phlebas

<strong>Originally posted by Transworldly Depraved:
Why would it be the case that the Christian God would not find value in many of the same things in which we find value?</strong>

Because our fleeting little lives, thoughts, actions, and feelings are absolutely nothing compared to the infinite. The grandest things we could do would be even less interesting for an infinite being than staring at a blank sheet of paper all day would be for you.

We can have the same relationship with an infinite creator as a paper airplane we make could have with us. When I make a paper airplane, it's thoughts, feelings, etc., are of absolutely no concern to me. You can say that a paper airplane doesn't have those attributes, but compared to an infinite being, neither do we.

<strong>It is part of Christian tradition that we are made in God's image. It would seem to follow that we would have many things in common with God.</strong>

Sure. But Christian arrogance doesn't solve logical problems.

<strong>Values can be among these things. Maybe the Christian God would find value in other conscious agents similar in many respects to himself.</strong>

Again, compared to an infinite God, we are as conscious as toy soldiers.

<strong>Another aspect of the Christian God is that he is supposed to be a being of perfect goodness, justice, and love.</strong>

Careful. You might get jumped on for sounding too similar to the argument from evil

<strong>If persons do not have at least some values in common it is difficult to see how they can love each other.</strong>

Right.

<strong>God is supposed to have created humanity for the purpose of freely loving him and other human beings. It follows that he must create us with many values in common with himself or at least with the ability to discern value in things in a way similar to the way he discerns value.</strong>

Yes, it's important to the Christian mythos to believe that. But it doesn't follow logically from the Christian definition of God.

<strong>However, it could be that you are arguing that God would be so "wholly other" that we could have literally nothing in common with him.</strong>

Pretty much.

<strong>I do not understand your difficulties here.</strong>

I hope I've cleared them up for you.

The Loneliest Monk

phlebas,

I was claiming that the circumstances on earth and in heaven would be dependent on God's intent for each place. If each place serves a different purpose, then each place would have distinct characteristics. I was not making an appeal to the mystery of the mind of God. In fact, I even gave an example of what the relationship between heaven and earth might be.

However, you seem to be claiming that reasons we might have for believing the world to be good would not qualify as reasons for God to believe it to be good. If we cannot apply our own understanding of what consititutes a good state of affairs, then what criteria are we supposed to apply? You seem to believe that God's reasons would have to be completely different than ours. If this is your position, then it isn't surprising that you can't think of a possible reason God would have for creating the world. Typically theists claim that God shares at least some characteristics with us. Is it your position that God would be so different from us that our reasons for thinking something good would not qualify as a reason for him to think so?

Adrian Selby

"But getting back to original topic of "free will"---We all have it,whether we admit it or not,and it's our own free will to choose what to believe in,whenever and wherever we decide to exercise this freedom."

Aside from determinist disputes regarding free will, it could be argued that one doesn't have a choice with regard to what one believes. The given here is that in believing in something, one is believing it to be true. Now, if there are logically compelling reasons for drawing a certain conclusion, reasons based on theories that it would be either ridiculous or self contradictory to dispute, it follows that one could not believe other than in the veracity of those theories unless one aims to be irrational, in which case the beliefs in question might not be categorised as beliefs at all.

"There is nothing that hinders anyone from believing in God,except their own intellects and reasoning,which they have complete control over.
No one thing or Entity forces the unbeliever
to reject a belief in the supernatural--they force themselves."

Again, following reasoning from above, if one is presented with the arguments for the existence of God and the arguments against, and one finds the latter more logically compelling, more cohesive or whatever, then one isn't really free to choose to believe otherwise, if, as I maintain the nature of a belief is that it is something held to be true by the believer, theist or atheist. I'm suggesting that we are guided by the evidence we see and draw conclusions on it, we do not 'choose' to settle on a given theory, particularly where some supporting theories disputing the existence of God as creator include evolutionary theory. When presented with evidence of evolutionary theory, I cannot choose what I want to do with it, it either describes the facts and resolves prior ignorance or it doesn't, and belief comes from it.

"After all,how do YOU know which decision is the most irrational...WHO told you that your choice is the right one??"

Nobody knows, but everybody draws conclusions from the evidence around them. Again, not like some pick n mix in a sweet shop, but from attempting to form the most coherent explanation they can to fit the facts as they see them. TO suggest that one can't know whether that's foolish or not is good skepticism, but does not in and of itself support any theistic conclusion.

"But methinks that Bible or not,the infidel mindset is one of utter rejection of the supernatural,even if it slapped em in the face,which ghosts have been known to do on occassion!
PROOF really has nothing to do with it...they demand it,but at the same time revel in the absence of it?!"

How can you know that a genuine ghost, and not some material and potentially explicable phenomena had occured. This isn't very persuasive. Not all atheists demand proof of God, most deny he exists, and proof of something that doesn't exist is absurd. Unfortunately, if some glowing light and a deep voice started telling me about God, I might as easily question the food I ate or the veracity of that experience being genuinely of God, however scary it might be.

Adrian

phlebas

That's it in a nutshell.

The Loneliest Monk

phlebas,

What is your reason for believing that? Also, earlier you accused me of employing the "we don't know the mind of God" argument. But wouldn't it follow from your position that we couldn't know the mind of God?

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: The Loneliest Monk ]</p>

Viti

Belief is not a choice! I cannot suddenly just start believing in God because I choose to....I tried that.

You might as well try to make be believe the sun is a giant tennis ball...I can SAY "yes, I believe the sun is a giant tennis ball" but I would not actually BELIEVE it. Now, if there was sufficient evidence, that indeed the sun is a tennis ball, my brain would then tell me...well there it is...

phlebas

<strong>Originally posted by The Loneliest Monk:
What is your reason for believing that?</strong>

Just extrapolating.

Think of an ant. Think what kind of relationship you can have with an ant. Now, think of the difference between you and an ant multiplied a million times. That still wouldn't approach the gulf between us and an infinite being.

<strong>Also, earlier you accused me of employing the "we don't know the mind of God" argument. But wouldn't it follow from your position that we couldn't know the mind of God?</strong>

I'm not trying to know his mind. I'm not claiming there's a mind there to know I'm trying to estimate how likely it is that a god generally described by Christians could have anything at all in common with us.

Transworldly Depraved

phlebas:

It appears that you are speaking of two different conceptions of God. On one hand there would be the Christian God and on the other hand there would be a sort of deistic God.

You quoted me with regard to the christian concept of our creation in God's image and wrote:

Whether this doctrine is arrogant is beside the point. It is still their conception of God. Your notion of a "wholly other", completely indifferent God is not their idea of God. (At least, it is not the conception of the typical believer though it might be shared by a few liberal theologians.)

So why would it be problematic for christians if they cannot think of any reasons a "wholly other", indifferent, or deistic God would create human beings?

The Loneliest Monk

phlebas,

I'm not convinced that an infinite being would show no interest in us. This would seem to imply that his interest in things is limited. And if that is the case, how can he be described as an infinite being? Are you claiming he is infinite in just some things and not others? Or his he just infinite in everything but his interest?

phlebas

Certainly. However, my whole point is to show that the Christian view of God is internally inconsistent. They may claim a personal, in-your-face God when saying that he made us in his image, but when they talk about his infinite characteristics, they are describing a different, incompatible God.