Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Deism in the Dock
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 176 of 270 (416203)
08-14-2007 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by ringo
08-14-2007 2:51 PM


Ringo:
The thing is, you can't know that "He has very good reasons". You can't know that "He doesn't want to condemn too hastily". You can't know that "He knows exactly what He is doing".
What you think you know is just what C. S. Lewis has told you to think.
First off... Lewis and I do not agree on everything. But much of what he had to say hepled me to enunciate my own thoughts. it was confirmation of what I already saw and did not know how to express. lewis had become patient and methodical. I am only learning to be so...
Secondly, be careful with that double-edged sword because by the same token, you cannot know that I don't, or that God isn't all of those things.
That's the Kantian philosophical error. To state that we 'cannot know'; that it is all purely a leap of faith for me. How can he (or you) know that since it is you and he who say 'you can't know'?
As I keep saying, you have to get outside of the box to make that stick. And that is why I asked Razd the question I did. Because all theories or theologies are ultimately philosophcial constructs which are a leap of faith (thank you Paul Davies).
The physical world is no panecea of protection, because what is seen is made from that which does not appear. Physics only points to the real solution. It can offer no certainty whatsoever.
You guys base all of your oobservations on the premise that the only thing valid is the emprical materially. Not because it's certain, but because it is the only thing we have to go on.
But if you look carefully, there is another assumption that is actually the one you are leaning on; that the premise itself is logical.
Yet, methodological naturalism is not interested in philosophical coherence. And that is incoherent. So, it is a philosophical position that tells us philosphical coherence is not valid.
You've got a problem...
So I ask you Ringo... who is it here that has been told what to think by their predeccessors?
I say no-one... We are all just looking for what it is we 'want' to believe.
The motives (selfish or not) are uncovered by asking 'why' we want to believe 'this, instead of that. And if you look at Jesus' teaching, you will see that he talks of faith and belief, faith and belief.
You can't see something you 'refuse' to believe in. not because of it's non-existence, but because you simply refuse. So one of the first questions I had to ask myself before becoming a Christian was:
1. Why do I want to believe what I currently do?
Without exposing my own dishonesty, I could not find the voice of truth.
'To thine own self be true'. (Shakespeare)
If I cannot be honest with myself, then how can I hear or see God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by ringo, posted 08-14-2007 2:51 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by ringo, posted 08-14-2007 3:57 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 180 of 270 (416234)
08-14-2007 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by ringo
08-14-2007 3:57 PM


Ringo:
You can't know what God thinks because of your own idea of what God is. If He is so far above you, there can be no meaningful revelation.
That (as I understand it) is deism.
Well, then I'm glad I'm not a deist!
He's not far at all, He's everywhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by ringo, posted 08-14-2007 3:57 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by ringo, posted 08-14-2007 8:40 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 181 of 270 (416235)
08-14-2007 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by DrJones*
08-14-2007 4:15 PM


Dr. Jones:
So in heaven we will be robots?
No no no... Robots don't get to choose to become robots. They never had a choice, to become or not to become robotic.
If my analogy (or my illustration that must be lacking something relevant to being equal to the real thing) is legitimate, then we get to choose.
This may turn out to be a theological nightmare, but I am moving forward with the analogy. let's all just keep in mind that it is an analogy; something to give us a flavor for the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by DrJones*, posted 08-14-2007 4:15 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by DrJones*, posted 08-14-2007 11:14 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 183 of 270 (416245)
08-14-2007 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Chiroptera
08-14-2007 4:40 PM


