My Beliefs- GDR

Why not? What's preventing you from having a reason? Do you live in Saskatchewan?
Your reason could be that you live in BC, surrounded by majestic mountains and beautiful greenery.
Your reason could be that you are easily impressed.
Your reason could be that you see how small you are compared to "everything else." Because you are a human being with feelings.
You simply seem to be assuming that if you are the result of unintelligent evolution then it is impossible for you to feel awe in any way.
And, yes... everyone agrees with you on that "if" statement. Every one agrees that "if GDR cannot feel awe in any way, then GDR would not feel any awe."But, well. That's a pretty boring and useless statement.The entire point is that you certainly are able to feel awe and have morality without any intelligent input to your creation or beginnings in the past.If you actually do try to consider that possibility seriously, then you could begin to see the other side of the argument. No. Why would I think it was daft? Can you explain a reason?I have 2 lines of reasoning for thinking it's not daft.
The first deals with the issue of thinking that "feelings" and "morality" are special:Mindless atoms seem quite capable to evolve light-sensitive patches or appendages.
Do you think "intelligent input" is required for that?
Can anything evolve without external intelligent input?
The same mindless atoms seem quite capable to evolve brain matter to control those appendages.
The same mindless atoms seem quite capable to evolve feelings and self-awareness within that brain matter.What is it about feelings and self-awareness that makes them so different from light-sensitive patches and appendages as far as their evolutionary basics are concerned?-light sensitive patches and appendages work through chemical processes
-feelings and self-awareness work through chemical processesIs it your feelings that make you feel like they are somehow special and must have a unique origin? Sounds a bit suspect.
Is there any actual reasoning based on objective evidence to suggest that "feelings" are some sort of incredible evolutionary achievement and "appendages" are not? The second deals with the issue of basing ideas on current knowledge vs. un-evidenced ideas:Humans with feelings and morality obviously do exist.
Why would it be daft to assume that something could begin to exist on it's own when it already exists on it's own right now?
It's a possibility that an intelligence is required for it to exist.
It's also a possibility that 24 evil incarnate Gods were required for it to exist.
But, with the knowledge we currently have available to us, it is most likely that no outside intelligence was required at all.
Since there is no knowledge of any outside intelligence ever existing in the first place.It may or may not be the truth, it's just what our current knowledge tells us. And following our knowledge seems to create valid progress in the best way ever developed by man.
Following un-evidenced ideas can also lead to valid progress... human history just shows us that it tends to be slower. A lot slower. With a whole mess of failures included.
So why, in this case, would we decide to follow un-evidenced ideas over our knowledge?Both could be right.
Both could be wrong.
One has a fantastic track record.
The other has a fantastic failure rate.I don't really see why it would be "daft" to go with the one that seems to provide the best results.

I missed this: Well this is a variant of "if I didn't believe in God, I'd have no reason not to rape and steal" that I haven't heard before.There can't be anyone on the planet that hasn't looked up at the night sky on a clear dark night and thought 'fuck me, that's amazing'. It's a pure human emotion that is common to all people regardless of whether they believe anything or nothing about god or gods.Trust me on this - it's something I have personal knowledge of, just as you wouldn't go on a pillaging campaign if you suddenly stopped believing in you God, you'd still be stopped dead by a lake and mountain view at sunset and watching a child being born. Cart. Horse. They really are not interchangeable.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Good thing no one has made that argument then, huh? It's not a matter of "hmm, well this is incredulous and THIS is incredulous, so I'll go with incredulous number 2". Well, maybe it is for you, but as has been readily pointed out, "we" follow the evidence and put no stock in the god claim. It's not that it's too incredulous, it's simply unevidenced and unworthy of belief. That it's wholly increculous just adds to why it isn't worthy of belief. so you could have stopped right there since this sums up your whole post. It almost seems as though you've either not bothered to learn about the science here or you're sliding back and digging your heels further in. You used to be more rational and accepting. Perhaps, though, that was me being misguided and just seeing you as not as batshit as the rest of your fellow believers here. That's the oddest way of using the word faith that I've ever seen. So does the taliban. And guess what? They use the exact same methodology to determine this as you and are equally justified in their execution of their morals. God said so.Or is it just GDR's god that's right and everyone else is wrong? I guess using god as the arbiter of morals doesn't seem to work all that well, does it? Have you been visiting a baptist church lately? Perhaps hanging out at the Creation Museum? Reading too much Ken Hamm over the weekend? What is daft is you actually asking that in a non-joking manner.

