|
Author
|
Topic: Christianity is Morally Bankrupt
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
Message 205 of 652 (695059)
04-02-2013 11:28 AM
|
Reply to: Message 198 by Jazzns
04-01-2013 11:54 PM
|
|
Re: Hell as a choice....really?
Jazzns writes: Compared to eternity, the lifetime of a human being is essentially an instant. How many examples do we need of people who within less than a 20 year time frame go from being a selfish and destructive youth to a more wise and able adult? What would another 100, 1000 years do to the psyche of a human being to make a choice about something as daunting as ETERNITY if they could live that long. Lets use space as an analogy for time. Compared to the eternity, our galaxy is infinitely small. If you then started out from earth and before you left orbit you were on a trajectory that wrong by smaller than our instruments could detect. If you could not course correct, then at distances ak in to the size of our galaxy (which remember is infinitely small) you will go wildly off course. You would be considered a fool, worse than an idiot, to go our on this finite journey without the ability to change directions some vast distance along the way, and in ALL of that, we still only talking about things that are limited. What you are suggesting, is that the trajectory of a miserably small human lifetime, can say something about how a human will be for an immeasurable amount of time after that. It is plainly ridiculous. Let us start from the other end. God’s goal IMHO, is that when everything is re-created that the society that evolves out of that re-creation is characterized by the fact that they care for others as much as they care for themselves. If those who choose not to live by those principles continue to exist within that society then we are right back where we are today and nothing has changed. Sure I would like to see all life adhere to those principles so that all would be part of that society but on if they ultimately choose to reject that basic principle in favour of looking out for number one then that is their choice. I’d suggest that in this life time a great many people do establish that trajectory towards selflessness but that also many reject it. Is that then the last word on it for those whose hearts remain stubbornly selfish? Nobody knows, however, I’ll go back to CS Lewis’ The Great Divorce and in his metaphorical dream it would indicate that he didn’t think it was, and that would be consistent with my own views. (How would a child who dies at a young age establish any kind of trajectory towards having a heart that embraces selflessness for example?) My signature is from the book of Micah, and if he got it right, (and I’d suggest that is consistent with the whole Biblical narrative), then God asks that we are to be a people whose hearts lead them to be kind, (other translations have merciful) and just. If that is the case then it stands to reason that God Himself would be kind and/or merciful and jus,t and I believe that there will be perfect merciful justice done in the end.
GDR writes: If however you decide to donate to the same third world charity by announcing it in front of a group of people in order for them to see what a generous guy you are then it ceases to be a moral act. The act is the same but the morality is different. Jazzns writes: Perhaps. Where there is a difference in morality between those two things I thi nk it is trivial and hardly worth considering. I disagree completely. Our individual morality is based on our core values. If our charity is based on our concern for other’s opinions then, in terms of our discussion, we continue to have hearts that are essentially selfish.
Jazzns writes: I think things such as morals being universal, eternal, standard, is trying way too hard to make a point that only needs to be made if you are trying to prop up an idea, such as God, that desperately needs the support. It makes morality something that is really hard to define because it has to be so precise. But the morality we use on a day to day basis is much more important to us. It is the morali ty we agree upon that we value the most because we don't have to look at unevidenced things to apply it. Do you maintain then that the concept of treating others as you would like them to treat you is not a universal standard of morality?
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 198 by Jazzns, posted 04-01-2013 11:54 PM | | Jazzns has replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 215 of 652 (695221)
04-03-2013 6:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 204 by Stile
04-02-2013 11:11 AM
|
|
Re: It's important
Stile writes: Not really. I'm sure that it can seem this way. But this isn't really how I feel about it, anyway. Perhaps an atheist just doesn't think the question merits a response. Because (to the Atheist) it is... an unnecessary question. I suppose that we could say that about any question. It seems to me that even from a general interest point of view it's something we'd like to know. The question may be unnecessary but so are many questions that scientists spend millions of dollars as well as many life times trying to explain. Personally I'm glad the scientific community doesn't take that approach.
Stile writes: Why do we have to look at concluding whether or not an intelligent agent is responsible for life? We don't. You're are right, we can take the easy way out and just decide that we are not going to form an opinion on the subject. I did that for a number of years myself.
