Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Keith · 02-19-2003, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick

"You've wound yourself into a contradiction on this thread; you make this unsubstantiated claim and then assert that it all may be cast aside by an omnipotent god. In your worldview, regardless of what you have observed in the past, today you might encounter a talking snake, wine may flow from your faucet, and the Sun may stop moving across the sky."

No. I don't think God will simply cast us aside. Let's look at your reason for assuming the uniformity of nature: I believe that the behaviour of gravity will continue to be highly predictable and uniform in the future because it has always been so in the past.

This is not answering anything. It is begging the question. It is simply assuming the continued uniformity--not proving it.

The Christian doesn't have this dilemma. We can just note that God is loving, purposeful, unchanging, and deeply committed to his creatures. He isn't reckless, capricious, or thoughtless toward us. We have the very nature of God to trust for our faith that tomorrow, or a million years from now, the basic laws governing the behaviour of the universe will work as well as they need to work to sustain us. Even if God performs millions of wonderous miracles, the basic laws of the universe will go on as before.

You can trust in God's nature for the continued sustenance humans need, or you can offer silly, invalid "reasoning" and hope no one will notice that you are living every moment of your life by blind FAITH.

Keith

Dr Rick · 02-19-2003, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
I don't think God will simply cast us aside.

Past experience shows us otherwise if we assume the Bible is accurate. The Christian God drowned everyone save 8 people, and He to this day let's the vast majority of souls be consumed by the eternal flames. He casts most of us aside; you just have faith that you won't be part of the majority that your beliefs would consign to Hell.

Quote:

Let's look at your reason for assuming the uniformity of nature: I believe that the behaviour of gravity will continue to be highly predictable and uniform in the future because it has always been so in the past.

This is not answering anything. It is begging the question. It is simply assuming the continued uniformity--not proving it.

That's just another strawman. I've never claimed to be able to prove anything of the sort, and I know I cannot. Christians fool themselves calling the Bible and their existence proof. At least my belief is an assumption supported by past experience; your belief is an assumption absent any support but circular evidence.

Quote:

The Christian doesn't have this dilemma. We can just note that God is loving, purposeful, unchanging, and deeply committed to his creatures. He isn't reckless, capricious, or thoughtless toward us.

Now your assertion here requires that we consider both the Bible and reality itself inaccurate predictors of the future. The Christian God kills on a scale that is unparalleled in human history (taking into account the thousand of fetuses he aborts every day). He let's thousands of souls go to Hell each day after allowing many of them to die agonizing deaths from disease and starvation. The description of the Christian God from the Bible makes him one of the most prolific mass murderers and torturers of all time.

Quote:

We have the very nature of God to trust for our faith that tomorrow, or a million years from now, the basic laws governing the behaviour of the universe will work as well as they need to work to sustain us. Even if God performs millions of wonderous miracles, the basic laws of the universe will go on as before.

You contradicted yourself, again. The natural laws of the universe are part of nature and so by definition are naturally explanatory even if we don't know all of the explanations at this point, but miracles are events that are supposed to defy naturalistic explanations. If a god performs a miracle, then he has violated the natrual laws of the universe.

Quote:

You can trust in God's nature for the continued sustenance humans need, or you can offer silly, invalid "reasoning" and hope no one will notice that you are living every moment of your life by blind FAITH.

Here you misuse terminology. Faith is a belief devoid of or in contradiction to the evidence. Trusting that there are gods, that you have chosen the right one over the literally thousands that there are to choose from, or that you will be part of a small minority that won't suffer eternal torment is faith

Rick

Answerer · 02-19-2003, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
Hi Sue, sorry I'm so slow getting back to you. I'll TRY to answer your excellent questions...in order:

1. Because human nature became evil after the fall. We put our own selfish interests ahead of God and ahead of everything. Wars are a pretty clear indication that we will not love each other, love God, and live in peace.

2. My understanding (which is NOT infallible) is that after the fall, human bodies became vulnerable to various things like diseases which might not have been any kind of threat before. God warned that if they eat the fruit they will surely die. I think that they exist largely as a curse on us for our sin. IOW, sin, which Adam and Eve were warned about, is not without consequences.

3. I suppose that it has to do with the fact that physical death is not terrible for those who believe.

4. I think it was to show future generations the power of Faith, which is a gift of God.

5. This is the kind of problem that spreads like cancer in a human institution that claims infallible authority equal to God's. The RCC is an apostate church that lost its way more than a thousand years ago. I honestly believe it can't reform itself, and that it is doing a lot more harm than good in the world.

