Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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:   Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1381 of 1677 (847035)
01-16-2019 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1376 by GDR
01-15-2019 8:50 PM


GDR writes:
percy writes:
A regression involves time and is a series of "befores" - if there is no time there can be no regression.
I actually did get that the first time and I agree. My point was that if you are going to invoke that rule nor a non-theistic position then a theist should be able to invoke the same. If it is not turtles all the way down for the non-theistic position then it is the same for the theistic position.
But you're ignoring key issues. I asked you, "Does your God exist within time or outside of time?" Obviously if he exists within time then you have an infinite regression problem. And if he exists outside of time then you're just adopting one of the possible implications of the Big Bang, that before T=0 there was no time. And just to be clear, an infinite regression is one of the scientific possibilities. There is at present no accepted scientific theory on what preceded the Big Bang.
Which brings me to the other key issue: evidence. Science doesn't build theory around unevidenced ideas. You have no evidence of God, but let's postulate that you do, that we know He exists and that he exists within time, and that we've decided to accept as evidence the argument that it is more rational than not to believe that sentient beings capable of love, etc., could not be created by blind processes. Isn't God a sentient being capable of love, etc? Of course He is. Therefore he could not have been created by blind processes, and so we must seek what created God, and then what created the creator of God, and so forth in an infinite regression. At some point you have to halt the regression and just admit that a sentient being capable of love, etc., could be created by blind processes. And if God could be created by blind processes then so could people, so there's no need for God as an intermediary.
Also, I would like to bring up Paley's argument about the evolution of the eye. I accept the evolutionary answer that the eye could evolve with a series of mutations rather than requiring the whole eye to be complete from day one.
It seems to me however that we should look at that more deeply. If evolution is a mindless process that has resulted in the creatures we have today, and that it all started without any cellular life, how would a blind process know that the sense of vision was something that existed at all in order to begin the evolutionary process that resulted in vision being a reality? The same is true for the evolutionary processes for any of our senses.
The key part of your question, "How would a blind process know...", is contradictory. The key quality of a blind process is that it doesn't know anything. You can't ask how a blind process would know. Obviously a blind process doesn't know. That's why we call it a blind process, or a mindless process.
Consider something much simpler than the senses, the H1N1 virus. How do the chemicals comprising these viruses in pigs in China know that such and such a mutation will wreak havoc with human health during the next flu season? Obviously chemicals know nothing. The evolutionary process is not guided by anything that knows anything. It's an unguided process of descent with modification and natural selection.
Also, you said in another post when I mentioned the observer effect that even though there was no one there to measure or observe anything that the rocks etc of our world would still exist. How do you know that or is it simply something you believe. If you know it then how do you know it?
Grab a shovel, walk outside to some bare ground, and begin digging. At some depth you will reach dirt and/or rocks that no one has ever seen before. Do you believe they didn't exist until then? Obviously not. Obviously you believe they existed before you began digging. Now just follow that logic backward in time.
Or here's something even simpler. Grab a hammer and go outside and find a big rock. Whack it with the hammer until you chip off a piece. You are now looking at rock that has never been seen before. Does it make sense to you that that rock didn't exist until you hit it with your hammer? Of course not. So answer your own question: How did you know that whatever was inside the rock was already there before you hit it with your hammer and observed it?
There is the age-old question that if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it does it still make a sound. Assuming that there is no conscious life around I would say no it does not. It is not a sound until it is perceived as sound. It is only an increased movement of airwaves. Possibly it is the same for observing rocks.
Sound is just mechanical vibrations transmitted through a medium like a solid or gas. Those vibrations exist whether anyone hears them or not.
Say you have a clock radio that goes off at 6 AM, but you couldn't sleep and so you got up and began your day at 5:30 AM. The clock radio still turns on at 6 AM but there is no one there to hear it. Do you really believe there's no sound in the room?
The question about a falling tree making a sound is for children. Of course it produces sound, whether anyone hears it or not. A tree not producing sound unless someone hears it would be like a lightbulb not producing light unless someone sees it.
In other words, things happen whether someone observes them or not.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1376 by GDR, posted 01-15-2019 8:50 PM GDR has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1382 of 1677 (847037)
01-16-2019 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1377 by GDR
01-15-2019 9:09 PM


