|
Author
|
Topic: Is God Self-Evident
|
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4915 days) Posts: 178 Joined: 06-23-2009
|
|
Message 1 of 155 (521949)
08-30-2009 6:28 PM
|
|
|
Recently, I started thinking about God's existence in different terms. To me, if (a) God(s) existed, then their existence would be self-evident in everything that they created. Anyone who's ever read a fantasy book with a fully functioning religion (like the Wheel of Time) can understand what I'm talking about. If God existed, then there would be just the one God whom everyone worshipped, while just debating how to pray correctly until told to. Etc., etc., etc. The bottom line is, if God exists, then why doesn't everyone believe in him? (i.e. why is it "faith" rather than "fact")
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes "In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 3 by iano, posted 09-01-2009 8:17 AM | | Teapots&unicorns has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 13 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2009 10:12 PM | | Teapots&unicorns has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 123 by mike the wiz, posted 09-08-2009 1:53 PM | | Teapots&unicorns has not replied |
|
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4915 days) Posts: 178 Joined: 06-23-2009
|
|
|
Message 9 of 155 (522165)
09-01-2009 3:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 8 by Perdition
09-01-2009 11:10 AM
|
|
A Great Site
This is a great site. Check out the link- it's got a really good view on this topic:
Argument From Locality Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given. Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given. Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by Perdition, posted 09-01-2009 11:10 AM | | Perdition has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 10 by Straggler, posted 09-01-2009 5:58 PM | | Teapots&unicorns has seen this message but not replied |
|
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4915 days) Posts: 178 Joined: 06-23-2009
|
|
|
Message 34 of 155 (522358)
09-02-2009 6:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 33 by Perdition
09-02-2009 3:24 PM
|
|
Off Topic
Could we please get back on topic?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 33 by Perdition, posted 09-02-2009 3:24 PM | | Perdition has not replied |
|
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4915 days) Posts: 178 Joined: 06-23-2009
|
|
|
Message 40 of 155 (522434)
09-03-2009 11:03 AM
|
Reply to: Message 38 by iano
09-03-2009 8:13 AM
|
|
The fact that you aren't in a position to objectivize your knowledge of good and evil has no bearing on the objectivity of that knowledge. If God exists then there's objective good/evil as defined above. If you've been given access to this information then you know objective good/evil - even though you don't know it's objective knowledge you've got. I think you're missing the point. If morality is absolute yet depends on God's whims, then it is relativistic to us and whimsical to God. In order to be absolute, God would need to be unchanging, never changing his views or values, which he clearly does. If an objective morality existed, it would not exist in relation to a thinking and thus changing being such as God. When it comes to the argument: does God make the morals or show us the morals? Only the latter argument could hold true, as any morals as determined by Gid would still be subjective, just not thought of by humans.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 38 by iano, posted 09-03-2009 8:13 AM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 41 by iano, posted 09-03-2009 1:02 PM | | Teapots&unicorns has replied |
|
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4915 days) Posts: 178 Joined: 06-23-2009
|
|
|
Message 48 of 155 (522486)
09-03-2009 4:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 41 by iano
09-03-2009 1:02 PM
|
|
God's Whimsy
Hi iano
Seeing as your post... and my missing of the point.. relies on this idea, could you give me an example of God's whimsical thinking? It's not so much whimsical as just changing his mind. For example, in the OT, God gave the Israelites (what's up with the favoritism) rules to follow, namely circumsision, stoning disrespectful children, etc. Then Jesus comes and God says he's changed his mind. Obviously, circumsision, etc. wasn't that important to God's moral code anymore, and so he changed his mind. There are other examples that I could bring up , but I won't. Whenever God changes his mind about what people should do, that is changing his morality, and thus it is no longer objective, but subjective.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 41 by iano, posted 09-03-2009 1:02 PM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 50 by iano, posted 09-03-2009 5:40 PM | | Teapots&unicorns has seen this message but not replied |
|
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4915 days) Posts: 178 Joined: 06-23-2009
|
Re: God's Whimsy
You shall not murder." -Exodus 20:13 Contrasted with "Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary." So they began with the elders who were in front of the temple." - Ezekiel 9:6 "I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling." -Jeremiah 13:14 " ...happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us - he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." - Psalm 137:8-9 Hard to imagine what great sin the infants have done so great that it would warrant ruthless murder. Come on iano. Tell us exactly why God tells the Israelites not to murder then tells them to commit genocide. Oh, and do this while explaining how God's morality is objective- if he says "never kill," and then orders killing, then how is that anything other than the rules changing on his whims? It would be nice if we could skip any arguments over the supposed righteousness of God's decisions; just please, if your God is absolute, then why is He inconsistent?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 53 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-03-2009 6:46 PM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 55 by iano, posted 09-04-2009 6:15 AM | | Teapots&unicorns has seen this message but not replied |
|
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4915 days) Posts: 178 Joined: 06-23-2009
|
Re: Plan is Not Self-Evident
Hi purpledawn
quote:
I'm not arguing that God is self-evident because I don't think he is, in the sense demanded for self-evidence in this thread. I'm dealing with an objection from Teapot&unicorn which finds flaw in the mechanism of salvation posed which doesn't rely on God making himself evident. That mechanism supposes an absolute, unchangeable morality to which we have access. T&u says such a thing can't be because Gods own moral viewpoint (T&u claims) changes.
