What is a God? [Archive I] - Page 4

Copper Scroll

January 17, 2006, 06:06 PM

Arguing with you costs me little, and has little likelihood of achieving anything... but if I should succeed in causing you to actually understand why people disagree with you, I will have achieved something valuable and worthwhile.. I can respect your dedication.

Actually, that is exactly correct. For clarity: So are you saying that it is okay (ethical) for me to smack someone in the face if their hands are tied, but not if their hands are untied?

You misused the word because you equated forced with undermine. This is a lie. Cry about your integrity, or find proof.

Force does necessarily mean removing all other options. You mean to say all "rational" and "sensible" options--right? If so, that's a different matter.

As you yourself pointed out in another post, options that are insane or self-destructive do not count as options. I didn't say they don't count as options. I said (essentially) that if the only alternatives to a certain option are irrational and senseless, then the choice of that certain option is unfree... which brings us to the whole "angel's doing" vs "God's doing" issue. If a force a person to do something (meaning I render all alternatives to "something" irrational and senseless) then it is fair to say that when the person does that "something" it was not her choice. It is fair to say that I made the choice for her. (Checking in [please answer]:) Are we agreed? Was it her "doing" or my "doing"?

Now, if I try to force a second person in the same way, and that person chooses instead any one of those irrational and senseless alternatives, whose doing is it? Is it this person's choice? Is it my choice?

So Satan's choice was not free? Do you mean to say his choice was constrained (in which case, how did he make it?) or do you mean to say it was hard (in which case, why does God want to make Satan's choice easier?). I would call the devil taking the irrational and senseless alternative to God's will.

I have responded and demolished it. No, you haven't. You just say "That's incoherent." Like this:

It is very simple. When an angel chooses, it is the angel's doing. You cannot say that when an angel chooses evil, it is the angel choosing, but when an angel chooses good, it is God choosing. This is incoherent. You do not respond to the analogy.

The ability to choose is not dependent on which choice you make. I'm not saying that. My argument is based on who the action is attributed to--who gets the blame and who gets the praise. (Here's the analogy again: ) When a hostage acts against a terrorist, we attribute that action to the hostage. When a hostage obeys a terrorist, we attribute it to the terrorist. Am I wrong? If so, how?

I cannot imagine any native speaker of English mistaking the use of the adverb "violently" with the necessity of physical violence. Ow! I think I just caught another integrity jammy! :rolling:

So your idea of morality is limited to personal needs, with no consideration for the population or the planet at large? No.

And I have destroyed those explanations by showing how they conflict with your own notions of justice. There appears to be more destruction and demolition coming from your direction that Dr. Octopus!

Given that your theological theories are espoused by you and you alone, can you explain why this "fact of life" is so obscure that you are the only person in the world who knows it? My theology is this in essence: Our purpose for living is to choose good over evil and thereby make the world better. This is what God wants from us. I'm the only person in the world who understands this?

Yet you concede your understanding of God's will and the percentage fate of our souls is understood only by you. I didn't say it is understood only by me. I said that I do not know of a religious sect that makes this idea a part of its doctrine.

And though I did not use the word "obvious" originally, what is obvious is that people change. Certain facets of a person dies and gives way to others, so different facets of a person have different statuses with regards to eternal life. In other words, we don't carry our flaws with us into eternity.

Your comma is misplaced. You can't touch this! Stop... Grammar time! :rolling:

If it is easy to find out his will, then why are people so damn confused about what his will is? People are confused period... you and I included.

How about the millions of Christians who do not have the easy, ready answer to the morality of homosexuality that you have? There's more to life than how people feel about something that has next to nothing to do with them.

Are you asserting that all those Christians do not have the capacity for reason or love? No.

Why does God want it to be easier for us to choose evil than it was for Satan? I wouldn't say God wants the choice of evil to be easy for us. I would say that God wants us to choose between good and evil freely. (As long a the free choice is there, someone is likely to complain that the choice of evil is too easy and the choice of good is not easy enough. I don't remember you "demolishing" this point.)

Now, (am I misplacing this comma, MC Grammar?) the devil's purpose is not to choose between good and evil. This is however our purpose.

You know, I got a university degree in truth, beauty, and good. :)

That's it? That's your entire response to my argument - to quibble over a single word? I do not propose a "quibble". I am asking you not to throw the word "obvious" at me like a rock (which you do in your last post) when I never used the word.

As Sun Tzu said, if the pupil does not understand the first time, it is the fault of the teacher. If the pupil does not understand the second time, it is the fault of the pupil. ...and let me guess who the "teacher" is. :)

Yahzi

January 17, 2006, 10:18 PM

For clarity: So are you saying that it is okay (ethical) for me to smack someone in the face if their hands are tied, but not if their hands are untied?
Not exactly. What I am saying is the notion of morality requires accountability; to be moral is to be held accountable to another. If a being were wholly without accountabilty, it would be impossible for it to engage in morality.

I didn't say they don't count as options. I said (essentially) that if the only alternatives to a certain option are irrational and senseless, then the choice of that certain option is unfree
I have some issues with the idea of "unfree choice," but I would prefer to drop that (and the discussion about "doing") in favor of this issue:

Given that we know of Hell, our choice is clearly unfree. The only thing obscured is how we avoid Hell; not our decision to avoid it. Only an irrational or senseless person would choose Hell. Ergo, by making Hell a "fact of life," God has already destroyed the freedom of our choice.

I understand now your point about the angels: that if we knew exactly what God wanted us, then all of our goodness would merely be a reflection of God's will (just as all of our crimes would merely be a reflection of the terrorist's will). Thus, God must hide what he wants so we can geniunely choose good on our own. (I disagree, mind you: I think knowing good and doing good are radically different.)

However, the problem with this is that it allows for people to choose less than good through confusion, even though they desired to do God's will. You respond to this by asserting that God's will can be found by those who seek, but the problem with this is two-fold: 1) it implies that all those people who dramatically disagree with you about God's will are insincere, and 2) once we discover God's will (as opposed to discovering goodness), we are just back in the same position.

If God wanted people to choose goodness independent of his intervention, then the obvious ideal situation is to keep his mouth shut. Telling us about his will only robs of freedom; threatening us with Hell and bribing us with Heaven obliterates any idea of freedom. What rational person would choose to go against God when the result was Hell? So the only difficulty becomes in guessing what God wants, rather than in doing good for good's sake.

Copper Scroll

January 18, 2006, 01:41 PM

Given that we know of Hell, our choice is clearly unfree. The only thing obscured is how we avoid Hell; not our decision to avoid it.. This goes back to my original response to this point. We know of Hell, but we don't really know what it is or what it means. We don't know what it's like to die. We don't know what it's like not to exist. We don't know what it's like to be eternal or not to be eternal. We have images and myths about Hell, but these are of course diverse and we can only image what it would be like to experience the content of those myths. The matter is at least as "obscured" as "how to avoid it."

Thus, God must hide what he wants so we can geniunely choose good on our own. (I disagree, mind you: I think knowing good and doing good are radically different.) There's some confusion here. I agree with you that there is a difference between knowing good and doing good. Knowing what is right does not make a person do right. Knowing what is right and knowing that the alternative leads to Hell doesn't even make a person do right. The reason for this is because this person has various motivations other than doing right and avoiding Hell. This person wants a newer, better car... a seat in a nice restaurant... a higher profit margin... a hotter girlfriend... a nice buzz... etc. These baser drives are strong enough to compete with doing right and avoiding Hell in the lives of most people. Why? Because we are imperfect beings with imperfect knowledge.

Now, the confusion (I think) in your comment is that "full" or "perfect knowledge" is only full knowledge of exactly what God wants at every instance. This is not what I mean. When I say "full" or "perfect knowledge" I mean knowledge of everything that is knowable--everything that is happening everywhere and everything that has happened--transcendent knowledge. If we were transcendent and perfect, we would not have those baser drives to compete with God's will. God's will would be the only sensible choice to us.

However, the problem with this is that it allows for people to choose less than good through confusion, even though they desired to do God's will. In most instances, I don't think there's much confusion about which action is the ethical one.

You respond to this by asserting that God's will can be found by those who seek, but the problem with this is two-fold: 1) it implies that all those people who dramatically disagree with you about God's will are insincere, and 2) once we discover God's will (as opposed to discovering goodness), we are just back in the same position. I'm unsure about what you mean by "the same position".

If God wanted people to choose goodness independent of his intervention, then the obvious ideal situation is to keep his mouth shut. I think God intervened(s) to make righteousness accessible. It is conceivable that a whole society could be completely in the dark about with regards to righteousness. God's intervention is a light in the dark. It makes straightening up possible.

Telling us about his will only robs of freedom; Perhaps the freedom (as I've described it) is compromised to some limited extent by any intervention on God's part. But we are imperfect, and who among us ever really accomplishes anything on their own? I could make a major accomplishment and claim it as my own even if I needed some minor help along the way. However "minor" this help, without it I might have never accomplished anything.

threatening us with Hell and bribing us with Heaven obliterates any idea of freedom. This goes back to my analogy about children. We reward and punish children for the purpose of getting them into the habit of doing right. Once the habit is formed, expectation of reward and punishment (should) become irrelevant.

What rational person would choose to go against God when the result was Hell? Did you see the episode of the Sopranos where Christopher has a near-death experience. He claims he sees people he once knew in Hell and he doesn't want to go there. He believes that he will go there though because of how he chooses to live his life. Strangely, he never stops and repents. Why? Is it because he's insane?

