Freethought & Rationalism Archive

K · 10-03-2002, 09:07 PM

RJS:

If the list of choices were narrowed to the two you listed and I was forced to pick one, I would definitely choose the second. It would be just the same as if you had replaced God with Santa Clause in the first option. The second option seems at least plausible. The first seems utterly ridiculous.

Jobar · 10-03-2002, 09:51 PM

RJS, I find it quite plausible, and in agreement with human knowledge, that Life, the Universe, and Everything is *self-causing*.

Let me try a simple analogy here. When you take fine, dry sand, and pour it through a funnel onto a flat surface, you get a cone. No matter how much you pour, you never get a cube, or a sphere, or any other shape. The sand self-organizes into a cone. It requires no external shaping.

Life is like that. When you take the basic elements of the universe, and put them in the right proportions at the proper distance from a sun, they organize themselves over time and come alive. Energy plus matter plus time can form life, with no external guidance.

Although we do not yet have the equations- the Unified Field Theory- describing how time, space, matter and energy create themselves, I am personally confident that these will be found, perhaps in my lifetime.

I see in this consistency, and sensibility, and beauty. It makes me realize that I need fear no hell, for I am made of the same stuff as the stars. It aleviates the fear of death, because though my individual consciousness may cease, the way of the world will sprout forth new, and quite possibly better, consciousnesses. Far from seeing an imperfect and fallen world, I see a world where growth and improvement are simple consequences of existence- why, even if we were to try very hard to wipe this world clean of life, we simply could not. Life is too strong!

I see no cause for overweening pride in this knowledge- for it is a concept any conscious being can grasp, and apply to him, her or itself. Nor is there cause for humility, for I am, my self, a tiny but brilliant facet of the mighty gem which is reality. To me this is the way the world is- and in it is no place or need for the God you say you believe in.

sandlewood · 10-03-2002, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RJS:
If you HAD to place a probability on the likelihood of the following statements representing truth, and knew that one HAD to be correct, where would you place the probabilities.

1. Intelligent Life resulted from an external creator of all things we know (including the universe), such creator obviously choosing to remain external.

2. Intelligent Life resulted from random interactions between natural elements found inside a universe that just happened without cause.

What you didn�t mention in #1 was that the creator also �just happened without a cause�. Given that, I would say the second choice is more probable because the creator is superfluous. The likelihood of a creator just happening is no greater than the Universe just happening. Even less, because the creator is supposed to be infinitely greater than the Universe.

K · 10-04-2002, 04:58 AM

Jobar:

Well said.

Jamie_L · 10-04-2002, 05:03 AM

Wow! Go away for an evening, and this thread explodes into attacks and digressions from all sides. I suppose that comes with the territory, though.

However, I am interested in getting back to the OP, now that I think we're all on the same page (or were, a few pages back).

So, if we can push aside all the arguements about truth and who's right and who's wrong (though they make for great DIFFERENT threads), here's the issue at hand that I'd like to hear honest answers to from the Christians on the thread (and thanks for hanging around - it wouldn't be much of a thread without you):

Assuming that your beliefs are correct, and that God is real:
1) Will a person who honestly concludes that God does not exist go to hell/be separated from God for all eternity/cease to exist after death?
2) If the answer to #1 is "Yes", why are these people condemned to this fate merely for coming to a mistaken conclusion based on the tools and information available to them?

Jamie

K · 10-04-2002, 05:13 AM

Jamie_L:

I think it's even more important to stress that from the theist's point of view, those tools and information are God-given. How can God damn me for being stuck with a brain (that He gave me) that can not accept fairy-tale-like stories as proof of a divine being?

RJS:

The preceding sentence is written using the assumption that God exists to show that it is not consistent with the supposed omnibenevolent trait of God. It in no way is meant to imply that I believe He exists.

Ron Garrett · 10-04-2002, 05:25 AM

Amos:

Been a while. Hope you're well.

I am, as always, fascinated by your posts.

Some of the strains of Catholic thought you bring up I recognize and some I don't. Your last regarding Eve and Mary is completely alein to me. Of course, over the years thousands of Catholic writers, some gaining imprimatur and most not, have written on all these subjects, and a lifetime of study would not provide me sufficient time to even gain a cursory familiarity with more than the most noted sources.