Re: Suffering with a loving God
GDR writes:
Again it is primarily only the letters that correspond with what is on the keyboard on this computer, so I am limited to pretty much that.
I see you're using square brackets, so did you figure out how to type square brackets or are you copy/pasting square brackets into your messages? I'm guessing you're in the Spanish speaking world where there is some variety in keyboards. On some the square brackets are the two keys to the right of the "P", on others to the right of the "", whether they're marked or not. On some keyboards you may have to also hit ALT or CTL or even SHFT-ALT or SHFT-CTL. If you do not have two keys to the right of the "P" or "" then your keyboard is really old.
Percy writes:
My mother grew up on a farm not too distant from Calgary.
Mine did too except it was a ranch in the Irricana area just NE of Calgary.
Delburne, then Three Hills, but none of the kids or grandkids stayed on the farm and are now in Red Deer, Olds and vicinity.
If I am right that there is a next world where there will be perfect justice it makes perfect sense to do our best to make that a reality in the present.
I'm not seeing any logic in that argument, just a declaration.
Jesus told us to pray thy kingdom come on Earth as in Heaven.
I thought it was, "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven."
The original question remains unanswered. If the greater the suffering on Earth the greater the reward in the eternal life of heaven, then aren't you doing people a disservice by ameliorating their suffering on Earth ("11Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you." Matthew 5:11-12), and increasing your own reward by increasing your own suffering through supposedly selfless service ("But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God." 1 Peter 2:20)?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1377 by GDR, posted 01-15-2019 9:09 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1387 by GDR, posted 01-16-2019 6:28 PM Percy has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 1383 of 1677 (847038)
01-16-2019 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1379 by GDR
01-15-2019 11:14 PM


GDR writes:
It offers an explanation but it does strike me that we had to have exactly right chemistry available and the light had to trigger something that caused light to evolve in a way that produced vision without any knowledge of what vision is.
This would only make sense if human vision was somehow able to "see" all wavelengths.
But, of course, this isn't reality.
Check out this link, especially the mini-picture where it shows the "visible light spectrum" along the full electromagnetic spectrum.
Visible Light vs. Full Spectrum
We actually only see about 5-10% of what we "could see" if vision was all that it possibly could be.
Ever see Star Trek: The Next Generation? Jeordi LeForge (the engineer) had some sort of vision problem. His eyes didn't work. But the available future technology made him a visor that took in wavelengths and transmitted the information directly to his brain for him... basically being his eyes. But, since it was intelligently designed, it could see a lot more than normal human eyes could. There were many story-lines where everyone would be baffled until Jeordi took a look and "saw" what was actually going on.
The reality that the visible spectrum is only a small percentage of what's available should tell us that our eyes are functioning at a "barely good enough" level rather than some sort of "intelligently designed" optimum set-point.
Maybe you are right but it does seem to me that allowing for a pre-existing intelligence is actually a simpler answer.
You've been saying something along these lines very often.
Let me get this straight. History of human knowledge growth:
*When people didn't understand something - many would have a "deep, intense feeling" that it must be caused by something supernatural (like by God) because it's just so complicated and so mysterious and so beyond our current level of comprehension and so interesting... there's no way it could come about by natural causes without an intelligence having a hand in it.
Like fire: almost everyone thought fire must be divine * In the same way you seem to think the origin-of-the-universe must be divine.
But they were wrong. We've figured out that fire has a non-divine, non-God, non-intelligent explanation.
Like lightning: almost everyone thought lightning must be divine * In the same way you seem to think the origin-of-the-universe must be divine.
But they were wrong. We've figured out that lightning has a non-divine, non-God, non-intelligent explanation.
Like weather patterns (famine, rain...): almost almost everyone thought weather patterns must be divine * In the same way you seem to think the origin-of-the-universe must be divine.
But they were wrong. We've figured out that lightning has a non-divine, non-God, non-intelligent explanation.
Like planetary motion: almost everyone thought planetary motion must be divine * In the same way you seem to think the origin-of-the-universe must be divine.
But they were wrong. We've figured out that planetary motion has a non-divine, non-God, non-intelligent explanation.
The latest in this line is now "the beginning of the universe."
You are free to believe/think that the beginning of the universe must be divine, that is your right in having your own mind and your own thoughts.
However - to say that such an idea is "simple" or "expected" or even "reasonable" in light of all the previous similar ideas that have turned out to have non-divine, non-God, non-intelligent explanations... is rather comical.
I'm not saying that a divine answer is "wrong" or that a non-divine answer is "right."
Because we don't know. Can't say either way.
But we can look at the previous history of similar lack-of-knowledge situations and see how they moved along. In light of those similar situations - it's only reasonable to anticipate that this answer will have a non-divine, non-God, non-intelligent explanation.
Of course, the reasonably anticipated answer isn't always the right one. But it usually is.
Edited by Stile, : Large chunk of the ending of my message went missing. Inserted now.
Edited by Stile, : Again.
Edited by Stile, : Again.
Edited by Stile, : Crosses fingers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1379 by GDR, posted 01-15-2019 11:14 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1384 by Stile, posted 01-16-2019 9:55 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1384 of 1677 (847039)
01-16-2019 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1383 by Stile
01-16-2019 9:49 AM


