My Beliefs- GDR

And again to leave the problem of suffering unanswered.It's problmatic to those who are forced to reject the OT position on the grounds that, like you, 'would have trouble worshipping a deity that sanctioned stonings and genocide' but having done so, have had also to reject the concept of The Fall by default.This is too big a problem to just put aside, surely your beloved apologist C S Lewis has been able to rationalise it for you?

Well since the laws of chemistry don't care how the chemicals got into the beaker, it would show that those chemicals would produce life whether or not they were mixed together by intelligent scientists.And the fact that the scientists were intelligent would have no more bearing on the question of whether the origin of life required intelligence than the fact that they were (for example) all Chinese would have bearing on the question of whether it required Chinese people.

That is hardly fair. Yes I said belief but I then expanded on that as to how I come to my beliefs, not even to mention everything else I’ve posted in this thread. We all have things we believe but can’t prove, and I have hardly said that belief is evidence. Actually it isn’t. I don’t rely solely on my experience. I’ll take whatever information I can to form my views. I have changed my views numerous times in response to what I read, from what people have said on this forum, from the Bible etc. IMHO there is no single source of knowledge. Science answers a great deal, but it doesn’t answer everything. I believe what I said is that we can’t tell the difference between natural processes as part of an intelligent plan or natural events natural processes. Yes, It certainly appears that the apple fell as a natural event but for that matter, it wouldn’t look any different to us if Tom did intervene and cause the apple to fall, (again though to be clear), not that I think he did.I work on the principle that life pretty much runs on natural processes which does not eliminate the possibility of Tom’s intervention sometimes in a way that violates natural law as we understand it. I believe that Tom’s involvement is primarily through our hearts and minds. I’ve gone over that before but it is a really important point so I’ll try again. Birth defects and horrible diseases are a part of our reality as are tsunamis earthquakes etc. How does a loving Tom create a world that permits those things?This thread is about my beliefs so that’s what I’ll give you. I have no expectation that this will convince you or anyone else and I have no doubt that I’ll be accused of logical fallacies.I believe that we are the result of an intelligence, Tom, that is not confined by our 4 dimensional universe. I have gone over the reasons why that is the case so there is no need to repeat them again. The question then becomes what is Tom’s nature and secondarily what influence is Tom able to exert.One of the things that we do know is that every individual theist comes to their own understanding of the nature of Tom, and beliefs are all over the map. Sure my view is subjective just the same as everyone else’s’ view. I think we all agree that we have a sense of morality and I think that we would all agree that in general that the Golden Rule is as good a picture of what it means to be moral as anything else. As I showed previously it is consistent to virtually all religions and presumably secular groups such as secular humanism as well. This is a quote from the Dalai Lama’

quote:

---

The essence of any religion is good heart. Sometimes I call love and compassion a universal religion. This is my religion.

---

On the assumption that I am right about Tom’s existence, it seems clear to me that Tom wants us to live by that moral code, and if that is the case it must be his nature as well. If that is Tom’s nature then we have to deal with the question of why all of the horrific things that happen do happen, and particularly things like the horrific birth defects that you mentioned.First I have to conclude that Tom understands our suffering and hates it. If that is the case then I have to conclude that the suffering for whatever reason could not be avoided. It seems to be a necessary element of an entropic world where time only flows in one direction.To get more specific about Tom and narrow him down to God as we see Him personified in Jesus we do get a picture of a god who does know and understand suffering and does hate it. We also see a god who by working through the creatures He has given life to intends to have things keep getting better, and that ultimately the suffering that we experience so unevenly in this life will be made right somehow when new creation happens whether that is 5 years or 5 million years from now.Christianity does make sense of the world that I live in IMHO. However, I know that the explanations that I have given for suffering are not a perfect answer. However, it is my belief with the knowledge that there are difficult questions that don’t have an absolute answer, that Tom, or God if you like, is loving and just. That is the god that I try imperfectly to follow and if Tom does turn out to be a cruel tyrant then it will be true that I have only worshipped a god that I have anthropomorphised and made up as a figment of my imagination. It is no different than arguing from the position that an intelligent designer, (Tom) is too incredible to be believed. There is a difference. We see natural processes at work. Each natural process requires an impetus to get it started. If we are looking at it from a materialist’s POV then the natural processes we observe required a natural process to cause the process that we can observe to begin. Natural processes need a beginning or cause and if the cause is always mindless and natural then we need an infinite number of natural processes or as I said earlier it’s turtles all the way down. Paley was wrong from the POV of the eye being unable to evolve as part of an evolutionary process. Personally I find the arguments for the intelligent creation of life far more compelling than the arguments against it. I disagree with your assessment but I don’t think I have anything to add that I haven’t said already. I don’t pretend to have all the answers. There is no doubt that there is ambiguity, but as I have said in the past that is what I would expect if there is a Tom and if we have been given free will. Without the ambiguity we would lose our opportunity to freely choose morality.