Stephen T-B

January 18, 2006, 02:06 PM

"We know of Hell, but we don't really know what it is.." (Copper Scroll).
Sorry to disagree, but we do not know of Hell. If we knew of Hell, there would be no discussion as to its reality. And since it is only experienced after someone's died, and no-one, apart from demi-gods, returns from the dead, it must be a matter of pure speculation.

" If we were transcendent and perfect, we would not have those baser drives to compete with God's will." (Copper Scroll).
So here is an implicit acknowledgement that god made us with "baser" drives to compete with his will - or he'd have made us "transcendent and perfect."
He clearly wanted us to have these baser drives.
Why?
Because he knew that a very large proportion of us would give in to them, and populate hell?
This god prepared hell - and we know for sure it's not nice, or there'd be no advantage in avoiding it - to accommodate all the souls which he knew would end up thee.
Was this the purpose of his creation?

Chaupoline

January 19, 2006, 02:18 PM

Stephen T-B

January 19, 2006, 02:58 PM

"I believe that God made us faulty, so that we would have to overcome them by working together." (Chaupoline).

This God you believe in, Chaupoline, is a lot less malevolent than some of the Christian deities which are paraded here, especially by the Calvanists and some of the Fundamentalists. But it's pretty weird all the same.
I mean, why would a transcendental super entity create faulty physical beings, except to have some fun?

Far from faulty, our success as a species suggests we have rather too few faults, if anything.
Thanks to our big brains, not only can we adapt to more varied environments than any other large animal, but we can adapt our environment to suit ourselves (as you have pointed out).
Not only are we successful; perhaps we are too successful.
I sometimes think humans are a bit like those benign bacteria which kill their hosts, not by attacking any vital organs but simply by multiplying at an enormous rate, and producing so much toxic waste that it eventually kills the host.
Are we in danger of doing this to our host, planet Earth?

No, we aren't faulty. How could we be if we've ended up at the top of the food chain. The Number One predator.
We did this thanks to our big brains and our ability to cooperate. Cooperation is the foundation of our success. It's turned us from a puny creature into the most deadly large animal on Earth.
And herein lies our problem. Our primitive instincts tell us to grab what we can when we can where we can, and fuck every partner we can grab hold of.
But this behaviour is not consistent with living in a society which is founded upon mutual cooperation. So while part of us wants to behave like a solitary animal, another part demands that we behave like responsible human beings. And we never quite manage that, so we are constantly filled with a sense of failure.

Hence your conclusion that a god made us "faulty."

It's a very, very common misconception, and heps to account for the fact that Christianity, which exploits it to brilliantly, has become a world-wide religion with many millions of adherents.

Copper Scroll

January 19, 2006, 04:10 PM

"We know of Hell, but we don't really know what it is.." (Copper Scroll).
Sorry to disagree, but we do not know of Hell.
Consider the context in which I wrote the statement you quote. It is clear that I was responding to a statement by another person which was prefaced "Given that we know of Hell..."

" If we were transcendent and perfect, we would not have those baser drives to compete with God's will." (Copper Scroll).
So here is an implicit acknowledgement that god made us with "baser" drives to compete with his will - or he'd have made us "transcendent and perfect."
He clearly wanted us to have these baser drives.
Why? These drives are a consequence of our materiality and imperfection. There is no such thing as "us" without them. They make us who and what we are. Asking Why? is akin to asking the meaning of our life. Answer: Our purpose is to love God and to choose righteousness.

This god prepared hell - and we know for sure it's not nice, or there'd be no advantage in avoiding it - to accommodate all the souls which he knew would end up thee. I thought you said we don't know of Hell. :)

alienward

January 19, 2006, 05:25 PM

Theists like Copper Scroll are just as confused about what hell is supposed to be as they are about what their God is supposed to be. From religioustolerance.org:

In the Christian Scriptures, one of the most common attributes mentioned about Hell is its high temperature:

Matthew 13:42: "And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

Matt 25:41: "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." This passage relates to Jesus' judgment of all the world.

Mark 9:43-48: And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched." The reference to fire is repeated three more times in the passage for emphasis.

Luke 16:24: "And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame." This is a plea described as coming from an inhabitant of Hell.

Revelation 20:13-15: "...hell delivered up the dead which were in them...And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

Revelation 21:8: "But the fearful, and unbelieving ... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." Brimstone is sulphur. In order for sulphur to form a lake, it must be molten. Thus, its temperature must be at or below 444.6 °C or 832 °F.
Some theists need to pretend hell isn’t really a fire and brimstone kind of place just like they need to pretend their god isn’t really a “kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves�? kind of god.

Chaupoline

January 19, 2006, 05:30 PM

Why would a transcendental super entity create faulty physical beings, except to have some fun?

If we were perfect, there wouldn't be any challenges to overcome.

Far from faulty, our success as a species suggests we have rather too few faults, if anything.

Our faults actually inspire us to become better and overcome them. Our mortality is a big factor in how we have traditionally viewed the world. Our understanding of the world is based on the five ways that we perceive it, which in itself is a fault, because we are not ominscient.

Not only are we successful; perhaps we are too successful.

Man vs Man and Man vs Nature.

No, we aren't faulty. How could we be if we've ended up at the top of the food chain. The Number One predator.
We did this thanks to our big brains and our ability to cooperate. Cooperation is the foundation of our success. It's turned us from a puny creature into the most deadly large animal on Earth.

Yep, we are the pinnacle of creation.

And herein lies our problem. Our primitive instincts tell us to grab what we can when we can where we can, and fuck every partner we can grab hold of.
But this behaviour is not consistent with living in a society which is founded upon mutual cooperation. So while part of us wants to behave like a solitary animal, another part demands that we behave like responsible human beings. And we never quite manage that, so we are constantly filled with a sense of failure.

This is just another obstacle that we must overcome.

Hence your conclusion that a god made us "faulty."

It's a very, very common misconception, and helps to account for the fact that Christianity, which exploits it to brilliantly, has become a world-wide religion with many millions of adherents.

:banghead:

Copper Scroll

January 20, 2006, 05:16 PM

Theists like Copper Scroll are just as confused about what hell is supposed to be as they are about what their God is supposed to be. Everyone is confused, even you.

Some theists need to pretend hell isn’t really a fire and brimstone kind of place just like they need to pretend their god isn’t really a “kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves�? kind of god.
When we try to view the Bible as we do modern documents, evaluating it in terms of factuality, we miss the point. What the Bible can do for us is inform us on how to live life, how to think and act. The whole thing could be viewed as "not literally true" and still retain its functionality in this respect. It doesn't matter what is literally true there and what is not. Apply the principles that underlie it.

alienward

January 20, 2006, 05:36 PM

When we try to view the Bible as we do modern documents, evaluating it in terms of factuality, we miss the point. What the Bible can do for us is inform us on how to live life, how to think and act. The whole thing could be viewed as "not literally true" and still retain its functionality in this respect. It doesn't matter what is literally true there and what is not. Apply the principles that underlie it.
This should be good. What’s the point of “kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves�? that one would miss reading the Bible knowing it's not a modern document and that many theists claim is the word of a god? Just what are the principles that underlie this?

Southern

January 20, 2006, 05:47 PM

Everyone is confused, even you.
When we try to view the Bible as we do modern documents, evaluating it in terms of factuality, we miss the point. What the Bible can do for us is inform us on how to live life, how to think and act. The whole thing could be viewed as "not literally true" and still retain its functionality in this respect. It doesn't matter what is literally true there and what is not. Apply the principles that underlie it.

Well, as you know the Bible attaches a fairly elaborate metaphysical framework to its teachings, and it's this invisible edifice Atheists primarily take issue with.

Personally I feel that the biblical "underlying principles" is actually pretty arbitrary.

Many non-religious people wouldn't disagree with a "do unto others...." maxim of morality, but the Bible is pretty inconsistent in relation to ethics. Some of the worst atrocities are committed by God, or endorsed by him, while some good morality is preached by his son. The whole package seems like a very square circle.

Copper Scroll

January 20, 2006, 06:03 PM

This should be good. What’s the point of “kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves�? that one would miss reading the Bible knowing it's not a modern document and that many theists claim is the word of a god? Just what are the principles that underlie this? You have quoted a crude expression of nationalism in an ancient society. The principle that clearly underlies it is to not bring yourself or your family into contact with evil because it corrupts. In a (by our standards) crude and brutal way, what the Israelites are commanded to do is to purify. Now if someone tried to do this today literally the way it is written in Numbers, I can call it evil because the acts of murder and genocide are in direct conflict with the teachings of Jesus (and just about every ethical standard we have).

Many non-religious people wouldn't disagree with a "do unto others...." maxim of morality, but the Bible is pretty inconsistent in relation to ethics. Some of the worst atrocities are committed by God, or endorsed by him, while some good morality is preached by his son. The whole package seems like a very square circle. The "whole package" doesn't really exist. The Bible is a compilation of documents that could stretch out and have been written a thousand years apart. Its not consistent because it essentially critiques itself. Jesus was a critic of the Jewish traditions. He presented Jewish principles in a new light and in a way that extends beyond Israel's national boundaries. Were there any more God-sanctioned acts of genocide after the "do unto others..." part that we so love?

Chris Weimer

January 20, 2006, 06:08 PM

Were there any more God-sanctioned acts of genocide after the "do unto others..." part that we so love?
Er, yes actually! The Christians were fond of persecuting pagans after the conversion of Rome. There's a new thread in BC&H called "Atheist Atrocities" which you might want to review.

Copper Scroll

January 20, 2006, 06:13 PM

Er, yes actually! The Christians were fond of persecuting pagans after the conversion of Rome. There's a new thread in BC&H called "Atheist Atrocities" which you might want to review. I was speaking within the context of the Bible.

..and I will check out that thread. Thanks.