I’m sorry that I can’t reply to everyone. I’ve simply run out of time. I’ll be out of contact for a couple of weeks so I will just make a quick generic response.It is clear that what seems obvious to me is nonsense to you guys, and what seems clear to you is, maybe not nonsense but is a view which ignores the obvious in my view. I used this quote by C S Lewis earlier but it still rings true for me.

quote:

---

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.

---

I believe that our understanding of the nature of God is evolving and becoming more focused over time as God continues to touch our hearts, minds and imaginations. I have no issues with any scientific knowledge or theory that concerns the natural world as we understand it. I understand that science tells us that the resurrection can’t happen within scientific parameters but I believe on faith that the Gospel writers were not lying or mistaken with their accounts of the resurrection.Thanks for your input and if anyone wants to pick it up again in a couple of weeks I’ll be glad to carry on.

It's nonsense to you too, you have already said that it's an argument from incredulity. It's just that you believe it to be true anyway. There's really not much that can counter that - you've admitted to having a blind faith.Quoting CS Lewis just repeating your mistake doesn't help you and neither does this: Just telling us what you believe is pointless and repetitive. We know what you believe and we know that you believe it on faith. (Beliefx2).Our reply is simply, 'So what?'
(ie, why should anyone find that a convincing argument for anything other than a delusion?)Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Good luck in your endeavours... or whatever else would fit nicely on one of those giant-ass cards.And look how interesting you are! Over 700 posts just about your beliefs It is rare to have a long conversation about this sort of thing without either side getting too... "uptight."
As long as you keep answering, I'm sure the questions will keep coming. Personally, I just like trying to understand what makes people tick.

Scientifically consistent conclusions regarding reality are the most accurate and reliable conclusions available to us.If people wish to forego accuracy and reliability for reasons of subjective preference, personal comfort, etc. then I personally have no quarrel with them. People are free to believe whatever they like for whatever reasons they like.But if accuracy and reliability of conclusion are what is being sought then there can be no justification for substituting scientifically consistent conclusions for those derived from faith, circular reasoning and subjective preference.In addition - The belief that the object of one’s belief is immune from scientifically consistent conclusions holds no water and provides no free pass. To claim such is simply to pile belief upon belief in the same belief-reinforcing circular manner that has proven to be such a feature here.Having said all that GDR deserves considerable credit for his well-mannered perseverance in the face of mass bombardment from a sizeable and committed atheistic contingent.