As I just said to Granny I have no definitive answer. I can only assume that it is a necessary part of our existence.There is one other way to look at it. As humans we continue to have children even though we know that in their lives they will endure suffering to one degree or another. We do what we can to minimize their suffering but we know that we can’t eliminate it, still we keep on having kids anyway. It is my belief, and IMHO consistent with the NT message of Jesus, that this is true for God as well. Just as we are unable to eliminate the reality of the suffering our kids will endure, I believe that in the case of God that it was this or nothing as well. He knows that we will suffer in this world but still views it as better that we have the opportunity for life. Of course if I am correct, God also knows that in the end the suffering that we endure in this life will not be a feature of the next. I don’t think so. I see the fall as a metaphor for the notion that we are all born into this world as creatures that are entirely self-focused. It is all about being fed, comfortable and secure. As we grow we respond to the love, or the lack of love, that we receive and we slowly learn about fairness and a sense of concern for others. I don’t find that contradictory to having rejected a deity that sanctions stoning and genocide. As I have said to Faith, it is called CHRISTianity, not BIBLEianity. It seems for some that they are prepared to sacrifice the message of peace and love that Jesus espoused on the altar of an inerrant Bible.I agree that it can’t be set aside but on the other hand that doesn’t mean that because it can’t be answered perfectly that we should throw out the baby with the bath water.C S Lewis wrote a whole book on it called The Problem with Pain. It has been a while since I read it so I thumbed through it and came up with this quote.

quote:

---

If God were good, He would wish to make His creatures perfectly happy, and if God were almighty He would be able to do what He wished. But the creatures are not happy. Therefore God lacks either goodness, or power, or both. This is the problem of pain in its simplest form. The possibility of answering it depends on showing that the terms good and almighty and perhaps the term happy are equivocal: for it must be admitted from the outset that if the popular meanings attached to these words are the best, or the only possible, meanings, then the argument is unanswerable.

---

He does point out that although suffering is a necessary evil we are called to do all that we can to ease the suffering of others when we are able. In actuality we have done that in numerous ways, whether it is through charities, modern medicine, technological advances and most effectively by simply employing the Golden Rule.Edited by GDR, : typo

Fair enough, remembering that this is on the assumption that this will actually be accomplished at some point, making it all highly hypothetical. It would show though, that in the one instance where we were able to actually observe the process it did require intelligence.

No.Which has already been explained. It doesn't require Chinese researchers either."The Process" in this case is the arising of "life" from certain initial conditions. You need to now carefully distinguish between the arranging of those initial conditions (process A) and the arising of "life" (process B). In the experiments being speculated about Process A requires the chinese researchers but process B does not.

I agree with that and I thought that is what we were talking about. My point has been that Tom is responsible for the natural events that we observe and that if the right chemicals formed life in a petri dish that would be a natural process.My point then is that in this instance it required intelligence to arrange the necessary circumstances, (process A) for allow for process B to happen naturally.That doesn't prove that intelligence was required the first time for the right conditions to exist, but it would show that in these circumstances it did. It would mean that this has happened only twice that we would know of and that in the one case we are sure of it took intelligence.