Southern

January 20, 2006, 06:19 PM

I was speaking within the context of the Bible.

..and I will check out that thread. Thanks.

Actually, the answer is still yes.

If revelations is anything to go by we can look forward to lots of God-inspired violence.

Yahzi

January 20, 2006, 08:02 PM

This goes back to my original response to this point. We know of Hell, but we don't really know what it is or what it means.
We know it is a "fact of life," and we know it is bad. Really bad.

That's enough to constrain our choice.

We don't know what it's like to die.
Yes, but we know enough to know that the threat of death constrains our choices. Same for hell; we don't have to have full knowledge to know it sucks.

The matter is at least as "obscured" as "how to avoid it."
If you want to argue that knowledge of hell does not constrain our choice, then you shouldn't have categorized it as a "fact of life." It is impossible that hell should be both as plain as a fact of life and so obscure as to not be an undeniable fact of life.

Now, the confusion (I think) in your comment is that "full" or "perfect knowledge" is only full knowledge of exactly what God wants at every instance. This is not what I mean. When I say "full" or "perfect knowledge" I mean knowledge of everything that is knowable--everything that is happening everywhere and everything that has happened--transcendent knowledge. If we were transcendent and perfect, we would not have those baser drives to compete with God's will. God's will would be the only sensible choice to us.
But I never asked for transcendent knowledge. All I asked for was full knowledge in the first sense: knowledge of exactly what God wants at every instance.

You have just explained that one can know what God wants while still having non-perfect knowledge like the angels, thus preserving our freedom of choice. You have just refuted your argument for why God can't tell us what he wants.

Indeed, by shifting the knowledge of hell to obscurity, you're coming around to my view: that God should tell us what he wants, but hide the reward/punishment so our decision is made for reasons other than fear or greed. The problem, of course, is that God doesn't tell us what he wants - although, thanks to the Bible, he does plenty of telling us what will happen to us if we don't do what he wants.

In most instances, I don't think there's much confusion about which action is the ethical one.
The long and turgid history of philosophy (and theology) suggests there are plenty of times when the ethical action is not clear.

Again, suggesting that confusion on ethics is solely due to the lack of integrity, goodwill, or honesty of those that disagree is not a good argument.

I'm unsure about what you mean by "the same position".
I mean, if we do succeed in discerning God's will, we will be doing it solely because of the reward/threat already revealed to us.

God's intervention is a light in the dark. It makes straightening up possible.
If he told us what he wanted, I would agree. Instead, he just threatens us with hell, and expects us to figure out the righteousness on our own. For instance, at no point did God tell Jesus or Paul that slavery was bad. But he sure went on about how being bad would keep you out of heaven.

But we are imperfect, and who among us ever really accomplishes anything on their own?
If God is going to break his absolute silence to help us, then how do you account for the fact that he doesn't speak loud enough to help all of us?

Surely you agree it would be unfair for God to help some people enough, but leave other people who need just a little more help to suffer in Hell?

And quite clearly there are people like me who cannot hear God - and not through lack of trying. Why do you get the help you need, but I don't?

This goes back to my analogy about children. We reward and punish children for the purpose of getting them into the habit of doing right.
Um. No. I suggest the book, "Raising self-reliant children in a self-indulgent world."

The goal is to teach children why they should do right. A child that operates solely out of habit will be wholly unprepared for the moral difficulties of adult life. Just like your math teacher wanted to you learn how to derive the answer, rather than just memorizing the answers, so you could figure out other problems on your own.

Did you see the episode of the Sopranos where Christopher has a near-death experience. He claims he sees people he once knew in Hell and he doesn't want to go there. He believes that he will go there though because of how he chooses to live his life. Strangely, he never stops and repents. Why? Is it because he's insane?
I'm afraid I don't watch that show. But the sentiment existed as far back as the glory days of the pirates, who felt the same way.

In "Precious Bane," (a novel about turn of the last century Wales) there is an explanation. As one character convicted of witch-craft puts it, everyone has their part. God made some for glory, and some for damnation, and a man can't change the part assigned to him. Although in modern characters, such peity rings hollow: it's far more believable that Christopher doesn't actually believe, he just wants to pretend he does.

Drug-addicts, of course, represent the same issue. One explanation I have heard is a lack of self-identity with the future: the junkie knows that shooting up will cause him pain in the future, but he just doesn't identify with his future self as much as he identifies with his current self. A brain disorder or a lack of character? I don't know.

But God does, and it seems incredible that He would condemn people whose brains were just not up to the task. In fact, it seems odd that he would allow people to have brains that defective...

Anyway, to sum up: You have refuted your argument for why God cannot tell us what he wants. You have attempted to shore it up by claiming that God does, in fact, tell us if only we listen hard enough; but this requires the assumption that most people are dishonest, which is an inadequate basis for an argument to rest on.

Copper Scroll

January 21, 2006, 10:43 AM

But I never asked for transcendent knowledge. All I asked for was full knowledge in the first sense: knowledge of exactly what God wants at every instance. So you want orders from God every day all day. You want God to micromanage you, while God has already given you the faculties to manage your own life. What then would be the purpose of these faculties? What would you be without them?

You have just explained that one can know what God wants while still having non-perfect knowledge like the angels, thus preserving our freedom of choice. You have just refuted your argument for why God can't tell us what he wants. I'm not sure if I've said that. I don't think I did. Can you explain?

Indeed, by shifting the knowledge of hell to obscurity, you're coming around to my view: that God should tell us what he wants, but hide the reward/punishment so our decision is made for reasons other than fear or greed. I think the notions of heaven and hell follow necessarily from the notion of an omnipotent God who has a plan for this world. In order for the world to change, some things must die while others are preserved. Constantly receiving orders from the same omnipotent God would constrain the freedom of our choice.

The long and turgid history of philosophy (and theology) suggests there are plenty of times when the ethical action is not clear. Sure, but this is not the norm. It just receives more of your attention as a philosopher.

Again, suggesting that confusion on ethics is solely due to the lack of integrity, goodwill, or honesty of those that disagree is not a good argument. I didn't say this. Confusion on ethics is (mostly) due to lack of knowledge.

I mean, if we do succeed in discerning God's will, we will be doing it solely because of the reward/threat already revealed to us. Not necessarily. Once the habit of righteousness is built, cultivated, and nurtured, it becomes part of a person's character. This doesn't not mean it cannot be destroyed. A person must remain mindful of it and continue to nurture it. This person is capable of doing good for its own sake.

If he told us what he wanted, I would agree. Instead, he just threatens us with hell, and expects us to figure out the righteousness on our own. Again, it is not beyond our abilities to "figure out" what is right.

For instance, at no point did God tell Jesus or Paul that slavery was bad. But he sure went on about how being bad would keep you out of heaven. The book would have practically infinite pages if it warned us of every atrocity we are capable of.

If God is going to break his absolute silence to help us, then how do you account for the fact that he doesn't speak loud enough to help all of us? It is fathomable for a person to receive revelation from God and not know it as that--not attribute it to God. Perhaps God does speak to everyone.

The goal is to teach children why they should do right. A child that operates solely out of habit will be wholly unprepared for the moral difficulties of adult life. We are talking about the same thing, but we have expressed it in different ways. When I say habit, I mean character-building. To me, habit does not exclude knowing the reasons why the habit should be formed. The reason why a person should do right is because it's right--it's just, it's good, etc. A child has too many other motivations as strong as or stronger than the motivation to do right to go without reward and punishment of some form. Reason alone does not work with children. Their capacity to reason and righteousness must be built up--developed. Reward/punishment can be used to achieve that.

Copper Scroll

January 21, 2006, 10:47 AM

Actually, the answer is still yes.

If revelations is anything to go by we can look forward to lots of God-inspired violence.
You are right. I did forget Revelations for this context because unlike Gospels-Acts and most of the Old Testament, Revelations does not claim to document events that have happened. It is an early Christian fantasy about what will (or would) happen.

Yahzi

January 21, 2006, 12:47 PM

So you want orders from God every day all day. You want God to micromanage you, while God has already given you the faculties to manage your own life. What then would be the purpose of these faculties? What would you be without them?
I don't want God to micromanage me; God wants it. If God didn't demand that I follow his will in every instance, then I wouldn't have to care what he thought.

But as you point out, God telling me what he wants amounts to orders, because of the threat of hell. If I don't do what God wants, I suffer the most suffering that is imaginable. Doing what God wants is the only way to avoid hell, just like doing what the terrorist wants is the only way to avoid being shot.

I don't need to explain the purpose of these faculties - that is God's problem. Why did God give us the ability to manage our lives, determine right from wrong, create meaning and purpose, if he was just going to yank it all away from us by threatening us with hell? How are we supposed to focus on this life with such dire threats for the next one hanging over our heads? It's like kindergardeners being told that if they don't do calculus, they'll never get into college and will be drafted into the army and killed.

Of course, the Bible's answer is that you aren't supposed to focus on this life; Paul quite clearly says you should think only of the next one. The entire point of the revelation of heaven and hell is to lift you above the petty concerns of this mortal, temporary, and ultimately unimportant existance. People who are focused on the big prize - eternity - don't need to manage this life. They just need to get a passing grade. And if they screw up so bad someone starves, or dies from lack of medicine, so what? That person just got to skip out of class early, and go straight to the big-time!

As you so neatly point out: God cannot reveal his will without making it an order, because of the threat of hell. But threat remains, regardless of whether we know how to avoid it; so all God's silence does is allow us to screw up. It in no way helps us find the good, and it does not validate our striving for the good - since we are not striving for good for good's sake, but only to avoid hell.