Had a great couple of weeks visiting family in Alberta.Leaving Christianity totally aside for now I’d like to just consider my belief in a kind, just and good generic god(s) that has given us free will. Christian belief is a different discussion.Firstly I think that regardless of our theistic/atheistic beliefs I assume that we would agree that we have free will to make moral and other choices in our lives so that isn’t an issue.I think it is a Dawkins quote where he said that Christians have rejected all other gods and he just goes one further. I disagree with that point. It isn’t that I have rejected gods such as Allah or Thor but that I reject the nature of the god that they might represent. I am closer in many ways to a Muslim who understands Allah to be good, just and caring than I am with Christians who understand God to be vengeful, genocidal and cruel as he is sometimes depicted in the OT.From the beginning of recorded history, and probably long before that, mankind has generally understood that there is a higher power of some kind. The trouble is that in the search for that higher power people have abused that search to control others and to gain power. Sometimes people have tried to enlist the aid of a god that they actually believed in to serve their own hopes and ambitions.The names that we give to this higher power, if it exists at all, don’t matter. What matters is the nature of this higher power that presumably is responsible for the fact that we exist. For the sake of argument I will call this higher power Tom. I will assume that Tom is good, just and caring and that he wants us to freely choose to hold to those same characteristics in our own lives.In our societies we use laws in an attempt to strongly encourage us to choose to be good and just by means of fear that if we don’t we will be punished. Our laws are an effort to control us in order to make us act justly and rightly, they do not make us good or just. We can only be good and just if we make those choices without fear of punishment or for that matter without the hope of personal gain such as the hope of being thought highly of by others. So although laws can be a signpost leading to the way forward to what Tom desires, they are not the real thing. The real thing is that goodness, kindness and justice can in the end only come from what we metaphorically call the heart. The Golden Rule is probably the best human representation that we have for what it is that Tom wants of us. Tom wants us to have hearts that care about the well-being of others even at our own expense, and not as an exercise of reward and punishment.Now Tom presumably could have created us with these characteristics intact, but that would make us nothing more than robots. Tom could have in one way or another made it eminently clear that he wanted us to be kind, just and good and that ultimately this would result in something good for us, but something not so good if we reject those characteristics. But again, what would be the point? As I pointed out, that is how humans control people through our legal systems. It would again no longer be a choice freely made without the thought of reward.So Tom is dealing with people who have an inherent knowledge of right and wrong, but more deeply the choice is between selfishness and unselfishness. However the most basic instinct within mankind is survival and our own self interest. With that however, as mankind is Tom’s creation, there is a spark of him buried within the consciousness of everyone that gives people the sense that unselfishness is right, and that the right is something that we should choose even to our own detriment. However, in order for that to happen we have to overcome our basic instincts.I contend that when we look at human history in general, and specifically at our search for understanding of a higher power, it is entirely consistent with the god as we see depicted in Tom. I go back again to the non-theistic Robert Wright’s book The Evolution of God. In his book we see a history of the understanding of a just and good god evolving over the centuries. It starts with a history of people calling on their concept of god to give them power over enemies. We have a history of people calling on their concept of god to use that power to benefit them in all sorts of other ways as well. Over the years though we see our concept of god evolving to include one vision among others that calls on god to strengthen our resolve to have more compassionate hearts. In many cases people have gone from asking Tom to serve us to asking Tom to strengthen us so that we can serve him through serving his creation, and in many cases people serve society kindly and justly simply because they have responded to that spark of Tom in them without any understanding of Tom.I would add that Tom represents a consistent sense of morality and intelligence whether or not Tom is singular or pluralistic. It is always easier for us as humans to understand Tom in an anthropomorphic way by treating him as singular.If there is a spark of Tom within all of us, then it makes sense that through our socialization, or if you like our memes, that over generations our characteristics would become more and more like his. I believe that makes more sense of human history than the idea that people send money to aid people in the third world because somehow it enhances the gene pool. It is also seems to me that just as we have evolved physically, it would go hand in hand with the concept that we are evolving spiritually and/or morally as well, and that mankind is a work in progress. To that I would add that if we are a work in progress then it follows that we are progressing towards a destination. If that is true then the only thing that we can fairly safely assume is that the destination includes life, where unselfishness is the absolute norm.

