User Tag List

First 210111213142262 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 743

  1. #111
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Owl,

    Awesome summary of my strangely structured 'rant'!

    The only question I have is regarding your 5th paragraph. What was the purpose in mentioning Determinism? I'm just a bit confused about that.. sorry if its a dumb question, its late at night and my brain is a bit sore lol.

    Also, about your offer of seeking out a plausible account for the existence of God, I don't think its necessary. I don't completely deny the possibility of a God figure existing (except in the fashion that I argue against in my OP), it just likely hasn't shown itself to us (and never will). Also, it would probably be different to the human definition of a God, therefore, not truly a God at all, however, the same Supernatural idea is in mind. So, a Supernatural entity may exist, it is likely not be limited to the human definition of God (which is by nature a made up thing), it has likely not shown itself to us in any of the world religions, and it is likely indifferent to our existence. It would truly be of no importance to us at all.

  2. #112
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Didums View Post
    Owl,

    Awesome summary of my strangely structured 'rant'!

    The only question I have is regarding your 5th paragraph. What was the purpose in mentioning Determinism? I'm just a bit confused about that.. sorry if its a dumb question, its late at night and my brain is a bit sore lol.
    It's not a dumb question. I could have as easily swapped the word "determinism" with "predestination," and, after having re-read my post, I think this word swap may have been less confusing. Predestination is a form of determinism, and so the same questions that arise when discussing any form of determinism also arise when discussing predestination. One of the most common questions that arises when discussing any form of determinism is whether it's compatible with moral responsibility, and much of the discussion surrounding this question revolves around the concept of choice and whether choice can exist in a deterministic world; hence, I used the word "determinism" because the challenge you raised is more basic than the specific challenges it raises for Christian predestination--its conceptual implications are broader than the specifics of how that challenge works itself out in a merely theistic, or Christian worldview.

    Quote Originally Posted by Didums View Post
    Also, about your offer of seeking out a plausible account for the existence of God, I don't think its necessary. I don't completely deny the possibility of a God figure existing (except in the fashion that I argue against in my OP), it just likely hasn't shown itself to us (and never will). Also, it would probably be different to the human definition of a God, therefore, not truly a God at all, however, the same Supernatural idea is in mind. So, a Supernatural entity may exist, it is likely not be limited to the human definition of God (which is by nature a made up thing), it has likely not shown itself to us in any of the world religions, and it is likely indifferent to our existence. It would truly be of no importance to us at all.
    OK. I will note, however, that even if it were the case that there was an indifferent God, knowledge of this fact would still be valuable, for then you would know that any religion that claimed God wasn't indifferent was wrong, and it is conceivable that you could find a way to benefit from this knowledge. There is nothing more valuable than knowledge; it enables us to know what is good and the means to it.

  3. #113
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Thanks for your response, it was more thorough than I expected. Hope you got a good rest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    Nuclear weapons are one of the most obvious parts in this story. Secound the most obvious part are serious and dangerous diseases , because their only purpose is to kill the person and make many people unhappy that were close to that person.
    I do need to point out that it is already clear that you are operating backwards -- i.e., you're starting with ideals of your own that have yet been unargued, then drawing your conclusions from them.

    1. A good god would not allow nuclear weapons.
    2. A good god would not allow serious/Dangerous diseases.
    3. If God exists, he is not a good God.

    A forward (not backward) assess would say:
    1. The potential for nuclear weapons exist.
    2. Serious/Dangerous diseases exist.
    3. What is the full range of possibilities in regards to God for such things existing? [What purposes would #1 and #2 serve? Are they residual of good things or wholly evil? And so on.]

    These are actually two very different approaches. The first one includes an inherent ideal/non-ideal (or even good/evil) moral judgment.

    Someone could say that it is only the gods call after him to come on the trial of his existance. But that would mean that god desides when is it enough and the person has no time to redeem oneself in this life or prove that he is good.
    So God is not loving (i.e., evil, I think, in how you're discussing this) because if he was, he would give people more time to redeem themselves but sometimes calls the game early.

