Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Choosing a faith
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1834 of 3694 (905224)
01-19-2023 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1786 by Stile
01-16-2023 4:25 PM


Re: What's Important enough?
Stile writes:
No.
Evidence that He doesn't exist is evidence that He doesn't exist.
If I look at an empty table, this is evidence that my keys do not exist on that table.
Evidence that my keys exist at all... is validated evidence such as a vehicle I own that requires keys... that keys are shown to exist for other vehicles...

We've looked in many, many places. A lot of those looks have been done where people have said "look! God must be there!"
And yet... God is never found. Anywhere.

We've looked... for thousands of years... and not found God.

That is evidence that He doesn't exist. Because we've looked.
There is no evidenced reason to consider God as a requirement for anything.
I would agree that in the places you have looked there is no evidence. For me I see a mother or father absolutely adoring their new baby and would without hesitation sacrifice anything, including their lives for that child. I see people risking their lives for someone they have never met. I see people donating vast sums of money for others in need that might even be on the other side of the world I see people dedicated to the welfare of animal life or even for the planet even though they won't be alive to see the results. That is where I find God.
Stile writes:
Evidence that the resurrection wasn't historical:

In any study ever done, humans have never been identified as capable of being resurrected
Many people claim that they (or their uncle...) have been resurrected. If looked into, the result is always the same - they were mistaken of the situation, or over-stating what actually happened
The Bible is known to be wrong about a great many things
There is no indication that any of the "miracles" included in the Bible ever happened
Verbal stories are known for being embellished to include "entertainment", even within days of the experience they're based on
The Bible stories were passed verbally for years... decades... before being written down
The Biblical story of Jesus includes many things that are included in other myths that are "before" Jesus:
The idea of coming back from the dead
Walking/travelling on water
Attempts at being killed as an infant
Virgin births
Spiritual healings
Moral leadership

This is all evidence that "accepting the resurrection as an historical event" is a bad place to start.
I don't have a problem with any of that.
I'll repeat what I said in a post to Percy in post Message 1794
quote:
I have said several times that what I have is evidence is all subjective, and this is what I have. You claim that doesn't constitute evidence in your world, but it works for me.
1/ I have a written evidence in the Bible
2/ I have the fact that life and particularly sentient life exists
3/ I have the fact that we can distinguish good from evil
4/ I have life experience with the experience of love and hate, joy and sadness,
ugliness and beauty etc.

I agree none of that is scientific and is rejected by pretty much everyone here. I also agree that it is not conclusive. That's fine but it is the answer I have for you wanting evidence and beyond that it is faith.
That makes me a theist. As a theist I believe that life exists because of an external intelligence. Also as a theist I believe that this life has ultimate meaning and purpose and that there is a point to the fact that we exist. Believing that it makes me open to the possibility that God can do something that is inconsistent with the laws of the materialistic universe.
With that in mind then the resurrection becomes a possibility and I have concluded that Jesus' resurrection makes the most sense of the rise of the Christian faith in the 1st century.
Stile writes:
If you were seeking the "truth" or #1 just as much as me... you would look for "a good place" to start from.
Our best known method for identifying truth says that when we want to identify reality - we should start from validated evidence.

Since you are starting with "accepting the resurrection as an historical event" and I am not (because it is not validated evidence...) then you are quite clearly not seeking the "truth" as much as I am. You seem to be seeking something that requires accepting the resurrection as an historical event.
I don't just stop at the point that there is no physical evidence that can be affirmed scientifically as you have. From a #1 POV i went beyond that in the ways that I just pointed out above. Maybe in seeking truth you stopped at the point of believing you could have irrefutable evidence of.
Stile writes:
Actually, they scream "natural processes!"

Vast intelligent systems are complex, yes - but they are not overly complex.
Evolution is incredibly, ridiculously, insanely overly complex.
To the point that it's very obvious that no intelligence created it. In fact, if it was purposefully created, it certainly was not created by "intelligence" and was actually created by "absolute stupidity." It's that overly complex.
So you prefer a solution that has natural processes bringing about natural processes, bringing about natural processes, bringing about natural processes -------------etc.
I have to admit that in my view the complexity of the processes is highly suggestive of design either with or without intervention. I frankly have trouble understanding how people can see mindless processes resulting in the complexity of life let alone sentient life with consciousness.
Stile writes:
t's not the discovery of processes that implies natural processes.
It's the discovery of natural processes that implies natural processes.

When we look at how a whale evolved, we could have found intelligent design.
But, we didn't - we found natural processes.

When we look at how eyes evolved, we could have found intelligent design.
But, we didn't - we found natural processes.

When we look at how wings evolved, we could have found intelligent design.
But, we didn't - we found natural processes.
That is all under the umbrella of one process - the evolutionary process.
Stile writes:
When we look at how society evolved, we could have found intelligent design.
But, we didn't - we found natural processes.

When we look at how morality evolved, we could have found intelligent design.
But, we didn't - we found natural processes.
In these two cases what you have is speculative evidence based on your pre-existing theories. I agree that there is no evidence of intelligent design but you are looking at the way society and morality have evolved and then reading a materialistic view back into that.
As for the rest of your post let's just agree to disagree.