GDR writes: Your claim as an atheist is that incredibly complex cells somehow formed from non-intelligent particles and then evolved into incredibly complex life forms some of which are intelligent and capable of morality all without any pre-existing intelligence being involved. What evidence or rationale do you have for making this case. Stile writes: We are here. We are able to understand and observe some natural stuff (processes, growth, decomposition, systems, physics, chemistry...). We are able to understand and observe some natural stuff that yields incredible, wondrous results. Out of the natural stuff we're able to observe and understand, we do not find any indication that an intelligent agent was required at any point in time. Some of this natural stuff is boring. Like paint drying (...I mean that as a literal example.. wait, maybe not... the physics involved in paint drying is actually kinda cool... phase transitions and stuff). Like dandruff. Some of this natural stuff is incredibly wondrous. Like computers and the "quantum world" and vision. Throughout all the stuff we have... every single piece of natural stuff that we've ever been able to understand, and observe has always, without fail shown us that no external intelligence has ever been required. The natural stuff just happens on it's own. Sure, there's some natural stuff that we are currently unable to understand, or observe as much as we would like due to limitations of our current technology. However, we have not discovered... *ever*... even a single piece of natural stuff that actually required an intelligent agent to intervene before it could happen all by itself. I just extrapolate from what we know. If we are ever able to understand and observe some natural stuff that did actually require an intelligent agent in order to come about in the context of biological life... then I would begin to think that an intelligent agent (creator) may be required. But, we have yet to find this, so I don't begin to think that way. Of course we haven't found anything in our understanding of natural stuff that requires an intelligent agent. We study cell structure. We study DNA etc but we don’t know why they came into existence. We only study natural stuff.The atheistic POV is that they just happened. These incredibly complex cells somehow just poofed out of nowhere without pre-existing thought behind them, and then they evolved into creatures with the intelligence to study them. Frankly I can’t begin to have enough faith to believe that. That isn’t a god of the gaps argument either. Science may find a chemical way of starting some form of life, but that will only be further evidence that it took intelligence to make it happen. For that matter, why aren’t cells continuing to be formed from lifeless matter? However, like you say, you can go along quite merrily in life without giving any consideration to the question. (Mind you, I think that a lot of so-called religious people do the same thing IMHO.) It seems to me though that would make you agnostic as opposed to being atheistic.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 204 by Stile, posted 04-02-2013 11:11 AM | | Stile has seen this message but not replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 216 of 652 (695222)
04-03-2013 7:12 PM
|
Reply to: Message 207 by Tangle
04-02-2013 1:16 PM
|
|
Re: it's all about knowledge and honesty.
GDR writes: I understand the difference between theims and deism but as a starting point you have to look at whether you conclude that there is any intelligent agent responsible for life. Tangle writes: Not at all. I can legitimately conclude that Christianity is bunkum without having a moment's thought about whether a God exists or not. It fails on its own terms. Which is, I would guess, how you feel about all the other religions that are not Christianity. Actually, to a large degree the other primary religions in the world agree on most stuff until you start getting into extremism. For example just take The Golden Rule that we were talking about. In a sense Christianity has an add on which is the person of Jesus Christ, which is one point of disagreement, although the Qu’ran refers to Jesus as messiah, born of a virgin and having performed miracles.
Tangle writes: However, if I did agree that we had to start with deciding that there was a God or not - regardless of what kind, I would conclude that if there is, it is certainly not the kind of interventionist god that behaves in the way Christians tell us he does - sending his son to earth, performing miracles, answering prayers and so on. That is plainly absurd and it totally unsupported by any evidence. (In fact, flatly contradicted by the evidence.) The one crucial aspect of the Christian faith is the resurrection. If that didn’t happen then I agree that it is all a waste time and that there are a lot more constructive things that I could do as opposed to being involved with the church. Frankly, the only material evidence we have are the Gospels. They exist so they are evidence, but of course that doesn’t mean they are correct. I find the argument for the resurrection compelling but others like yourself don’t. We can’t find modern scientific evidence for it was a one time only event.
Tangle writes: It's the opposite of an easy out - it's an admission that there is room for doubt. The position is best explained by the Atheist Bus campaign here in the UK, "There probably is no god, now stop worrying and enjoy your life" For myself, I believe there is a God, I’m not worrying and I’m certainly enjoying my life. It’s a pretty trite expression that makes unfounded and incorrect assumptions about people who believe in God.