So when you are no longer interested in the initiation of life (other than it is currently a gap in our knowledge which may or may not be closed up in our liftime) so you'll move the gap back to the initial creation of the observable universe next.If you don't think you are practicing GotG then you'd better look at your arguments again.Why bother? It means nothing to or for your faith and just furthers other's idea that anyone of faith can't think straight. These arguments are simply not worth voicing. Better to follow Jar's example and just say "I believe but have no reason or evidence for that".Every time anyone uses a gap as a supporting argument they set up to add another rock to the sling used when we say "but every single time someone has proposed Tom as a solution and we have learned the real solution it has never, ever been Tom so why bother postulating Tom at all".Back and back the theist retreats until the final cliff is reached when (if is more like it in my opinion) we discover that this universe is as it has to be. There never was a choice for a designer to make. If the theist gets there using one gap after another the closing of the final gap closes the door on Tom too. Why risk that? This is, as I understand it, the reason why theologians object to GotG arguments totally aside from the weakness of the logic.

There are many way to look at it and they've all failed as as explanations - as you know.And against all those simple stories and apologetics we have the plain and uncontested facts of what we actually know about our world. We know that for several billion years all animal life on earth has had to feed off other life. We also know that it is designed to die when it's sole purpose is fullfilled - to make more copies of itself.That is a world which is unbelievably cruel if it was built by design by your Tom.H. sapiens itself, lived as primitive hunter gatherers with short and painful lives just like other animals for hundreds of thousands of years.Now modern man comes along and ignores the millions of years of pain and suffering of his ancestors and all the precursor organisms that got him to this point in time and says, in his egotistical way, well it was all about me after all!Because of perceived improvements in some parts of his world - every single one of them being man, not god, made - we're supposed ignore the huge amounts of suffering and find it proof of a merciful Tom?Really?

....and the materialist just keeps adding natural processes on top of natural processes that just happened to happen trying to explain our existence. A gap requires an opening and all I am saying is that ultimately Tom is responsible for the existence of life with life as we know it not existing prior to that point. That isn't a gap and if you want to call it a gap anyway then you are simply filling that gap with the idea that the idea that we are here because that is how the universe had to be.

Who says that it is all about us. To get back to Christianity for a moment Paul in Ephesians talks about how at the end of time God will being together all things on heaven and earth.Also if I am right and intelligence and morality are derived as a result of Tom then the advances that humans have made are ultimately a result of what Tom did in the first place. Your suggestion is like watching a robotic assembly line and then giving all the credit to the robots.

You've already admitted there is no objective evidence for any alternative. Of course there are no absolutes, but we can say with confidence that it seems like, according to the evidence, there is only nature at play. Non-intelligent materialistic forces? Are you just going to make up any terminology you want?As far as an intelligent plan...well that's not a question we need to even ask. Obviously, since as you admit, there is no objective evidence that a godly intelligence exists.Can't put the cart before the horse. And I'll keep repeating that until you get it. Philosophers aren't claiming to have subjective evidence. They're usually smart enough people to know there is no such thing as subjective evidence. There is no such thing as a materialistic belief. Being familiar with and knowledgable about the objective evidence surrounding the nature of reality as opposed to subjective notions of intelligent forces is not a "belief" any more than understaing the evidence we have about gravity is a belief. Well what else is there that has such a high level of accuracy? There is no other method to find the truth about a phenomena other than to study it objectively and gather empirical evidence. How else would you demonstrate your findings otherwise? Believing your wife loves you is not proof that your wife loves you. In both cases you're left without proof. So what's your point?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Yes, of course. Ummm, yes. Sure, that's fine.I mean, you have watched lightning happen right? Can you point to the part in the process that ISN'T natural processes all the way down? Yes, if you want to believe that, sure. Many scientist have suggested it is likely life had a few chances. 4.5 billion years is plenty of time, it seems like.- Oni