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 1786 by Stile, posted 01-16-2023 4:25 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1850 by Stile, posted 01-24-2023 9:18 AM GDR has replied
 Message 1853 by Stile, posted 01-24-2023 2:41 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1836 of 3694 (905233)
01-19-2023 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1833 by Percy
01-19-2023 5:43 PM


Meaning and Purpose
I don't think telegenic's the right word. Maybe you mean apophenia or pareidolia?
I don't know how telegenic came up. I meant to use teleological. Needed to look them up but I certainly didn't mean either of those other words, but my hat is off to you for coming up with them.
Percy writes:
Why must life have a purpose? Maybe it just is.
That's certainly reasonable but I just disagree.
Percy writes:
It would never occur to me to worship anything. Seems to me that an intelligence of any worth would tell people attempting to worship it to please just stop.
My point was about where we put our priorities. On the negative side it is about prioritizing wealth or power for their own sake and on the positive side it might be to be a a great loving parent.
I contend we worship God by fallowing His call to love our neighbour and care for other life forms and for the planet itself. The way I think that you are using the term worship. I would say that it is not not for God but for us, to help guide us towards what you see in my signature.

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 1833 by Percy, posted 01-19-2023 5:43 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1837 by Percy, posted 01-21-2023 8:16 AM GDR has replied
 Message 1838 by Phat, posted 01-21-2023 9:18 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1839 of 3694 (905280)
01-21-2023 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1837 by Percy
01-21-2023 8:16 AM


Re: Meaning and Purpose
Percy writes:
Why must life have a purpose? Maybe it just is.
GDR writes:
That's certainly reasonable but I just disagree.
Percy writes:
My position on "Must life have a purpose?" is actually "I don't know." I was just asking you to explain why life must have a purpose.
I should have been a little more specific when I answered. It isn't that I think it must have a purpose, it is that I think it does, but not that it must must. As you brought up earlier, pretty much everyone finds purpose in life one way or another. For some, (as I said), it would be to be a good parent, for some it might be to accumulate wealth and unfortunately for too many it might just be finding a way to survive.
However, if, we are theistic or even deistic it would seem likely that who or whatever is the intelligence responsible for our existence it seems reasonable to believe that there is a purpose beyond the existence that we know.
Percy writes:
Consider the possibility that there was once microbial life on Mars a few billion years ago that went extinct as the planet dried up and its atmosphere escaped into space. Would that life have had a purpose?
Who knows? Maybe it was first effort that didn't work out.
Percy writes:
Or what if there had been no asteroid 66 million years ago with the result that dinosaurs still ruled the Earth, pterosaurs still ruled the sky, plesiosaurs still ruled the seas, mammals were still small and relegated to underground niches, and intelligent life had never evolved. Would that life have a purpose?
Beats me. I can't see working with hypotheticals here. We can only deal with life as it is.
Percy writes:
Morality is fundamental to your point. What is moral? Isn't morality relative?
I don't see it as being what we do, but it is about the motivation that drives what we do. I'd would say that if our motivation was self serving at the expense of others it is immoral, most things we do are morally neutral and if we do something to serve others by giving of the self, then it is moral.
Percy writes:
If I'm recalling your recent discussion with Tangle correctly, he pointed out that what you're calling worshipful behavior is just being a decent person, and I resent your contention that I'm behaving worshipfully when I behave decently. "Worship" has multiple definitions, but the one that is appropriate for this thread is "reverence or adoration of a deity." None of the definitions of worship is "behaving decently." We understand your point perfectly, but you're misusing the word.

Also, by employing that definition you imply that by behaving decently we're actually engaging in worship that demonstrates evidence of God. I resent attempts like this to involuntarily include us in the God club by in essence saying, "You may say you don't believe in God, but your behavior says you not only believe in him but worship him."

Bottom line: behaving decently is not a form of worship.
Actually, "behaving decently" was Tangle's expression. I don't actually agree with anything that you are saying I believe. I'm just saying that when we do something in our lives that requires us to give of the self, then we are serving God whether or not we believe in His existence. That is actually pretty consistent with CS Lewis in both "The Great Divorce" and "The Last Battle".

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 1837 by Percy, posted 01-21-2023 8:16 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1842 by Percy, posted 01-22-2023 3:06 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 1840 of 3694 (905281)
01-21-2023 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1838 by Phat
01-21-2023 9:18 AM


Re: Meaning and Purpose
Phat writes:
Do you believe in open borders? WWJD?
You do know I'm a Canuck eh?
It's a tough question with no simple answer. Unfortunately this has become highly politicized which complicates the issue as there are all of the political agendas behind much of what is going on.
Firstly in my view we are called to love our neighbours including Mexicans as well as those from other countries south of Mexico. There are problems though as I understand the situation with an open border. I read that there is a significant of drug dealing cartel members crossing the border and resulting in the death, and social problems for many including those come across with them.
I personally contend that the best thing that the US, and Canada for that matter, can do is to establish agreements with Mexico to put in place some agreement that works better than what exists today and then forge agreements that provides for employment in those countries so they can prosper in their own cultures and families.
It does seem difficult to see all of these folks coming into the US and being able to provide for themselves, although I gather that a great number of so-called illegal immigrants are pretty much essential to the economy in many areas.
Beyond that I don't have enough information or understanding or go further than that, and may have gone to far already.

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 1838 by Phat, posted 01-21-2023 9:18 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1848 of 3694 (905343)
01-23-2023 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1842 by Percy
01-22-2023 3:06 PM


Re: Meaning and Purpose
Percy writes:
Sure, we agree as far as individuals finding purpose in life. But I was thinking more broadly, as you sort of allude to here:
My only point is that people seem to look for meaning and purpose in there life in there life times. By extension then I think that it is reasonable to at least consider that an intelligence responsible for life would have n ultimate purpose beyond our lives here.
Percy writes:
Does mankind have a purpose? Does life?
I believe it does. Also I'd add that if I am correct, and the resurrection of Jesus was historical, then that makes the whole idea clearer.
Percy writes:
It's 1850. You make a great personal sacrifice to provide your daughter's family a slave. Moral?