Tangle writes: The evidence is to be found in the sciences and the fact that we have never found any evidence for anything other that natural processes. But this is not the place to discuss all that - there are a thousand other threads here that do. It is of course my view that the natural processes themselves are evidence of God.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 207 by Tangle, posted 04-02-2013 1:16 PM | | Tangle has replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.2
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: It's important
Hi Otto That was a very well written reply. I'll do my best to respond in kind. 
Otto Tellick writes: The first big problem here is that you are raising the "why" question. That's the question that no one - nobody - can answer with any kind of accuracy, reliability, or honest certainty. No deist, no thei st, no atheist can truthfully assert that they know how to answer that question. We have no stable, confirmable basis for testing the relative merits of potential answers - indeed, given the vastness of the reality in which we have emerged, and the current limits of our cognition, I honestly doubt that we have the capacity to conceive of any answer that would be coherent. I have never claimed that I know God exists in those terms. I have a very strong belief and IMHO I have coherency in my views but I don’t claim absolute knowledge.
Otto Tellick writes: Hence, atheists don't raise the "why" question. Whenever "why" shows up in scientific research, it's always a paraphrase of "what" or "how" - for example, when a scientist asks, "Why do we see this particular life form with this particular set of attributes?", he or she is really asking, "What are the natural conditions that caused this set of attributes to arise and succeed as a life form?", i.e. "How did this actually come about?", or possibly "What sort of impact will this set of attributes have on the environment where this life form resides?", i.e. "How will it affect the ongoing existence of this life form and of those that has contact with?" You seem to have merged the atheistic views with scientific views. Science isn’t atheistic. I agree that science is not concerned with the question of why things are the way they are in the philosophical or theological sense. I agree that science looks at why things are the way they are in a natural sense. Science can study the evolutionary process to see why or how we developed the way we did but it doesn’t consider why the evolutionary process existed in the first place.
Otto Tellick writes: As for the "atheistic POV" being "they just happened" - no, that is a serious misunderstanding on your part - I'd go so far as to call it a demeaning mischaracterization. For any given phenomenon that we seek to understand, there are causative factors. These factors operate within the scope of natural, observable events and conditions. We would like to comprehend these factors to the extent that we can see them as behaving in ways that are consistent and predictable. I didn’t mean to be demeaning, (no pun intended), but you can use whatever term you like, but I still say it stretches plausibility to the limit to suggest that cellular life at all, let alone intelligent cellular lie, could emerge from nothing but non-intelligent particles without any intelligent causative factor involved.
Otto Tellick writes: To the extent that we have not yet reached that level of comprehension for a given phenomenon, we are continuing to tease things apart, zoom in, zoom out, change our angle of perspective, whatever we can think of to find a way for the thing to make consistent sense. When that sort of comprehension is too far beyond our ability, we leave it (for now) under the heading of "random" - but the whole point of the enterprise is to reduce the range of things we view as "random." In the scientific sense I completely agree, but I don’t think that the philosophical aspects of our existence should be ignored.
Otto Tellick writes: As for things "poofing out of nowhere" - I would have expected better from you, GDR. You should know quite well that it is the theistic POV that relies on things being "poofed out of nowhere" (creatio ex nihilo is the official "term of art" among theologians). The atheistic view is that, so long as were talking about any measurable point in time after t=0, everything we know of has come from something else that we can know of, based on confirmable evidence. We can't really talk about what there was exactly at (let alone before) t=0; we don't (yet) have the cognitive ability, let alone the vocabulary or syntax, to speak of that. I sincerely apologise for the rather trite poofing out of nowhere bit. However, as a theist I don’t actual adhere to creation ex nihilo. It is my own personal view that we are an emergent property of a greater reality, but having said that I guess the greater point is that I believe that God is responsible for our existence but I look to science to determine how He went about it.