    Possible punishment for doing bad things does not fit the crime at all.
    Specialy if you add the fact that personality is created more of less in the first few years when the person is completly dependent on the others.
    Someone could go even further and bring genetics into the picture. If you want I could even add determinism in this but that would take too long and I think that many people here know what determinism is.
    It's inevitable that they would.

    So you're saying that behavior springs from inborn forces that God is conjectured to place there anyway, which means he's punishing people for them partly behaving as he created them to behave. (JUst asking for clarification.)

    I think that determinism is one of the best arguments against religion.
    Determinism to me partly removes the NEED for religion. i.e., if the machine runs all by itself and outcome is predetermined based on the earlier state of the system, then moral values seem to have no place.

    Although it still does not explain why the system exists in the first place.


    Also if determinism is driving force in this reality (and I don't see reason why it would not be) would mean that real love never existed becuse then everything is one big chain reaction that was started by god.
    I think our concept of love is based on choice, yes.

    Love is a choice to do what is best for someone else or to accept/trust them into a relationship, when there is no compulsion or need to do so. If you have no choice, you can't really choose to love.


    If god really loves us so much why is he/she/it playing so many games with us. Why does not he/she/it just show itself and end all this storys that are going around and that are creating many serious emotional problems to people all around the world.
    Surely you have read one of the zillions of fantasy novels out there where the characters spent their lives unsure of what was going on, but afterwards discovered that if they had been told the truth up front, they would not have persevered to the end and benefited from things.

    Even apply it to psychology. People don't change and grow unless they have to. If they knew what was going on, they might not change. Change is very desirable as part of life.

    Now applying this very broad concept to religion. You can see lots of reasons why a loving God might not just spill the beans up front. I can't say which is true; I'm simply saying there are scenarios that make the "not knowing" reasonably understandable.

    And creating large amout of fear ,doubt and moments of despair. If you do that to one person you are awfull person but if you do that to billions of people you are antichrist behind any doubt. Becuse god is almighy I don't see what could be his/her excuse for doing this.
    God creates fear, doubt, and despair? Those are feeling states -- possibilities inherent in the human system (i.e., biology). We choose whether or not to give into them and indulge them, and even act on them. Just because they exist really says nothing about God; it matters only what the overall intent of having such a system was in the first place, and if that system enables us to reach pinnacles of growth, then now it is a person's choice that determines the value of having the potential for despair -- not any sort of "God." God would have just created the machinery, but not how it was used.

    This is the worst possible way of manipulating peoples feelings you can imagine.That is because it looks like the only goal is that someone should feel bad. From what I know about you Jennifer I think that you can relate to this part of the post.
    ...sorry, but not really.

    I identified with the earlier things more.

    I do wrestle with the thought of "Why so much pain in the world?"

    But I live within the system. I can't evaluate it from the outside. From a personal standpoint, I can despise the pain and be angry at a God figure. From an impersonal standpoint, trying to use my mind and imagination, I can visualize why that sort of experience might be necessary in order to spur growth.

    A book I was recently reading talked about overcoming childhood pains, especially with disappointment in the parents, and the author made the point that usually people who have undergone those terribly emotionally painful childhoods are also highly sensitive, empathic, broad/far-seeing... and have a sense and longing for beauty, goodness, and joy that others who had better childhoods do not. They can find beauty in everything.

    So he advises to accept the experiences for what they were, true, but also to not hold bitterness over them and to see them in some ways as a gift that brought "goodness" and the desire for it into clearer focus.

    Just another idea for you to consider.

    One more example could be that in this world homosexuality should have different status. Is it fair to create humanity with homosexuality and then accuse that individuals for many bad things in this world and then presecute them as sinners? Sorry, but this sounds like one really bad joke.
    Oh, there's lots of bad, B-rate movies out there.

    If you want a personal opinion, that's why I think the conservative religious stance on homosexuality (and similar things) is crap. Especially if you look at what gets said by Jesus. But that's another issue.