Chiroptera:
Okay, so God will remove the ability to sin. So either lacking having the ability to sin does not make people robots (like crashfrog is saying), or God really doesn't mind it if people are robots.
Either way, God could have arranged it from the beginning so that people couldn't sin. It will be exactly what God is going to arrange anyway, except with far fewer people in hell.
No... I think Crash was right (I wasn't listening properly to him). But... god couldn't have arranged it that way from the beginning, because then we would be robots. Choosing to become a robot, is different than being one.
There's something lacking in the analysis, but I can't visualize it yet. The Bible says we are slaves to sin, and that those in Christ are slaves to righteousness. So in a sense this whole issue brings up the age old free-will vs preordained problem. Elsewhwere the dilemma is resolved between time and eternity. But I do not know exactly how to apply that resolution here...
I'll keep praying and thinking about it.
Perhaps if I re-read Lewis' 'Mere Christianity' which was where I first saw the concept elaborated, I could get it clearer. But I gave my last copy away some time ago, so it will have to wait. I don't recall him taking it this deep though... You folks have asked some very intelligent and critical questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Chiroptera, posted 08-14-2007 4:40 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Chiroptera, posted 08-15-2007 1:39 PM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 184 of 270 (416247)
08-14-2007 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by ringo
08-14-2007 8:40 PM


Ringo:
Do you understand any English at all? I didn't say anything about God being "far" or "anywhere".
I have a short memory too Ringo, so I'll give you a pass...
Ringo: http://EvC Forum: Deism in the Dock -->EvC Forum: Deism in the Dock
If He is so far above you, there can be no meaningful revelation.
Ringo:
I said you can't know what God thinks. You claim to know, but you don't know. You're either making it up or parroting what C. S. Lewis tells you. But you don't know.
Are you making it up? Or are you parroting what youve heard from some pop/sophist/philosopher?
So, why is it that you can know reality, and I can't?
Of course I know reality... I exist in Him.
You do know English don't you? Etymology and all?
God Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation: 'gd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
So if there is no God, then how could you know that I don't know Him? How could you know that I don't know Him, since you would have to know God in order to know that?
Kant has hurt you deeply... as well as many others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by ringo, posted 08-14-2007 8:40 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by ringo, posted 08-14-2007 10:33 PM Rob has replied
 Message 200 by bluegenes, posted 08-15-2007 2:29 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 188 of 270 (416281)
08-15-2007 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by DrJones*
08-14-2007 11:14 PM


Dr.Jones:
So you retract your earlier claim that "god" will remove our ability to sin when we're in heaven.
Yes, that is correct.
I was positioning the argument incorrectly. We do have an ability to sin now. In fact, we cannot stop doing it. Makes me wonder if we have a choice even now...
He offers us the chance to be free from it, if we want. And to be forgiven for what occurs now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by DrJones*, posted 08-14-2007 11:14 PM DrJones* has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 189 of 270 (416283)
08-15-2007 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by crashfrog
08-15-2007 12:01 AM


Re: playing God's advocate for you...
Crash :
I'm not angry...
...The anger you're sensing isn't coming from me. I suspect it's the anger you feel deep inside at a God who allows such injustice - the anger you can't ever admit to feeling. I don't expect you to do anything but disagree, of course.
I have already admitted that I am angry at times. Remember? that is why I said, 'I know an angry man when I see one, because I am argry myself.'
It kind of goes hand in hand with Lewis' comment that he knows men, because he is a man. It has it's limitations of course...
In fact, I am attending 'anger and other life issues' meetings at our church on monday nights. I am finding it very useful in letting go of some things. But it took me a long time to admit it,
I apologize for even bringing that up. If you are angry, it does no good to ask you like I did. You wouldn't even be conscious of it, and it is the kind of information that is volunteered, not coerced.
We are very blind to our own disfuntions. And it is traumatic to realize the reality. But it must be done if we are to see beyond our own self imposed prisons of perception. Lot's of hurt, and lot's of defense mechanisms bar the door. Takes a lot of love and a lot of thought to work through all of that icky 'real' stuff.
Sorry, not trying to turn this into an AA type meeting or anything...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by crashfrog, posted 08-15-2007 12:01 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 190 of 270 (416296)
08-15-2007 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by ringo
08-14-2007 10:33 PM


