madmax2976

Here's a good link on modern Pantheism. I count my self as a Scientific or Natural Pantheist.

<a href="http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/" target="_blank">Pantheism</a>

rainbow walking

Hello Rainbow Walking,

Hi David

David: That God is a fact beyond reality is a philosphical necessity.

Rw: Is it now? And what is it about philosophy that renders your god a necessity? I have a car and a job. These are genuine necessities to the furtherance of my life. Why do I need your god?

David: I searched for these facts myself, examining as many ideas and concepts as were readily available to me.

Rw: How did you determine that facts beyond reality are actually facts? Have you considered that they may not be factual?

rw: By what epistemological means did you gather these facts beyond reality?

David: "Facts beyond reality" are necessary and unavoidable.

Rw: Then you just collided with them in mid-air? You are making some very strange assertions about these facts beyond reality as though they are real, David. I suspect you have presupposed the existence of your deity and nicely packaged it in a safe clean place beyond reality, but that remains to be seen. So, in an effort to clearly understand your position let me ask you a couple of questions concerning your use of the term “reality” because there are actually two distinct applications of that term. When you say “reality” do you mean:

1. Defined as everything contained within this universe that may, or may not, as yet be known by man to exist but nevertheless still exists within this universe?

Or

2. Defined as that which is contained in the conceptual understanding of any particular person at any given time and is limited to that person’s comprehension of his personhood within the parameter of his particular position in the universe?

David: I suppose that you have some of your own, though you may not even recognize them for what they are.

Rw: Do you now? If you happen to notice any during our discussion please don’t hesitate to point them out.

At any rate David, my question still lingers unanswered. Saying that you searched for them means you presupposed them to exist and required only your diligence to discover their whereabouts.

Saying they are necessary and unavoidable only adds, to your ever-growing list of baseless assertions, another mystical quality about your unique ability to “know” that these are indeed facts, in the true sense of that term. If they are necessary and un-avoidable then why did you have to seek them out?

If a person begins seeking answers to specific questions about his existence, purpose for existing etc. and so forth, someone will likely come along and offer him the tantalizing aroma of a make believe deity with an entire panoply of ready-made answers. So, in one sense, it is probably un-avoidable. But to say it is necessary means that one hasn’t a choice. Are you saying we have no choice but to accept your beliefs as true?

rw: I mean, when you unplugged your brain stem from its socket and went drifting off into the foggy netherworld beyond reality to gather up these facts how did you find your way back to your body? There are so many of you floating around out there gathering these nuggets of truth how do you find your way back to YOUR body?

David: I don't know what you are talking about here.

Rw: Almost my entire previous response was submitted as a parody of your position and its intent was to poke some good-natured fun, (at your expense). However, comical or not, if you’ll read through it carefully you’ll find that I have succinctly responded to your every previous assertion. The fact that you were able to take it in stride and not fly into a rage speaks highly of your character.

Basically, I am responding to your claim of these facts beyond reality and the fact that there are literally millions of you believers making essentially the same claim, though in various forms. I am trying to ascertain how you guys establish these claims as facts while asserting them to have originated somewhere beyond reality. The fact that most believers have differing opinions and interpretations of these facts immediately casts a serious shadow upon their factuality. But I already knew this and that is why I have been addressing your position from the perspective of truth and rationality. I want to know HOW you know these assertions are facts especially when YOU, in the same breath and sentence, claim they are derived from somewhere beyond reality.

rw: Is there some sort of cosmic traffic controller that directs you guys back home safely? It would be odd to wake up and find that you are no longer a white male living in Florida, wouldn’t it? Has this ever happened to you before?

David: I don't know what you are talking about. Please clarify.

Rw: This follows hard upon the heels of my earlier jab. Since you gave me no details about how you came to be in possession of these alleged facts, you left me to speculate and so I did. I speculated that all believers must have some way of entering this realm beyond reality to rescue these facts and bring them back to the less mystic among us. The only way I can see this being done is to take ones brain into this mysterious realm because it requires a brain to recognize and distinguish a fact from a fantasy. From there I just wondered how all you guys keep from getting lost on your way back and plugging your brains into the wrong body socket.

rw: And another thing, while you’re out there in the land beyond time, how do you know when it’s time to return to Kansas Dorothy ? Is there a time limit or something?

David: It seems to me that your imaginations have gained the advantage over reasoned discussion. Do you really know what you are talking about?

Rw: That’s funny David because I feel like asking you the same question, verbatim, every time you try to explain to me why your position is true and rational.

rw: And while we’re on the subject, do you ever worry about being hijacked by demons? It seems I remember a lot of stuff written in your manual about folks being demon possessed. Is this how it happened? Or do they just get picked up along the way like hitchhikers.
Now here’s an idea for you David that you might want to consider, that could be profitable if you implement it properly. Maybe it’s already been thought of, I don’t know. I’m assuming you would. Perhaps you could start an insurance company selling mental health insurance policies to your fellow fact finders beyond reality. You never know when one could get lost and then the family would be stuck with that brainless body to tend to for such a long time. The financial burden could be devastating. You could set it up the way they sell those policies at the airports. Except you’d have to peddle yours at church I suppose.