Consider this scenario:

A man knocks on your door one morning, and when you answer, he says:

"Listen, your neighbors are having a hard time right now, and I was wondering if you could find it in your heart to look for some ways you could help them out."

You've got a free choice to do good.

"By the way, if you don't, I'll put a bullet in your head."

Where's your free choice now?

This is exactly what God does: warns us of the punishment, but does not tell us explicitly how to avoid it. This is considered totally unfair when any human organization does it (like the IRS); why should it not be considered unfair when God does it?

Your original argument was that God cannot tell us his will, because then we won't have free choice. Now you are saying he can tell us his will, just not give us omniscience like the angels. But the fact remains that he does not tell us his will; as you acknowledge, he does not tell us in every case what he wants. Having reduced what it is God needs to provide us does not help, because God does not provide even that. And you still haven't explained how the threat of hell does not destroy our freedom of choice.

I'm not sure if I've said that. I don't think I did. Can you explain?
You did, here:
Now, the confusion (I think) in your comment is that "full" or "perfect knowledge" is only full knowledge of exactly what God wants at every instance. This is not what I mean. When I say "full" or "perfect knowledge" I mean knowledge of everything that is knowable--everything that is happening everywhere and everything that has happened--transcendent knowledge. If we were transcendent and perfect, we would not have those baser drives to compete with God's will. God's will would be the only sensible choice to us.
Here you distinguish between "knowing exactly what God wants at every instance" and "transcendent knowledge like the angels."

I think the notions of heaven and hell follow necessarily from the notion of an omnipotent God who has a plan for this world.
Absolutely not. The Buddhist universal-mind has a plan for this world (salvation from the wheel), but there is no need for heaven or hell. And Judeaism clearly believes in a God with a plan for this world, but Jewish theology is undecided on the existance of an afterlife, let alone heaven or hell.

In order for the world to change, some things must die while others are preserved.
But not people. If you are saying some people must die so God's plan can be fuilfilled, God is using people as means instead of ends. God is treating people like cogs, parts of machinery, to be disposed of at will. This is the opposite of morality and justice, which teach us that each individual deserves to be treated as an individual, not as a part of somebody else's scheme.

Constantly receiving orders from the same omnipotent God would constrain the freedom of our choice.
No, because we could always choose to disobey those orders, just as we recieve a constant stream of commands from our conscience but sometimes choose to disobey them.

What constrains our freedom of choice is the threat of hell that accompanies those orders from God. Again, it is the knowledge of hell that destroys our freedom of choice, not the knowledge of God's will.

Sure, but this is not the norm. It just receives more of your attention as a philosopher.
It is the norm. Churches all across the planet are tearing themselves apart over the moral status of homosexuality.

It is a fact of life that we all, at some point or another, face moral dilemmas that are ambigous and confusing.

I didn't say this. Confusion on ethics is (mostly) due to lack of knowledge.
Again, it is not beyond our abilities to "figure out" what is right.
Earlier (and indeed, later in this very post) you stated that if people just honestly looked at the issue, it would be clear. You have repeatedly said it's not that hard. You have repeatedly stated that "lack of knoweldge" of ethics is due to a failure of personal integrity; a failure to honestly look at the issue.

You have expressley refuted the idea that knowledge of morality is so hard to obtain in some circumstances that it is excusable for a person to have failed. God doesn't excuse - he just sends you to hell. God doesn't step in and clear up the confusion, either.

Once the habit of righteousness is built, cultivated, and nurtured, it becomes part of a person's character.
Given the lengths God has gone to to avoid people simply doing the right thing without having to think about it, why on Earth would you think it appropriate to teach children to do the right thing out of habit?

Your entire argument for God is that he cannot instill righteousness out of habit, that we must figure it out for ourselves if it is to have any value, that he cannot even tell us what he wants directly. Yet you want to raise children who are righteous out of habit?

Can you see the contradiction here between what you expect of God and what you expect of parents when it comes to moral education?

The book would have practically infinite pages if it warned us of every atrocity we are capable of.
The Bible has space to warn us about wearing mixed fibers, eating shellfish, and hundreds of other petty details, but it doesn't have space to warn us about the big-ticket items like slavery?

Furthermore, the Bible does have space to address slavery - it provides instructions on how to do it properly. Please explain how the Bible can have the space to instruct slaveholders on their rights without having space to condemn slavery.

And you know perfectly well that the book does not need infinite pages, because it does not need to warn us against every specific atrocity. Rather, it needs to establish guidelines that rule out atrocities by principle. It needs to teach us how to figure out righteousness on our own, not merely be a book we learn from habit.

This particular response was not well-thought out. I think my questions deserve more effort on your part.

It is fathomable for a person to receive revelation from God and not know it as that--not attribute it to God. Perhaps God does speak to everyone.
And if someone says He does not, if someone asserts they have recieved no revelations because their dilemma still traps them in an unbearable place and they have no idea how to get out - your only response is to call them a liar?

Again, you cannot defend your case by presuming other people are dishonest.

We are talking about the same thing, but we have expressed it in different ways.
Again, you seem to use words (now it is habit) in ways that no one else does; worse, in ways that imply their exact opposites.

To me, habit does not exclude knowing the reasons why the habit should be formed.
This doesn't matter. You didn't say they were doing right because they knew why they should do right, you said they were doing right out of habit. This is exactly the difference between doing right because God said so and doing right because you chose to.

In your terms, when a child does right out of habit, it is the habit's doing.

Reason alone does not work with children.
Children do need to expereince the consequences of their actions to learn, but that in no way requires parents to dole out punishment or reward. In fact, the only time a parent needs to inflict punishment is to provide a substitute for consequences of an action (and the parent does this only when the real consequences are too dire for the child to handle).

I referred you to a book (Raising self-reliant children in a self-indulgent world) which is short, well-written, and very engaging. I strongly recommend you read it, because it will expose you to another point of view in ways that I lack the time, space, and eloquence to do so.

Their capacity to reason and righteousness must be built up--developed. Reward/punishment can be used to achieve that.
No, actually, it cannot, any more than you can teach math by beatings or chocolate rewards.

The capacity to reason is developed by the act of reasoning (and the biological development of the immature human brain), just as muscles are developed by using them. Reward and punishment are almost wholly irrelevant.

But I do at least see the parallel: just as God threatens us with hell to motivate us to be good for goodness' sake, so the parent adminsters beatings to motivate his child to reason and choose goodness. The problem with this analogy is that it is simply wrong about how to raise children, as any child-psychologist (or competent parent) can tell you.

You still have not explained: how can our choice be free once we know about hell? You have excused hell as motivational, obscure, not that bad, but you have not explained how our choice can be free when we are threatened with dire consequences for choosing wrongly.

Chaupoline

January 22, 2006, 04:10 AM

I don't want God to micromanage me; God wants it. If God didn't demand that I follow his will in every instance, then I wouldn't have to care what he thought.

I don't like consequences (God's punishment) for my actions either. I would much rather fullfill my every desire and not care about what may come from it. Reality (God) has a way of getting in the way of my bliss.

But as you point out, God telling me what he wants amounts to orders, because of the threat of hell. If I don't do what God wants, I suffer the most suffering that is imaginable. Doing what God wants is the only way to avoid hell, just like doing what the terrorist wants is the only way to avoid being shot.

Freefalling is so much fun. Why does gravity punish me with the oncoming ground. If I don't obey reality then I will be punished for it. The natural world is the ultimate terrorist.

I don't need to explain the purpose of these faculties - that is God's problem. Why did God give us the ability to manage our lives, determine right from wrong, create meaning and purpose, if he was just going to yank it all away from us by threatening us with hell? How are we supposed to focus on this life with such dire threats for the next one hanging over our heads? It's like kindergardeners being told that if they don't do calculus, they'll never get into college and will be drafted into the army and killed.

Why would anyone ever invent the electrical fence if I am not able to urinate on it without being shocked. I may have the ability to learn about the electrical fence, and the ability to stop urinating, but why would they ever create it knowing that if I urinate on it I will suffer because of it?

As you so neatly point out: God cannot reveal his will without making it an order, because of the threat of hell. But threat remains, regardless of whether we know how to avoid it; so all God's silence does is allow us to screw up. It in no way helps us find the good, and it does not validate our striving for the good - since we are not striving for good for good's sake, but only to avoid hell.

We are always striving for good, because otherwise the consequences of our actions will negatively affect this world. It isn't the threat of a hell apart from this world that bothers us. It is the hell that we can create for ourselves that is the real enemy. All god's silence does is allow us to figure out how to prevent hell in our own lives on this planet. If God were to intervene then we would become dependent on God to wipe our asses. We would never have to learn about anything because God would cover for us. We would strive for more good without God intervening then we would with the constant reminder.

Consider this scenario:

A man knocks on your door one morning, and when you answer, he says:

"Listen, your neighbors are having a hard time right now, and I was wondering if you could find it in your heart to look for some ways you could help them out."

You've got a free choice to do good.

"By the way, if you don't, I'll put a bullet in your head."

Where's your free choice now?

Your free choice just disappeared with the intervention of the guy with the gun. God not intervening gives us the free choice. The consequences of not helping our neighbor would be a neighborhood that is allowed to fail because of the inability of our neighbor to provide for himself. By helping our neighbor in need we will make the neighborhood stronger and more resilient to attack.

This is exactly what God does: warns us of the punishment, but does not tell us explicitly how to avoid it. This is considered totally unfair when any human organization does it (like the IRS); why should it not be considered unfair when God does it?

We know that our actions have consequences. Mankind comes up with systems to protect ourselves from reality. We adopt rules to protect the group. God does not change the rules of reality. That is why God is not unfair. Reality and the natural world is consistant. We pay attention to the world, we learn its rules, we prosper.