Otto Tellick writes: It seems to me that your "lack of faith" for "believing" in a purely natural, non-intentional explanation for life, is either a lack of comprehension about the scale of the statistics at play in these matters (lots of people do have a problem with grasping the relationship betw een "millions", "billions", "trillions", etc), or else a sense of feeling insulted because something has punctured your bubble of innate narcissism ("My life too valuable to be a mere coincidence!"). I guess it was your turn to be a trifle demeaning. My beliefs are simply the result of my search for truth and I outlined my thoughts on this in post 177 in this thread. Again I am just looking for as much of the truth of our existence as I can understand knowing that I very well may not have much, let alone all of it, right. Certainly I don’t feel more valuable now than I did when I was still agnostic.
Otto Tellick writes: No. What you've given us here is a case of equivocation: you are using "intelligence" to refer to two very different things, and it doesn't work for one of them. There is no "intelligence" involved in the movement of electrons from an anode to a cathode; whether it's the chaotic flood in a lightning bolt or the carefully orchestrated dance through a silicon chip, the electrons do not, in themselves, evince intelligence. Likewise, there is no "intelligence" involved in the (electro)chemical reactions that form a nd drive living cells. It's physics and chemistry, operating in ways that (we expect) can be understood in roughly mechanical terms. Intelligence is an emergent property whose occurrence can, in a real sense, be predicted, once the relevant rules of physics, chemistry, etc, are adequately understood. It's a very long chain of causation to be followed, from mere elements to molecules to self-replicating proteins to cells to organisms to central nervous systems to awareness to self-consciousness to doing experiments. But it can be done, and it's not a matter of faith. One way to look at intelligence is that it is the ability to conceive, understand, and utilize chains of causation. The atheist POV is that these chains exist whether or not there is any intelligence around to appreciate them. We now have the observable fact that intelligence has come into existence, and is learning about and making use of these chain s. It's too soon to come up with anything beyond wild guesses as to "why" this is happening, but we can at least continue to improve our understanding of it in terms of "what" and "how". That should suffice. That is very well written but is still doesn’t begin to answer the question of whether or not there was an intelligent first cause. Whether an intelligent first cause exists or not is a matter of belief. I simply maintain that IMHO an intelligent first cause is the most probable conclusion to arrive at. (I have a hunch you disagree. )
Otto Tellick writes: That's a very good question. Science should definitely not forget to keep asking that, and looking for the relevant evidence. It may be that the "one occurrence" to which we can all trace our ancestry was not unique; but having succeeded so spectacularly, this one instance may have ruled out (e.g. consumed, disabled or otherwise thwarted) other distinct occurrences on this planet. (I put scare-quotes on "one occurrence" because I don't know for certain whether there might have been a multitude of "related co-occurrences" - i.e. conditions that led to many thousands or even millions of similarly self-replicating units to kick into action "independently" within a relatively short time frame.) Even if your suggestion is accurate it still tells us nothing about whether there was an intelligent first cause or not.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 222 of 652 (695364)
04-04-2013 7:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 211 by Jazzns
04-03-2013 11:11 AM
|
|
Re: Hell as a choice....really?
Jazzns writes: And what is to suggest that for some people this tiny sampling of their life trajectory doesn't change for the WORSE once they are found to be suitable to this new society? Is everyone who was on a "good" trajectory for 80 years of a life going to be "good" for eternity? Or will they not be ALLOWED to be any different? If free will is to mean anything, you cannot make accurate assumptions about infinity with a sample size of 80 years. This is all the more reason to think that this concept is immoral. I agree that that is a good question. I make the argument that in this world human caused suffering exists because it is necessary for us to have free will. Jesus told us that we should pray that God's will would be done on earth as in heaven. The biblical message is that eventually heaven and earth will be re-created as one and God's perfect love would permeate that society so that sin and suffering would no longer be part of it. That being the case then, as you rightly question, how does free will fit into that. I would suggest that nobody, least of all me, can answer that question. I can only suggest that once having chosen that trajectory and then having experienced an existence in that environment that nobody would choose to revert back to a life that is self focused. It is a tad ironic though that one of the major arguments that atheists make against Christianity is that if God is so good then why is pain, suffering and death still part of our lives. When as a Christian I say we are only see this stage of the plan and that there is life to come that is devoid of pain, suffering and death then you are critical of it because it appears that there might be a loss of free will. Nobody has all the answers. In Jesus, as the embodiment of God, I see a God who is kind, loving, forgiving and just, and that he wants His human creatures to reflect those characteristics into the world. As I believe that God resurrected Jesus and in the resurrected Jesus we see what God plans for all of us at the end of time as we know it. When I put those two things together I trust that in the end there will be perfect justice even though I don’t understand how all of that is going to work out. One other consideration is this. Jesus talked about the first being last and that the a leader should be a servant to all. As a model He performed a role that would be played by the lowest of servants in washing the feet of the disciples. We always tend to think of either being in or out of an existence with God. Maybe it isn’t that simple. We live lives that are largely based on the choices that we make. Possibly that is a factor in the next life as well. It is just a thought and I don’t think I can go further with it than that, other than to suggest that maybe the choices that we make in this life are to prepare us for the role we play in the next one.