Morality is hopelessly relative. There are no general criteria for defining what is moral.
Aside from the fact that a very few people bought slaves in order to free them, then even though it was the social norm it is immoral. I would add that I assume some slave owners treated them well.
The point was that they were intentionally gaining benefit to themselves at the expense of another human being.
Percy writes:
You say you don't agree with what I say you believe, but I quoted your own words saying that that's exactly what you believe.
OK, you have a point. I'll try it a little differently. I believe that when our hearts lead us to do something for the good of another at our own expense then we are serving God. Going with your definition, "reverence or adoration of a deity." , then I would say that worship should lead to lives of service to others, and by extension of that we are serving God. I am not saying that you can't serve without the worship.
The trouble is though that by narrowing it down to your definition it brings up again the original point of this thread, which is what matters is the nature of the god we worship. If we worship a war like god then that is the god we serve. If we worship a god who is happy with slavery then that is the god we serve etc.
However if we worship a god that desires and works for others then hopefully our worship will lead us to emulate that behaviour.
Percy writes:
Well, if CS Lewis says it then it must be true.
That isn't what I meant at all. I simply made that comment to make the point that my beliefs are consistent with general Christian belief.

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 1842 by Percy, posted 01-22-2023 3:06 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1851 by Percy, posted 01-24-2023 12:21 PM GDR has replied
 Message 1852 by Percy, posted 01-24-2023 1:06 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 1849 of 3694 (905344)
01-23-2023 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1844 by Dredge
01-23-2023 10:27 AM


Re: I Again Think GDR has Given Up On This Thread
Dredge writes:
So-called Christians who don't believe in the Real Presence aren't true Christians. Their watered-down version of Christianity is unbiblical, amateurish, erroneous and fake.
The Gospels tell us of a Jesus that was very much opposed to the way the Temple authorities ran the Temple. Jesus in saying that the bread was His body was a rejection of the animal sacrifices. We eat the bread to honour His life of sacrifice right up to the cross, and in eating the bread it should feed our hearts so that we might serve as Jesus did. I'd suggest that what you are doing is dishonouring Jesus by drawing attention away from that which Jesus wanted the bread to symbolize.

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 1844 by Dredge, posted 01-23-2023 10:27 AM Dredge has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 1866 of 3694 (905436)
01-26-2023 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1850 by Stile
01-24-2023 9:18 AM


Re: What's Important enough?
Stile writes:
We haven't only looked in a few places.
We have looked in all the places we can.
How about the places you can't look? You can't measure and examine people's consciousness for empathy or love of neighbour. You can observe what people do, but you can only observe and then believe what it is that motivates people to do what they do.
Stile writes:
Sounds to me like you found Love. And we know Love exists and that people are capable of these and more great acts of Love - all naturally.
What makes you think you found God?
The original point of this thread was that regardless of whatever name we might give to a desity isn't what matters. What matters is the nature of the deity we worship. The deity that I believe is modelled on a god of love whose nature I discern by understanding Jesus. I contend that there is a good reason to believe that but there is nothing physical to examine or test.
Stile writes:
Your conclusion is not based on evidence.
This means your highest priority is not "to find the truth."

Again, your highest priority may be "to find any truth that is consistent with Jesus' resurrection."
...but this is not the same as having your highest priority be "to find the truth."
I can't know absolutely that what I believe to be true concerning the Christian faith to be the truth but the same holds for everyone else here. If I didn't believe that Jesus' resurrection was historically true I would reject Christianity. If I didn't believe that there was a deity that cared about life on Earth then I would reject theism. Things can be true even though we can't absolutely know that they are true. WE can have #1 as our priority without being able to materially confirm what it is we believe to be true.
Stile writes:
Again, your highest priority may be "to find any truth that is consistent with Jesus' resurrection."
...but this is not the same as having your highest priority be "to find the truth."
But first I had to look at what I can know to find the truth concerning the resurrection and then even before that to come to a conclusion concerning basic theism.
Stile writes:
That's understandable as a starting position. Most people would even agree, I'm sure.
Of course... this doesn't change the knowledge we've learned.

The knowledge is there. Regardless of you not looking at it in the past, or continuing to not look at it now.
Your claim that you don't accept the knowledge doesn't make it go away for those interested in identifying the truth.
What knowledge am I rejecting?
GDR writes:
I don't just stop at the point that there is no physical evidence that can be affirmed scientifically as you have.
Stile writes:
I don't stop there.
I stop where information cannot be verified and is known to have a high likelihood of being wrong.

You seem to include such information while also claiming to have "finding the truth" as your highest priority.

I don't see how that's reasonable. It seems counter productive to me. Or, at least, indicative that "something else" is actually your highest priority.
Obviously things can be truthful without being verifiable. #1 can be the first priority even though it is unverifiable. Atheism is unverifiable.
Stile writes:
he evidence is not speculative, and it's also at your fingertips, if you care to look into it: Google Scholar

Evolution of Society and Culture - over 6 million, evidenced papers for you to read. This evidence is not "speculative" it's peer-reviewed (duplicated and objective) and vastly, vastly studied and tested.
Culture and the evolution of human cooperation
Social fields and the evolution of society
Warfare and the evolution of culture
Social change, cultural evolution, and human development

Evolution of Morality - over 2 million, evidenced papers for you to read. This evidence is not "speculative" it's peer-reviewed (duplicated and objective) and vastly, vastly studied and tested.
Evolution of Morality - an online book
The evolution of morality - a paper from 2015
The evolution of morality - "...a concise biological account of the evolution of morality."
The structural evolution of morality

These are all papers based on evidence that can be observed by anyone.
None of these papers ignore God or religion or philosophical thought in any way. In many, philosophical thought is incorporated - if it can be evidenced/tested/verified against reality.
The only reason you won't find mentions of God or religion, is because no helpful areas of those subjects can be applied to these topics that can be evidenced/tested/verified against reality.
This is not ignoring them, this is incorporating everything and anything while holding "looking for the truth" as the highest priority.