But not people. If you are saying some people must die so God's plan can be fuilfilled, God is using people as means instead of ends. God is treating people like cogs, parts of machinery, to be disposed of at will. This is the opposite of morality and justice, which teach us that each individual deserves to be treated as an individual, not as a part of somebody else's scheme.

God's plan is that we will be able to manage ourselves. People die as a means of showing problems in our knowledge of the world and the system that we live our lives by.

Constantly receiving orders from the same omnipotent God would constrain the freedom of our choice.

No, because we could always choose to disobey those orders, just as we recieve a constant stream of commands from our conscience but sometimes choose to disobey them.

If we were constantly being given orders under a threat of immediate punishment there would be no free will. Our wills would be broken. We would then become dependent on the will of God. This would be a evil God.

What constrains our freedom of choice is the threat of hell that accompanies those orders from God. Again, it is the knowledge of hell that destroys our freedom of choice, not the knowledge of God's will.

This conflicts with what you were saying earlier. The constant stream of commands could be ignored and you would have free will, but with the threat of a punishment you would lose that free will. There are consequences for our actions. Many of these consequences are not pleasant and could be seen as reality punishing us for not obeying its rules. However, we have the option to be stupid and accidentally kill ourselves. That is our free will in action.

It is the norm. Churches all across the planet are tearing themselves apart over the moral status of homosexuality.

It is a fact of life that we all, at some point or another, face moral dilemmas that are ambigous and confusing.

People argue about everything. Pay attention and try to determine the solution. Then pay attention again and see the consequences of the solution that you came up with.

Earlier (and indeed, later in this very post) you stated that if people just honestly looked at the issue, it would be clear. You have repeatedly said it's not that hard. You have repeatedly stated that "lack of knoweldge" of ethics is due to a failure of personal integrity; a failure to honestly look at the issue.

You have expressley refuted the idea that knowledge of morality is so hard to obtain in some circumstances that it is excusable for a person to have failed. God doesn't excuse - he just sends you to hell. God doesn't step in and clear up the confusion, either.

You are not thinking long term. There are consequences for everything. We learn from our mistakes and from everyone elses. Hell is the hell that we create and not a separate place from our planet.

Given the lengths God has gone to to avoid people simply doing the right thing without having to think about it, why on Earth would you think it appropriate to teach children to do the right thing out of habit?

Because we are in control of our our own destiny. We are the ones who set the standard for our children. God should not have to save the day. You teach your children and instill in them habits that will allow them to react to reality in a prosperous manner.

Your entire argument for God is that he cannot instill righteousness out of habit, that we must figure it out for ourselves if it is to have any value, that he cannot even tell us what he wants directly. Yet you want to raise children who are righteous out of habit?

God made us with the desire to learn about the world. He gave us the ability to communicate our ideas to one another. God has created us with habits that would benefit us in this world.

Please explain how the Bible can have the space to instruct slaveholders on their rights without having space to condemn slavery.

These are nationalistic views of the early tribes of Israel. This is what they thought were correct.

And you know perfectly well that the book does not need infinite pages, because it does not need to warn us against every specific atrocity. Rather, it needs to establish guidelines that rule out atrocities by principle. It needs to teach us how to figure out righteousness on our own, not merely be a book we learn from habit.

Humanity is a work in progress. As time progresses we learn more about the world and define righteousness. The Bible is a mission statement to become better. It isn't a command to never advance as a people.

Yahzi

January 22, 2006, 11:55 AM

Reality (God) has a way of getting in the way of my bliss.
My post was directed at Copper Scroll's theology. Defining God as reality is a different theology, so my comments cannot be expected to apply.

why would they ever create it knowing that if I urinate on it I will suffer because of it?
If they created it knowing that you would suffer from it through no fault of your own, you could sue them in court. This is called justice.

We would strive for more good without God intervening then we would with the constant reminder.
Then why do we have teachers in school? Wouldn't kids strive for more knowledge without the constant reminder of a teacher who already knows all that stuff?

God not intervening gives us the free choice.
God intervened when He told us about Hell.

If we were constantly being given orders under a threat of immediate punishment there would be no free will. Our wills would be broken. We would then become dependent on the will of God. This would be a evil God.
Your argument is almost flawless. Only one change need be made: remove the word immediate (since absolute destruction/eternal torture is sufficient threat to achieve the same effect as immediacy).

Having made that minor change, I must completely and totally agree with your argument. It is in fact the case that we are dependent on God's will, since obeying it is the only way to escape hell; and therefore, as you logically demonstrate, This is an evil God.

Humanity is a work in progress.
Your entire post treats human beings as a corporate entity, not as individuals. But collective punishment (bombing the whole village because some of them are terrorists) is recognized as immoral by even the US Army. Even our military understands that justice requires people be treated as individuals whenever possible. Even soldiers understand that denying another person their moral rights simply because they belong to a different class is wrong.

Why is your God less moral than the US Army?

Oh, wait, you already answered that: This is an evil God.

Well, dude, we agree. Totally.

alienward

January 22, 2006, 11:51 PM

You have quoted a crude expression of nationalism in an ancient society. The principle that clearly underlies it is to not bring yourself or your family into contact with evil because it corrupts. In a (by our standards) crude and brutal way, what the Israelites are commanded to do is to purify. Now if someone tried to do this today literally the way it is written in Numbers, I can call it evil because the acts of murder and genocide are in direct conflict with the teachings of Jesus (and just about every ethical standard we have).
Thanks for telling us the god of the old testament and the god of the new testament are two different gods. You’ve got the murdering genocidal god vs the follow Jesus or go to hell god. Oh, maybe they’re not so different…

And are you saying people came into contact with evil so they had to commit evil like murder and genocide? That’s a great principle you’ve got there “If you come into contact with murder and genocide, go commit some murder and genocide to purify yourselves.�?

Chaupoline

January 23, 2006, 03:00 AM

If they created it knowing that you would suffer from it through no fault of your own, you could sue them in court. This is called justice.

Justice is a concept which pertains to desired fairness. Justice appeals to an emotional response. The world is not fair. The world just is. It is not designed to promote human comfort. Human society is designed to promote human comfort. People working together try to make things better for everyone else. Justice and fairness are human concepts that are designed to promote human alliances. We gain support for our group when our group makes things better for everyone in the group. Now as has occurred throughout human recorded history, there are groups of people that have promoted the comfort of their group of humans by exploiting other groups of humans. This is where the concept of morality and fairness comes in, because these are human interactions. Fairness does not apply with Man vs Nature. It only matters with Man vs Man.

Then why do we have teachers in school? Wouldn't kids strive for more knowledge without the constant reminder of a teacher who already knows all that stuff?

The reason that teachers exist is to pass on collective knowledge to new generations. God does not need a successor, because God is eternal. People die. Therefore there needs to be a way to prevent the loss of our accumalated knowledge through time. Fortunately we are able to have children whom will replace us when we die to pass this knowledge down to.

God intervened when He told us about Hell.

Heaven and Hell, just like Karma, is a concept of fairness, and a desire for justice. I do not believe that heaven and hell are separate from this planet. They are concepts about the consequences of our actions.

Your argument is almost flawless. Only one change need be made: remove the word immediate (since absolute destruction/eternal torture is sufficient threat to achieve the same effect as immediacy).

Having made that minor change, I must completely and totally agree with your argument. It is in fact the case that we are dependent on God's will, since obeying it is the only way to escape hell; and therefore, as you logically demonstrate, This is an evil God.

If we go to a separate place God is evil. If we are reborn on this planet and heaven and hell are abstract concepts of the effect that our lives had on the planet, then God is good.

Your entire post treats human beings as a corporate entity, not as individuals. But collective punishment (bombing the whole village because some of them are terrorists) is recognized as immoral by even the US Army. Even our military understands that justice requires people be treated as individuals whenever possible. Even soldiers understand that denying another person their moral rights simply because they belong to a different class is wrong.

Humanity is a corporate entity. You can see it in our design. We have a finite lifespan. We are able to bear children. We have two sexes that are required to work together to reproduce. We form families, towns, counties, and nations. Since we categorize everything, people become another category.

The reason why the US Army is concerned about individual rights of people is because they want the support of not just the occupied civilian population, but future occupied civilian populations. The finite number of souls matter to God and not the human vessels that carry them as long as the species will continue for the souls to be reborn into.

Wads4

January 23, 2006, 06:49 AM

Yahzi

January 23, 2006, 11:28 AM

The fact that humans have to define God means that humans invented him. Something which is already pre-existent does not need defining-it just IS.
Um. Gravity needs defining. In fact, I've seen thicker books than the Bible devoted to defining and explaining gravity.

To define something means to invent it in our language. It doesn't have any impact on that thing's status in the real world.

Yahzi

January 23, 2006, 11:41 AM

Justice is a concept which pertains to desired fairness.
Justice appeals to an emotional response. The world is not fair. The world just is.
You have just described a world in which fairness is purely a human concept.

This means God is not fair.

Your God is not fair. That means he is not just, merciful, or loving.

Again, I have to say: the PoE does not disprove an evil god.

The reason that teachers exist is to pass on collective knowledge to new generations.
Your response does not address the comment I made. You argued that the best way to teach morality was not through teachers. I asked why that wasn't the best way to teach any subject. Your response implies that, in fact, teaching is the best way to "pass on our collective knowledge" of morality. Thus, your response is either irrelevant or contradictory to your original claim/

Heaven and Hell, just like Karma, is a concept of fairness, and a desire for justice. I do not believe that heaven and hell are separate from this planet. They are concepts about the consequences of our actions.
They are rather clearly defined as separate from this planet. Your re-definition of them as non-eternal reduces Xianity from a literal claim about the real world to a metaphorical allegory (and a poor one at that).