Once again you're retrofitting - you believe in a nice god so you rationalise what you see into that belief. The fact that we are becoming more civilised has nothing to do with god, it's entirely down to man made factors - the economy, technology, medicine, education and our laws and secular structures.We create these things because they are good for us, they help us get on better, live longer and be happier. You don't need to slot in a god anywhere, we do those things regardless. We are not progressing to any destination, we're simply making life more comfortable for ourselves.If your Tom existed, he would have created us as the final product and not sacrifice billions of lives to get to some fanciful perfection here on earth millions of years later.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Well done. Glad to hear the vacation was time well spent. I think your post paints a good picture describing why it is that you believe.I'm going to go through it and make a few point that will seem very nit-picky, but really I'm just trying to show why some other people (like me) don't see the same facts as pointing in the same direction. Agreed. Also agreed. So far just talking about people and Tom and how you think Tom wants people to be. I agree with the statements about people, but I don't really see any reason to include Tom at all.And then, this: This is a pretty bold claim:
Tom created mankind.
Therefore there's a spark of him buried in the consciousness of everyone which provides the sense of right and wrong.But no reason to think that this claim is true.
Maybe Tom did create mankind.
Maybe he didn't.
All we know is that mankind is here.
There doesn't seem to be anything preventing mankind from developing all on their own. There doesn't seem to be any reason why Tom would be required at all.Maybe our sense of right and wrong comes from a spark of Tom inside us all.
Maybe it doesn't.
Maybe our sense of right and wrong comes from our own natural development as human beings.
Maybe it doesn't.
Maybe we don't know where our sense of right and wrong comes from.
There doesn't seem to be anything pointing towards Tom being a source for our spark. Maybe this is because Tom created us.
Maybe this is because we created Tom.One is a very extraordinary claim including the existence of a fantastical being that resists detection in any way.
One seems very par-for-course for natural human beings.
Both explain the situation we find ourselves in now. Maybe so.
Or maybe our morality evolves with us as our intelligence evolves.

quote:

---

However the most basic instinct within mankind is survival and our own self interest. With that however, as mankind is Tom’s creation, there is a spark of him buried within the consciousness of everyone that gives people the sense that unselfishness is right, and that the right is something that we should choose even to our own detriment. However, in order for that to happen we have to overcome our basic instincts.

---

Right. Sometimes in order to "do right" we need to overcome our basic instincts.
People do this all the time, that's what our intelligence allows us to do.
The more we use our intelligence... the "higher" our intelligence becomes... the better we're able to control/overcome our basic instincts.It seems reasonable that as our intelligence evolves and grows over the history of mankind, then our morality also evolves and grows. We're constantly learning better and easier ways to overcome our basic instincts. Maybe.
Or, maybe Tom isn't required at all and different people have simply gown and developed different ways to use their intelligence to overcome their basic instincts. That's also a central factor that would be present in all the different societies of humans. Although not impossible, I don't think anyone sends money to third world countries in order to enhance the gene pool.
But, it's quite possible for people to use their intelligence to overcome their basic instinct of personal survival to help out other people who are not as fortunate as themselves. Exactly. I don't understand this point. Why do you think growth must be towards a destination?
What is the destination of a tree's branches? What is the destination of a galaxy spiraling through space?
Evolution progresses in every organism without a destination. Why do you think there would be one for humans?
I can understand that you may have a basic instinct that wants there to be one for humans... Maybe.
Or maybe this is something we need to use our intelligence for to decide for ourselves... before it's too late and our basic instincts help us destroy this planet or ourselves.

I am retrofitting but my point was that my understanding of the nature of Tom, if he exists, is consistent with history.You say that our becoming more civilized is entirely down to man made factors but, but that tells us nothing about whether Tom is working through the hearts and minds of mankind that has brought about that result. That would simply make us robots with no free will.Your view also assumes that our physical death leads to oblivion. If this life is not the end then those lives haven't been sacrificed at all.

