Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Photocrat · 02-07-2002, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelenSL:


He's no person at all because he's become an atheist?

Atheists aren't people? Is that what you are saying?

love
Helen

I don't know, either. Even if I've lost a brother, that doesn't make him sub-human... :[

Photocrat · 02-07-2002, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rainbow walking:


rw: Religion is the bastion of pretense. Like children playing make believe in a world too large and complex to fathom, religion legitamizes the fears and self doubts, replacing them with assurances that a divine protectorate will somehow guide them through the obstacles.

The time has come for me to face these demons as well. After years of devoted service to the pretense I hereby declare my salvation from all such pretense. If the God I defended and trusted is out there then here is one soul that He has lost due to neglect.

But there is one good thing about theism that I think the world should adopt and never abandon and that is the concept of forgiveness. None of us are omniscient and all of us make mistakes and all of us need to be forgiven.

For me the pretense has come to a quiet but final end. I have searched my heart and mind and found it to be desolate of reasons to continue to defend the pretense. As I turn and walk away from the cross I can hear the echo of "It is finished."

I think I finally know the anguish Jesus must have felt when he cried out "My God my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

I really, really wanted it to be true.

We'll miss you :[ We are, BTW, still your friends. Let us know if we can help.

For me the pretense has come to a quiet but final end. I have searched my heart and mind and found it to be desolate of reasons to continue to defend the pretense.

I've actually been there, or at least somewhere very much like there, one particularly dark night years ago. But I went on and things ceased to be so bleak after a while...

Photocrat · 02-07-2002, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Olorin:


Is the doctrine of omnipotence different to the meaning of omnipotence? Is the existence of this tradition the result of the need to describe a "special type" of omnipotence, i.e. that which is not equal to the philological meaning of "omnipotence"? Are you stating that the philological and theological meanings are dissimilar?

I don't know the etymology of the word 'omnipotent' but I do know what I mean when I say it. So long as that is made clear, there shouldn't be any problems.

Since we're having lots of fun here with logic, we would usually define omnipotence as 'able to do all logically possible things'.

Omniscience can be tougher. If you want to think hard, read this --

<a href="http://www.sunysb.edu/philosophy/faculty/pgrim/exchange.html" target="_blank">http://www.sunysb.edu/philosophy/faculty/pgrim/exchange.html</a>

They seem to favor a statement of the form --
"For every proposition p, God knows p if and only if p is true."

You could also define omniscience as "knowing everything it is logically possible to know" which seems to escape any problems quite directly :] Especially if someone then demanded that God know both the position & momentum of a given particle at some given instant, or something... :]

Where's HRG? I'm sure he'd have lots of fun with this stuff... :]

Photocrat · 02-07-2002, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HRG:


While I agree that the rock example is silly, here is a tougher nut to chew on:

Let S be the set of actions that God can do (S is of course infinite and R-E-A-L-L-Y B-I-G).

For any subset T of S, let's call A(T) the action that God thinks simultaneously about all actions x which are members of T. A(T) is an action, thus a member of S. If T<>T', A(T) will also be <>A(T').

Since every A(T) is an action which God can do, the set B of all A(T) is a subset of S. Contradiction to Cantor's theorem that the set of all subsets of S cannot be mapped into S (Proof upon request).

Regards,
HRG.

I don't need to think about thinking about doing something or any other such self-referencing 'actions' to get things done :] In fact, most people avoid such thoughts, since meta-level reasoning is generally useless after more than a level or two, at most :] So the set of all 'actions' need not conatain the power set of itself, I should think.

Even so, I'm sure that others would object to this on the grounds that they think that "God doesn't 'think', He knows" but then we can have even *more* fun... Just look at --

<a href="http://www.sunysb.edu/philosophy/faculty/pgrim/exchange.html" target="_blank">http://www.sunysb.edu/philosophy/faculty/pgrim/exchange.html</a>

Olorin · 02-07-2002, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tercel:
Language changes with useage over time. The Christians have been the only ones using the word Omnipotence for the past God knows how long. It thus aquires whatever definition it is being used for.

That is quite a strong statement you make there, Christians being the only ones...I wonder if you have any evidence of that.

Quote:

In this case: The ability of God to perform any possible task with respect to the physical creation.

Hmmm...: "In this case..." It seems as if you are implying there are other meanings (Olorin looks at his previous post:

Quote:

Is the doctrine of omnipotence different to the meaning of omnipotence? Is the existence of this tradition the result of the need to describe a "special type" of omnipotence, i.e. that which is not equal to the philological meaning of "omnipotence"? Are you stating that the philological and theological meanings are dissimilar?

...to which you answered:

Quote:

No: You are.

Oh and btw, when you said:

Quote:

In this case: The ability of God to perform any possible task with respect to the physical creation.

...are you saying that your god does not have the ability to perform any possible task with respect to the metaphysical? Or does the bible not mention that? What do you mean by "any possible task"? It seems you are still confining the abilities of your god to human logic.