Ah... I was using an asterisk, followed by a space and then a left-angle-bracket, followed by a dash in my message.
I think that was being identified as a "comment" and blocking out a large portion of my message-text.
Changed my formatting and it seems to be fine now. Sorry for all the figuring-it-out edits in my previous message.
Edited by Stile, : All better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1383 by Stile, posted 01-16-2019 9:49 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1385 of 1677 (847041)
01-16-2019 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1379 by GDR
01-15-2019 11:14 PM


Maybe you are right but it does seem to me that allowing for a pre-existing intelligence is actually a simpler answer.
Oh, you’re funny.
All the questions that need to be answered about the particle in question now need to be applied to this mysterious intelligence as well. You have at least doubled the amount of knowledge required to understand this system. That doesn’t qualify as simpler.
Maybe simpler in the respect that one can just throw the label it’s majik at it so one doesn’t have to digest the actions in detail and think too hard on what actually is happening but that’s not the kind of simpler Occam is look for when he strops his razor. Quite the opposite, in fact.
I know you are trying to justify your concepts of god but please acknowledge that introducing that extra entity and its bunch of extra steps that also require rigorous explanation is not in any way simpler.
I know that with my very limited knowledge I am on shaky ground here but you have to assume that the dust mote exists if it is not observed. In reality, we have no way of knowing any of this as we are not observing or measuring it.
how do we know?
Majik.
The point is not whether the dust mote or the pebble or the moon exists. The point is that if such a macro composite item interacts with a particle in a superposition state that particle is said to be observed and the superposition state is broken.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1379 by GDR, posted 01-15-2019 11:14 PM GDR has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1386 of 1677 (847043)
01-16-2019 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1245 by Phat
12-29-2018 7:40 AM


experience with demon-possessed man
...we all clearly heard the multiple voices, no trickery was involved or even possible given our surroundings, and we all to this day remember the same sequence of events. You argue that given what is known about physics, a resurrection is ruled out because such things do not happen. I would agree. Several audible voices coming out of a man in a trance also do not happen...certainly not in my own living room away from a place where such events could be staged.
Hi Phat,
I meant to ask you this at the time and forgot, but I just found myself wandering into this general area while researching something else and am now up to my ears in it. If you've described this event in detail somewhere, would you please point me to it, or describe it now if you haven't? Specifically I'm interested in how it came about and if the man was ever delivered from his demons?
Thanks.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1245 by Phat, posted 12-29-2018 7:40 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1396 by Phat, posted 01-17-2019 9:12 PM Faith has replied

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


(1)
Message 1387 of 1677 (847056)
01-16-2019 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1382 by Percy
01-16-2019 9:47 AM