Jazzns writes: This can ONLY be true, if something from the outside is applying a different standard for morality than what we use in our practical lives. In reality, the important moral questions we face are so far beyond this distinction as to make it laughable. Hardly anyone practically considers the silent giver vastly more moral than the public giver. If anything, this highlights the fact that the God doing this judging has a skewed sense of importance. I go back to the concept of morality being a heart thing. It doesn't matter whether hardly anyone considers the silent giver more moral than the public one. In the end, no one of us knows the heart of another and I think that by in large it is difficult for us to even know our own hearts. I think that in many cases we do what we do without fully knowing our own motivations which is what I see as our basic morality. I hope that God is pleased with what I do, but is that for my own long term benefit or is it because I want to please Him for His sake. When I do something nice for my wife is it because I want to improve my life, (happy wife - happy life ) or is it because I genuinely just want to bring her some joy without any thought of self benefit. The answer for me is, I don't really know. We are all just a jumble of ideas and thoughts that we can't even sort out about ourselves let alone for anybody else. So in the end I go back to trusting in a just merciful God because of what I see in Him in Jesus Christ.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 211 by Jazzns, posted 04-03-2013 11:11 AM | | Jazzns has not replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.2
|
Re: It's important
GDR writes: Science may find a chemical way of starting some form of life, but that will only be further evidence that it took intelligence to make it happen. Dr Adequate writes: No. If experimental petrologists make marble out of limestone in a laboratory, is that evidence that it took intelligence to make naturally-occurring marble? No, of course not. The petrologists are merely simulating naturally-occurring non-intelligent processes, and their results show that such processes are sufficient to account for the phenomena, thus supporting a naturalistic non-intelligent cause for all the marble that wasn't made by geologists. I don't see that as being a parallel situation at all. We can see in nature the on-going process that results in limestone becoming marble and we are able to replicate the process as I best understand it. We don't see in nature any process that causes any material through any process becoming a living cell.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.2
|
Re: it's all about knowledge and honesty.
Otto Tellick writes: Agreed. The things that are held in common by the great majority of religions past and present form a significant body of positive evidence, supporting the proposition that all these religions have arisen through human innovation to address natural issues that are common to the human condition. I agree that it is a valid argument but I contend that it is just as valid to suggest that it is true because of God working through the hearts, minds and imaginations of the human creatures He created.
Otto Tellick writes: Collaboration is crucial to our survival. Religions that don't foster that behavior will have a low likelihood of success. Forms of social organization must accommodate the special needs involved in raising children. Religions that ignore or defy these needs won't get very far. Other issues can be mentioned, but these are two big ones. It seems to me that through history that has only worked within specific societies. The Christian message as someone else on this forum put it is that we are all one tribe. As I have said before, my tribe would be better off if everyone in Africa ceased to exist so that their natural resources could be made available to my society or tribe and not only that but there would be fewer people using them up.
Otto Tellick writes: That's where we've been as a species for all these millennia. But now - starting as recently as the Hellenic period, we are finding the wherewithal to see these patterns for what they are. We can see, in terms of real-world evidence, why collaboration is essential to our existence, and we can see the various methods that work, and the ones that don't, when it comes to tweaking social structures to optimize collaboration, child rearing, and so on. And we can tell when someone is making stuff up, as opposed to saying something true. Science is becoming a bigger part of that. It's long overdue. I very much enjoy trying to understand as much about science as my limited background and mental capacity will allow. I see science as being a natural theology. Most of my understanding of the next life comes from what I have read in books on science. It is my belief that God gave us reason and that we are to use that reason. Even Paul wrote about understanding God through our understanding of this world. I see science as a massive step in being able to do just that, but at the same time science is not a god replacement. It only enhances our knowledge of what He has done.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 225 of 652 (695368)
04-04-2013 7:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 221 by Tangle
04-04-2013 5:18 AM
|
|
Re: it's all about knowledge and honesty.
