BrotherMan

I'll grant you that ignorance isn't a perfect excuse, but with the consequences being so grave, it sure does hurt god's case for not being a little more forthcoming with information.

Adam was used to trusting god for all things.

God told Adam not to eat from that specific tree under penalty of death.

God never explained to either Adam what death is.

For god to say to Adam ""You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die," and expect him to understand would be the same as god telling Adam ""You are free to roam about in the garden; but you must not wander into the roadway of Good and Evil, for when you walk there you will surely get run over."

Dogs learn by conditioning. Adam and Eve weren't so lucky as to have god wag his finger at them and say in a firm voice "No! Bad humans!" until it was too late.

christ-on-a-stick

Magus Probably until a theist here can give an explanation that isn't rife with the contradictions that have been pointed out numerous times.

Magus, I would truly welcome your thoughts on my thread
here , particularly in response to Chad Docterman's comments on the absurdity of perfection begetting imperfection.

malookiemaloo

Been following this thread and contributed here and there.

I think, however, that when we apply human reason to such matters as the character of God's purpose in creation, sin, redemption, if God is perfect how can Satan exist etc both the theist and non-theist become unstuck.

The theist at best 'sees through a glass darkly' and can only believe in faith that God has a plan which will come to fruition in His time. Then we will wonder what the fuss was all about. But explanations using human reasoning only of necessity fall short.

The non-theist reduces everything to his/her own ability to understand. 'If I don't understand it, it cannot be true'. The concept of faith is greeted by derision. But is there not a little arrogance here? Who are we to demand that God runs the universe in accordance with our wishes? By definition a creature cannot understand a creator by human reasoning. By faith, however, it is different. 'We walk by faith not by sight'. Why is the concept of faith so abhorrent to a non-theist?

Small example. When my one year old son sticks his finger in an electricity point I do not try to reason about electric currents etcw and wait 'till sparks fly down his nose. I discipline him not to touch the plug point. Dead simple. Then when he is older, he understands but not at the time.

By the way. Queen of Swords-great name.


m

worldling

Common misconception. The non-theist does not "demand" anything of "god". The derision is directed at the incoherent concept of an omni-everything god - the idea which the theist carries around in his head. It is not arrogant to deride a world view which cannot be rationally justified. "Faith" is nothing more than an excuse which allows the theist to persist in his wishful delusion.

That it why it is so abhorrent to the non-theist.

malookiemaloo

Sorry but I see your 'rationality' as a severe limiting factor.

It still sounds to me like 'if I cannot rationalise it, it cannot be true'. Sorry to repeat myself but I do not understand the non-theists view that nothing can exist beyond their own ability to understand.

Looks like we'll have to differ on this!!




m

worldling

Discard rationality, and anything goes. A Muslim, Hindu, Breatharian, Raelian etc etc will use exactly the same arguments as you do to justify their particular brand of lunacy.

How do you know that your religion is any more true than theirs? Faith alone? (In which case, their argument is equally as stong as yours) Or do you rationalise? (In which case, you are contradicting yourself)

malookiemaloo

I take the point you make but I think there is a distinction between saying 1) that because there are things beyond our understanding then faith must kick in and 2) but which type of faith. They are two different questions both which must be addressed. But you cannot say that because different faiths have different explanations for creation etc none can be true.

But equally do you take my point that non-theists limit the universe to their understanding of it?


m


m

worldling

I am not saying that. And I am confused by your 1) and 2) distinctions. I honestly don't know what you mean. They seem to form one question, not two.

No, I think this is a straw man argument. There are many things about the universe that we do not understand. The difference between the rationalist and the religionist is that the rationalist will admit he does not have the answer to certain universal questions, whereas the religionist will pretend that he does have the answer - and will stick by it even when that answer has been demonstrated not to make any sense. If your answer does not stand up to rational scrutiny, which do you think is the most likely reason:
a) your critic is "limiting" himself by looking at it rationally?
b) your answer is wrong?

Rationality is just a tool for determining whether or not something is likely to be true.

Take Christianity for instance. It is, fundamentally, a hypothesis about a rumour (St Paul formulated the salvation/atonement hypothesis about the resurrection rumour). Now, if we examine this hypothesis, we can see that it doesn't make sense (see the "Crucifixion analogy" thread). Therefore, the rational person will conclude that the hypothesis is unsound, and will not give credence to it. Then if we examine the historicity of the rumour itself, we see that this too is highly dubious.

So why does anyone believe in Christianity? There are only two possible explanations:
1) The believer committed himself emotionally and socially to joining a group of believers before fully examining the claims of Christianity. Now that the committment is made, it becomes extrememly hard to break out of, and he responds to accusations of irrationality by denying the ability of "mere" rationality to judge in such matters, and stressing the importance of "faith".
2) He is completely, stark-staring mad.

For what it's worth, Malook, I do not think you are mad.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by malookiemaloo
By the way. Queen of Swords-great name.

Thanks, I got it from



This keen vision allows the Queen of Swords to see straight to the heart of any situation, past the illusions that may entice others into seeing what isn't really there... those who try to deceive her are in for a big surprise - thieves and con artists will quickly taste her cold steel.

malookiemaloo

Pleased to hear my sanity is not in doubt!

My point1)

If God exists (OK it's a big if for you) and He is greater than us, then He can only be perceived by faith. I believe He brought creation by simply speaking. How He did it, I will never be able to understand. By faith I know it's true.

My point 2) If 1) above is correct, it then has to be asked what is God like? eg is He personal or impersonal?

I think 1) and 2) are separate.

I need you to explain how you can say that you do not understand everything about the universe but in the same breath say 'there is no God'. You must at least allow for the possibility.

Yes yes. I hear rationality all the time on the Sec web. But is rationality not very subjective? eg I think it is rational to believe in God you don't. Who's right?

Is it rational to believe the resurrection? I came to the Sec web through reading JJ Lowder's excellent article on the resurrection. He came to the conclusion that it is rational to believe both!!

No. Paul did not make up the atonment. It is hinted at just after the fall at Genesis 3:15b. All the Levitical sacrifices speak of atonment. There are many more examples in the OT.

Out for the rest of the day now. Perhaps speak again tomorrow.


m