The second anyone shows how God or religion should be incorporated and can link them through evidence connected to reality... those papers will be included in these same archives.

The information is there.
It is not "speculative."
You cannot act like it doesn't exist just because you don't know about it.
I'll pick one. You talk about the evolution of morality and then claim that this is evidence that there is no external deity. What you have outlined is the same type of evidence as I use when I say that I have the Bible as written evidence and the rise of Christian belief as evidence.
OK, lets's say that morality evolved in the way your paper describes. Isn't it reasonable to ask why it evolved at all. It doesn't fit with Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest. It doesn't account for why or even how the first seed of thought that became morality occurred. It doesn't account for the the vast range of human morality we can observe or for the ongoing individual struggles we have with our own moral behaviour. In so many ways atheism raises questions that can't be answered, and much more so than basic theism.

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 1850 by Stile, posted 01-24-2023 9:18 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1867 by PaulK, posted 01-26-2023 2:21 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 1873 by Stile, posted 01-27-2023 9:01 AM GDR has replied
 Message 1877 by Percy, posted 01-27-2023 6:58 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1876 of 3694 (905476)
01-27-2023 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1851 by Percy
01-24-2023 12:21 PM


Re: Meaning and Purpose
Percy writes:
You can't even be consistent for two consecutive sentences. I don't know if you're doing this on purpose or if it comes naturally, but you are being incredibly aggravating by repeatedly arguing that an intelligence must have created life but never addressing the infinite regression that I keep asking you about. This will be the fourth time I'm asking. What about the infinite regression? And not to distract you, but here's another question: Do you even care if your answers make sense, because you don't seem to?
I give you answers and you don't agree with them so you claim I don't answer the question. We live in a world where we only experience time in 1 direction. Physicists seem to be quite happy to theoretically suggest more dimensions of time. Apparently mathematically time should be symmetrical and flow forward or in reverse. (Don't press me on that. I just read in in a Brian Greene book.)
I'm simply saying, without evidence, that God's dimension or universe experiences time differently than does are dimension or universe. Yes, it is belief without evidence. It isn't evidence of course, but as we both know there are many physicists that accept a belief along these lines, so I'm not just out here on my own, nor am I rejecting science.
And again, materialism requires a virtually list of processes all driven by chance right back to the Big Bang.
Percy writes:
Based on what evidence?
This is concerning my belief that our lives have an ultimate purpose. As I said, I believe. My only evidence is the Bible and my own subjective feelings which of course you reject. What evidence do you have for nihilistic beliefs?
Percy writes:
You are making the same mistake being made by groups all across the continent, judging people of the past by the standards of today. You can't judge what is moral by whether it is a social norm because social norms change, and even people living in the same place in the same time period don't agree on what is a social norm anyway. What you think moral today could be judged immoral by people in the future, or even by people today in a different social and/or cultural and/or geographical group.

Morality is hopelessly relative.
My belief that morality, from a Christian perspective, isn't about what we do. It is about if we accept in our hearts and minds that it is ok to use others for our benefit at their expense. That is what makes it immoral. A moral act is when we benefit others at our own expense.
Percy writes:
If you're familiar with the bell-shaped curve, the quality of treatment of slaves would have followed a bell-shaped curve. Of course some slave owners treated them well. By mathematical necessity that must be true. But treating slaves well doesn't transform slavery into a net good, so why did you say that? Do even you know?
You love to take things out of context. It would be possible for a slave owner to treat the slaves morally as a member of the household. However the practice of slavery itself is highly immoral.
GDR writes:
Also I'd add that if I am correct, and the resurrection of Jesus was historical, then that makes the whole idea clearer.
Percy writes:
You really think one follows from the other? This actually seems like a rational chain of logic to you? Wow!

The truth is that if life has a purpose then the flying spaghetti monster exists.
Do you even read before you post. I said "IF I am correct". I was making the presupposition that the resurrection was historical.
The of course you have to add the requisite mocking comment.
Percy writes:
A lot of your answers begin with "I believe this" or "I believe that." You can stop with those kinds of answers because we already have a pretty good idea of what you believe. What you don't do is provide any substantive arguments in support of what you believe.
I have many times said what it is I believe and given the reasons which of course you and most others around here reject.
If I were to say that I believe in the resurrection of Jesus, then I'd like to know what you would have me say other than believe. I suppose instead of believe it could use think,. contend or some other word. In the context of this discussion, when we both know that I can't claim absolute knowledge for my beliefs what is the point of the discussion. I also agree that there is no hard evidence for my contentions.
Percy writes:
You said that the original point of this thread is that the nature of the god we worship matters. This has already been disproven pretty thoroughly once it was pointed out that a higher percentage of god fearing Christians commit crimes than atheists, and that atheists are at least as capable of good works as Christians.
You as you often do make these claims without evidence and then criticize others for doing the same thing. Where is the proof for that statement?