David: I don't know what has inspired you to speak so eloquently about nothing.

Rw: Why, you have David. Your many amusing and unsupported assertions are the source of my inspiration.

rw: Another question that just crossed my mind: While you’re out there gathering up facts, how do you distinguish fact from fantasy? Are the facts like glowing or something? Are they decorated in pink ruffles with those little flowery buttons and just a touch of glitter? Could you elaborate on this one for me?
I’m immensely curious about these facts beyond reality you are quoting David, and I must confess, a little jealous. I mean, here I am, trudging along like a dutiful little soldier, pouring thru books and internet files trying to determine how we got here and there you are, floating about like a puffball gathering up facts about our reality from beyond reality, bringing home new and wonderful insights that shock and astound everyone. How do you do it? It must be great living on the cutting edge of time. You must share this secret with us David. You must!

David: Now that you have vented, are you really satisfied with anything that you have said?

Rw: I rather enjoyed putting it together. Thank you David for the idea and yes I’m satisfied I made my point.

Rw: Tell me again David what relevance this has to the truth-value of YOUR beliefs or the impossibility of verification of the existence of YOUR deity?

David: You asked the question regarding Christian medical benevolence.

Rw: Well, no David, I asked you to be more specific with your examples which you did, somewhat. In all honesty and fairness I am aware that many denominations, especially the Catholics, routinely send doctors and dentists to primitive countries to provide medical treatment. They arrive with their equipment, drugs and their bibles dispensing cures and the gospel, leaving their bewildered patients with the impression that all one needs to become a doctor is to study his bible. This probably accounts for much of the disenchantment with America’s way of life. Once again proving that your worldview depends on the privileges and products of mine to make it appear plausible. Why don’t these same denominations just send ministers to effect miracle cures and leave modern medicine out of it?

rw: Now that I’ve brought you up-to-snuff on this discussion maybe you’ll put away all your wind up straw men and actually address the cogency of my arguments.

David: Present a cogent argument and I will respond to it ...

Rw: I have and will continue to do so.

rw: Stick around folks for the popcorn and drinks. They’re immensely more fulfilling than David’s arguments.

David: Rainbow, your creative writing is a pleasure to read. If you continue to write in this manner, I will bring the popcorn and drinks myself.

Best Regards,
David Mathews

Rw: Why David, that’s mighty big of you. We’re talking a lot of popcorn and drinks here. Are you sure?

HelenM

Have you seen the movie Scooby-Doo, rw? I was wondering if the scene in it where disembodied people are returned to the wrong bodies inspired this thought of yours...

love
Helen

John Page

Very patronizing. BTW, not too far off what?

I identify a bit with David, I used to "want there to be a god" because it would make life so much simpler socially and philosophically. Eventually it dawned on me that "they" didn't know and religion was made up by fallible humans. Now it seems that atheists are somewhat like the early Christians, huddling for warmth around their computer screens.

Cheers, John

B. H. Manners

Mr. Bender and Ms. Helen,

I know you vehemently disagree with David's concepts of mercy at the Final Judgement, but if you do not mind please allow us to continue with our focus on Mathews in this thread and what he thinks regarding the existence of God. Later, perhaps we can start another thread with the two of you as the hosts where we discuss the correctness or incorrectness of David's views in light of your Holy Bible.

Respectfully yours,

Barry

B. H. Manners

Helen and Douglas,

A lot of the "unorthodox" views you believe you see in Mr. Mathews stems from the very dogmatism in the Church of Christ that it is infamous for. A lot of CoC people are simply burned out by it, like a lot of former Worldwide Church of God people are at their old denomination. A lot of Campbellite preachers are realizing many of their old doctrines are in fact erroneous and they are trying to correct this, however, to many CoCer's this is a frightening time and experience to go through. It's like finding out you meant to head south and go the wrong way for a week and then realize your mistake. I think David is doing what Paul said in the Bible: "Test everything and hold on to what is true." He has been told lots of error all of his life and he is having to relearn much of his faith and is testing "every wind of doctrine" to find out what is true. That is how I feel his posts should be taken as being, just an attempt to learn for sure what is right and wrong and not what tradition has told him all of his life.

Don't slap me David, but in a lot of ways the Church of Christ can be regarded as a cult like the Worldwide Church of God in its authoritarian structure and fear of every little opinion "like thing" being damnable error. Many preachers have risked their careers trying to fix this mistake and make it right somewhat.

Also recently, a lot of CoC ministers have challenged the view they are the "one true church" and that things like musical instruments, ect. are not sinful after all, with in my opinion, great success. A lot of former CoCer's are having to "relearn" things from scratch if you know what I mean and I think David wants to make sure he examines every doctrinal option available to test its possible "truth."