Ringo:[qs]Again, I didn't say that. I said, again, that you can't know what God thinks. You don't know reality because you're too busy tripping yourself up with silly word games.
Ok... I had to go back and read what you said. thought you were moving the goal-posts retroactively. But I think we misunderstood each other... Imagine that!
Here is what you originally said in this message: http://EvC Forum: Deism in the Dock -->EvC Forum: Deism in the Dock Ringo:
The thing is, you can't know that "He has very good reasons". You can't know that "He doesn't want to condemn too hastily". You can't know that "He knows exactly what He is doing".
You are equating knowing God's thoughts with His nature. And there is simmilarity I'll grant that. But I do know His nature. He has revealed Himself through His Son. And His Son fullfilled what the Bible told us his nature was.
Furthermore, I have seen Him move in my own life. I have seen the radical transformation of my own mind, and the simultaneous and sudden understanding of the scriptures. It all coalesces beautifully. It is either the greatest ancient trick of hypnosis and mind control, or simply what it claims to be. Or I could be utterly mad...
Trust me, I have questioned all of the above many times. I even wished it wasn't true so I wouldn't feel the need to tell others about it so forcefully. Because as I do so, all of my greatest weaknesses are exposed before your very eyes.
The irony (if you can call it that)... is that my only motivation for healing whatever dysfunctions and hurt I suffer from, has come not from wanting to do it. But because I must, if I am to become an effective witness. And in hindsight, I realize that that motivationis not selfish, but for the sake of others. And then I think, 'woah!... Lord, you truely are the genius'!
I'm just the fool next door. If I have even once offered anything that touches you, thank God not me.
And that's no phoney baloney humility, you boys know me well enough...I am not humble!. But through some mystery of grace, God has humbled me.
I'll tell you this much.. if I was thinking my own thoughts that arise in my own imagination, I would be seriously offended at your lack of respect for the subjects at EVC and for almost molesting me continually with word games and infintie skepticism.
But if you haven't noticed (as I have) I don't really care about what you think of me anymore. In fact, you all are often very right about me.
But your way off base about God.
Ringo:
"Above you" is not a location
.
I'll resist using the laughing smile from the legend. Oh I can't help it...
What is it then?
And please don't say it's a prepositional phrase, because that would indicate position (ie. location, relative to me).
I'll say one more thing... being an omnipresent being, God's position is difficult to ascertain. He's like a photon; some particle that can also be a wave and in more than one place at the same time, if you can even call it a place (or space). Which is intriguing since Jesus claimed to be 'the light' of the world. And even way back in the Old Testament, God was called our light.
You know how much I like Lewis... He said that 'God is like the sun, you can't look at It. But without it you cannot see anything'.
What light is to the physical, God is to our ability to accurately see reality beyond the physical.
Ringo:
Take 1. I don't read philosophy, popular or otherwise.
Take 2. I'm thinking it through.
Thinking is what philosophy is Ringo.
Everything anyone says or writes is ultimately promoting or criticizing a philosophy or 'worldview' of life (reality). Since you have read... you have read philosophy.
Once we first realize that that's what we, and everyone else is doing, all of our thinking starts progressing very rapidly.
And, after consulting my Merriam-Websters, Philosophy is both theorizing and theology which I found to be particularly tantilizing.
Ringo:
Please just try to pay attention for once. I have never said that there is no God.
When you say I can't know Him, I am afraid you did... You know Him too, you just don't yet recognize Him or His voice for what it is.
I know God because I know His nature. That doesn't mean I can mind read Him. I'd explode if I could. My cup hath runneth over on many occasions. Revelation is often overwhelming when it occurs. And oh how I long for it...
I know you can't believe Him till you see it. So ask Him to see it. Faith first, eyes open later. Ask and you shall receive.
As for me, I know Him. But you don't know that I don't. I have told you plainly but you do not believe me.
Truth and lies can both be believed... but only the truth can be known.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by ringo, posted 08-14-2007 10:33 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by ringo, posted 08-15-2007 2:50 AM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 193 of 270 (416351)
08-15-2007 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by ringo
08-15-2007 2:50 AM