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 1851 by Percy, posted 01-24-2023 12:21 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1881 by Percy, posted 01-28-2023 11:18 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1882 of 3694 (905494)
01-28-2023 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1852 by Percy
01-24-2023 1:06 PM


Re: Meaning and Purpose
Percy writes:
In a mild coincidence, I just came across a perfect example of doing evil in the name of good in the Washington Post article World’s largest body of human geneticists apologizes for eugenics role. The article was subtitled, "The American Society for Human Genetics (ASHG) examined its past and the racism of some geneticists."
Sure. bad things happen from people with good intentions and vice versa. My point is that God wants us to love our neighbours as ourselves.. That won't always go well but I think you'll agree that we are far more likely to have a positive outcome when we start with a caring for others attitude.

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 1852 by Percy, posted 01-24-2023 1:06 PM Percy has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1883 of 3694 (905495)
01-28-2023 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1853 by Stile
01-24-2023 2:41 PM


Re: What's Important enough?
Stile writes:
Your conclusion is not based on evidence.
This means your highest priority is not "to find the truth."

Again, your highest priority may be "to find any truth that is consistent with Jesus' resurrection."
...but this is not the same as having your highest priority be "to find the truth."
That is not the case. The basis of my belief is simply theism. Your basic belief is atheism. Percy doesn't seem to like the word but it is belief. I can look at the following points to draw the theistic conclusion that I have come to.
1/ I have the fact that life and particularly sentient life exists
2/ I have the fact that we can distinguish good from evil
3/ I have life experience with the experience of love and hate, joy and sadness,
ugliness and beauty etc.
4/ I perceive beauty in this world
I guess I could go on, but from that I have concluded a couple of things. Regardless of whatever processes got us to this point, the idea that we are simply the result of endless mindless processes emanating from mindless particles is simplistic and ridiculous.
As I believe that life is the result of this intelligence I am open to the idea that something that we consider miraculous like the resurrection is quite possible. If an intelligence can bring about life as we know it then resurrection is a walk in the park.
I have read numerous books, both pro and con, pertaining to the historicity of the resurrection. I find that the Gospels in their historic setting, along with the rise of the Christian church compelling (although I see Jesus as a Jewish reformer with no intent to start a new religion). I have concluded, without absolute knowledge, that the resurrection was an historical event. If there was evidence, beyond the belief that it couldn't possibly happen and then going from there, I would change my beliefs and revert back to basic theism and not call myself Christian.
My highest priority is the truth but knowing that I could very well be wrong.

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 1853 by Stile, posted 01-24-2023 2:41 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1886 by Tangle, posted 01-28-2023 3:13 PM GDR has replied
 Message 1902 by Stile, posted 01-30-2023 10:00 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1884 of 3694 (905496)
01-28-2023 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1871 by PaulK
01-27-2023 1:11 AM


Re: What's Important enough?
PaulK writes:
GDR was doing it right there.
..and just how did I do that. Your method of debating is calling someone ignorant, snug etc. That doesn't really make much of a 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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1871 by PaulK, posted 01-27-2023 1:11 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1888 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2023 3:22 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1885 of 3694 (905497)
01-28-2023 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1873 by Stile
01-27-2023 9:01 AM


Re: The Unstoppable Movement of Knowledge
GDR writes:
You can't measure and examine people's consciousness for empathy or love of neighbour.
Stile writes:
Don't need to. You can measure and examine their actions.
GDR writes:
]You can observe what people do, but you can only observe and then believe what it is that motivates people to do what they do.
Stile writes:
What? Why?
Why can't you just ask the people what motivates them?
​Most will say "because I love them..."
Some will say "because God says I should" and if you ask them if God is love... they usually say yes as well.
Let's say a wealthy philanthropist finances a new wing of a hospital and then names it after himself. What was his motivation. Was it care for others, or was it to build a monument to himself? Sure you could say it was both but would he have done it it anonymously? We simply don't know. So it isn't just as simple as asking about someone's motivation.
For that matter, someone might do it anonymously with the basic idea that tis will get him in good with God. We just don't know.
So you can't just go back and see that empathy has increased over time and state definitively by looking at actions and the conclude that the progression over time is or isn't divinely initiated, and even possibly subliminally influenced.
I think that I have pretty much covered the rest of your post in my last post to you. I'll wait to see your response from that.

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 1873 by Stile, posted 01-27-2023 9:01 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1901 by Stile, posted 01-30-2023 9:41 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1891 of 3694 (905504)
01-28-2023 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1886 by Tangle
01-28-2023 3:13 PM


Re: What's Important enough?
Tangle writes:
please, please, please, atheism is NOT a belief.

What is it with you guys, can't you take anything in? We've been saying this for 20 years.
OK. Atheism is a disbelief. However, when is disbelief a belief?
Do you believe that we live in a materialistic world.
Do you believe that our existence is strictly the result of natural causes with no intelligent input?
Do you believe that what I believe is completely wrong?
If you were an agnostic you could answer that the answer is unknowable, which is true but that does not mean that we can't have our own subjective beliefs onw way or the other.
What do you subjectively believe?

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 1886 by Tangle, posted 01-28-2023 3:13 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1892 by Tangle, posted 01-28-2023 6:05 PM GDR has replied
 Message 1895 by nwr, posted 01-28-2023 7:37 PM GDR has replied
 Message 1898 by Theodoric, posted 01-28-2023 10:01 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1894 of 3694 (905507)
01-28-2023 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1877 by Percy
01-27-2023 6:58 PM


Re: What's Important enough?
Percy writes:
The entire history of human experience of the divine has been one of retreat. God used to be behind everything. Rain, drought, lightning, earthquakes, floods, storms, life, love, death, an endless list, it was all controlled by gods or God, and He was everywhere.

