Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If God is good...
Tertulian
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 108 (11755)
06-18-2002 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by TrueCreation
06-18-2002 3:32 AM


quote:
just be weary of the magnitude of your confidence in your assertions. Not only will you then sound some-what open-minded, you will also give yourself some lee-way in your credibility.
You'll have to explain this to me because I am somewhat closed-minded.
You said my assertions were absurd. I showed you that they weren't. I don't need confidence because my assertion was not absurd. It was staring you and I in the face.
quote:
Also, for those who say that they have to see God to believe it, is irrational, and if there is no other way, it is ignorant
How is it irrational to have to see a god to believe it? Please tell me. You base your religion of faith. There is no other way. You can say that 'this' or 'that' proves a god's existence but the only way to prove the existence of a god, outside faith, is through the actual seeing of him/her/it. Religion is based on faith. No faith--no religion. Find a definition of faith. Here's one for you:
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=faith
#4 deals with Christianity. Faith is not a reliable method of acquiring knowledge. The presence of ideas or belief's in your conscienceness does not constitute knowledge. Faith is a belief in the unknowable, the incomprehensible all of what reason cannot understand.
Now lets take a look at rational:
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=rational
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=reason
So if rational is 'having or exercising the ability to reason', then irrational is the opposite--'not having or not exercising the ability to reason'. Reason is--'An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence'.
From these two definitions, we see that reason and faith are diametrically opposed. You cannot have rational faith. You cannot have faith based on reason. They are contradicting terms and thus mutually exclusive.
Soooooo...having gone through this...I say again TC --The belief in a god is irrational.
I'd like to hear about this other way for a belief in a god. I do not want to be ignorant. If you tell me I have to get on my knees and pray, that's not the answer either. I did that for 29 years. And here I am at 31 thumbing my nose at any idea of a god. I deluded poor children into a belief in God. I have to live with that for the rest of my life. I was in YOUTH for CHRIST, taught at Sunday schools, counselor at Bible camp and I was even trying to become minister. Since the day my eyes were opened (April 16,1999), I have been trying to learn everything that I thought meaningless in HS; physics, chemistry, calculus, and biology. I'm too old to go back to HS, so I make use of my public library. I go through life now with my eyes wide open. I am commited to the unswerving use of reason in all my endeavors. I have no use for the concept of faith.
What is the difference between direct and indirect evidence, as far as this discussion is concerned. Is there a way to get direct evidence of existence of a god? indirect?
Too tired to see anymore. Need to rest my some-what closed mind.
take care TC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by TrueCreation, posted 06-18-2002 3:32 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by TrueCreation, posted 06-19-2002 12:51 PM Tertulian has replied

Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 108 (11766)
06-18-2002 8:01 PM