Tangle writes: I think you have agreed with me that if it was the case that a good bloke can't get to heaven simply because he doesn't believe in Christ - for whatever reason - then it would be unjust. You also have said - I think - that you believe that the good bloke could in fact get to heaven regardless of belief. Which says that the whole religious belief is irrelevant as far as my chances of getting into heaven and avoiding hell is concerned. In the first place I don't see that the goal of our lives is to avoid hell or separation from God. I believe that the point of Christianity is that as humans we have been given a job to do. Our job is to steward and care for this planet and the lives on it. We are to reflect God's love into this world. It is my belief that when we believe in Jesus, God will help our hearts to be changed. When I say believe in Jesus, I don't mean acknowledging Him as Son of God or anything like that . When I say believe in Jesus I am referring to believing in His message of love, peace, forgiveness, mercy generosity etc and wanting those qualities to be qualities that are portrayed in our own lives. I believe that the best way of doing that is through the Christian faith, as although I do not believe in an inerrant Bible, I do believe that God uses the Bible as a tool to speak into our hearts. I also suggest that when we understand the narrative of the Bible we better understand what God has planned for His creation, where we fit into the big picture and why it is important that we be wise stewards of the planet and its inhabitants.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 221 by Tangle, posted 04-04-2013 5:18 AM | | Tangle has not replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.2
|
Re: It's important
Dr Adequate writes: The parallel is that this and the hypothetical situation you describe both involve doing something in a laboratory. If this shouldn't generally lead us to conclude that the process they're simulating was originally performed by intelligence, then I see no reason to do so in any particular case. N.B: because you'd like to is not really a reason. The difference is that in the one case we are going from one inanimate object to another. It is a different thing altogether to go from inanimate chemical to cellular life. (Mind you, I’ll still be very surprised if they pull it off but we’ll see.)
Dr Adequate writes: We can? Where? Can you give me a reference, and I'll add it to my thread about geology. I don’t pretend to know anything about geology. It is what I understood this wiki site to mean. I am happy to be corrected. If however it doesn't happen in nature then again it makes my point that it took intelligence to make it happen. Marble - Wikipedia
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.2
|
Re: It's important
Dr Adequate writes: But not in any way that affects the epistemological question. I don't agree. We aren't talking absolute knowledge. We are talking plausibility. Your marble example is more than plausible. The knowledge of how and why we exist at all is not anywhere near as simple. When we look at the complex structure of one single cell and then consider the evolutionary process that resulted in you we have to consider which is more plausible. Is this all the result of a chance combination of mindless particles or is there an intelligent agent or agents responsible for your existence? IMHO the latter is by far the most probable. I'm not saying that is an argument for the God of Christianity but it is a starting point.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.2
|
Re: it's all about knowledge and honesty.