If you would, I'd appreciate it if you would reference the source for some of the more, at least to me, esoteric and obscure teachings that you share. That last certainly isn't in the Catechism, and of course, having been trained in a non-denominational seminary, though I am familiar with the doctors of the church, the apostolics, pre and post Nicene writers, and a handful of others, when one crosses into the near infinite discourses of various Catholic writers on sex and conception, I admit I am quite lost.

Cheers,
RG

MBR · 10-04-2002, 05:39 AM

Hmmm, If I was god this would make sense to me...

Because in the afterlife, being gullable is a virtue. God doesn't want to surround himself with a bunch of maverick thinkers that always question stuff. Imagine if you were god, would you want a bunch of people that are always questioning your authority and challenging you, hell no, you'd want a bunch of pawns that do your bidding without question. This test for heaven is a filter for people that lack the ability of blind faith.

But of course apologists wouldn't accept such a logical answer because it labels them as gullable.

ManM · 10-04-2002, 06:11 AM

Good grief, I go to sleep for 8 measly hours and the topic grows three more pages. There is no way I'll be able to keep up with this one.

Jobar,

Quote:

RJS, ManM, GeoTheo, Amos- do any of you wish to attempt answers to the many questions left unanswered here, beginning with the title question? How do you answer questions like this in the quiet of your own minds? Do you ask these questions honestly, and attempt to find honest answers?

I haven't been able to give as much attention to this as I'd like to, but I'll say a few words here. I wrestled with hell years ago and came to the conclusion that I agreed with St. Isaac the Syrian: "The pain which gnaws the heart as the result of sinning against love is sharper than all other torments that there are." Those who have observed the duties of love will receive God's love with joy as a kindred spirit. Yet, those of us who have sinned against love will also find ourselves next to the one who is Love. For the first time we will clearly see how many people we have harmed through our refusal to love. The pain which gnaws at the heart is sharper than all other torments.

And so the question, "Why would God send me to hell?" becomes "Why would God subject me to His love?" Why would God grant us all eternal life in paradise and remove the darkness of ignorance surrounding us? Really, I can find no blame in God for loving. Heaven and hell are not different places, but rather our reaction to God's love.

Regarding the existence of God, I learned a long time ago that arguing about it was a dead end. Granting metaphysical naturalism, prove God? I cannot do such a thing. For me, God exists at the beginning of thought and not at the end of a proof. Many of you interpret the world through metaphysical naturalism. I interpret the world through theism. I choose theism over naturalism because naturalism does not allow for any real teleology. Furthermore with theism I do not have to give up science, rational thinking, or any other such thing. It is quite the opposite actually, for naturalism is what would close down avenues of thought for me. On top of that, I usually get the impression that naturalism is just the overreaction to bad theism. I guess I'm just the type who wants both the cake and the ability to eat the aforementioned cake.

Jack the Bodiless · 10-04-2002, 06:12 AM

Why is it that "what God wants us to do" coincides so closely with "what the priesthood would want us to do"?

God wanted everyone to sacrifice animals (give food) to the priests. Then he wanted us to give tithes (money) to the priests. And he still wants us to become believers in this lifetime, and thereby obey the priesthood.

Why not become believers after death? For the same reason that going straight to Heaven via suicide is deemed a sin: the priesthood wants believers in this world.

Why is not obvious? Why do so many people insist that an allegedly omnibenevolent God will punish us for all eternity if we don't become believers while we are alive, and unable to see the proof that we will supposedly get after death?

Why not wait?

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

10-03-2002, 09:07 PM	#181
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	RJS: If the list of choices were narrowed to the two you listed and I was forced to pick one, I would definitely choose the second. It would be just the same as if you had replaced God with Santa Clause in the first option. The second option seems at least plausible. The first seems utterly ridiculous.