Re: Suffering with a loving God
With my problems with this keyboard I think I will go with a generic response.
Incidentally Percy our backgrounds seem to cross each other again as my wife is a New Englander from Melrose a suburb of Boston.
The first thing is that when I make any scientific claims I am as much looking for information as I am to proposing actual belief. I very quickly am out of my depth.
Christianity is essentially the belief that is based in the accounts of the redemptive aspects of God in the Israel story climaxing in Jesus, and also in personal experiences of forgiveness, renewal and love.
From all of that I have faith that God is a god of love, forgiveness and mercy. I also believe from that He is a god that wants His human creatures to reflect those qualities into creation. In addition that ultimately this world will be fully redeemed and renewed.
I think that this summarizes basic Christianity and it is by faith that we accept this.
There is no absolute answer as to why there is suffering in this world. I have to accept that it exists and that it is contrary to His hope for the world but that it was necessary and beyond what He could do to bypass this intermediate stage of life as we know it.
I suggest that as humans we want to find concrete reasons to support our faith. I do not suggest that any of the arguments that I have put forward are hard evidence but I would call them suggestive.I will quote John Polkinghorne as he can put things far better than I can and actually has the credentials. He says that the key to understanding the physical world is mathematics, an invention of the human mind. The fit between rationality in our minds and rationality in the world is to be expected if the world is a creation of the mind. Again it is not hard evidence but it is suggestive that we are the result of intelligence.
The anthropic principle does not provide a conclusive argument for the existence of God but again I suggest that it is suggestive. The ultra high degree of fine tuning required is what we might expect if life and consciousness were goals of a rational creator with a purpose.
Also science has shown, although you guys have shown that I went too far with it, that a conscious observer does play a very large role in the functioning of our world.
Why I have come to the conclusion, and have faith in that conclusion, that we exist as a direct result of a loving god that wants us to reflect that love into the world, and you guys have not, is a mystery to me. It goes back to having free will I guess which also gives us freedom to believe what we will 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 1382 by Percy, posted 01-16-2019 9:47 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1388 by Stile, posted 01-17-2019 9:11 AM GDR has replied
 Message 1389 by Stile, posted 01-17-2019 9:27 AM GDR has replied
 Message 1390 by Percy, posted 01-17-2019 9:44 AM GDR has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1388 of 1677 (847062)
01-17-2019 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1387 by GDR
01-16-2019 6:28 PM


Re: Suffering with a loving God
GDR writes:
I suggest that as humans we want to find concrete reasons to support our faith.
Really?
I don't understand how any reasonable person can make such suggestions.
I'm assuming you have no problems understanding that different people may have different levels of attraction to different flavors of ice-cream, yes?
Wouldn't you think that "ice-cream" is a lot simpler and less-important than "finding concrete reasons to support our faith?"
So, on one hand, we have an incredibly simple and low-importance issue for humans to deal with (ice cream flavor comfort.)
-And you would think it very strange if I stated something like "I suggest that as humans we want vanilla ice-cream for dessert."
However... we then take an incredibly complex and high-importance issue for humans to deal with (finding reasons to support our faith.)
-And you don't see any problem whatsoever with making assumptions that "all humans" should be leaning in a single, specific direction??
It just doesn't make any sense to me.
What this statement should really say, and it makes much more sense this way, is:
"I suggest that some humans want to find concrete reasons to support their faith."
Many humans have a tendency to want to be part of a group - especially the "all humans" group.
They want to justify their own behaviours by saying things like - "See? Everyone does it! I'm normal!!"
It is my suggestion that this is what you're doing here.
Perhaps you have a personal inclination in "being part of the big group of agreement" and want your ideas to be "the ideas" that everyone else has too.
Unfortunately, such things don't exist even for simple issues like ice-cream comfort.
They really don't exist for complex issues like finding reasons to support our faith.
If you'd like to speak more about this line-of-thought... it's exactly what I'm attempting to discuss in my other thread: We must believe in what we're made for
I do believe you're right... for many people.
Just very far from "all people."
I think there's an equal amount of "many people" who do not prioritize finding concrete reasons for their faith... they put their faith as a lesser priority and would rather focus on "finding concrete reasons for reality" regardless of what that may do (or not do) to their faith.
I don't think there's a right or a wrong in a general sense... just different strokes for different folks.
Of course, in a specific sense... there would be right or wrong applications of the different ideas for identifying different answers.
If you're looking to describe reality... perhaps you might want more people dedicated to reality than their faith.
If someone is looking for help with their faith in a religion... perhaps you might want to include more people dedicated to their faith.
He says that the key to understanding the physical world is mathematics, an invention of the human mind. The fit between rationality in our minds and rationality in the world is to be expected if the world is a creation of the mind. Again it is not hard evidence but it is suggestive that we are the result of intelligence.
But science readily admits it doesn't have all the answers.
Science readily admits it has not identified any "key to understanding the physical world" and that many questions remain.
Science readily admits that it's possible that we'll never have all the answers.
Therefore... there currently is no "fit between rationality in our minds and rationality in the world" - only on a superficial level (the level you and I are most used to). Such a thing does not exist when Scientists examine the details. There are too many confusing unknowns that persist.
According to your own quote, then... if a key does not yet exist (and may not ever) and this rational connection between human-minds and reality doesn't exist yet (and may not ever)... does this imply that we are not the result of intelligence?
Edited by Stile, : Added second quote and remarks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1387 by GDR, posted 01-16-2019 6:28 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1392 by GDR, posted 01-17-2019 6:58 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1389 of 1677 (847065)
01-17-2019 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1387 by GDR
01-16-2019 6:28 PM