Otto Tellick writes: The problem with your contention is that, if there is really exactly one God to account for this commonality, then this God's ability to "work through the hearts [etc] of the human creatures he created" shows a remarkable - and I would say irreconcilable - degree of variability and inconsistency. {AbE: To clarify: the people presumably affected by this intervention don't even agree on the attributes, identity, or quantity of the supernatural being(s) exerting this influence.} (The underlying premises required for monotheism would preclude viewing this as incompetence or malice; I guess "mystery" is the only available term to describe the situation in a theistic view.) You want to attribute the commonality of basic human "virtues" to intervention and "personal" involvement from a specific, singular, all-powerful, creator God. But faced with the reality that most people on the planet don't actually accept or believe in the specific God you're trying to describe - or at least will be inclined to deny many of the particular claims you make regarding this God - you have to assert that "they don't know God", or possibly are "rebelling against God", even while you acknowledge that many of them are effectively no different from you in terms of virtuousness. You address two issues in that. The first is that there is inconsistency in the moral standards in different individuals, (and cultures for that matter), and secondly there is no real consistency of belief about the nature of any deity. You see this as being incompatible with my beliefs. I hope I have understood your point. It is my contention that these inconsistencies make the case for my understanding of the nature of God and His relationship with us and at the same time make atheistic beliefs improbable. If we are simply the result of mindless processes with all life evolving from a common beginning then I would expect that there would be far more consistency in what we understand of the world than what we actually observe. I think that theist and atheist alike will agree that we have a conscience. If that conscience has simply evolved from those basic naturalistic beginnings that we all have in common, then why is there such a wide divergence in our responses to that conscience. If however that conscience is the small still voice of God speaking into our hearts, then we have to look at it quite differently. If God desires that we should be truly a people that are moral in that they choose to genuinely care for others, even at the expense of the self, then we are only able to make that choice when we are truly free to reject that voice that is our conscience. As to understanding the specifics about God I once again believe that ambiguity is necessary for our free will. If we had absolute knowledge of God and his nature then once again we have the option of choosing morality severely impaired. For myself I freely acknowledge that I pretty certain that much of what I believe is wrong with the problem being that I don’t which parts of what I believe is in error. I also know this for the simple fact that as I continue to read and reason I find that my beliefs continue to be revised. Yes I agree that as a Christian I have no doubt that there are many atheists more moral than I am. However, I do believe that if a person genuinely turns to Christ as Lord, not in terms of intellectual ascent, but in terms of wanting to be the person that God wants them to be, then by faith I believe that God through His spirit will make that person more moral and less selfish than they would have been otherwise. Interestingly enough here is a Biblical quote from Matthew chap 9.
quote:
9 As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him. 10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" 12 On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
Now you can understand why the church is full of us sinners.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 234 by Tangle, posted 04-06-2013 1:09 PM | | GDR has replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.2
|
Re: It's important
Dr Adequate writes: But none of this addresses the point I was actually discussing. I guess you'll have to dumb it down as I don't get the your point.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 236 of 652 (695533)
04-06-2013 8:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 234 by Tangle
04-06-2013 1:09 PM
|
|
Re: it's all about knowledge and honesty.
Tangle writes: I don't think there's much point commenting on what you believe about God because basically you can make up whatever you like then believe in it, but for the evolutionary perspective, there's no reason at all to suppose that there would be any consistency in what we understand about the world. In fact it would be astonishing beyond belief - if we did. It isn't that I make it up as you just a tad condescendingly put it, but it is what I have come to believe based on the facts as I understand them, pretty much the same as everyone else. As far as consistency is concerned I don't actually disagree with you, but I was just pointing out to Otto that there is just as much or more reason to expect consistency in a totally naturalistic world as there is in a world born out of the mind of a pre-existing intelligence that offers free will.
Tangle writes: I doubt very much that atheists would agree that we have a conscience - at least not in the way I assume you mean - but you'd need to tell us what a conscience is first. Here is the web definition of conscience:
quote:
a. The awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to one's conduct together with the urge to prefer right over wrong: Let your conscience be your guide.
b. A source of moral or ethical judgment or pronouncement: a document that serves as the nation's conscience.
c. Conformity to one's own sense of right conduct: a person of unflagging conscience.
Essentially I see it as our innate sense of right or wrong and that we all have. For you it has presumably come about as a result of centuries of socialization. In my view it is that still small voice of God combined with social influences but that at its root it is all from God. I don’t think that we differ on what conscience is, but we differ on why we have one.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 234 by Tangle, posted 04-06-2013 1:09 PM | | Tangle has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 240 by Tangle, posted 04-07-2013 3:50 AM | | GDR has replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.2
|
Re: It's important
Dr Adequate writes: That the ability of scientists to synthesize something in a laboratory has in itself no bearing on whether the original that they're copying had intelligence involved in its production. I agree but the converse is true as well. Many times on this forum I have observed atheists argue that science is close to being able to bring about life in a Petri dish and when they do they will have proven that we had naturalistic origins.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.2
|
Re: It's important
I agree that it would be evidence, but it would still leave the question of how those specific ingredients and in this specific environment all happened to exist in the first place.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 238 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-06-2013 10:22 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 241 by Tangle, posted 04-07-2013 4:08 AM | | GDR has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2