    If you say that Satan corrupted them, then why does not the almighty simply breake the curse. Why creating Satan at all?
    Does Satan actually exist in the way you bring him up, or is that just partly another part of the "Paradise Lost" myth read back into modern Christianity? I don't know.

    Why would you create world that can be polluted by people who just want to be happy or the world that can support much larger amount of people.
    With limited resources, any world fills up and/or gets polluted. Everything is fighting for the same living space, with different needs.

    Why main energy source must be huge termonuclear reactor that can even kill you I you are not carefull. I am talking about the Sun here.
    What other energy source options are palatable to you? Do they have no flaws in them either?

    If love is so important why did it take billions of years to create it.
    We are talking about almighty here.
    That's sort of a pointless question. You might as well judge an artist for taking 2 hours to paint a picture you think might have been painted in half an hour. He chose to take that long. *shrug*

    Why create reality where love can be so easiliy destroyed, by this I mean civilization that has those feeling.

    etc...

    I wish I had time to read Owl's stuff, but I have to run. Thanks for your post.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  4. #114
    THREADKILLER Prototype's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    Why?
    Socionics
    SEX
    Posts
    855

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Modern Nomad View Post
    ^ sure.

    The Chicago Astronomer - The 12 Planets of the Sumerians...

    Its an astronomer scientist forum that documents the Sumerian texts. It is an ancient Altaic language.



    By the way, lets all agree that interdisciplinary theories is the next step of scientific discovery.
    Hmm...

  5. #115
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,664

    Default

    I can't resist not to relpy on your reply, Since my last post was written quite fast and I think that I have some explaining to do.

    I do need to point out that it is already clear that you are operating backwards -- i.e., you're starting with ideals of your own that have yet been unargued, then drawing your conclusions from them.

    1. A good god would not allow nuclear weapons.
    2. A good god would not allow serious/Dangerous diseases.
    3. If God exists, he is not a good God.

    A forward (not backward) assess would say:
    1. The potential for nuclear weapons exist.
    2. Serious/Dangerous diseases exist.
    3. What is the full range of possibilities in regards to God for such things existing? [What purposes would #1 and #2 serve? Are they residual of good things or wholly evil? And so on.]

    These are actually two very different approaches. The first one includes an inherent ideal/non-ideal (or even good/evil) moral judgment.
    I don't see the problem, the question was "why do you think that god of love do not exist?" and I said "god of love does not exist....." .
    Something what is ideal for you for me it is fact/logical conclusion but I could have done things your way(analitical way) but then I would need alot of time and post would be huge.


    So God is not loving (i.e., evil, I think, in how you're discussing this) because if he was, he would give people more time to redeem themselves but sometimes calls the game early.
    We were talking about god of love here but here is what I realy think.
    God of love is oxymoron for me because if he is absolute that means that he is a point where everything merges and becuse he can't be god of love but if everthing is no merging in him then he is not god.



    It's inevitable that they would.

    So you're saying that behavior springs from inborn forces that God is conjectured to place there anyway, which means he's punishing people for them partly behaving as he created them to behave. (JUst asking for clarification.)
    Yes.
    If this reality was created by any god it is unavoidable that he has no right to judge anyone.


    Determinism to me partly removes the NEED for religion. i.e., if the machine runs all by itself and outcome is predetermined based on the earlier state of the system, then moral values seem to have no place.

    Although it still does not explain why the system exists in the first place.
    Well, I know why I am hardcore atheist. But there is also no space for amoral values as wall. Entire sistem in this case is one big chain reaction and I know it is hard to accept the idea that you don't control any aspect of your life and you never did and you never will.

    I can ask counter question "why god exists?" or be the bastard and say, define - exist.


    I think our concept of love is based on choice, yes.

    Love is a choice to do what is best for someone else or to accept/trust them into a relationship, when there is no compulsion or need to do so. If you have no choice, you can't really choose to love.
    See above.


    Surely you have read one of the zillions of fantasy novels out there where the characters spent their lives unsure of what was going on, but afterwards discovered that if they had been told the truth up front, they would not have persevered to the end and benefited from things.