Re: Suffering with a loving God
GDR writes:
Why I have come to the conclusion, and have faith in that conclusion, that we exist as a direct result of a loving god that wants us to reflect that love into the world, and you guys have not, is a mystery to me. It goes back to having free will I guess which also gives us freedom to believe what we will believe.
I don't see it as much of a mystery.
Only as big of a mystery as "different strokes for different folks."
As big of a mystery as why I like chocolate over vanilla, and others like vanilla over chocolate.
As humans, almost all of us have a subjective side.
That subjective side exists in all aspects of our life.
It exists in the simple, unimportant aspects - like ice cream flavor preference.
It exists in the complex, important aspects - like personal conclusions on if God exists or not.
It is up to each and every one of us to identify when and how best to use our subjective side.
It is also up to each and every one of us to judge when others are using their subjective side when they shouldn't be... or not using it when they should.
Again, this is the sort of thing I'm attempting to discuss over at We must believe in what we're made for, if you have further thoughts along this idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1387 by GDR, posted 01-16-2019 6:28 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1393 by GDR, posted 01-17-2019 7:01 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1390 of 1677 (847067)
01-17-2019 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1387 by GDR
01-16-2019 6:28 PM


Re: Suffering with a loving God
GDR writes:
Incidentally Percy our backgrounds seem to cross each other again as my wife is a New Englander from Melrose a suburb of Boston.
Only about 30 miles from the New Hampshire border. Maybe there's something even closer as I lived in Maynard, MA, years ago (even closer to Melrose) and worked across the street at Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC), once a major employer in the region and the second largest computer manufacturer in the world employing over 140,000 people. Maynard was company headquarters. I was speaking with the self-checkout assistant at Walmart the other day about the poor state of modern software (I was using the Walmart Pay app, which worked fine, she was just expressing surprise that someone in my, uh, age group was using it, and I think she just enjoys talking with people), and out of the blue she mentioned DEC and how much she loved the software her company used back in the 1980's that ran on VAX/VMS computers manufactured by DEC. Maybe your wife knew people from Maynard or DEC.
I suggest that as humans we want to find concrete reasons to support our faith.
Naturally.
I will quote John Polkinghorne...The fit between rationality in our minds and rationality in the world is to be expected if the world is a creation of the mind.
What part of the world is Polkinghorne calling rational? Scientifically, sure, but add people and the rationality drops away.
Again it is not hard evidence but it is suggestive that we are the result of intelligence.
Yet you accept evolution. Can I assume you believe evolution was guided by God?
The anthropic principle does not provide a conclusive argument for the existence of God but again I suggest that it is suggestive.
I'll call this the Goldilocks argument (because it's similar to the search for planets outside the solar system that reside in the so-called Goldilocks zone where conditions are just right for life), that the universe is just right for life (including humans), implying purposeful choosing of fundamental physical parameters. On the other hand, pride in our own unique qualities notwithstanding, we're the kind of life that could evolve in this kind of universe. Were it a different kind of universe we would be a different kind of life, and likely just as prideful of our unique qualities.
The ultra high degree of fine tuning required is what we might expect if life and consciousness were goals of a rational creator with a purpose.
