Kent Symanzik

Hi Keith,

Actually I think what we achieve will be according to what our goals are. I do not think that I can convince you that God exists. Christian theism holds that only God himself can do that. Although, he may use arguments along the way. I am trying to achieve several things. First, I'm trying to improve and test my thinking about these ultimate issues. I figure if there is anyone who will be motivated to poke holes in my arguments it will be atheists. Secondly, I'm trying to glorify God by thinking rationally, describing him accurately, and attempting to show that disbelief in God is foolish as the bible says. (Note, I do not mean foolish in a name calling way).

So, while some may be frustrated with this discussion I find it to be enlightening and hope that others do to.

Kent

acronos

Kent,

I am giving up on this thread. You just continue to reassert what you came here already sure you would find, even in the face of strong evidence to the contrary. You have not demonstrated any evidence for your belief that atheists are irrational, and I no longer expect you to do so. You have not supported your beliefs, and you are unwilling to learn ours. This discussion is pointless. For those of you who are willing to continue to try to break through, I commend you on your perseverance.

Acronos

Marz Blak

Kent--

In one of my prior posts, I said,
"...As to the question of establishing personhood, I am also not sure I understand what you mean. If I understand you correctly, you seem to feel that atheist perspectives offer no rationale for making a distinction between persons and the physical materials which comprise them. If this is the case, I would simply have to answer, speaking for myself only, that it is a case of "looks like a duck, quacks like a duck". That is, person is as person does. I suppose it is possible that some of the entities I assume to be persons are really super-advanced robots, but I have no reason to think that might be the case. I assume them to be persons. And what is a person? It is, to me, an entity that as far as I can tell from its actions is sentient and has self-awareness in the same ways I believe I do. So again you see how empathy plays a part...."

I also said, "...As to your statement regarding the foundations of logic, '...One question that jumps out immediately is how one would go about observing the laws of logic without first presupposing them since we must use logic in our observations....' I am afraid I don't quite understand your objection. As far as I can see, we learn logic from our observations in the same way we learn about gravity or wetness or heat. I do not think that humans are born inherently rational--I am the parent of two children, and I assure you my direct observation would be that infants are not born rational, but grow into it. I *do* think our brains are evolved to look for patterns and build conceptual models. The world by and large behaves in a manner which is consistent, in a particular way which we have defined as being essentially logical. Causes, effects. Exclusion. Deduction, induction. They are all learned empirically, I believe. Where they come from? I remain more or less militantly agnostic on that question (that is to say, "I don't know, and neither does anyone else !" ).

I also said, "...Again, you seem driven to drive things to first principles--to some underlying essential Truth. I am by no means implying that you are unique in this apparent need; but I personally neither believe such Truths are necessarily existent, or even assuming they exist, necessary to know or even ultimately knowable or discoverable. I in fact personally feel that all such endeavors are doomed to failure for lack of evidence... but people seem to be driven to it, so...whatever. (This view is, I am sure you will agree, too tangential to this discussion to continue here.)..."

You have responded to neither these points nor several others in opposition to your view, save by naked reassertion of your views about the arbitraryness of morals not based on some universal objective footing and about God's nature being revealed in scripture, etc., etc. All of which is neither anything approaching evidentiary as I understand the term, nor anything other than question-begging at best, or outright refusal to address the objections, or obfuscation, at worst.

Moreover, in that same post I invited you to provide me with an interpretation or explanation of certain biblical narratives because you nakedly stated that I displayed improper understanding of them (*again* without explaining why this is the case...).

Others have demonstrated other faults in, or at least problems, with, your reasoning, showing how it is circular, how it is based on questionable assertions you have refused to support.

I am afraid that, like Keith Russell and acronos, I am beginning to come to the conclusion that this conversation is proving itself to be pointless.

Well, let me amend that statement; and please do not take this as an ad hominem attack, because I truly do not mean it to be so. You have displayed a level of decorum and politeness which I respect in a person, whether or not I agree with him or her, and I would not repay such good manners with comments intended to attack you personally.