10-03-2002, 09:51 PM	#182
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	RJS, I find it quite plausible, and in agreement with human knowledge, that Life, the Universe, and Everything is self-causing. Let me try a simple analogy here. When you take fine, dry sand, and pour it through a funnel onto a flat surface, you get a cone. No matter how much you pour, you never get a cube, or a sphere, or any other shape. The sand self-organizes into a cone. It requires no external shaping. Life is like that. When you take the basic elements of the universe, and put them in the right proportions at the proper distance from a sun, they organize themselves over time and come alive. Energy plus matter plus time can form life, with no external guidance. Although we do not yet have the equations- the Unified Field Theory- describing how time, space, matter and energy create themselves, I am personally confident that these will be found, perhaps in my lifetime. I see in this consistency, and sensibility, and beauty. It makes me realize that I need fear no hell, for I am made of the same stuff as the stars. It aleviates the fear of death, because though my individual consciousness may cease, the way of the world will sprout forth new, and quite possibly better, consciousnesses. Far from seeing an imperfect and fallen world, I see a world where growth and improvement are simple consequences of existence- why, even if we were to try very hard to wipe this world clean of life, we simply could not. Life is too strong! I see no cause for overweening pride in this knowledge- for it is a concept any conscious being can grasp, and apply to him, her or itself. Nor is there cause for humility, for I am, my self, a tiny but brilliant facet of the mighty gem which is reality. To me this is the way the world is- and in it is no place or need for the God you say you believe in.

10-04-2002, 04:58 AM	#184
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	Jobar: Well said.

10-04-2002, 05:03 AM	#185
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	Wow! Go away for an evening, and this thread explodes into attacks and digressions from all sides. I suppose that comes with the territory, though. However, I am interested in getting back to the OP, now that I think we're all on the same page (or were, a few pages back). So, if we can push aside all the arguements about truth and who's right and who's wrong (though they make for great DIFFERENT threads), here's the issue at hand that I'd like to hear honest answers to from the Christians on the thread (and thanks for hanging around - it wouldn't be much of a thread without you): Assuming that your beliefs are correct, and that God is real: 1) Will a person who honestly concludes that God does not exist go to hell/be separated from God for all eternity/cease to exist after death? 2) If the answer to #1 is "Yes", why are these people condemned to this fate merely for coming to a mistaken conclusion based on the tools and information available to them? Jamie

10-04-2002, 05:13 AM	#186
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	Jamie_L: I think it's even more important to stress that from the theist's point of view, those tools and information are God-given. How can God damn me for being stuck with a brain (that He gave me) that can not accept fairy-tale-like stories as proof of a divine being? RJS: The preceding sentence is written using the assumption that God exists to show that it is not consistent with the supposed omnibenevolent trait of God. It in no way is meant to imply that I believe He exists.

10-04-2002, 05:25 AM	#187
Ron Garrett Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: United States Posts: 1,657	Amos: Been a while. Hope you're well. I am, as always, fascinated by your posts. Some of the strains of Catholic thought you bring up I recognize and some I don't. Your last regarding Eve and Mary is completely alein to me. Of course, over the years thousands of Catholic writers, some gaining imprimatur and most not, have written on all these subjects, and a lifetime of study would not provide me sufficient time to even gain a cursory familiarity with more than the most noted sources. If you would, I'd appreciate it if you would reference the source for some of the more, at least to me, esoteric and obscure teachings that you share. That last certainly isn't in the Catechism, and of course, having been trained in a non-denominational seminary, though I am familiar with the doctors of the church, the apostolics, pre and post Nicene writers, and a handful of others, when one crosses into the near infinite discourses of various Catholic writers on sex and conception, I admit I am quite lost. Cheers, RG

10-04-2002, 05:39 AM	#188
MBR Junior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Trailhead Posts: 56	Hmmm, If I was god this would make sense to me... Because in the afterlife, being gullable is a virtue. God doesn't want to surround himself with a bunch of maverick thinkers that always question stuff. Imagine if you were god, would you want a bunch of people that are always questioning your authority and challenging you, hell no, you'd want a bunch of pawns that do your bidding without question. This test for heaven is a filter for people that lack the ability of blind faith. But of course apologists wouldn't accept such a logical answer because it labels them as gullable.

10-04-2002, 06:12 AM	#190
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	Why is it that "what God wants us to do" coincides so closely with "what the priesthood would want us to do"? God wanted everyone to sacrifice animals (give food) to the priests. Then he wanted us to give tithes (money) to the priests. And he still wants us to become believers in this lifetime, and thereby obey the priesthood. Why not become believers after death? For the same reason that going straight to Heaven via suicide is deemed a sin: the priesthood wants believers in this world. Why is not obvious? Why do so many people insist that an allegedly omnibenevolent God will punish us for all eternity if we don't become believers while we are alive, and unable to see the proof that we will supposedly get after death? Why not wait?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.