Ringo:
Foolish people believe lies and think they know the truth.
You just made an assertion Ringo. You just posited a truth claim. You stated an absolute...
Hello?
Ok... fine Ringo.... so do you believe what you just said or know it?
My oberservations and questions are not word games Ringo... They are meant to show that you appear to be unconscious of what it is you are saying.
Can we know the truth or not? If so how?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by ringo, posted 08-15-2007 2:50 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by ringo, posted 08-15-2007 2:30 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 194 of 270 (416352)
08-15-2007 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Archer Opteryx
08-15-2007 4:18 AM


Re: 'Marry me or I'll shoot'
Archer:
If anything of the sort were true, we would see a correlation in the world between those people who are happy and who profess Christianity, and between those who feel miserable and who profess any other belief.
This is not, in reality, what we find. We find that people who hold other beliefs are as likely to be happy, well adjusted, kind, truthful, and content as Christians are, and perhaps even more so.
How can we be well adjusted in a world governed by the greedy and power-mad?
To become well adjusted in a gang of mobsters is not what I call well adjusted. But if happiness, and acceptance by whomever is the goal, then who cares what we become?
Christianity has very little to do with being happy. It is about joy. Happiness is temporary, joy comes from appriciating the big picture. They're quite distinct.
I've never been more unhappy in my life in temporal terms. It's one storm after another.
Think about it... Jesus starts speaking to a relatively huge crowd, and by the end of His message only twelve are left. Sometimes one would think He is trying to talk us out of following Him. He talks about the cost, being persecuted and hated, and that we may well die for our faith.
What in the name of reason does that have to do with happiness? It is a cross-bound journey. It is the truth, not some pie in the sky by and by when I die.
There is a great deal you do not understand. And I am not claiming that I have all the answers. There is a great deal I do not yet understand either... but I know the one who does. And real answers take time to understand. They're real life lessons that produce enormous stress and struggle.
Archer:
Dropping the gun would be a start.
Your the one named 'Archer'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-15-2007 4:18 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-15-2007 5:16 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 202 of 270 (416393)
08-15-2007 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by bluegenes
08-15-2007 2:29 PM


bluegenes:
If there is no God, how can you know that the person you're addressing doesn't know that there is no God to know, and therefore know, logically, that you cannot know a non-existent entity? You cannot know that he does not know that you do not know God. He could've had real special information from the seven magic wizards and witches who really created the universe, and you could just be suffering from a common cultural delusion that the universe was created by a fairly ridiculous mythological God invented by a primitive middle-eastern tribe, for all you know.
But that is akin to what I am telling Him. And I noticed you used the word 'really' (ie. real / reality)...
bluegenes:
If your God is another word for "reality", why do you need two words for the same thing? And why do you need to pray to reality? Why should reality care whether you pray to it or not?
Have you not heard of synonyms?
One of the definitions of God, is reality.
You are also confusing the pantheistic concept of reality with the Judeo-Christian. God (reality) is living in the Christian sense, not some impersonal absolute. We can have a personal relationship with Him. This is a relational (relative) universe in terms of physicality you know? But we can make that statement absolutely, because it is a statement of the totality of things (ie. the ultimate reality / God).
So, by praying we are communicating with God. I guess it is akin to simply accepting reality and therefore knowing it. But if you didn't believe in reality, you wouldn't draw any references to it's nature. Same with God since they are synonymous. If you don't believe in Him, then you will not talk to Him. And He cannot talk to you because you will not let Him.
You have to believe in something. One man told me he doesn't believe in anything. And I asked him if he really believed that? But not all beliefs are reality as is plain. The difference is that the 'real thing' can communicate back to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by bluegenes, posted 08-15-2007 2:29 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by bluegenes, posted 08-15-2007 6:55 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 203 of 270 (416395)
08-15-2007 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by ringo
08-15-2007 2:30 PM


Ringo:
We can know little bits of truth. We can not know The Truth™.
I gotta hand it to you Ringo...
Ok, so we know that logic is valid, because of the emprical evidence of order and elegant mathematical struture?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by ringo, posted 08-15-2007 2:30 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by ringo, posted 08-15-2007 4:06 PM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 212 of 270 (416422)
08-15-2007 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Archer Opteryx
08-15-2007 5:16 PM