Mr. Bender, you may believe David is a false teacher and liar, and to be honest I can understand 100% where you think he is in error saying Jesus will spare us atheists at judgement and let us into heaven despite our unbelief. I am not asking you to condone what you believe is error, but try to understand where he is coming from. I think he is like you and I, often throwing ideas out for scrutiny and seeing whether they hold up or not and that is how you and I should look at his posts.

Douglas and Helen, he is your brother whether you wish to admit it or not, so while exposing his error please try to show as much love as possible for him. Since I am now an atheist David cannot regard me as a "brother" any longer, but I have realized he is a man in need of friendship and counsel just as myself and in no way needs the door slammed in his face for seeking answers to his questions.

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: BH ]</p>

Bible Humper

Hello David, sorry for taking so long.

Yes, I would renounce my atheism if you could prove that God most likely exists or that it is at least more likely than brain-in-a-laboratoryism.

If you proved that God most likely exists, I would call myself a theist.

If you could prove that God has a higher chance of existing than Brain-in-a-laboratoryism, or any other speculative scenario that is indistinguishable from a naturalistic scenario, I would consider myself agnostic.

Since we both agree that a reality in which your concept of God exists is indistinguishable from a reality where He does not, how can there be evidence of His existence?

Here are a couple things you said:

David: This is a very important statement, so let me repeat it again in bold type: A reality where God exists is indistinguishable from one where he does not.

I must say that this is exactly what I believe. I think that we have found a truth here, a matter of agreement between theists and atheists.
---------------------------------------------------

David: My opinion regarding God and Christianity are based upon faith and not upon some empirical proof of God's existence.
---------------------------------------------------

How can there be any evidence besides "God has not been proven not to exist"? Brain-in-a-laboratoryism has not been proven not to exist either!

Ok, if you can demonstrate something that materialism and naturalism can't explain, but supernaturalism can, and isn't merely a "God in the gaps" type assertion, I will call myself either an agnostic or a theist by the time I finish studying whatever this evidence is.

"Empty and hopeless" are subjective judgements, and are not proof of a deity in any case. An ugly truth is nonetheless a truth.

I was trying to show that if we use the word "christian" liberally enough, I'm a christian also.
Since this has nothing to do with whether or not your assertions are true or not, I am going to drop this particular arguement.


Brain-in-a-laboratoryism is just as logical, reasonable and rational as your theism, not atheism actually. Brain-in-a-laboratoryism and your theism both offer scenarios that are indistinguishable from a reality where both are not true, but you and the Brain-in-a-laboratoryist both assert that your scenarios are true nonetheless, despite the fact that since a reality where either one is true is indistinguishable from a reality where neither is true, arriving at either conclusion is groundless.

Atheism rejects theism for lack of proof, just like you yourself reject Brain-in-a-laboratoryism for lack of proof.

David, social facors in particular push us towards christianity, I don't understand how someone could deny that!

Since theism promises eternal life and the fear of death is with us all, psychological factors also push towards theism. Not to mention the theistic habit of indoctrinating youth into the belief system before they could ever be said to have a sufficient foundation in knowledge, critical thinking and emotional maturity to make an unbiased judgement about theistic claims.

David Mathews

Hello John Page,

David: Have you been looking for evidence for God? Where have you been looking?

David: Theism's connection with knowledge, direct observation and evidence begins in Genesis 1:1, where the subject of heaven and earth are introduced with God at the beginning. Theism's connection with knowledge, direct observation and evidence continues throughout the Bible in the interactions between God and man.

David: If my reasons for believing are not satisfying to you, that's unfortunate. Of course, I did not present my beliefs in order to satisfy your expectations or requirements.

David: That's good advice, I do it all of the time.

Best Regards,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Ryanfire,

David: Words are used in the Bible because words are all that we as humans have.

David: Words are used to express attributes of God because words are all that we have.

David: Words are meaningless when used about God, but words are all that we have. Necessity compels us to speak about God because there are no other options.

David: True.

David: It is true that God does not do this, but we should recognize that God is not obligated to answer all of our questions or provide all of the information that we need to live our lives.

David: We don't pray because we need to pray, we pray as a means of acknowledging our dependence upon God. We don't look to God to solve all of our problems, God has given us our problems so that we may solve them ourselves. Humans may or may not be totally depraved, nonetheless there is a universal tendency among humans to choose sin and selfishness over righteousness and sacrifice.

David: I agree. I have faith in God and in myself.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Philosoft,

David: Perhaps so.

David: What's this you are saying: You know that the design of the human eye is an oversight or a mistake?

I find your certainty astonishing. Are you certain that you are not mistaken?

David: Certainly. I should only make references to things which are of particular concern to myself. My statement regarding Star Trek was merely an impression that I had from memories of the television program, nothing much more than a irrelevant opinion.

Sincerely,

David Mathews