Look, I don't mean to be rude, but when I asked you what you based your belief upon, you replied "Belief". You can't expect to come out with a statement like that and not get called out for your circular reasoning.As for how you came to your beliefs, you claim to base your beliefs upon evidence from the natural world. You said; But when I ask you for specifics, you seem unable to provide them.I ask you why you're so sure that the fallen apple is a wholly natural event and you don't seem to be able to give a reason.I ask you why you're so sure that the origins of life require divine intervention and all you seem able to show me is an appeal to incredulity.All I can conclude is that you simply believe whatever you want to believe. As does any sensible empiricist. None of that changes the claim that you base your beliefs upon observation of the natural world. But when pressed for examples, you can only offer "feels right" emotional thinking and fallacies. If that is the case then you have no basis upon which to judge one event natural and another divine. Well, none except for wishful thinking. I know that I do keep making those accusations, but that's only because I honestly think that you are committing those fallacies. You are free to believe whatever you like, but if you're going to hold your beliefs up for examination, you have to expect to have such things pointed out. In my view, if your argument requires logical fallacies, then it's a bad argument and you ought not make it. But you have admitted that you cannot tell whether God has intervened or not. On that basis you have no standing to make any such judgement.It's simple; either you can draw evidence about God from the natural world or you cannot. if you cannot, you have no basis to claim that your belief in a good God is based upon observation. If you can make such observations, then you must judge God for the bad as well as the good. You can't just cherry-pick, or assume the conclusion. Yeah, well, there's a reason for that. Indeed. The Golden Rule is embraced by many secular humanists, a fact that rather neatly demonstrates how little connection morality actually has to do with religion. He's equivocating. Those of us who criticise religion do not do so because we are opposed to "love and compassion". What we oppose are the false claims and shoddy logic of religion.If the Dalai Lama wants to tell us that we should love one another, then great, I have no argument with him. It's when he claims to be the reincarnation of the previous thirteen Dalai Lamas that I have to take issue with him. Similarly, when you tell me "to love kindness", I have no argument with you. But when you tell me that God tells me to love kindness, or that God intervened in human evolution, then I have to disagree. I'm sorry, but that entire sentence is a horrendous mess of circular reasoning. No you don't. You could just as easily conclude that God kick-started the world and then left the scene forever, completely oblivious to our suffering. You could conclude that God loves suffering and regards it as jolly entertainment. You could conclude that suffering is the point of existence and that joy is an unfortunate side-effect, a regrettable necessity in God's greater plan to achieve the maximum degree of pain and horror.The only reason you don't reach these conclusions is because you don't want to believe that. I'm sorry, but the world just doesn't work that way. I think that would still be true even if there really is a good God. Even if your conclusions turn out to be correct, the means by which you've arrived at them seem too shaky to fully justify your beliefs. Except that I'm not arguing that. I base my atheism more upon lack of positive evidence in favour of gods.There is a further point of difference; you accuse me of incredulity, but even if that is the case, I am only incredulous toward a position for which no positive evidence exists. You are incredulous of (for example) the naturalistic evolution of morality, even in the face of supporting evidence for the same. I think that puts us on rather different footings. That's not true. We need not refer back all the way back to some first cause to study something specific, such as the evolution of morality. We can study that just as satisfactorily in a divinely created universe as we can in a naturalistic one. We don't need to know what started the Big bang to study evolution, yet you want to drag us into a first cause argument, merely to introduce an element of doubt; a Gap where your Gap God can reside.Mutate and Survive

First you need empirical evidence that a Tom exists before you can say anything happens because of Tom. You'll never be right uuntil then. And what it does is leaves us with ONE sole, objectively evidenced explanation for morality and intelligence and that is evolution and natural processes.I'm sorry you feel nature is robotic, or that we have objective evidence that natural processes take us all the way back to the Big Bang. But that is what the evidence shows us. So be as incredulous as you like about reality, it only hinders YOU.- Oni