    Even apply it to psychology. People don't change and grow unless they have to. If they knew what was going on, they might not change. Change is very desirable as part of life.

    Now applying this very broad concept to religion. You can see lots of reasons why a loving God might not just spill the beans up front. I can't say which is true; I'm simply saying there are scenarios that make the "not knowing" reasonably understandable.
    I think that here we have one P vs. J conflict. Why would he put everybody on the trip and give them so short lives? Also he created so big amount of facts that no one can learn them. Not even next generation becuse they are going from the start and it looks the way to overcome this problem is to leave entire human nature behind.

    And people change, even when they don't want to.


    God creates fear, doubt, and despair? Those are feeling states -- possibilities inherent in the human system (i.e., biology). We choose whether or not to give into them and indulge them, and even act on them. Just because they exist really says nothing about God; it matters only what the overall intent of having such a system was in the first place, and if that system enables us to reach pinnacles of growth, then now it is a person's choice that determines the value of having the potential for despair -- not any sort of "God." God would have just created the machinery, but not how it was used.
    Why playing games with people at all?
    Here you are saying that you can control when you will feel bad and how much bad you will feel. You can do that?


    ...sorry, but not really.

    I identified with the earlier things more.

    I do wrestle with the thought of "Why so much pain in the world?"

    But I live within the system. I can't evaluate it from the outside. From a personal standpoint, I can despise the pain and be angry at a God figure. From an impersonal standpoint, trying to use my mind and imagination, I can visualize why that sort of experience might be necessary in order to spur growth.
    But why would god want growth? This argument is the oposite of what did you just said few moments ago. Why are you so much against pain or why do you believe in concept of pain since it is one of the values that god give you to accept of not to accept.


    A book I was recently reading talked about overcoming childhood pains, especially with disappointment in the parents, and the author made the point that usually people who have undergone those terribly emotionally painful childhoods are also highly sensitive, empathic, broad/far-seeing... and have a sense and longing for beauty, goodness, and joy that others who had better childhoods do not. They can find beauty in everything.

    So he advises to accept the experiences for what they were, true, but also to not hold bitterness over them and to see them in some ways as a gift that brought "goodness" and the desire for it into clearer focus.

    Just another idea for you to consider.
    Well I think that I was loved too much as a child and that pushed me even further from it also beauty is one of the most subjective terms ever.



    Oh, there's lots of bad, B-rate movies out there.

    If you want a personal opinion, that's why I think the conservative religious stance on homosexuality (and similar things) is crap. Especially if you look at what gets said by Jesus. But that's another issue.
    But what is god doing to prevent the conflict and create real love in this world. Is it because he is absoulute and on that level human emotions are impossible or he is interested in somethig else so he created homosexuality as
    means of the channeling the chain reaction?


    Does Satan actually exist in the way you bring him up, or is that just partly another part of the "Paradise Lost" myth read back into modern Christianity? I don't know.
    Actally I don't see a single reason why satan would exist?


    With limited resources, any world fills up and/or gets polluted. Everything is fighting for the same living space, with different needs.
    Did you ever heard the term "regeneration rate" ?

    What other energy source options are palatable to you? Do they have no flaws in them either?
    I have impression that you have missed the point totally. God created the laws of physics. So why did he created this laws? Why would he created something what can be so harmfull to people and you have unlimited option.


    That's sort of a pointless question. You might as well judge an artist for taking 2 hours to paint a picture you think might have been painted in half an hour. He chose to take that long. *shrug*
    P - J conflict once again.
    My point is that if love is so important why waiting so long? Even if he was just feeling creative he did not aim at the love totally so it look like that it is not absolute priority.