What does God control now, and where is he? The answers seem to be that he controls only that which science hasn't explained yet, and that he's somewhere where science hasn't looked yet or can't look. And he seems to be remarkably averse to scientific equipment.

About whether people who claim experiences of God or Jesus are lying, I wouldn't say. But you asked the question, so let me turn the question back on you and ask whether you believe someone who claims experiences of the sun god or Zeus or Jehovah or Allah or nirvana or Krishna is lying? Or is it perhaps just the nature of religious practice that causes people to have what we would normally call a religious experience?
I don't look for a deity in the physical which is what you seem to be doing. There are so many involved in this thread now I can't keep track of what I said to each individual. I see God in acts of altruism, empathy love, devotion to others etc. I don't see God in the physical but in the hearts and minds of human and even animal life.
I realize that for you that doesn't qualify as evidence, but it rings true with me.
Percy writes:
Without looking this up, it seems a pretty safe bet that the psychology field has ways of measuring empathy and love. Just now looked it up anyway. Check out The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire - PMC, for just one example. Or check out Measuring the Capacity to Love: Development of the CTL-Inventory, for another example.
This is you doing what you reject the posts of myself and others by arguing with a link only. Can you put it in your own words?
Percy writes:
But let's say that you're right, that one cannot with confidence judge empathy and love. If scientists cannot gauge it objectively, and if people of the Lord can only have faith in the answer, then doesn't that tell us pretty clearly that no one has any evidence?

And where did you come up with (paraphrasing), "The existence of empathy and love is evidence of God." There are two problems with this. You've just claimed it isn't possible to objectively judge empathy and love, that you can only "believe" it (adding one more to your "I believe" claims). And where is the chain of logic showing that the existence of empathy and love implies that God exists?
There is no chain of logic as such. It is merely the point that it is highly unlikely to rise from lifeless matter without an intelligent root. Scientists have and are still developing AI. Who knows how far that will go. However the intelligence in AI came from intelligence. I don't see why you think that we should be different.
Percy writes:
You are once again reduced to "I believe." Could you please cut it out with the "I believes." Saying "I believe" carries no weight if that's all you've got. You're preaching, not discussing.
Of course you can say "I believe" in a discussion. It is a statement of fact. It is not a statement of evidence and I agree that it carries no weight. I might then go on to say when I believe something, it is actually another way of saying that I realize that it isn't something that I know.
I might say that I think the Edmonton Oilers will win the Stanley Cup this year. Everyone understands that I don't know that to be the case, but that I simply believe it to be.
I don't understand why you are so bothered by this.
Percy writes:
No, the same does not hold for both us and you. It only holds for you. What you're doing is making claims without evidence. All we're doing is telling you your claims are worthless without evidence. We're making no claims of our own other than to say you have no evidence. You've conceded that you have no evidence a number of times, but you continue your search for a way of claiming to have evidence that we can't show wrong. Give it up.
I just went through with Stile my train of thought for what I believe. For you and others it won't constitute evidence. It certainly isn't evidence that can be tested scientifically or mathematically.
Actually I have changed and continue to change my theological views. I have no doubt that I made statements on this forum when I first started that I would refute now. So yes, views can change. You guys like to use the example of finding the natural cause for lightning. When that happened it didn't disprove the concept concerning a deity but simply that our view of the role of the deity had to change.
Percy writes:
Just because no evidence survived of some event of history does not mean it didn't happen. It just means no evidence survived. It also means we can never know about it.

When you say you "believe that Jesus' resurrection was historically true" I think what you actually mean is that you still believe there is evidence for it. Still pinning your hopes on Tacitus, Suetonius, et. al., I assume.
....along with the whole NT and all the authors involved in writing it, but I agree that there is nothing conclusive. I agree that the only evidence is written evidence which can be accepted as completely accurate. partly accurate and completely wrong. It is belief.
Percy writes:
No one's saying you shouldn't believe this. No one's saying that this belief is wrong. But if you begin to again repeat your claims of evidence for a caring deity ("hey, empathy and love, there's your evidence") then we'll quickly point out the flaws in your thinking. However, if you're only saying, "I believe in God," then fine, you believe in God. Nobody's got a problem with that. The only thing we have a problem with is when you claim you have evidence of God, and not just of God generally but specifically of the God of Christianity.
I have laid out what I consider as evidence for you several times. I don't see the need to do it again. I recognise that you don't see the evidence in the same light that I do and you even reject that it constitutes evidence at all.
Percy writes:
Because of tentativity there is nothing in science that we know absolutely, so when you say that things can be true without absolutely knowing that they're true, realize that there is nothing that we absolutely know. Consider it an ideal that can never be achieved.

Evidence never tells us that something is absolutely true. It only tells us what is likely true about the real world. And, of course, unsupported belief tells us nothing.

If God is part of the real world, we have no evidence of that. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist, but it does put him in the realm of all other things that have no evidence, like unicorns, elves, fairies, and the flying spaghetti monster.
That is true if you only consider material or scientific evidence and totally reject philosophical and theological evidence. However, I agree that we can't know anything absolutely except for maybe Descartes point that "I think, therefore I am".
Percy writes:
Evidence of natural origins for anything, such as morality, is not evidence against God. It is evidence of a natural origin that contradicts your claims of divine origins that lack all evidence. You're completely misconstruing what Stile is saying.
Being able to make claims of the rise of moral understanding is not the same as explaining morality's origin.
Percy writes:
Let me try another tack. Say there's someone who is absolutely convinced that unicorns exist, or at least that unicorns once existed. He searches for evidence for decades but never finds any. How should this failure to find any evidence affect his belief in unicorns?