Re: 'Marry me or I'll shoot'
Archer:
One post ago you told me Christians are on Easy Street while their neighbours live in 'eternal torture.'
Your impatience and hostility are causing you to miss the mark (the definition of sin-an archer's term- btw).
Here is what I said...
Rob: It's not 'marry me or I'll shoot'... it's, 'your dying. I can help you; your sinking, and I can walk on water; come and follow me'.
The 'everlasting torture' is a state of being that we are already in.
Do you notice the we in there?
I contend that we are all in the same sinking ship. It is you who has tried in the past to argue for relative truth.
In your irrational state of mind, you've perceived a dichotomy that I have never drawn..
Archer:
Anything to help keep the fantasy alive that your own sectarian club is special... when no evidence exists in the real world to support this.
I agree, Christians are nothing special. We're just people like everyone else.
But now that we agree that we're all in the same boat, then we must all be in need of the same salvation.
Rob:
Christianity has very little to do with being happy. It is about joy.
Archer: Word game. My point stands.
Whoah... easy there Hoss!
The examples to explain this are so plentiful it is rediculous.
It may make a child happy to eat ice-cream at any given time, and it may not be convenient for the parent to not allow it for reasons only the parent can perceive. Yet it is a greater form of joy (or happiness) to see the larger story unfold gracefully though it may cause temporary unhappiness.
Though 'happy' and 'joy' are related, if you look at their definitions, their is a definite link to long term sucess attended to joy, and an immediate quality associated with happiness. It' not black and white grant you, but it is distinguishable.
What I was trying to argue against was your inferring that 'happiness' can be achieved in many forms, and that that is the purpose of religion.
If that is true, then for some joining a S& M club may be the best 'religious' option for some.
I am only trying to show that happiness is not the goal in the temporal sense that I perceived was inferred by one of your replies.
Now out of all the conversations I am having at the moment, yours is the most unendurable. Even Ringo, who usually leaves me feeling molested and used, is managing (at times) to show enormous progress in his ability to take subjects seriously. His have actually been recently semi-intelligent questions that do not immediately appear to be motivated by a tantrum.
What's got into you? It seemed to me that you were far more reasonable in the past.
I hope I am not in danger of maturing, because my pride might immediately jump on the thought and send me backsliding into the abyss once again.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-15-2007 5:16 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-16-2007 11:57 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 252 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-17-2007 2:05 AM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 216 of 270 (416436)
08-15-2007 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by bluegenes
08-15-2007 6:55 PM


bluegenes:
God (reality in the Judeo-Christian sense) created life on earth, according to your religion. So am I correct in suggesting that you believe that life, then, was created by reality, but is not part of it?
That's why were lost, yes. It is of corse not totally removed. That would be hell.
bluegenes:
is rather off topic, I realise, but I didn't know that there were Christians who believed that life was not part of reality, so I thought that the point was too interesting to ignore).
Well then you never understood Christianity. That's the whole point of Christianity. That reality/God (a being, not a concept), created a world that was perfect like Him. And then one of his creatures in particular decided to try a different way of doing things at the suggestion of yet another.
We, in effect, became partially seperated from reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by bluegenes, posted 08-15-2007 6:55 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by bluegenes, posted 08-15-2007 8:43 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 218 of 270 (416447)
08-15-2007 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Archer Opteryx
08-15-2007 5:16 PM


Re: 'Marry me or I'll shoot'
To remain consistent, I have to concede that I was making an exagerated point in saying that we are in 'the state of torment already'. We are partially in that state to be more precise. Hell will be much worse. My point is that we are sinking and on the road to that destination already.
These distinctions make a real, practical, and substantial difference. My apologies for any confusion. I also sometimes fail to take these subjects as seriously as we need to.
I am not immune to impatience and irrationality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-15-2007 5:16 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024