I’m not suggesting that as a proof or even evidence that Tome exists. I am just saying that it is consistent with what we might expect if Tom does exist. I contend that there are things that point towards Tom however that is a different discussion than what I was specifically referring to in the one post that you replied to. (Not that it is off topic in this thread.)If however, Tom does exist and is responsible for us coming into existence, and if he has given us free will in our choices in life, and if in creating us with the ability to choose between right and wrong and to understand the difference between the two, then I am contending that would be consistent with human history and our personal experience. To us they kinda look the same don’t they. It depends what you mean by detection. If I fall in the water I get wet. There is no equivalent for the word wet for being in air. When I exist in air it is just the way things are and it is normal. I don’t detect anything unusual. If however you remove the air from my environment I’ll notice it right away.It could well be the same thing with Tom. If Tom’s metaphorical DNA is in our consciousness and/or or conscience then it is normal, and we don’t think anything of it, so we are totally unaware of its influence on us. Perhaps if Tom’s presence were removed we would be very aware of his absence. Maybe. I agree, and that is entirely consistent with Tom as I portrayed him. Again, that could be true. Well tree branches grow and produce leaves and seeds which bring about new life and fertilization for other plants etc. Galaxies aren’t in themselves life forms but seem to be necessary for life.However, I probably shouldn’t have written that in the post as it does take us off track from the point I was trying to make, but seeing as how I did I’ll repeat here what I wrote in post 583 in this thread.

quote:

---

Here is a philosophical thought. I suggest that virtually everyone wants to have their life mean something, and that they will leave a mark, usually a positive one, on the world after they are gone. The most common method is having children, it might be through the work we do, people like to have plaques put on park benches with their name on it, we put our name on grave stones etc. The point is we want to accomplish something with our lives and we like to be in some memorable.

​

Why is that? If there is nothing but oblivion after death why should we care? Why would evolution have produced this trait?

​

Another thought is this. Our basic nature is that we want justice. I mentioned this before in other threads but there was a young boy abducted over 20 years ago very near where I live. Nothing was ever found of him and nobody was ever charged. This abduction still comes up on a regular basis in the news and people want to see justice done — both for the boy and for whoever it was who did whatever he did, even though it has absolutely no effect on our lives.

​

These are a couple of deep seated yearnings that we have that just don’t IMHO fit with something that would evolve without there being something more than just natural selection and socialization. It is my belief that this life is a foreshadowing of something else. The Christian message is that the good we do in this life matters and that in some way it has an impact on the life to come when this world is renewed. The Christian message is that there will be perfect justice for the boy and the perpetrator.

---

I’m not sure that intelligence is the right word. There are highly intelligent people who are highly immoral as well. Essentially however, I think we are in agreement on that whether or not Tom exists.

How much do we know (or assume) about Tom?
Is Tom all-powerful and all-kind, all-good.. that sort of thing?
Maybe Tom isn't and he's just sort of a mostly-decent, pretty-powerful god with a hope of creating an interesting world?
Is Tom expected to be fair?In my personal experience, if you've ever spent a lot of time with people (especially children) you'll know that people are different.
Especially in the way we think.
Some react to their instincts almost immediately without thinking.
Some filter their instincts through their intelligence before acting for a much longer time.When spending time with children, you can see this is more of a "luck of the draw" thing.
Children don't choose to think about things or not... they either do it a lot or do it barely at all. And, in most, you can see it growing and developing as they grow and develop. You can see them thinking more about decisions before acting... and how it progresses as they grow up. It's just that in some children this growth progression is slower and stops sooner than in others.So, if this is a spark from Tom... why did Tom give a long-thinking spark to some people and a hardly-any-thinking spark to others?
If Tom is good and kind and fair, and there's a piece of his spark in all of us to lead us how to be moral and good... why do some get a huge spark (a long time to think things over before acting) and others get a faint spark (a short time to think things over before being overwhelmed by instinct and action)?
Why not just give the same spark to everyone and allow our free-will to account for the differences?
Why handicap a select few? Why instill others with pre-destined excellence?
Sure, there are some that overcome a small spark to become great anyway... but that doesn't say why they needed to start with a small spark in the first place? And what of those that want to overcome it, but just can't?It's not as if those with a faint-spark are mean-spirited and choosing to turn away from doing good. Well, not all of them, anyway Some are just not given a chance to use the same tools as others when making a decision.Did Tom have no control over the amount of spark imparted to each of his creations?
Or did he do this on purpose and it's a "mystery" to us how this is fair (but trust Tom... it really is... somehow)?I don't see how to reconcile such a luck-of-the-draw system and also believe that the initiator is a "kind, just and good generic god(s) that has given us free will."This is sort of like the "problem of evil"... but not quite. More like the "problem of not having a chance."Some people are born and it doesn't matter what they do or want... they're just not going to play hockey as well as others.
Some people are born and it doesn't matter what they do or want... they're just not going to control their basic instincts as well as others.
Some people are born and it doesn't matter what they do or want... they're just not going to make moral decisions as well as others.In a natural world, this is expected... people are different because the miracle of pregnancy/birth is not perfect.
But in Tom's world... how does this happen? People are different because Tom's form of being "just" involves giving some opportunities to only a select few?