I do not think you can defend religion by claiming it to be a badly-written story. Indeed, that's exactly what we are accusing it of being: if you think that is what is, you are on our side of the argument.

If we go to a separate place God is evil. If we are reborn on this planet and heaven and hell are abstract concepts of the effect that our lives had on the planet, then God is good.
This claim is unsupported.

Humanity is a corporate entity.
I cannot argue morality and ethics with a person who denies his own status as a moral agent.

To assert that moral rights can be trumped simply by assigning the person to a category is the opposite of justice. I mean, if humanity is just a category, then the Jews really did kill Christ, and it's ok to punish them for it. You've just excused the Nazi program.

The reason why the US Army is concerned about individual rights of people is because they want the support of not just the occupied civilian population, but future occupied civilian populations. The finite number of souls matter to God and not the human vessels that carry them as long as the species will continue for the souls to be reborn into.
In other words, the US Army wants to be thought of as moral, just and fair; and God does not.

Over and over you argue that God is unjust and uncaring. Your defense of the idea of God is incompatible with a good, loving, just God.

Again, I agree: if God exists, he must be evil. Or at least amoral.

Copper Scroll

January 23, 2006, 12:44 PM

I don't want God to micromanage me; God wants it. If God didn't demand that I follow his will in every instance, then I wouldn't have to care what he thought. It is practically (nearly) impossible for us to follow God's will in every instance. We are not perfect. Mistakes (both intentional sins and unintentional ones) are nearly inevitable. One must repent for one's sins and commit oneself to righteousness as a way of minimizing one's mistakes.

If you are saying some people must die so God's plan can be fuilfilled, God is using people as means instead of ends. This would be true if we were not free to choice whether or not to participate in God's plan. But we do have that choice.

What constrains our freedom of choice is the threat of hell that accompanies those orders from God. Again, it is the knowledge of hell that destroys our freedom of choice, not the knowledge of God's will.
Our the freedom of our choices is always compromised by the consequences of each option, as long as we know what those consequences are or might be. You say the revelation of hell (which, you say, gives us the knowledge of hell) is unnecessary. I argue that the notion of hell (death; nonexistence; unbeing) follows naturally from the notion of an omnipotent God with a plan for this world. Whether Buddhists or Jews believe in a thing or place called "hell" is irrelevant. Buddhists and Jews do believe in a thing called death.

It is the norm. Churches all across the planet are tearing themselves apart over the moral status of homosexuality. The moral status of homosexuality does not confront most of us as a problem most of the time.

It is a fact of life that we all, at some point or another, face moral dilemmas that are ambigous and confusing. Sure, but not most of the time. (I'm not trying to simply write these dilemmas off. They do deserve our attention. But it unfair to characterize human society as completely morally confused.)

Earlier (and indeed, later in this very post) you stated that if people just honestly looked at the issue, it would be clear. You have repeatedly said it's not that hard. ...usually.

You have repeatedly stated that "lack of knoweldge" of ethics is due to a failure of personal integrity; a failure to honestly look at the issue. I have not.

God doesn't excuse - he just sends you to hell. When did I say this?

Given the lengths God has gone to to avoid people simply doing the right thing without having to think about it, why on Earth would you think it appropriate to teach children to do the right thing out of habit? You seem to have unnecessarily tagged the idea of "habit" with unconsciousness and lack of intention. Habit is simply a pattern of behavior. When I first noticed the difference between how I used this word and how you viewed it, I cleared it up by saying that I was speaking of habit in the sense of "character-building"--which, it appears, you have ignored. A person acquires certain traits through a pattern of thoughts of actions in a certain situation. A person build her character through habit. Does this necessarily mean that a person builds this pattern without thinking? without intention? without consciousness? No.
Again, you seem to use words (now it is habit) in ways that no one else does; worse, in ways that imply their exact opposites. This is a baseless charge. You have not proven that I misused any word, but you persist in accusing me of doing this repeatedly. I was clear in how I used the word "habit". You start semantic wars as a distraction from real issues.
In your terms, when a child does right out of habit, it is the habit's doing. A person's habits makes them who they are. The habit of drug abuse makes a drug abuser. The habit of giving away money makes a philanthropist. A person is her habits.
I referred you to a book (Raising self-reliant children in a self-indulgent world) which is short, well-written, and very engaging. I strongly recommend you read it, because it will expose you to another point of view in ways that I lack the time, space, and eloquence to do so. So I can assume you have kids?
The Bible has space to warn us about wearing mixed fibers, eating shellfish, and hundreds of other petty details, but it doesn't have space to warn us about the big-ticket items like slavery? The Bible was written in certain places at certain times.

And you know perfectly well that the book does not need infinite pages, because it does not need to warn us against every specific atrocity. Sure it would. There are an infinite number of atrocities that we could commit.

Rather, it needs to establish guidelines that rule out atrocities by principle. It needs to teach us how to figure out righteousness on our own. Luke 10:25-27.

And if someone says He does not, if someone asserts they have recieved no revelations because their dilemma still traps them in an unbearable place and they have no idea how to get out - your only response is to call them a liar? Where do you get this? How does not knowing make someone a liar? (This particular question was not well-thought out. :) )

You still have not explained: how can our choice be free once we know about hell? You have excused hell as motivational, It is a natural consequence of sin.
obscure, We are ignorant of death, of nonexistence, of unbeing.
not that bad, When did I say that? You never addressed the question of your own previous conclusion that my theology wouldn't allow anyone to go to hell. Do you remember that?
but you have not explained how our choice can be free when we are threatened with dire consequences for choosing wrongly. We make free choices all the time while knowledgable of the consequences of those choices. By making a choice, we either accept or ignore what consequences it could store for us. Some accept the consequence of hell (like Christopher on the Sopranos, who--like many--is more concerned with the motivations and immediacy of life "in the flesh") while others ignore it (attending soley to the base motivations of material life, like Pauly who ultimately says "fuck it") or don't really believe in it (like Tony on the Sopranos, who tells Christopher there's no such thing) or pay it no mind (material life does provide enough to keep our minds occupied).

The short answer is that heaven/hell (the long-term consequences of our thoughts and actions) appear as a finite set of motivations out of many more that pull us in various directions through life. Our task is to choose among that practically infinite set of options.

Chaupoline

January 23, 2006, 12:49 PM

You have just described a world in which fairness is purely a human concept.

This means God is not fair.

Your God is not fair. That means he is not just, merciful, or loving.

Again, I have to say: the PoE does not disprove an evil god.

You do not have to be fair to be just, merciful, or loving.

Your response does not address the comment I made. You argued that the best way to teach morality was not through teachers. I asked why that wasn't the best way to teach any subject. Your response implies that, in fact, teaching is the best way to "pass on our collective knowledge" of morality. Thus, your response is either irrelevant or contradictory to your original claim.

No I was talking about intentions. God wants us to be self sufficient. He wants us act in a just and moral way and look after each other. His intentions are not to give us the knowledge. His intentions are to create a world where we will learn about the world for ourselves. He wants us to work together to find solutions for our problems. God is just in his intentions because he doesn't want us to be dependent on him for our purpose in life. He is merciful because he respects us, and he is loving because he wants us to succeed.

They are rather clearly defined as separate from this planet. Your re-definition of them as non-eternal reduces Xianity from a literal claim about the real world to a metaphorical allegory (and a poor one at that).

I do not think you can defend religion by claiming it to be a badly-written story. Indeed, that's exactly what we are accusing it of being: if you think that is what is, you are on our side of the argument.

My claim is that God is just and exists. There are a lot of writings about the Abrahamic God, and not all of them were adopted as canon. I am defending religon by defining what my beliefs about the religion are.

I cannot argue morality and ethics with a person who denies his own status as a moral agent.

To assert that moral rights can be trumped simply by assigning the person to a category is the opposite of justice. I mean, if humanity is just a category, then the Jews really did kill Christ, and it's ok to punish them for it. You've just excused the Nazi program.

No, justice is a concept subjective to the views of the perceiver based upon their own comfort levels. Blame is a bullshit concept as well. Focussing blame diverts your attention from the actual problem. Good and evil are categories that we associate with things that are subjective to our comfort levels. The only reason that the Nazi program is considered evil is because the outside observer's comfort level is threatened by its existence and the outside observer triumphed over the Nazi program. The Jews and Romans created and supported a system that executed Christ. That system has not existed for a long time.

In American society today, there are numerous smaller groups that make up the larger national group. 5% of Americans own over half of the nations wealth. These Elites are one group that controls the much larger National group. They are concerned with their comfort levels. To entice the other groups they appeal to their comfort levels as well, but their comfort comes first. They have their categories of good and evil which are diffrent from the categories of good and evil for someone that lives in the projects. Both sides are trying to increase their comfort levels and therefore are doing good in their own eyes. However, in the current capitalist system there is always a winner and a loser. Someone always suffers because we increase our comfort levels through the suffering of other people. Good and evil are imaginary concepts stated by people that are looking for support from other people. Blame is a lie designed to allow us to ignore reality and still feel good.

In other words, the US Army wants to be thought of as moral, just and fair; and God does not.

Over and over you argue that God is unjust and uncaring. Your defense of the idea of God is incompatible with a good, loving, just God.

Again, I agree: if God exists, he must be evil. Or at least amoral.

The US Army wants to be thought of as moral, just, and fair. That is how they get support and exert power. God is moral, just, and fair but does not care if it is thought of as moral, just and fair. God does not need our support to maintain power.