6. I didn't understand this question. I haven't done any re-interpretation due to advances in science, but maybe some people have. If so, I don't understand why people would feel that re-interpretation is necessary because of science.

7. I'm not sure. Jesus might have been using the phrase "inherit the earth" in a figurative way, or if he meant it literally then it will happen some day.

8. I'd say that by God's estimate, the bible came at exactly the right time for his purposes. I can't provide a better answer because the bible doesn't tell us.

9. This was the way God did things in the garden before
the fall. But the fall changed everything. Mankind became exceedingly evil. We all inherited a sinful nature that seeks autonomy rather than God.

10. Sorry, Sue! I'll try to re-reform myself of that habit! I use that style because in arguing with atheists, I have noticed that they tend to put the theist on the defensive while they don't really have to defend anything. If possible, I want them to see things that they might be avoiding. But I sure don't have all the answers and I'm still learning.

Keith

More and more proofs of an uncaring God, His unwillingnness to express Himself well to the World.

Keith · 02-19-2003, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick

"Past experience shows us otherwise if we assume the Bible is accurate. The Christian God drowned everyone save 8 people, and He to this day let's the vast majority of souls be consumed by the eternal flames. He casts most of us aside; you just have faith that you won't be part of the majority that your beliefs would consign to Hell."

These things are true, but now you're just making some particular and specific observations of his control as though this somehow has any bearing on the general uniformity of nature. I've never said that God hasn't ever brought on a massive flood, horrible earthquakes, hurricanes, or parted the Red Sea. I haven't said that billions of people won't be sentenced to hell for what they've done. If God has clearly shown both his patience and his justice we have all the more reason to trust in his providential control over the creation. What are you trusting in to sustain you, and the universe? Why?

Keith

Keith · 02-19-2003, 08:18 PM

Quote:

[i]Originally posted by Dr Rick

"You contradicted yourself, again. The natural laws of the universe are part of nature and so by definition are naturally explanatory even if we don't know all of the explanations at this point, but miracles are events that are supposed to defy naturalistic explanations. If a god performs a miracle, then he has violated the natrual laws of the universe."

Did I say that God can't, and won't miraculously violate the laws of nature? No. God is actively involved in every detail--the minute workings of the universe. He is not only the designer and the creator; he is the miraculous sustainer of all of creation. God is in total control of everything.

Keith

Dr Rick · 02-19-2003, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
What are you trusting in to sustain you, and the universe? Why?

I'm trusting my observations and experience; they aren't proof of anything, but they are evidence just the same, and for now they are more convincing than what some contradictory book might tell me. The Bible clearly tells me that its putative god is a monster as it purports His love; no rational analysis could lead anyone to conclude anything other than that the whole tale is an obvious lie.

I'll take uncertainty over an obvious lie.

Rick

Keith · 02-19-2003, 08:26 PM

Quote:

[i]Originally posted by Answerer

"More and more proofs of an uncaring God, His unwillingnness to express Himself well to the World."

On your (atheistic) assumption, what would a uncaring God be like?

Keith

Keith · 02-19-2003, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick

"I'm trusting my observations and experience; they aren't proof of anything, but they are evidence just the same, and for now they are more convincing than what some contradictory book might tell me. The Bible clearly tells me that its putative god is a monster as it purports His love; no rational analysis could lead anyone to conclude anything other than that the whole tale is an obvious lie.

I'll take uncertainty over an obvious lie."

Well, at least you're willing to admit that you are living purely by blind faith. Simply labelling your observations and experience "evidence" doesn't make it so--any more than it is for me, right?

Keith

Philosoft · 02-20-2003, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
I don't need to demonstrate it. The bible is self-authenticating. It provides its own internal proof that it is God's word.

Interesting. Can you explain how self-authentification works? If I were to write a book that consisted of two sentences:

1. Keith is the most powerful jellybean in the universe.
2. The above sentence is true.

Would that qualify as "internal proof"?

Can you think of any other pieces of literature that share this astonishing ability?

Quote:

If you read the bible and don't want to believe its claims, that is your choice. If you want to believe that you will not be harmed by jumping off a three hundred foot bridge without a cord or chute, this too, is your choice.

And this seems to you like a fair test to determine the destination of our eternal souls?

Philosoft · 02-20-2003, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
But someone like Saddam has his subjective moral framework. His subjective morality tells him that gassing the Kurds is the highest moral righteousness that he could possibly do. Who is (morally) the most correct?

Saddam needs to show that, not only is it in his best interest, but it would be in our best interests as well, to gas the Kurds.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.