"God can't be good. Why create a hell for unbelievers?"
TC already covered this one, but I would just like to point out that God is granting you what you wish- seperation from him.
"I don't need confidence because my assertion was not absurd."
As I will show below, some of your assertions were absurd.
"How is it irrational to have to see a god to believe it? Please tell me."
It is entirely irrational to require sight of God in order to believe in him, in the same was as it is irrational to require sight of electrons in order to believe that they exist. As with many concepts in science, indirect evidence is satisfactory in order to come to a reasonably likely conclusion. I wasn't aware that you hated science so much..... Thus, your statement was absurd.
"You can say that 'this' or 'that' proves a god's existence but the only way to prove the existence of a god, outside faith, is through the actual seeing of him/her/it."
You are using the word "prove" in a totally unsatisfactory manner. There is no way to "prove" anything. In fact, even if you DID "see" God, you could still claim that it was hallucination. Thus, even your own definition of what you require as "proof" is unsatisfactory. This statement is thus absurd.
"Find a definition of faith. Here's one for you:"
None of those definitions state that faith is irrational/blind.
"Faith is not a reliable method of acquiring knowledge."
Faith was never claimed to be a reliable method of aquiring knowledge. However, one can obtain a particular faith becuase evidence may lead him/her to a "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing." Thus your statement is a strawman/absurd.
"So if rational is 'having or exercising the ability to reason', then irrational is the opposite--'not having or not exercising the ability to reason'."
Makes sense. So what?
"From these two definitions, we see that reason and faith are diametrically opposed."
You have not come close to showing this. One can be "rational" and use "reason" in order to obtain "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing." Thus, your statement is absurd.
"The belief in a god is irrational."
This statement is absurd, as shown by my previous responses.
"I'd like to hear about this other way for a belief in a god."
You could believe the indirect evidence, as provided to you by William Craig in the debate you read.
"I deluded poor children into a belief in God."
Even assuming that you are correct in your assertion that there is no God, why is it so unfortunate that you assisted children into developing faith in God?
"I have to live with that for the rest of my life."
Don't beat yourself up pal. If I'm right, you've done those children a big favor. If I'm wrong (horror of horrors), they believe in God even though He does not exist.
"Since the day my eyes were opened"
What makes you so confident that your "eyes were opened"? Isn't there a chance that you are wrong, and your eyes have been shut? In fact, your posts seem to indicate that your eyes are shut- due to your use of logical fallacy and poor reasoning in order to reach absurd conclusions (in addition to your admittance of being a close-minded person.)
"I have been trying to learn everything that I thought meaningless in HS; physics, chemistry, calculus, and biology."
I'm not sure why you thought that these hard sciences were useless as a Christian, but it is good that you are learning important scientific concepts.
"I am commited to the unswerving use of reason in all my endeavors. I have no use for the concept of faith."
As I have shown above, faith and reason are not "diametrically opposed" as you claim, but can actually be mutually advantageous. Thus, although you don't NEED faith in order to use reason, it is in no way out of bounds for you to develop faith.
I hope you will consider my comments. Take care.
[This message has been edited by Cobra_snake, 06-18-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Tertulian, posted 06-18-2002 10:00 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

Tertulian
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 108 (11774)
06-18-2002 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Cobra_snake
06-18-2002 8:01 PM


You win! I'll go back to being a lurker.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Cobra_snake, posted 06-18-2002 8:01 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 108 (11827)
06-19-2002 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Tertulian
06-18-2002 5:33 AM


A good comparable, is the ToE, we did not see it happen, we only have indirect evidence of it. Not direct, contrary to popular belief, you did not observe any single operation or process which controlled the evolution of life and the earth. What we do have for Evolution is indirect evidence. We look at the earth and piece together its characteristics and the findings, patterns and ordered observations. We find that it is reasonable to believe that some process has ordered the fossil record, and some process has geodynamically churned our Earth. This obviously requires some degree of faith no matter where it is taken, no matter how obvious you may think it is because this is irrelevant to the question of indirect vs. direct evidence. This is my reasoning by which my assertion that if you have to see God to believe it, that it is irrational, is supported. My reasoning for the latter (and if there is no other way, it is ignorant), is that if you are denying the possibility of indirect evidence. Also, I know of absolutely nothing you would learn in your physics, chemistry, calculus, or biology class that should be ignored if you are a Christian.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Tertulian, posted 06-18-2002 5:33 AM Tertulian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Tertulian, posted 06-20-2002 2:08 AM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 107 by nator, posted 06-21-2002 7:52 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Tertulian
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 108 (11851)
06-20-2002 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by TrueCreation
06-19-2002 12:51 PM