Copper Scroll

January 23, 2006, 12:50 PM

Thanks for telling us the god of the old testament and the god of the new testament are two different gods. No, I said, essentially, that some books in the OT characterize (or describe) God differently than some books in the NT. I did not say they are two different Gods.

And are you saying people came into contact with evil so they had to commit evil like murder and genocide? No.

Bloodnf

January 23, 2006, 04:38 PM

Yahzi

January 23, 2006, 08:25 PM

It is practically (nearly) impossible for us to follow God's will in every instance. We are not perfect. Mistakes (both intentional sins and unintentional ones) are nearly inevitable. One must repent for one's sins and commit oneself to righteousness as a way of minimizing one's mistakes.
Does that seem fair? If mistakes are inevitable by design, then whose fault is that? Why should I have to repent for flaws I have no power over?

This would be true if we were not free to choice whether or not to participate in God's plan. But we do have that choice.
Saying that we have the same choice Satan has is saying that we don't have a free choice, according to your terminology. And you've established that our choice must be free. So the contradiction remains.

You say the revelation of hell (which, you say, gives us the knowledge of hell) is unnecessary.
More than unnecessary; it is fatal to the notion that we have a free choice.

I argue that the notion of hell (death; nonexistence; unbeing) follows naturally from the notion of an omnipotent God with a plan for this world. Whether Buddhists or Jews believe in a thing or place called "hell" is irrelevant.
It is relevant, because Buddhists and Jews believe in an omnipotent God with a plan for this world, but do not believe in Hell. Ergo, the notion of hell does not follow - unless you wish to argue that Buddhists and Jews are irrational.

The moral status of homosexuality does not confront most of us as a problem most of the time.
I think that is known by the official Latin term of "cop-out."

But it unfair to characterize human society as completely morally confused.
I agree, and I don't mean to characterize it as such. I merely intend to point out that the sticking points are large enough, and often enough, that one cannot claim there are no serious sticking points.

I have not.
Then how is it people of good will and integrity can disagree so totally?

You can't have it both ways - you can't have it so easy any idiot can figure it out, and not automatically classify those that can't figure it out as idiots.

And if it's not so easy any idiot can figure it out, then you've got God playing puzzle games and sending innocent (albiet stupid) people to Hell.

You seem to have unnecessarily tagged the idea of "habit" with unconsciousness and lack of intention.
That's what the word means to the rest of us. You're going to have to stop using that word, in this way, because it's too confusing.

Try re-writing your original argument, but replacing "habit" with some other word. Then we will both have a fresh chance to understand what it means.

(Indeed, this is an excellent technique to apply whenever anyone is confused by anything.)

You start semantic wars as a distraction from real issues.
I don't start them as a distraction. They are the distraction.

But it's not an insurmountable problem. As long as you're willing to keep trying to make yourself clear by finding different words, I'll keep trying to figure out what you mean.

A person's habits makes them who they are.
I would say their principles are important, too. If you are using habit to include principles (i.e. consciously chosen actions) then the word seems to diluted to be helpful.

So I can assume you have kids?
Not of my own. But I am not wholly unfamilar with that population.

The Bible was written in certain places at certain times.
That's not an answer. You said the Bible didn't have space to address all crimes. I pointed out a crime it specifically addressed, but failed to condemn.

Sure it would. There are an infinite number of atrocities that we could commit.
Luke 10:25-27.
First you argue that all atrocities must be specifically ruled out.

Then you cite a passage as a guiding principle that suffices instead of ruling out all atrocities literally.

You've just refuted your own argument.

Where do you get this? How does not knowing make someone a liar? (This particular question was not well-thought out. :) )
Because you repeatedly assert that it is not that hard to know. Ergo, if someone tries real hard, and claims not to know, they must be lying.

It is a natural consequence of sin.
It is an imposed consequence of sin. Imposed by God. When Adam ate the apple, he did not fall out of Eden; he was driven out by God, who put up guards to keep him from coming back in.

We are ignorant of death, of nonexistence, of unbeing.
I argue that the notion of hell (death; nonexistence; unbeing) follows naturally from the notion of an omnipotent God with a plan for this world.
How can we be ignorant of death if it follows naturally?

You have again contradicted yourself. This means the argument you sought to refute still stands, and needs to be addressed in a non-contradictory way.

The short answer is that heaven/hell (the long-term consequences of our thoughts and actions) appear as a finite set of motivations out of many more that pull us in various directions through life. Our task is to choose among that practically infinite set of options.
What kind of idiot would turn down eternal bliss for a few years of happiness on Earth? You'd have to be a moron. Which leads to the questoin: why does God punish morons? Even our society does not punish the mentally disabled for what they cannot help. Why does God?

Wads4

January 24, 2006, 02:43 AM

Um. Gravity needs defining. In fact, I've seen thicker books than the Bible devoted to defining and explaining gravity.

To define something means to invent it in our language. It doesn't have any impact on that thing's status in the real world.

True, gravity needs defining,-that is to say, formalising in a language form,-but it is still pre-existing, although undescribed. We should therefore expect the same of God,-it should be equally obvious that he is pre-existent,-and to a certain extent it is,--but only because of our ignorance of the world at a particular point in time. The point of science is that it gives naturalistic explanations, which have removed the need for a God-explanation, and this should be taken to be the last word, until and unless God actually shows up.
Until then, God can reasonably be considered a failed hypothesis.

alienward

January 24, 2006, 10:58 AM

No, I said, essentially, that some books in the OT characterize (or describe) God differently than some books in the NT. I did not say they are two different Gods.

As usual, the theist needs to be reminded of what they said. In this case it’s two gods “in direct conflict�? with each other:

Now if someone tried to do this today literally the way it is written in Numbers, I can call it evil because the acts of murder and genocide are in direct conflict with the teachings of Jesus (and just about every ethical standard we have).
So yes, you did say they are two different gods – the Pat Robertson god and the Copper Scroll god.

Copper Scroll

January 24, 2006, 11:40 AM

Does that seem fair? Yes. Actually, I think it's more than fair; it's grace. We don't deserve redemption, but redemption is possible for us through repentence and continuing to strive to commit oneself to righteousness.
If mistakes are inevitable by design, then whose fault is that? Why should I have to repent for flaws I have no power over? That you will have flaws is nearly inevitable, but you do have power over them. You do have the ability to overcome your flaws.

Saying that we have the same choice Satan has is saying that we don't have a free choice, according to your terminology. And you've established that our choice must be free. So the contradiction remains. Our choice situation and the devil's is completely different. I presume the devil's choice is simply to do or not to do. Material life provides for us many more and more complicated options, which makes our choice freer than that of angels.

Then how is it people of good will and integrity can disagree so totally? Because some or all parties involved in this disagreement are speaking from their own subjective, incomplete, and partially ignorant perspectives. Lack of knowledge does not make anyone's will less good.

You can't have it both ways - you can't have it so easy any idiot can figure it out, and not automatically classify those that can't figure it out as idiots. I agrue that it is usually not hard to figure out. Sometimes it is more difficult to figure out what is right and even more difficult to do it.

That's what the word means to the rest of us. Here, you speak for yourself. I think we all can agree that "habit" means "pattern of behavior."
You're going to have to stop using that word, in this way, because it's too confusing. Confusion will arise. When I am confused by you I say "I don't understand you" or "I don't know what you are talking about." For you, apparently, statements like "I don't know" and "I don't understand" are like rhetorical death. So instead you accuse me of misusing words. When I clarify myself and explain further what I meant when I made the original statement, you persist in your accusation that I misused the words--without proof that I did misuse them. This is sad and ridiculous. :(

Not of my own. But I am not wholly unfamilar with that population. So you lean back and dole out parenting advice without being a parent yourself. Hey, if Oprah can do it, I suppose you can too.

First you argue that all atrocities must be specifically ruled out.

Then you cite a passage as a guiding principle that suffices instead of ruling out all atrocities literally.

You've just refuted your own argument. Wo wo wo, hold up! I did not argue that all atrocities must be specifically ruled out. I agrue that ultimately that's what you were asking for. You responded by saying that a generic principle would suffice. I pointed out that generic principle. I am contradicting myself? Please explain.

Because you repeatedly assert that it is not that hard to know. ...usually. (You tend to leave this word out when summing me up.

How can we be ignorant of death if it follows naturally? Death happens all the time all around us. Something is here today and then it's gone tomorrow. So, we know of death as a "natural" occurrence, but we don't know what it means to die. We have not experienced death ourselves (and lived to tell about it).

What kind of idiot would turn down eternal bliss for a few years of happiness on Earth? You'd have to be a moron. It, I believe, is a sadly regular occurrence.

Which leads to the questoin: why does God punish morons? Even our society does not punish the mentally disabled for what they cannot help. Why does God? If the government used such a broad definition of mental disability, the prisons would be almost empty.

God's plan is for us to sustain ourselves and our world in perfect peace. This is a noble goal. Anything that causes strife and works to disrupt the fulfillment of this plan must die in order for that to happen. I don't see a problem.

Copper Scroll

January 24, 2006, 11:45 AM

So yes, you did say they are two different gods. How? The quote does not suffice, because I never said explicitly anything about two Gods. If you are saying that I implied this, then you'll have to explain where the implication is.

Yahzi

January 24, 2006, 12:40 PM

Yes. Actually, I think it's more than fair; it's grace. We don't deserve redemption, but redemption is possible for us through repentence and continuing to strive to commit oneself to righteousness.
You haven't addressed the question. You established that God designed us to be flawed. So why do we have to accept responsiblity for design flaws that were never in our power to fix?

If we have inevitable flaws, it is because that is what God willed. How can we be expected to rise above God's will?