Well of course it's consistent - you create the story to fit what you know and want to be true; it must fit!You're not going to create a Tom that doesn't fit the evidence that you see around you. That's been done throughout history. We then abandon Gods that no longer fit when we find out more. Neptune, Thor - the list of failed Gods is nearly endless. So too Tom. That's nonsense but you need to start another thread purely on the religious garbage called 'free will' to sort that one out.

My point was that all the so-called various gods we have is the wrong way of looking at it. The names that we have put to our deities have been meaningless. What was meaningful is our understanding of the nature of characteristics of the deity(s).This is all of course predicated by the assumption that Tom exists, that he wants us to be good, kind and just and so presumably those would be his characteristics as well. So yes, he would be all good and all fair.As far as being all powerful all we can suggest is that he is at least powerful enough to be responsible for our existence. Any conclusion beyond that would have to be based on other information. Again I think this is consistent with the point I made about Tom in the first place. It appears that we are not only evolving physically but we are evolving spiritually, although a better way to put it is that we are evolving morally.Just as physical evolution is an uneven process it seems to me that moral evolution is uneven as well which is consistent with the idea that we are born with free will but that we are subject to social influences primarily by our parents.Tom has provided a process where we start off life in the womb. We are given our parents DNA which has specific attributes which we inherit to one degree or another. Somewhere in that process we are instilled with our basic survival instincts. After that we are subject to the moods, food intake, drug intake, etc of the mother.So, I’m not at all sure about how far apart are sparks are at birth but there is no doubt that what happens to those sparks after birth is subject to billions of inputs both good and bad. I for example was brought in a home where I was loved and valued whereas millions upon millions of people haven’t had that advantage. I was brought up in a social context of not having to worry about where my next meal was to come from whereas others have to compete with their neighbours for every morsel.Still, at the same time we can see that the situation is improving. The majority of the world no longer sells off its daughters for a couple of goats. The majority of the world is no longer entertained by watching wild animals kill and devour fellow humans. So, although it is very uneven the average spark in children is stronger than what it used to be. We discussed earlier about how it isn’t obeying the laws that result in reward or punishment that makes us moral but it is the desire to be moral for its own sake that makes us moral. If death in this life means only oblivion then you have a point, but even then if that is the case then if we only look at the individual and set aside the good of society why would it matter whether or not any one person is moral or not. Being immoral might lead to a much happier life than being immoral, and as we can see many people do make that choice. So where is the justice in that? I think that we agree that we are moving towards more just societies which is a strong indication that if Tom exists then Tom is just. So if death is the total end of our existence then it isn’t a just world and immorality may well be the final victor, which would mean that Tom is just a figment of human imagination. However, if life is teleogenic, and there is a destination, then we should assume that in the end justice will prevail, with all of our sparks and social influences taken into account, and we will all give thanks to Tom.I contend that the fact that nearly everyone does want to see justice done, (except for themselves of course), suggest that Tom really does exist and that he is just.