The universe might seem fine-tuned for us, but different fine-tuning would have produced a different us, and likely just as amazed at how fine-tuned the universe seemed for them.
Also science has shown, although you guys have shown that I went too far with it, that a conscious observer does play a very large role in the functioning of our world.
I can't see how you arrived at that conclusion. Except at the quantum level where (widely but not universally accepted theory believes that) wave functions collapse when they encounter other wave functions (in your vernacular, "are observed," which doesn't actually require a conscious or even living observer), observing something (e.g., the light waves or sound waves of an event impinging on your eyes or ears) has no effect on that event.
It goes back to having free will I guess which also gives us freedom to believe what we will believe.
I have no objection to any faith-based beliefs. I only object to rationalizing that there is evidence for those faith-based beliefs. You've said several times that you accept on faith that there is evidence for your faith-based beliefs, and I can accept that too, but not when it's followed by an irrational leap that therefore there is scientific evidence. If it helps you to believe that the nature of the universe itself is "suggestive" then that's fine, too, but it's a starting point for seeking evidence and is not itself evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1387 by GDR, posted 01-16-2019 6:28 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1394 by GDR, posted 01-17-2019 7:39 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1391 of 1677 (847080)
01-17-2019 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1372 by Stile
01-15-2019 10:29 AM


Re: Suffering with a loving God
Stile writes:
Why can't God create "the best" place as well as not caring if some people ignore Him? - That's what I would do.
What you, I, or ringo would do does not measure up to what God may do, may know, and why he would do it. The basis of this argument is in response to a hypothetical question why (I claim) that God would never create a Heaven where people could ignore(or more properly do their own thing) in the confines of such a place. Certain places have certain rules and expectations. People are free to challenge such rules, but the owner or president of such places also has the right to set certain standards.
You claim it is a matter of self-esteem. ringo apparently agrees.
ringo writes:
You're the one who's challenging the autonomy of the Deity by suggesting that He would have trouble handling the "Satan" character.
All that I am suggesting is that the behavior of this satan character would go against the standards established for heaven. Whether God chooses to vaporize him, boot him out the front door, or ignore him is up to God alone. Stile claims that a weak God would lack self-esteem and fear the competition. (im addressing ringo)
Then AZPaul3 adds:
AZPaul3 writes:
An infinitely loving God would not hesitate...
Thus we are all defining the character of this "God of Heaven".
Getting back to the standards....it seems clear that Heaven and free will do not go together. Otherwise, not all of the saints would sing praises for eternity. jar used to joking say that he could imagine no worse hell than a heaven where people did nothing but grovel and sing exultations 24/7!

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1372 by Stile, posted 01-15-2019 10:29 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1395 by AZPaul3, posted 01-17-2019 8:52 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 1405 by ringo, posted 01-18-2019 10:49 AM Phat has replied
 Message 1532 by Stile, posted 01-21-2019 10:26 AM Phat has not replied

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


Message 1392 of 1677 (847081)
01-17-2019 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1388 by Stile
01-17-2019 9:11 AM