I am a relative newcomer to this forum, and in lurking for a while, I noted several statements noting a phenomenon of "logical blind spots." Taking you as a thoughtful person of apparent goodwill and sincerity, from your arguments in this topic I am now prepared to say that this phenomenon is real, based on personal experience. Unfortunately, that is about all I have learned here so far.

acronos

I also am a newcomer here. Kent I did not intend my previous post to be personal although I admit that it came across that way. I too agree that you have been courteous. I am only saying that I don't know where to go from here to find any common ground between us. I guess I am also saying that I don’t think you are being completely fair with us because you ignore many posts that seem to have very good ideas. There is very little that I am learning here beyond that some discussions are not very fruitful. I wish you no ill will, and I will do my best to find common ground with you on other topics.

However, I am learning better manners. Thanks for the heads-up Marz. Maybe I needed closure or maybe I just needed the last word. Whatever my problem was, I apologize Kent.

[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: acronos ]</p>

Keith Russell

Kent said:
Actually I think what we achieve will be according to what our goals are. I do not think that I can convince you that God exists.

--No, you cannot.

Kent continues:
Christian theism holds that only God himself can do that. Although, he may use arguments along the way.

--We would only like to see any of these arguments...even one...

Kent:
I am trying to achieve several things. First, I'm trying to improve and test my thinking about these ultimate issues. I figure if there is anyone who will be motivated to poke holes in my arguments it will be atheists.

Keith: Have you found any holes yet? Believe me, Kent, they are there, and they are huge. The question is, do you see them?

Kent: Secondly, I'm trying to glorify God by thinking rationally--

Keith: Kent, 'reason' is a human faculty; Aristotle correctly desribed us as the 'rational animals': animals with the capacity to reason, if we so choose. You glorify yourself when you think rationally, but thinking rationally has absolutely nothing to do with 'God'.

Kent: --describing him accurately--

Keith: Perhaps, rather than describing him accurately, you should try defining him accurately.

Kent: --and attempting to show that disbelief in God is foolish as the bible says. (Note, I do not mean foolish in a name calling way).

Keith: Well, anytime you'd like to argue that, I'm willing to listen to your arguments. But, I am done listening to you restate your claims ad nauseum.

Kent; So, while some may be frustrated with this discussion I find it to be enlightening and hope that others do to.

Keith: You are welcome to your opinion, of course. But it would be better, far better, if you were able to defend it.

Keith.

Kent

rainbow walking

rw: Actually, what I think he’s saying is that a person must have some sense of what is good and evil to decide that the Christian god represents good. Or is this something else the Christian god communicates to those he chooses?


rw: Would you say the word of god represents what is best/good for humanity or for god?

rw: Not really, at least, that’s not the way I read it. What he appears to be saying is that a person considering whether to accept the bible as the source of an objective good must have some basic concepts of good and evil from which to base his decision.

rw: Unfortunately this character doesn’t come shining through as the pristine example you appear to want us to see.

rw: What is “revealed” in scripture seems to contradict our being made in this gods image. If this were true we’d have no need of a savior. If we were truly made in the mold how is it we are labeled sinners? Is this god a sinner also? If we are sinners then we either were not made in his image or his image is as corrupt as Christians claim we are. Perhaps we have a basic standard of good based on our learning curve during the critical years.

rw: Ultimately, if you claim free will, people are the final authority on deciding whose or which standard of moral action they will abide in. If you believe god chooses who will decide what then that’s a horse of a different color.

rw: Finitude doesn’t exclude man’s ability to learn and pass on his knowledge, making it unnecessary to re-invent the wheel. Fallibility also fails to negate man’s responsibility to decide what is right and wrong. In fact, without the possibility of getting it wrong, man would have no need of moral strictures at all. If the Christian god actually ENFORCED these alleged morals you might have a basis for these claims, but since it has always been observed that men do the interpreting, deciding and enforcing, I fail to see any reason to give this deity any credit.

rw: Well, I think I understand where you’re coming from. If I haven’t, then you can correct me where I’ve mis-placed your meaning. It isn’t enough just to say that the Christian version of a god is necessary for human morality and rationality. It is quite reasonable for non-believers to request some logical argumentation to support these claims. If they are true it is also quite reasonable to expect those who claim them to be far more logical and rational than those of us who do not believe such a being exists. For instance, it is quite rational to derive ones morality from the basic tenets of the American constitution: Life, liberty and the pursuit of ones happiness, by allowing the Democratic process to establish the legal boundaries of ones pursuits. Neither the value of life or liberty are virtues extolled in scripture and the pursuit of ones own happiness is anti-thetical to its primary doctrines…yes?