I see. Since God's own personal moral viewpoint is unknown to us, we can't say that God has changed his stance on anything since we don't know what this master plan is either. We only have what we are not allowed to do. Like parents who snack before a meal, but won't let their child snack before a meal. The do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do leadership style. IOW, when reason closes in, write a new back story. Of course, since we don't have evidence of God's moral viewpoint, he could very well be changing his mind and moral stance willy nilly. iano, please tell us how a God that offers salvation, but does not offer said salvation with a clear, well known method of getting in as well as no clear proof of said salvation, can possibly be just.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 64 by purpledawn, posted 09-04-2009 11:57 AM | | purpledawn has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 71 by iano, posted 09-04-2009 1:44 PM | | Teapots&unicorns has seen this message but not replied |
|
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4915 days) Posts: 178 Joined: 06-23-2009
|
|
|
Message 67 of 155 (522689)
09-04-2009 1:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 66 by iano
09-04-2009 1:31 PM
|
|
* Richard Dawkins cites an interesting piece of scientific research in his recent book "The God Delusion". The scientists generated a series of moral conundrum type questions which aimed to strip out influences that might exert themselves on those questioned. Influences such as class, religion, education, country of birth, age, etc. What they found was that people the world over share the same morality thus cleansed. Even primitive tribes with minimal exposure to western mores were found to share world-morality. Quite what Richard thought could be gained for his case by such a revelation isn't known to me iano, what Dawkins was trying to show was the effect of evolution on human altruism. If all humans evolved, then they should neccessarily share many of the same moral values, aside from any that deviated from the original morality- as most of these deviations are imprisoned or done away with, they have no ability to spread their morals through the gene or meme pools. In the meantime, please address the point I made above. Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given. Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 66 by iano, posted 09-04-2009 1:31 PM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 69 by iano, posted 09-04-2009 1:39 PM | | Teapots&unicorns has seen this message but not replied |
|
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4915 days) Posts: 178 Joined: 06-23-2009
|
|
|
Message 70 of 155 (522692)
09-04-2009 1:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 68 by iano
09-04-2009 1:36 PM
|
|
Re: Plan is Not Self-Evident
You, as so many others, appear to be conflating God (eg killing with us killing when you suggest a "do as I say not as I do" style. A snack is a snack - a righteous killing is not an unrighteous killing. Apples and pears. iano, you are missing the point. The point is whether the "do as I say, not as I do" motto is moral, even when applied to God. If it is, then God is relativistic. If not, then you should correct your way of thinking. Once again, please address my above posts. Why would a just god offer salvation, but refuse to give a testable and clear method of obtaining said salvation? Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 68 by iano, posted 09-04-2009 1:36 PM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 72 by iano, posted 09-04-2009 1:49 PM | | Teapots&unicorns has replied |
|
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4915 days) Posts: 178 Joined: 06-23-2009
|
|
|
Message 73 of 155 (522695)
09-04-2009 1:51 PM
|
Reply to: Message 72 by iano
09-04-2009 1:49 PM
|
|
Re: Plan is Not Self-Evident