Re: Suffering with a loving God
GDR wrote
I suggest that as humans we want to find concrete reasons to support our faith.
Stile wrote I don't understand how any reasonable person can make such suggestions.
I'm assuming you have no problems understanding that different people may have different levels of attraction to different flavors of ice-cream, yes?
Wouldn't you think that "ice-cream" is a lot simpler and less-important than "finding concrete reasons to support our faith?"
So, on one hand, we have an incredibly simple and low-importance issue for humans to deal with (ice cream flavor comfort.)
I am only saying that we look for concrete reasons however I agree that we have to settle for reasons that are not concrete, but would you settle for the term I used which is suggestive.
Maybe we do settle for what we are comfortable with, but personally I have tried to find a path that I believe represents the truth knowing that I can not know whether or not I have things right. I was not always a Christian.
I have no doubt that some of things I believe are wrong, with the trouble being that I do not know which things they are. I have been forced to modify or even change my beliefs over the years by listening to the reasoning of others, including others on this forum.

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 1388 by Stile, posted 01-17-2019 9:11 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 1393 of 1677 (847082)
01-17-2019 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1389 by Stile
01-17-2019 9:27 AM


Re: Suffering with a loving God
Stile wrote I don't see it as much of a mystery.
I only meant that in my mind theism is so congruent with my life and the world I live in, it is something of a mystery to me why others do not see it in the same way.
However, I get your point and I even agree with it.

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 1389 by Stile, posted 01-17-2019 9:27 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 1394 of 1677 (847086)
01-17-2019 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1390 by Percy
01-17-2019 9:44 AM


Re: Suffering with a loving God
Hi Percy
My wife is familiar with Maynard but not DEC. She went to college is Salem. She was atheistic then but fortunately they did not burn her. smiley face
I think that Polkinghorne is referring to scientific study and that rational scientific minds anticipate the rationality of the universe.
Percy wrote Yet you accept evolution. Can I assume you believe evolution was guided by God?
I am prepared to accept various answers to this and I am ok with any of them.
1 God set the evolutionary process in motion either at the time of the BB or at some point subsequent to then using random processes and natural laws that would give at least a high probability that ultimately creatures would evolve capable of sacrificial love. Part of that of course is the question of when consciousness became a reality.
2 God began the evolutionary process and intervened at various points in the process in order to bring about a particular result and we may or may not be the end of that process. Maybe even human minds now play into the path of future evolution.
3 A combination of 1 and 2 particularly as it concerns consciousness.
I just accept evolution as it does not really play any role in my Christian beliefs. It does not matter to me what role God plays in it. It is only a matter of interest.
As I have kept on repeating there are 2 aspects of my Christian faith that are fundamental for me. Firstly that God is a god of love, and that my primary vocation is to be a reflector of that love, realizing that although I believe that I am pretty pathetic when it comes to putting that belief into practice. The second is the bodily resurrection of Jesus into a renewed form of life.
Percy wrote I have no objection to any faith-based beliefs. I only object to rationalizing that there is evidence for those faith-based beliefs. You've said several times that you accept on faith that there is evidence for your faith-based beliefs, and I can accept that too, but not when it's followed by an irrational leap that therefore there is scientific evidence. If it helps you to believe that the nature of the universe itself is "suggestive" then that's fine, too, but it's a starting point for seeking evidence and is not itself evidence.
I think that we might have a different idea of how to understand evidence. I looked at different dictionary definitions. Some indicating that it is as used in a court of law and leads to a firm conclusion. Others talk about it meaning something that is helpful in forming a conclusion.
I think the first is closer to what you are talking about in that anything that I would call evidence does not lead to any firm conclusion. The second is closer to what I mean in that it is helpful in forming a conclusion, but any conclusion is subjective and rational people will come to different conclusions.
I am glad that we could agree on using suggestive, and I agree completely that it is only a starting point. smiley face

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 1390 by Percy, posted 01-17-2019 9:44 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1398 by Faith, posted 01-18-2019 1:21 AM GDR has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1395 of 1677 (847089)
01-17-2019 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1391 by Phat
01-17-2019 6:55 PM


Re: Suffering with a loving God
Thus we are all defining the character of this "God of Heaven".
Just drawing a logical conclusion from the attributes given this god from his proponents such as yourself. Or is that an older version of a god that is no longer in fashion? Is infinite love a thing anymore?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1391 by Phat, posted 01-17-2019 6:55 PM Phat 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