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: Olorin ]

Spirit Branded · 02-08-2002, 12:02 AM

I have been in the past and hope to be in the future a friend of Rainbow Walking.

We once were close and drifted apart and that is a burden which lies heavily upon me tonight.

I am a Christian and when I remind Rainbow Walking that by some miracle he spoke to me on my mobile phone almost at the very instant his wife and son set foot on Australian soil at Sydney International Airport I believe he will know who I am.

As the son of an atheist father and Christian mother I know what it is like to be torn between two possibilites .. and let no one deny that both possibilities are entirely real to those faced with a choice and willing to consider both, though only one can be true.

To Rainbow Walking I say sorry for having allowed our friendship to lapse for a time ... for absolutely no reason apart from my preoccupation with things closer to home. That is not an excuse, but it is sadly a fact for which I ask forgiveness.

If we walk past all the failures of Christians and return to Christ I believe there is nothing to compare with the value system that Christ taught. Though other fine religions have much to offer, none are to me as pure.

On either side of the Cross we read that one thief believed and asked to be with Christ in paradise and another thief hurled insults.

Between these two extremes of the believer who left it until the last moments of his life and the thief who engaged in aggressive mockery, most of us who are Christians fit uncomfortably somewhere in between, trying fitfully and irregularly to have our lives match the purity of the beliefs, and failing more often than we succeed.

Of one thing I am absolutely sure, the failings of Christians (either as individuals or in Churches) do not diminish in the slightest degree the forgiveness, the honesty and the purity of Christ who can only be in my estimation the one who was with God in the beginning, at the creation of the universe billions of years ago, and and who will be with us as we leave this physical world to be with God for all eternity.

There is no physical pain, or torment, but only the separation from God that we choose for ourselves in this life.

To the extent that we know God in this life, through his Son, Jesus Christ, we Christians will know him for ever, but there are many beyond the Christian flock who are known by Christ and who will remain known to him.

These to me are certainties based on scripture which scrupture I hold, with the Church, to be absolutely authoritative concerning the life and teachings of Christ.

To all who are truly searching for truth, regardless of any label they currently apply to themselves, I wish only the assurance that comes from holiness and purity.

With Best Wishes to my good former friend whom I hope one day to meet ... and for whom I have only the highest regard along with his family. I wish them peace and reconciliation.

In the love of Christ

Spirit Branded

Jack the Bodiless · 02-08-2002, 12:05 AM

Theo:

Quote:

Gee, wouldn't life be a lot easier if we could just declare something and make it so?
Unfortunately, arguments take evidence not just declarations of victory.
In the first place, naturalism, of any stripe, has to presuppose itself to prove itself. So, no cigar there.

You're implying that Christianity is somehow superior in this regard? After repeatedly insisting that the "truth" of the Bible must be presupposed before all else? Do you actually proof-read your own posts, Theo?

Quote:

Second, this is not about metaphysics; it is about the very possibility of knowledge. Knowledge, of any type, is impossible on a naturalistic basis because it has never been demonstrated that matter contains or can communicate knowledge.

As previously mentioned, we actually use matter (and energy) to gain, store and transmit ALL knowledge. It has never been demonstrated that there is ANY non-material/non-energetic means of gaining, storing or transmitting ANY knowledge.

Quote:

Third, knowledge of anything requires knowledge of everything; a "fact" is what it is in relation to other "facts." You not only need to know each fact absolutely, but you need to know all facts absolutely in relation to each other before you can claim any knowledge.

...So YOU are now omnipotent, Theo? By your own argument, if you are not, then you know nothing at all.

Quote:

So, since matter cannot impart knowledge, and absolute knowledge of all things is required to possess any knowledge at all, I'd say naturalism fails pretty badly.

Since these claims are complete bullshit, naturalism remains entirely free of contradictions, therefore (according to the presuppositional apologetic method) it is true.

Quote:

Christianity, on the other hand, has the creator's revelation which not only gives us information about him and his creation, but establishes the possibility of rational and empirical knowlege.

But Christianity does not have the creator's revelation. That's the point! The Christian presuppositionalist has deliberately denied himself access to any means whatsoever by which the "creator's revelation" can be distinguished from pure fiction!

Quote:

I'm sorry this is so hard for you. A Christian doesn't use anything to "validate" the Bible. We declare that God's word is ultimate in all matters. To attempt to validate it by something external to itself would make that "thing" ultimate. Surely you must be able to see that.

Therefore you CANNOT construct any sort of argument for the existence of God. All you have is blind faith: deliberately blind.

Quote:

In the same way, you cannot use empiricism to validate empiricism or rationalism to validate rationalism.

I can, however, presuppose empiricism and then use empiricism to validate rationalism. Rationalism works because I perceive that it works.

Quote:

I have never claimed to "validate" the Bible. My challenge has been, and still remains, for atheists to show how either empiricism or rationalism can account for human experience without presupposing what the bible declares. I don't say that they presuppose this consciously but that their system cannot provide a sufficient basis for what they claim to know.

Challenge met, answered, and defeated. Many times over.