Keith Russell

Greetings:

The basic, fundamental premise with which one should begin any inquiry is reality itself. Not dogma, not 'what Mommy told me', not books, or opinions, or beliefs.

Kent has said that he has personal, experiential evidence of God, and that only God can reveal His presence to any of us.

Kent should thus leave each of us to our own experiences. Kent (by his own admission) cannot convince us of the truth of God's existence. Kent says that only God can do this.

Kent should realize that God has not revealed himself to the rest of us, and that--sans this revelation--there is no rational reason for any of us to believe in God.

Kent seems to want to convince us that God exists, yet at the same time claim that only God can do this.

God or no God, that is irrational behaviour, even according to Kent's biased intial premise.

Keith.

Jobar

"Actually I think what we achieve will be according to what our goals are. I do not think that I can convince you that God exists. Christian theism holds that only God himself can do that. Although, he may use arguments along the way. I am trying to achieve several things. First, I'm trying to improve and test my thinking about these ultimate issues. I figure if there is anyone who will be motivated to poke holes in my arguments it will be atheists. Secondly, I'm trying to glorify God by thinking rationally, describing him accurately, and attempting to show that disbelief in God is foolish as the bible says. (Note, I do not mean foolish in a name calling way).

So, while some may be frustrated with this discussion I find it to be enlightening and hope that others do to.

Kent"

Kent, although I think you are quite wrong in your arguments, I have never faulted your manners and presentation. You think that we are mistaken, and we think that of you- but this has been one of the better threads I have ridden herd on, for graciousness. I appreciate that.

I am very glad you want to think rationally. To us, it seems far too few believers want to put to use what makes us distinctively human. Too many of your fellows fear or despise reason, and call it the enemy of faith. (For us, of course, it's vice versa.)

Do you remember that I said you are trying to use a chain of argument with several missing links? You keep picking up the same chain, tossing it in the air, and seem to expect it to support some weight *this* time!

Speaking both personally and as a mod however, you are welcome to continue. Just as others are not required to read!

Echo

Hi Kent,

I hope you won't mind me jumping in here at this late point, but I was struck by something you just said: you want to glorify god by thinking rationally . I am wondering why you have concluded that thinking rationally is something admirable or useful, or why you think reason is a tool god *wants* you to employ.

babelfish

Kent,

Although I understand what you're saying, I disagree that if we discount the final authority of God, the only recourse left to us is to search for some authority even higher than God.

First, the rules of behavior as outlined by, say, the ten commandments, do have some relevance to our lives today. Obviously, they were written by human beings. Human beings knew, then, in that ancient society, what sorts of rules would make for a well-regulated, orderly human society.

Since we're still humans, the commandments forbidding stealing, or killing, or disrespecting your parents, still seem good to us.

But times change. I'm looking for a commandment that would forbid my owning a slave. Or one that would forbid a man from raping a woman. Can you point me to the section of the Bible that would cover these more, shall we say, "modern" problems?

Or take the first three, presumably most important commandments:


At the time this was written, these commandments would have seemed very important to the people who wrote them.

To many of us now, however, they seem irrelevant, completely unimportant, not helpful to human society in any way.

So I guess what I'm saying is, as a moral compass, the Bible is in many ways incomplete, and in many ways no longer relevant.

Which is just what we'd expect if it was written not by an omniscient God, but by fallible human beings, who had no way of seeing into the future.

[ September 08, 2002: Message edited by: babelfish ]</p>