  6. #116
    Arcesso pulli gingerios! Eldanen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    697

    Default

    Why, after all of this, does God decide, "hey, those homo sapiens over there are sinful and need to be moral according to my rules"? Why does God put himself in human form in some remote desert part of Earth to die for our sins that weren't committed (Adam and Eve never existed and never 'sinned' against God)? Why after all this time, with all these organisms over billions of years, does God decide that its about time for him to show himself? Why didn't he show himself to the other Highly-Conscious beings that existed in the Homo Genus? What about people that never hear the word of Jesus, are they forgiven for their imaginary sin, you would think that if he was a decent and intelligent God he would show himself to everyone at once to prove his existence? What happens to other organisms in general, when they die do they just cease to exist, saved from hell but exempt from heaven?
    This is probably the main issue I have with believing Christianity as it is written in the Bible. If the theory of evolution is true (which it is, I believe), and the creation count is metaphorical, then you can't have a literal interpretation of a salvation. It's recorded in the book of Genesis that man would die because he sinned, and yet we know that death is a natural process of life, and that it occurred before Adam and Eve existed. Was there any sin before Adam and Eve? If the God of the Bible is true, then yes, sin would have to have been around since the beginning of time. So sin would have naturally been a part of the world. Whose fault would that be? God's. Not ours. So why would he "punish" us for such a thing? Paul makes a note in the NT that death entered in by Adam and that we should be reconciled by Jesus. Or else. Why would God make up a bunch of rules against our nature (requiring perfection) when it's clearly an impossible thing. The Bible (as a whole) to me seems schizophrenic.

  7. #117
    Senior Member aguanile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    IXXP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    132

    Default

    Eldanen, "schizophrenic" is a good word to describe it.

  8. #118
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Oh boy, I'll just throw in my two cents into this discussion and leave it at that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Didums View Post
    Singularity --> Big Bang due to high vaccum pressure -->
    I fail to see how the Big Bang theory disproves the Christian God, not least of which because the theory itself was first developed by a Catholic priest named Georges Lematre.

    Quote Originally Posted by Demigod
    The world was once thought to be flat... They were wrong!
    Recent historical studies have discovered that no educated person(Christian or no) since the 3rd century BC has ever believed the world was flat. Most of the Church Fathers believed the earth was round.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flack
    Lol Occam's Razor. Don't you ever use that phrase again. Ever!
    Yeah it's pretty ironic when numerous atheists and "skeptics" use a logical formula devised by a Francisican monk to refute Christianity.

  9. #119
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post

    I fail to see how the Big Bang theory disproves the Christian God, not least of which because the theory itself was first developed by a Catholic priest named Georges Lematre.
    That wasn't my argument, at all. That was just part of my premise, Owl did a summary of my argument if you wanna go look at that. Also, the theory being developed by a catholic priest is neither in support nor against the theory itself. Also, Georges Lemaitre's Big Bang was very much different from the one we know today.

  10. #120
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Didums View Post
    That wasn't my argument, at all. That was just part of my premise
    And I'm pointing out the inconsistency of that premise in regards to your overall argument.

    Also, the theory being developed by a catholic priest is neither in support nor against the theory itself.
    Im not arguing against the Big Bang theory. Im arguing against the argument that it helps to disprove God's existence.

    Same thing with the theory of Evolution. Most people who try to argue on that basis usually have never heard the concept of "Theistic Evolution" and the fact that many major Christian denominations adhere to it, and even has support from numerous academics and even scientists.

    And even if they do, they often pull a "no true scotsman" ploy trying to demonstrate that they're not really "Christians" and only "Creationists" can be so(and by "Creationists" they usually mean Young Earth Creationists, not Old Earth ones).

    Of course that begs plenty of questions, considering that Christianity itself grew out of the allegorical traditions of Hellenic Judaism. One early Christian text, the Epistle of Barnabas from the first century AD, even condemns those who take scriptures literally as dupes of the Devil.


    So the issue is not science vs religion - it never has been. It is, always had been, and always will be a theological-philosophical debate.

Similar Threads

  1. Let's see how good you guys are
    By Anamalech in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 07-15-2010, 12:50 AM
  2. I don't know how much more I can take.
    By Haphazard in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: 05-20-2010, 11:15 PM
  3. I really don't know how I feel about this...
    By Wade Wilson in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-08-2009, 07:21 PM
  4. Let's see how this goes...
    By whiteraven in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-15-2007, 08:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO