Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Theli · 04-07-2002, 03:51 PM

luvluv...

Quote:

First of all, you're mixing threads.

And why would that matter? Even if it was on another thread it's still your testimony.

Quote:

Second of all, what I said on that other thread was that he wanted to be detected, but through the medium of faith.

You see, this I never understood. Why would he want us to detect him through just faith?
And if you can detect him through faith, then isn't he detectable?

Doesn't faith mean confidence in god's existence aswell as trust in him. Then how can "faith" detect god?
Don't you have faith in gods existance after you detect him?
If faith is required to believe in god, then how did you first detect him? You didn't have faith in his existence prior to believing in him.

luvluv · 04-07-2002, 04:38 PM

He wants us to know by faith because any other means would be coercive. Again, check the "If God exists, why is he hiding thread" for an elaboration on that point. I'm not going through it all here.

As to your second point, it's difficult for me to answer. I've never not believed in God, even when I wasn't a Christian. But as I said in the other thread, all it takes is a general willingness to bellieve (some people are unwilling on any grounds) and a desire for contact with a God, if he exists. I think the willingness goes beyond the scientific point of view which would say "If God reveals Himself to me, objectively, I will believe in Him." I think it's more like "God, if you are real, please talk to me." You are kind of reaching out in faith, like stepping off of a cliff and expecting that something will catch you.

Faith is not a means by which you detect God, faith is a means by which you provide God the opportunity to reveal Himself.

DRFseven · 04-07-2002, 05:33 PM

Quote:

luvluv: But as I said in the other thread, all it takes is a general willingness to bellieve (some people are unwilling on any grounds) and a desire for contact with a God, if he exists.

Not so! Plenty of people would love to believe in the god named God but can't because it just doesn't seem true.

Echo · 04-08-2002, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
He wants us to know by faith because any other means would be coercive. Again, check the "If God exists, why is he hiding thread" for an elaboration on that point. I'm not going through it all here.

This makes no sense to me. This is like telling a jury that you're going to give them no evidence whatsoever because that would interfere with your free decision to find them guilty or not guilty.

Do Christians really think this way?

Quote:

As to your second point, it's difficult for me to answer. I've never not believed in God, even when I wasn't a Christian. But as I said in the other thread, all it takes is a general willingness to bellieve (some people are unwilling on any grounds) and a desire for contact with a God, if he exists. I think the willingness goes beyond the scientific point of view which would say "If God reveals Himself to me, objectively, I will believe in Him." I think it's more like "God, if you are real, please talk to me." You are kind of reaching out in faith, like stepping off of a cliff and expecting that something will catch you.

But I suspect you don't normally go around stepping off of cliffs- unless you have evidence that something will probably catch you.

Quote:

Faith is not a means by which you detect God, faith is a means by which you provide God the opportunity to reveal Himself.

But is it a reliable tool for that purpose? It seems to me that if faith routinely leads people to embrace, with just as much certainty as you, contradictory and mutually exclusive concepts of god, then we need to reevaluate its usefulness as an instrument for gaining information about a god or gods. You might as well go to Walmart and purchase a Magic 8 Ball for the same purpose.

Kvalhion · 04-08-2002, 09:45 AM

Quote:

I think you are getting caught up in the analogy.

No, actually I am simply pointing out why your analogy is invalid.

Quote:

The fact that we are free, and even the fact that we sometimes make mistakes with that freedom, was all known by God when He created us.

Exactly. So why do you think you are flawed and that you have to repent your sins and worship God and suppress everything that is wrong with you? If indeed God created you, he knew you would be everything that you are today. That applies to anyone and everyone. So why should we change who we were meant to be by needlessly aspiring to some impossible standard?

A large part of the Christian premise is that God created the world perfect yet we screwed it up. If that is true, it makes your analogy invalid to say that God created us with all the qualities we currently possess.

Edited for clarification.

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: Kvalhion ]</p>

luvluv · 04-08-2002, 10:47 AM

Echo:

"This makes no sense to me. This is like telling a jury that you're going to give them no evidence whatsoever because that would interfere with your free decision to find them guilty or not guilty."

Again, read through the thread "If God exists, why is he hiding". I posted all my thoughts on the subject there.

"But is it a reliable tool for that purpose? It seems to me that if faith routinely leads people to embrace, with just as much certainty as you, contradictory and mutually exclusive concepts of god, then we need to reevaluate its usefulness as an instrument for gaining information about a god or gods. You might as well go to Walmart and purchase a Magic 8 Ball for the same purpose."

Faith is not as central in every religion as it is in Christianity. The Christian faith is backed up by the witness of the Holy Spirit in various ways. I won't get into it here, but faith is a conduit by which the Holy Spirit can confirm what is true and untrue to whomever believes. I don't know if other religions claim to work that way. But again, I addressed this in the other thread. If you still have questions that are not covered there, I'll consider answering them here, but I'd prefer you just read my opinions from over there rather than have me re-type the whole thing.

Kvalhion:

My analogy was intended solely to demonstrate that we should not expect to find the creator of a medium inside the medium he created. Anything you draw out of the analogy beyond that was not intended by me, and would be best answered on another thread where you could explain your position better.

But suffice it to say here that just because God knows you are going to do a certain thing doesn't mean he created you to do it. I mean, I might know ahead of time that my child is at some point going to crap his pants. That doesn't mean I want him to crap his pants. And it does not follow, since I know he is going to crap his pants, that I should therefore allow him to do it forever without ever interfering with him. It also does not follow, that just because I know ahead of time that he is going to crap on himself, that my potty-training constitutes forcing him to adhere to an impossible standard. It is very possible, though it may seem difficult to the youngster at the time.

daemon · 04-08-2002, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
<strong>Saying that if God created the universe, then he must be observable in the universe, is like saying that if Shakespeare created the world of his plays, then the characters of the play ought to be able to detect him somewhere in it. If God created the universe and was able to animate it, much like I am able to to create a film or a play and animate it, it is an unreasonble assumption that any of the characters I created would be able to find ME, physically, in my play or film.</strong>

This is a ludicrous analogy, as the characters in a play or movie are incapable of detecting anything, as they do not exist.

HRG · 04-08-2002, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:

But suffice it to say here that just because God knows you are going to do a certain thing doesn't mean he created you to do it. I mean, I might know ahead of time that my child is at some point going to crap his pants. That doesn't mean I want him to crap his pants.

There is an old saying in the law: everyone is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his acts. If I set fire to a house knowing that an invalid is living there and cannot escape, I intend him to burn.

This point applies even stronger to an omnipotent and future-omniscient god. He intends everything which happens: omniscience and omnipotence entail omniresponsibility.

Regards,
HRG.

HRG · 04-08-2002, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
Copernicus:

"You are preaching to the choir, Theli. If one can accept the concept of an uncreated god, then one can accept the concept of an uncreated universe. The Original Cause argument is completely vacuous."

Except that everything we can currently observe about matter leads us to believe that it cannot create itself out of nothing. We have not ever observed matter creating itself out of nothing.

Not at all. We have observed the effect of matter "created out of nothing" (i.e. vacuum fluctuations).

Quote:

We have even constructed basic scientific principles that state that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

False. It is matter + energy which is conserved. But matter + energy of a universe are balanced by their gravitational attraction, which is a negative contribution to the total energy.

HRG.

luvluv · 04-08-2002, 01:01 PM

daemon:

"This is a ludicrous analogy, as the characters in a play or movie are incapable of detecting anything, as they do not exist."

Fine, but if something were able to create free willed, intelligent beings, and if he created the medium in which they exist, i.e. the universe, then he must not have INITIALLY lived in that medium which he created. Therefore if God exists and if He created the universe his principle existence must be somewhere else, so the fact that we do not find him here is not suprising. That is my argument, is that not clear?

HRG:

"There is an old saying in the law: everyone is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his acts. If I set fire to a house knowing that an invalid is living there and cannot escape, I intend him to burn."

Fine, so when your child craps his pants just remember: it's your fault for having him. And if he ever disobeys you, which you know at some point he will, just remember: it's your fault for having a child even though you knew it would disobey.

And are you saying it is possible for matter to appear out of nowhere now, or that it was possible before there was a universe of matter and energy? So is the law: "matter is neither created nor destroyed" now defunct?

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

04-07-2002, 04:38 PM	#32
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	He wants us to know by faith because any other means would be coercive. Again, check the "If God exists, why is he hiding thread" for an elaboration on that point. I'm not going through it all here. As to your second point, it's difficult for me to answer. I've never not believed in God, even when I wasn't a Christian. But as I said in the other thread, all it takes is a general willingness to bellieve (some people are unwilling on any grounds) and a desire for contact with a God, if he exists. I think the willingness goes beyond the scientific point of view which would say "If God reveals Himself to me, objectively, I will believe in Him." I think it's more like "God, if you are real, please talk to me." You are kind of reaching out in faith, like stepping off of a cliff and expecting that something will catch you. Faith is not a means by which you detect God, faith is a means by which you provide God the opportunity to reveal Himself.

04-08-2002, 10:47 AM	#36
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Echo: "This makes no sense to me. This is like telling a jury that you're going to give them no evidence whatsoever because that would interfere with your free decision to find them guilty or not guilty." Again, read through the thread "If God exists, why is he hiding". I posted all my thoughts on the subject there. "But is it a reliable tool for that purpose? It seems to me that if faith routinely leads people to embrace, with just as much certainty as you, contradictory and mutually exclusive concepts of god, then we need to reevaluate its usefulness as an instrument for gaining information about a god or gods. You might as well go to Walmart and purchase a Magic 8 Ball for the same purpose." Faith is not as central in every religion as it is in Christianity. The Christian faith is backed up by the witness of the Holy Spirit in various ways. I won't get into it here, but faith is a conduit by which the Holy Spirit can confirm what is true and untrue to whomever believes. I don't know if other religions claim to work that way. But again, I addressed this in the other thread. If you still have questions that are not covered there, I'll consider answering them here, but I'd prefer you just read my opinions from over there rather than have me re-type the whole thing. Kvalhion: My analogy was intended solely to demonstrate that we should not expect to find the creator of a medium inside the medium he created. Anything you draw out of the analogy beyond that was not intended by me, and would be best answered on another thread where you could explain your position better. But suffice it to say here that just because God knows you are going to do a certain thing doesn't mean he created you to do it. I mean, I might know ahead of time that my child is at some point going to crap his pants. That doesn't mean I want him to crap his pants. And it does not follow, since I know he is going to crap his pants, that I should therefore allow him to do it forever without ever interfering with him. It also does not follow, that just because I know ahead of time that he is going to crap on himself, that my potty-training constitutes forcing him to adhere to an impossible standard. It is very possible, though it may seem difficult to the youngster at the time.

04-08-2002, 01:01 PM	#40
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	daemon: "This is a ludicrous analogy, as the characters in a play or movie are incapable of detecting anything, as they do not exist." Fine, but if something were able to create free willed, intelligent beings, and if he created the medium in which they exist, i.e. the universe, then he must not have INITIALLY lived in that medium which he created. Therefore if God exists and if He created the universe his principle existence must be somewhere else, so the fact that we do not find him here is not suprising. That is my argument, is that not clear? HRG: "There is an old saying in the law: everyone is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his acts. If I set fire to a house knowing that an invalid is living there and cannot escape, I intend him to burn." Fine, so when your child craps his pants just remember: it's your fault for having him. And if he ever disobeys you, which you know at some point he will, just remember: it's your fault for having a child even though you knew it would disobey. And are you saying it is possible for matter to appear out of nowhere now, or that it was possible before there was a universe of matter and energy? So is the law: "matter is neither created nor destroyed" now defunct?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.