The point is that you're comparing apples (eg: God's righteous killing) with pears (our unrighteous killing) so as to erroneously arrive at a "do as I say" comparison. "Do as I say.." involves 2 same order / same circumstance beings. God/us doesn't. God says "Do not kill." (Which is absolute) Then he kills, whether using the Israelites, plague, etc. Why is God's killing (righteous or not) different from our killing (righteous or not)?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 72 by iano, posted 09-04-2009 1:49 PM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 74 by iano, posted 09-04-2009 2:08 PM | | Teapots&unicorns has replied |
|
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4915 days) Posts: 178 Joined: 06-23-2009
|
|
|
Message 75 of 155 (522703)
09-04-2009 2:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 74 by iano
09-04-2009 2:08 PM
|
|
Re: Plan is Not Self-Evident
God says "Do not kill." (Which is absolute)
God says "thou shalt not kill". Thou means you and me. This still does not change the fact that he is saying "do as I say, not as I do." Why is God exempt from his own laws? By your logic, a parent saying to his or her child can say "you may not eat cookies, " then go stuff his/her face. Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given. Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 74 by iano, posted 09-04-2009 2:08 PM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 76 by iano, posted 09-04-2009 8:28 PM | | Teapots&unicorns has replied |
|
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4915 days) Posts: 178 Joined: 06-23-2009
|
|
|
Message 77 of 155 (522782)
09-04-2009 8:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 76 by iano
09-04-2009 8:28 PM
|
|
Re: Plan is Not Self-Evident
iano writes: T&u writes: This still does not change the fact that he is saying "do as I say, not as I do." Why is God exempt from his own laws? By your logic, a parent saying to his or her child can say "you may not eat cookies, " then go stuff his/her face.
What if the parent said "stay away from the computer" and spent the evening on the computer themself? Would that not be a 'do as I say, not as I do? And a perfectly rightful one at that? The parent is exempt because they are the parent and the child is the child. I'll repeat the point that
quote:
you're comparing apples (eg: God's righteous killing) with pears (our unrighteous killing) so as to erroneously arrive at a "do as I say" comparison.
I am sorry iano, you are right- to a point. The parents in each of the situations did have a valid reason- in that they could not trust their child to intelligently mange the situations, but as such did trust themselves- or at least provided sufficient excuses. However, you still have to give us the criteria or excuse that exempts God from his own laws. Please do not answer with the argument from creation=authority. If I choose to bio-engineer a human being (hypothetically speaking), does that give me absolute/justified power over that being's existence? Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 76 by iano, posted 09-04-2009 8:28 PM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 84 by iano, posted 09-05-2009 11:01 AM | | Teapots&unicorns has seen this message but not replied |
|
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4915 days) Posts: 178 Joined: 06-23-2009
|
|
|
Message 109 of 155 (522932)
09-06-2009 3:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 108 by iano
09-06-2009 2:27 PM
|
|
Re: Bump for IANO
Hi iano,
iano writes: hyroglyphx writes: So are you saying that God is not self-evident?
Yes. This from my first post in this thread.
quote:
Perhaps it's because he choses not to be self-evident? A common enough view of the Christian God is that he does precisely this as part of an overall plan in which folk are given the opportunity to decide whether they want to spend eternity with God and what he represents or whether they don't. If they could see God exactly as he is then their ability not to believe what he says would be fatally compromised. And along with it, their ability to chose not to spend eternity with him and what he represents. Biblical faith is based on evidence: God reveals his existance to the person that he exists so his existance becomes fact.