Now consider someone who is absolutely convinced that God exists. He searches for evidence for decades but never finds any. How should this failure to find any evidence affect his belief in God?

Shouldn't the failure to find evidence affect his assessment of the probability that his hypothesis is correct, whether it's about the existence of unicorns or God?
That is the same argument that a Russian astronaut made, when he said that he knew there was no god because he was up in space and didn't see him. Nobody is suggesting that you can go out behind the barn and find God or evidence of Him.
Percy writes:
A word about the nature of evidence. Think of evidence as a verifiable fact, then enumerate in your mind the verifiable facts for God and Jesus. This should be a relatively quick task as there are none.
Well it is a fact that the Gospels were written with the idea that they be read as a non-fictional account. There accuracy isn't verifiable.
Conscious life exists but it is not verifiable that it is a result of pre-existing intelligence.
However, you won't find God in a test tube, behind the barn or even in a set of mathematical equations.
Percy writes:
As I said earlier, morality is hopelessly relative. Even murder, which everyone agrees is wrong, is relative. Murder is wrong, unless you live in a jurisdiction with capital punishment, in which case it's okay. Murder is wrong, unless you're a combatant in war, in which case it's okay. Murder is wrong, unless you're getting rid of an inferior race like Jews in Europe or Bosnians in Bosnia or Tutsis in Rwanda, then it's okay.

If even the wrongness of something as heinous as murder is relative, then how could anyone argue that any moral quality isn't relative?

But getting back on point, morality most certainly fits within an evolutionary framework. To stick with your introduction of the popular vernacular of "survival of the fittest," morality evolved because it made populations more fit in the struggle for survival. It conferred a survival advantage upon human populations.
No, morality is a heart thing. In different times and different cultures the same action might be moral in one case and immoral in another. It is what motivates what we do that makes it moral or immoral.
Percy writes:
Morality isn't defined as a thought. It's a behavior, just like animals marking their territory is a behavior. They're both inherent behaviors. Instinctual.
I contend that it is more than that. An animal marking its territory is instinctive and about its survival. Morality is not instinctiv, and I contend that although co-operative behaviour can be personally beneficial, that does not mean that actually caring about others by putting them ahead of ourselves is instinctive. It is a learned and then accepted behaviour that hopefully becomes who we are.
Percy writes:
I have only one question for theism: Where's the evidence?
I have answered that numerous times.
.

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 1877 by Percy, posted 01-27-2023 6:58 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1897 by Theodoric, posted 01-28-2023 9:55 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 1919 by Percy, posted 01-31-2023 9:30 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1904 of 3694 (905564)
01-30-2023 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1881 by Percy
01-28-2023 11:18 AM


Re: Meaning and Purpose
Percy writes:
Actually, you don't give answers. What you do is provide statements of belief in response to requests for evidence or requests to support your claims of evidence. Most recently you're claiming that love, morality and empathy are evidence of the divine because there is no natural explanation for them, a claim made in ignorance, and when informed of the evidence for natural origins instead of addressing them you issued another statement of belief.
I don't claim that there is no natural explanation. Sure, it can be observed how it is spread but ultimately the natural explanation is in the same position as mine, and I contend that my explanation is more reasonable. You will probably argue it but the main instinct in all life is self-preservation. The type of love and even altruism we are talking about can even require the risk of losing a life to preserve another. It goes against our instinct which I see as suggesting that there is something more going on.
GDR writes:
I give you answers and you don't agree with them so you claim I don't answer the question. We live in a world where we only experience time in one direction. Physicists seem to be quite happy to theoretically suggest more dimensions of time. Apparently mathematically time should be symmetrical and flow forward or in reverse. (Don't press me on that. I just read in in a Brian Greene book.)

I'm simply saying, without evidence, that God's dimension or universe experiences time differently than does are dimension or universe. Yes, it is belief without evidence. It isn't evidence of course, but as we both know there are many physicists that accept a belief along these lines, so I'm not just out here on my own, nor am I rejecting science.

And again, materialism requires a virtually list of processes all driven by chance right back to the Big Bang.
Percy writes:
You might be reading Brian Greene, but you sure aren't understanding him.
The point wasn't about Greene's beliefs. He is not a theist. I have his book "Fabric of the Cosmos". Here is a quote from it.
quote:
Yet we expect that somewhere in the depths of physics there must be a less silly law describing the motion and the particles that make up pizza, milk, eggs, coffee, people and stars - the fundamental ingredients of everything - that show why thing evolve through one sequence of steps, but never the reverse. Such a law would give fundamental explanation to the observed arrow of time.
The perplexing thing is that no one has discovered ant such law. What's more the law of physics that have been articulated from Newton through Maxwell and Einstein, and up until today, show a complete symetry between past and future. Nowhere in any of these laws do we find a stipulation that they apply one way in time, but not in the other. Nowhere is there any distinction between how the laws look or behave when applied in either direction in time. The laws treat what we call past and future on a completely equal footing.
Incidentally, here is Greene's view on religion quoted from his wiki page. [quote]Greene has stated that he regards science as being incompatible with literalist interpretations of religion and that there is much in the New Atheism movement which resonates with him because he personally does not feel the need for religious explanation. However, he is uncertain of its efficacy as a strategy for spreading a scientific worldview.[28] In an interview with The Guardian he says "When I'm looking to understand myself as a human, and how I fit in to the long chain of human culture that reaches back thousands of years, religion is a deeply valuable part of that story.[/qs]
In effect then with our current scientific understandings the belief that there is a deity that is not subject to time as we experience it, can't be dismissed on scientific grounds.
Percy writes:
Thank you for providing a perfect example of what you've doing over and over again. I asked you for evidence, and you replied with a statement of belief. You do this as a means of deflection because you know we're fine with whatever you want to believe religiously, and that if you respond with a statement of belief that we'll let the issue drop.