Quote:

I assume you meant this negatively, but this is exactly my point. There is no neutral basis for argumentation. Either one accepts God and his word as authoritative or he makes his own reason the final arbiter of all possibility.

Perception, Theo. Perception. Perception. PERCEPTION.

P E R C E P T I O N .

P
E
R
C
E
P
T
I
O
N
.

Quote:

God, as the creator, has revealed himself in his creation, his word and his son. He has told us sufficient truth about the creation, himself, mankind and about our condition in order for us to know him and understand human experience.
Now, if you want to argue that the bible is not the word of god or that it is not true, you must first justify the standard by which you would judge it to be so.
So, what is your standard and how do you justify it without presupposing it?

Conformity with PERCEPTION. The standard is axiomatic.

Quote:

I will ask you to explain how your statements here have any meaning since, from an atheist position, you cannot justy expecting me to subscribe to your personal standard of behaviour or arguing that your standard is any more correct than mine (or none at all).

Mine conforms with PERCEPTION. Yours does not. As you prefer to believe that the accuracy of perception is conferred by God, you're left with the paradox that the Biblical God has revealed that the Bible is false.

HelenM · 02-08-2002, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spirit Branded:
If we walk past all the failures of Christians and return to Christ I believe there is nothing to compare with the value system that Christ taught. Though other fine religions have much to offer, none are to me as pure.

I don't see any evidence that rw is leaving whatever is good about the value system of Christians - if anything, the opposite, since he affirms the value of forgiveness.

In fact my experience here is that the ex-Christians walked away from theism but not necessarily 'the value system'.

Anyway thanks for posting and sharing personally and welcome to this board. You sound like a caring person. I'm sure you'll be praying for rw.

love
Helen

Kassiana · 02-08-2002, 04:04 AM

I have no reason for anyone other than myself to believe in God or Goddess or multiple deities. I do so for personal reasons based in personal experiences which are not based on the rationalist worldview spawned by Western Christianity. (See Karen Armstrong's A History of God for more.) So believe or disbelieve as you wish.

phlebas · 02-08-2002, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelenSL:
I don't see any evidence that rw is leaving whatever is good about the value system of Christians - if anything, the opposite, since he affirms the value of forgiveness.

Helen, didn't you tell us you were a Calvinist? What use is forgiveness if you're predestined?

My apologies if I'm remembering wrong

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-08-2002, 12:02 AM	#86
Spirit Branded Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 36	I have been in the past and hope to be in the future a friend of Rainbow Walking. We once were close and drifted apart and that is a burden which lies heavily upon me tonight. I am a Christian and when I remind Rainbow Walking that by some miracle he spoke to me on my mobile phone almost at the very instant his wife and son set foot on Australian soil at Sydney International Airport I believe he will know who I am. As the son of an atheist father and Christian mother I know what it is like to be torn between two possibilites .. and let no one deny that both possibilities are entirely real to those faced with a choice and willing to consider both, though only one can be true. To Rainbow Walking I say sorry for having allowed our friendship to lapse for a time ... for absolutely no reason apart from my preoccupation with things closer to home. That is not an excuse, but it is sadly a fact for which I ask forgiveness. If we walk past all the failures of Christians and return to Christ I believe there is nothing to compare with the value system that Christ taught. Though other fine religions have much to offer, none are to me as pure. On either side of the Cross we read that one thief believed and asked to be with Christ in paradise and another thief hurled insults. Between these two extremes of the believer who left it until the last moments of his life and the thief who engaged in aggressive mockery, most of us who are Christians fit uncomfortably somewhere in between, trying fitfully and irregularly to have our lives match the purity of the beliefs, and failing more often than we succeed. Of one thing I am absolutely sure, the failings of Christians (either as individuals or in Churches) do not diminish in the slightest degree the forgiveness, the honesty and the purity of Christ who can only be in my estimation the one who was with God in the beginning, at the creation of the universe billions of years ago, and and who will be with us as we leave this physical world to be with God for all eternity. There is no physical pain, or torment, but only the separation from God that we choose for ourselves in this life. To the extent that we know God in this life, through his Son, Jesus Christ, we Christians will know him for ever, but there are many beyond the Christian flock who are known by Christ and who will remain known to him. These to me are certainties based on scripture which scrupture I hold, with the Church, to be absolutely authoritative concerning the life and teachings of Christ. To all who are truly searching for truth, regardless of any label they currently apply to themselves, I wish only the assurance that comes from holiness and purity. With Best Wishes to my good former friend whom I hope one day to meet ... and for whom I have only the highest regard along with his family. I wish them peace and reconciliation. In the love of Christ Spirit Branded

02-08-2002, 04:04 AM	#89
Kassiana Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: USA Posts: 5,046	I have no reason for anyone other than myself to believe in God or Goddess or multiple deities. I do so for personal reasons based in personal experiences which are not based on the rationalist worldview spawned by Western Christianity. (See Karen Armstrong's A History of God for more.) So believe or disbelieve as you wish.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.