quote:
This obviously requires some degree of faith no matter where it is taken, no matter how obvious you may think it is because this is irrelevant to the question of indirect vs. direct evidence
Yes, I agree with you there. But no mention of evolution was ever made in any of my posts,in this thread.
quote:
This is my reasoning by which my assertion that if you have to see God to believe it, that it is irrational, is supported
That's not reasoning. That's the "They did it, so why can't I?" argument. Your claim is not supported. But, with that said, I think I know where your comming from though. I'll support your claim.
Hebrew 11:1-3 "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.KJV (italics added)
So once you have physical evidence, it ceases to be faith-'the evidence of things not seen'. Faith is devoid of reason, and thus-irrational. It doesn't make it wrong, just irrational. Once you have a rational explanation for something it voids the concept of faith.
Sooooo...since you have indirect evidence of a god, my assertion(that- 'you can't a god so they can't exist') is irrational, since it was based on the faith that there is no evidence at all. But you proved me wrong on that point (assuming your evidence is valid--which I'm doing).
quote:
Also, I know of absolutely nothing you would learn in your physics, chemistry, calculus, or biology class that should be ignored if you are a Christian.
I didn't ignore them, they were required courses, I said 'meaningless'. My thoughts back then were very ignorant. Although I did well in them, I never pursued those particular courses after HS. In University I took mostly courses in the arts to graduate with an HBA in English Literature. There was six years in between HS and University in which I only read bibles and ICR crap, nothing much to do with science. Evolution was a no-no, so I never bothered to read anything unbiased until a few years ago (yes, that was very ignorant of me).
I did found what seems to be a good book at the library today. Here is an link to a review:
http://www.nonfictionreviews.com/article1129.html
I've only read a couple of pages so-far, can't really make a valued judgement on it. But the review was pretty good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by TrueCreation, posted 06-19-2002 12:51 PM TrueCreation has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 107 of 108 (11944)
06-21-2002 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by TrueCreation
06-19-2002 12:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
A good comparable, is the ToE, we did not see it happen, we only have indirect evidence of it. Not direct, contrary to popular belief, you did not observe any single operation or process which controlled the evolution of life and the earth. What we do have for Evolution is indirect evidence. We look at the earth and piece together its characteristics and the findings, patterns and ordered observations. We find that it is reasonable to believe that some process has ordered the fossil record, and some process has geodynamically churned our Earth. This obviously requires some degree of faith no matter where it is taken, no matter how obvious you may think it is because this is irrelevant to the question of indirect vs. direct evidence. This is my reasoning by which my assertion that if you have to see God to believe it, that it is irrational, is supported. My reasoning for the latter (and if there is no other way, it is ignorant), is that if you are denying the possibility of indirect evidence. Also, I know of absolutely nothing you would learn in your physics, chemistry, calculus, or biology class that should be ignored if you are a Christian.

TC, you and Cobra are throwing around the term "indirect evidence" for God a bit.
You can't be using it in a scientific sense, because you are not using the simplest explanation for why things are the way they are in nature when you invoke magical, supernatural powers to make them happen.
BTW, we have quite direct evidence for Evolution. It has been observed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by TrueCreation, posted 06-19-2002 12:51 PM TrueCreation has not replied

LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 108 of 108 (332846)
07-18-2006 10:35 AM


Christian morality discussion as related to OP
riVeRrat writes:
This is not a thread about Christian morality, it is about whether atheism is a dangerous idea or not.
If I provide an example, we will no doubt debate it, hence proving my point.
Please provide an example of absolute morality of an atheist.
Let me explain what I am driving at.
There is much discussion among fundamentalist Christians about the lack of an absolute moral guidance without God. You even seem to hint at this being a problem in your comments about the athiest moral foundation. Most of the fundamentalist with whom I am aquainted, are quite vocal about the problems with the United States that are caused by this relativistic world view. Subjective morals are considered the cause of the current breakdown of society. If any of them answered the OP, this subjective set of morals would be the danger that they believe athiest thinking presents to society.
Despite the fact that you deny saying subjective morals are a danger, your comments indicate that you have a problem with them.
So, my question concerning the degree to which Biblical morals are absolute has a direct bearing on whether subjective morals can be presented as a danger.
Perhaps you are not the best fundamentalist to address this question since you have not really made any statements concerning your commitment to any particular stand on these issues.
THIS GOT POSTED IN THE WRONG THREAD, I DON'T KNOW HOW...BUT IT DID...SORRY
Edited by LinearAq, : Somehow this got posted in the wrong place.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024