But then later, a couple messages from now, you'll state that empathy, morality and love are evidence of the divine, or maybe you'll introduce something else you think is evidence, but in any case you'll continue this oscillation between "it's just a belief" in one message followed by "I have evidence for what I believe" in another.
Good grief. We agree that empathy, m orality and love are things we experience. Why those things exist is a matter of belief that will flow from our basic beliefs concerning atheism or theism. Science can only speak from what they can observe and test as well as the historical accounts. The way that these emotions have been spread, does not tell us anything about what it was the initiated the spread. It is my view that it is that "still small voice of God' speaking to our hearts. It isn't anything material so there is no evidence to reject or confirm my view. It is a matter of belief and I gave some reasons that lead me to tis belief. Neither view is scientific.
Percy writes:
More than half of physicists are atheists.
You throw these things out there with no supporting evidence. What non-biased evidence to you have to support that, or is it just what you want to believe?
Percy writes:
Let's say that you treat your slaves sumptuously and extravagantly. You still own them. They're only in your household because they're your property. How does treating them incredibly well become moral while holding them as property?

Let's go to a similar example. You kidnap someone. You keep them in your house, you feed them very well, provide them regular exercise, give them their own room, access to TV channels and streaming, provide them books, audio books, art on the walls and an Amazon account where they can order whatever they want. How does all this wonderful treatment become something moral while holding them as a kidnapping victim?
The belief that to own another person is an immoral belief. To own a slave is immoral. That is simple. However, all people, you and I included, commit moral and immoral acts on a regular basis. Treating a slave in the manner you describe is a moral choice distinct from slavery itself. . For that matter in 1850 it would have been a courageous thing to do, as it could even cost you your life by going against the norm.
Percy]If you were not from Canada but from another part of the world where Islam rules you would still be arguing just as determinedly as you are now, but for Islam. You're arguing for Christianity in this manner not because Christianity is actually true but simply because arguing for your religious beliefs is in your nature and Christianity happens to be the dominant religion where you live and perhaps you were even raised in it and so it is the religion that holds sway within your mind.
Firstly I do believe it is essentially true. I argue for Christianity because I believe it to be essentially true. I don't actually think it's in my nature but I do find the study of theology interesting. However, none of that makes me wrong.
Percy writes:
Your reasons lack all evidence.
Scientific evidence neither affirms nor supports my beliefs.
GDR writes:
If I were to say that I believe in the resurrection of Jesus, then I'd like to know what you would have me say other than believe.
Percy writes:
his hits upon the key point. We'd be delighted if you only stated what you believe, but you do more than that. You continually add that you have evidence for your beliefs. When challenged you back off and say it's only a statement of what you believe, but within a very short time you're back to claiming evidence for your beliefs, like your "morality/empathy/love must have a divine origin" claim, or your, "life could only have come from a cosmic intelligence" claim.
I have no evidence. I do have written accounts which can be by belief be accepted, partly accepted or rejected or rejected completely. My theistic arguments are just to make the point that the resurrection wouldn't be an impossibility for a cosmic intelligence.
However, ultimately it is belief.
Percy writes:

It isn't your word choice that is the problem. The problem is your continual bait and switch, oscillating between "this is only a belief" and "there is evidence for this belief."
I don't much care if you call it evidence or reasons for my beliefs.
Percy writes:
I thought it was common knowledge, but let me Google it for you.

If you check out Are Prisoners Less Likely To Be Atheists? | FiveThirtyEight you'll see that atheists are .1% of the prison population but .7% of the general population. They are 7 times less likely to be incarcerated relative to their proportion of the population. Protestants are about 1.6 times less likely, Catholics just as likely.

Here's another article making the same point for Federal prisons: In 2021, atheists made up only 0.1% of the federal prison population. "More significantly, it means our presence in U.S. federal prisons is significantly lower than what we find in the general population." He estimates the number of atheists in the general population as 4%, but this seems high. According to a ARIS 2008 poll, 2% are atheist and 10% are agnostic, and while that poll's a bit dated now and both populations have increased, it seems unlikely that the percentage of atheists could have doubled in just 15 years.
Well that doesn't surprise. Most of the people in our prisons are people who have lost their hope in this world and as a result hope there is something to look forward to.
Here is a study that shows just the facts are just the opposite of what you claimed.
Effects of Religious Practice
This is just a personal anecdote, but when I was growing up most people went to church, at least irregularly. As a result Christian principles were largely the norm. While in school I knew of no one who committed suicide; no one who died from a drug overdose, although I agree that there were barely any drugs around; I knew of no child who had been abducted; kids at a very young age played out of sight of their parents and felt free to speak to strangers; the vast majority were raised in 2 parent families and so on.
We now live in a secular society where church attendance is not the norm. I know which one I prefer.

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 1881 by Percy, posted 01-28-2023 11:18 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1917 by Stile, posted 01-31-2023 9:06 AM GDR has replied
 Message 1931 by Percy, posted 02-01-2023 9:55 AM GDR has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024