Alright, iano, God is not self-evident. Now please explain why, and how that is fair.
iano writes: Therein lies the problem though, as I stated earlier. If you rely on two assumptions, namely that the bible is infallible and that God is perfect, there leaves a void of reason. Allah is also the definition of goodness. The Qu'ran is also supposed to be infallible. Both texts require that it is by faith we come to know and believe these ideals as true. But both contradict one another. So who's right? How are we supposed to honestly know either way? The mechanism of salvation posed doesn't require that faith of the blind belief type be expressed. What you'd believe at that point is Gods argument - and thae belief would be a conclusion you'd arrive at based on evidence - but you don't believe in God/God perfect/Bible his word at that point. I'm just posing what I believe to be the Christian mechanism, stating that it doesn't require Gods self-evidency in order to work. In that fashion I've dealt with the OP's objection to the Christian God. I'm not trying to prove God here. iano, if there was evidence for God, then his existence would be a) fact and b) self-evident. There is a reason that it is called "Faith." Oh, and have you heard of the "Cosmic Shell Game?" I could give you a link if you want.
iano writes: Society has a standard which, admittedly, is often flexible and constantly evolving. Nonetheless, by today's standards, if a soldier were to pick up an infant and smash their heads on the rocks, the world would be outraged. That much is transparent. We've not established that God approved of such a thing. That said, death by flood can hardly be considered fun and there is little doubt that God approved of that (remembering that we're assuming God exists and the Bible is his word). What we can conclude is that God has a wrathful aspect as well as the oft-promoted loving aspect. Society might consider God cruel but given that society is a hornets nest of sin and depravity one wonders what they should expect of a holy God? It's not as if the hand of mercy isn't extended to all - one can hardly say fairer than that I would have thought? As per the flood, one wonders why he just didn't send Jesus a while ago, hmm? And just because society is a "nest of sin and deprativity" doesn't mean that it doesn't reflect the more positive aspects of mankind as well. (Please don't attribute all those good things to God). With regard to the "hand of mercy," how exactly does it work and how are people supposed to recognize any supposed "mercy" when they see it?
Laws only make sense in black and white, as there he has to be some absolute sense of legal and illegal. Seldom, though, do we apply them so rigidly as every case has to look at the overall circumstances involved. I'm sure God, who sees the heart, knows the difference between stealing food for your children and stealing the shirt off anothers back. The law is rigid only with that portion of the heart which has transgressed it. You do have some kind of a point- that's where pleading innocence/guilt comes in.
Meaning, by the assumptions you hold to (that God exists exactly as the bible describes and that the bible is infallible) you set yourself up for absolute success. That does nothing, however, to advance the belief of God or the bible since it requires no evidence to prove itself. Your logic is therefore circular. Aah. Thanks. There appears to be a confusion which I've hopefully addressed earlier. I'm explaining a mechanism. Not proving it. In order to explain a mechanism, you must show how it is relevant (i.e. proof).
Would you care if God ordered someone to smash your infant son or daughter's head on some rocks? Of course. And it might cause me to be angry with God or doubt his good intentions. I thought that God could do whatever he wanted with you? Is there a difference between idea and actually doing it?
Even if we are beholden to God, what purpose does it serve? What purpose does it serve God or humankind to kill Job's family, inflict him with disease, just to teach him about obedience to God? What valuable moral lesson was learned for Job's family members? It has served millions of Gods other children when their own faith has been tested to look at such a pillar. It would cause the powers of darkness to quiver in their boots when they see what God-suppled faith in God can achieve. It would cause delight to well up in any who loved God that such faith could be expressed. I trust God absolutely and at root (though I would complain on the way) would have that he do what he want with me. For his glory. Have you any idea of how magnificent God would be if he actually existed (I speak from your perspective, I already know that he does) First, exactly how has such an event helped anyone? Second, if you trust and obey God absolutely, then how can the above quote make sense (with the baby-smashing)? Third, why does God need glory? "Thank you, we're alive. Now can we get on with it instead of worshiping you all the time?
Why create us at all then? You know that's the one question never answered by the bible -- the reason he created us? Er... it is. Luke, Chap 3. The geneology terminates in ".. son of Adam, son of God". Adam, son of God. God decided to have kids in other words. And why do people typically decide to have kids? So they can love them of course. Love is something that likes to express itself and what better way to do that than express it to your own children? Everyday people are born (again) and become (adopted) children of God. That's the biblical answer to your question - it litters the pages of the Bible in fact. You don't have kids for them to love you. You have them so they can become their own people and eventually grow out of needing you while you can love them along the way. You don't have kids for yourself. Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given. Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes "In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 108 by iano, posted 09-06-2009 2:27 PM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 110 by iano, posted 09-06-2009 5:20 PM | | Teapots&unicorns has seen this message but not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2