if I move to Turkey, or Thailand, or India? Do I then have to change religions as well? The vast majority of people in my neighbourhood are Jewish, should I convert to Judaism? Where do we draw the borders on what I should do because it's fashionable? "Everyone else believes it" is not particularly persuasive.

Besides, I'm not American.

 

[oi_antz]

I studied several Eastern religions as well, and have a fairly good, albeit severely critical, understanding of Scientology. I've read the better part of the Talmud, the Koran, The Tao Te Ching, The Baghavad Gita, and portions of the Upanishads, and parts of the Tipitaka, Dianetics, and "What is Scientology?". I was also a Christian for over 20 years. I've read the Old and New Testament several times, and went to Bible study regularly throughout my teen years.

Well, I gave Christianity far more of a chance than most other religions, and it just doesn't ring for me. However, your analogy is poor. Just because 90% of people invest in something doesn't mean they benefit from it. And economically speaking, I stand to gain more from something that fewer people have invested in.

The idea that the majority of Americans believe in something does not necessarily make it true or worthwhile. Afterall, most of Utah is Mormon, does that mean that if I move to Utah I should join the Church of Latter Day Saints? What if I move to Turkey, or Thailand, or India? Do I then have to change religions as well? The vast majority of people in my neighbourhood are Jewish, should I convert to Judaism? Where do we draw the borders on what I should do because it's fashionable? "Everyone else believes it" is not particularly persuasive.

Besides, I'm not American.

Right on. The thing about Christianity as Jesus brought it, we are to get involved in bringing awareness of Christ to the world. There's a lot of 'Christian' activity that doesn't actually achieve that purpose, it is more of that club and industrial activity, to make converts of belief rather than converts of understanding. This is what revolts you and it frankly revolts me, and I've shown you that Jesus was revolted too and pushed His message as hard as humanly possible.

Anyhow, I wanted to answer your question about whether a Muslim or Scientologist would make the same claim, and it sounds like you could probably correct me if I misunderstand it. It just seems to me that there is no personal engagement with Allah in Islam. He is highly revered, that's for sure, but the source of their understanding seems to be an organic philosophy with its roots in the Koran. Christianity is different, that our understanding comes by listening to The Holy Spirit. Perhaps you could tell me something about Scientology, do they claim to have a personal relationship with God? It seems on the surface that their philosophies are grounded in material knowledge too, as opposed to one intuitively understanding the mind of Christ as with Christianity. So, do those religions claim to have the living mind of God present in their life for counsel?