That you will have flaws is nearly inevitable, but you do have power over them. You do have the ability to overcome your flaws.
If they are under our power and can be overcome, then they are not inevitable.

Again, your confusing choice of words leads to contradictions. You want to say our flaws are inescapable while asserting they can be escaped.

Our choice situation and the devil's is completely different. I presume the devil's choice is simply to do or not to do. Material life provides for us many more and more complicated options, which makes our choice freer than that of angels.
In other words, God makes our choice harder and more confusing (which is what you call freerer). But, if our choice is made harder and more confusing, isn't it logically necessary that some people will fail because it is hard and confusing, rather than because they wanted to fail?

You can't have it both ways: it can't be easy enough for everyone to get in, while still being hard enough to allow some people to fail.

Now lets assume you believe that people who disagree with you on God's will are rational and honest (I have argued you do not, but you keep claiming you do, so for this moment we will pretend it is true). This means that some people are honestly confused about God's will. This means some people will make the wrong choice out of honest confusion - confusion God put there.

Why does God arrange it so that honest and good people go to hell?

Because some or all parties involved in this disagreement are speaking from their own subjective, incomplete, and partially ignorant perspectives. Lack of knowledge does not make anyone's will less good.
Now you are conceding that knowledge of God's will is limited by our perspectives. This contradicts your claim that God's will is plain and obvious.

I agrue that it is usually not hard to figure out. Sometimes it is more difficult to figure out what is right and even more difficult to do it.
You can't have it both ways: you can't have knowledge of God's will so obvious everyone should understand it and something honest and intelligent people can differ about. Consider gravity: honest and intelligent people do not differ about it in any way you would find significant (that is, on any level comparable to the Xian disagreement over homosexuality or even pre-tribulation theory). And gravity is not actually that damn obvious, when you really study it.

You keep doing this: trying to have it both ways. You want flaws to be inevitable but still our personal responsibility. You want knowledge of God's will to be obvious but still so obscured that people can't agree on it. You want habits to be automatic, unthinking behaviour but also conscious, chosen behaviour.

This is where the semantic confusion comes in. You use a word that solves the particular problem you are faced with at the moment, without seeming to realize that it contradicts the rest of your position. Then, when it is brought to your attention that your answer has just refuted your previous argument, you start complaining that we've misunderstood the word.

We have not misunderstood the word: we understood it perfectly, and so did you, which is why you used it - because it accurately described your response to the argument at hand. The confusion comes when you try to reconcile what you said with what you said earlier.

For you, apparently, statements like "I don't know" and "I don't understand" are like rhetorical death.
In a logical argument, they are. When you are asserting a claim, and someone asks you how you know that claim is true, and you say, "I don't know," you have lost the argument. You can no longer claim your position is logically justified, because "I don't know" is not a logical justification.

So you lean back and dole out parenting advice without being a parent yourself.
The level of parenting advice I have doled out is equvalent to asserting "2+2=4." One does not have to be a math teacher to assert such a simple truth.

In any case, I referred you to the source of my advice: a book written by people who are both parents and PH'Ds in psychology. If you wish to attack the advice on credentials, you will need to attack theirs.

I did not argue that all atrocities must be specifically ruled out. I agrue that ultimately that's what you were asking for. You responded by saying that a generic principle would suffice. I pointed out that generic principle. I am contradicting myself? Please explain.
The contradiction remains. Observe that I never explicitly demanded a specfic enumeration of atrocities - that was your response. I asserted the Bible failed to warn against rather large and obvious crimes. You responded by claiming that my charge was tantamount to demanding the Bible specifically list each atrocity. I refuted your response by saying a generic principle would suffice. You then switched tracks and provided a generic principle.

Now the problem is this: if your real defense was that the Bible provided a generic principle, then why did you ever raise the objection that I was asking for a enumerated list?

I made a charge. You responded to it, and when that response was shot down, you responded to it in a contradictory way. Your two responses contradict each other. This gives the distinct impression that you are just firing out responses at random, hoping some of them will stick. Rather than explaining a carefully-thought-out position.

...usually.
Saying that God's will is usually clear, and only occasionally so obscure that innocent people go to hell, is not an adequate defense.

So, we know of death as a "natural" occurrence, but we don't know what it means to die.
Is the contradiction apparent yet?

In any case, full and complete knowledge of death is not necessary - all that is required is that we know enough about death to fear it. Not only is your argument incoherent here, it is irrelevant: we don't need to have a thourough knowledge of hell to have the threat of hell destroy our freedom: we just need to know enough about hell to fear it. Which you clearly assert we do know - indeed, your argument that knowledge of heaven and hell is necessary to driving our moral growth presumes that we fear hell and desire heaven.

So the contradiction remains: the knowledge of hell (even the limited knowledge of it we have) is enough to destroy our freedom of choice.

It, I believe, is a sadly regular occurrence.
Once again, you have asserted that people who disagree with you - who make different choices - are idiots. You have observed the world, seen people who live differently than you, and presumed their stupidity. The idea that they might be honestly confused is not allowed to enter your consciousness, because that destroys the entire edifice of your theology.

So to defend your silent God, you must presume the idiocy of billions. And even that is not defense enough: what kind of God produces so many idiots, and then punishes them for the flaws they are not responsible for?

If the government used such a broad definition of mental disability, the prisons would be almost empty.
In the original comment, I was clearly referring to mentally handicapped people. Therefore, this comment by you does not apply. All it does is reinforce the established fact that you think anyone who disagrees with you does so out of stupidity or dishonesty - never out of mere confusion.

God's plan is for us to sustain ourselves and our world in perfect peace. This is a noble goal. Anything that causes strife and works to disrupt the fulfillment of this plan must die in order for that to happen. I don't see a problem.
Hitler's plan was for Germany to sustain itself in perfect prosperity. Surely, a noble goal. Anything that caused strife and worked to disrupt that plan had to die in order for that to happen. The problem was the death of 9,000,000 people. But apparently you don't see that as a problem.

If you don't see any alternative to killing people who disagree with you, If you don't see the problem with killing people to advance a plan, if you don't see the problem with killing people to make your life better, if you don't see the problem with killing people who might be merely confused, then the moral character of your position is laid clear.

Your God thinks that killing people is an acceptable method of getting His way, and you agree with him.

Yahzi

January 24, 2006, 12:46 PM

We should therefore expect the same of God,-it should be equally obvious that he is pre-existent,-and to a certain extent it is,--but only because of our ignorance of the world at a particular point in time.
In other words, if God existed, then definitions of Him should converge over time, as more and more knowledge piles up. Sort of like shooting at an invisible elephant in front of a wall: eventually, with enough shots, the outline of the elephant begins to emerge. And at least we know some places where the elephant can't be. This is how science works.

On the other hand, definitions of God seem to diverge over time and observation.

Copper Scroll

January 24, 2006, 01:25 PM

You haven't addressed the question. You established that God designed us to be flawed. So why do we have to accept responsiblity for design flaws that were never in our power to fix? We are given the power to fix our flaws.

If we have inevitable flaws, it is because that is what God willed. How can we be expected to rise above God's will? The flaws themselves are not inevitable. It is nearly inevitable that we will have some flaws. There are important differences between those two statements.

In other words, God makes our choice harder and more confusing (which is what you call freerer). But, if our choice is made harder and more confusing, isn't it logically necessary that some people will fail because it is hard and confusing, rather than because they wanted to fail? No.

Why does God arrange it so that honest and good people go to hell? If the person is "good", she will repent of her sins and commit herself to righteousness. She will not "go to hell". (You still, btw, have not answered your own previous assertion that my theology does not allow anyone to "go to hell.")

Now you are conceding that knowledge of God's will is limited by our perspectives. This contradicts your claim that God's will is plain and obvious. Again, you have subtracted "usually" from my statement. Next time, I won't even bother responding when you do this. It's a bad habit.

In a logical argument, they are. When you are asserting a claim, and someone asks you how you know that claim is true, and you say, "I don't know," you have lost the argument. I hope you are not implying that this has happened in our discussion. Questions I've said "I don't know" to certainly were not "How do you know that claim is true?".

Now the problem is this: if your real defense was that the Bible provided a generic principle, then why did you ever raise the objection that I was asking for a enumerated list? Are you serious? You asked why the Bible did not address a specific atrocity? You didn't ask for a general principle until afterwards. The competitive posture you've assumed here is really interfering with the flow of this conversation. You say you refute, you destroy, you demolish, you shoot down etc. etc. when really all you do is respond and reply. It would help if you got rid of that chip on your shoulder.

Saying that God's will is usually clear, and only occasionally so obscure that innocent people go to hell, is not an adequate defense. I never said anything about innocent people "going to hell".

So the contradiction remains: the knowledge of hell (even the limited knowledge of it we have) is enough to destroy our freedom of choice. You have not really considered what the limitation on our knowledge of death/hell/unbeing/nonexistence entails. It means that it doesn't take a "moron" to choose it if that person is motivated by material pleasure (for example).

Once again, you have asserted that people who disagree with you - who make different choices - are idiots. You chose to use the words "idiots" and "morons". What I acknowledged was that people do things they know are wrong and risk hell. You called those people "idiots" and "morons".

I suppose I won't hear the end of this, but I don't care. I see your game; it's the same one you've used since the very beginning. You try eliciting insensitive responses from me whenever you get a chance. This has the be your biggest stretch yet.

You have observed the world, seen people who live differently than you, and presumed their stupidity. yada yada yada

Hitler's plan was for Germany to sustain itself in perfect prosperity. Surely, a noble goal. Anything that caused strife and worked to disrupt that plan had to die in order for that to happen. The problem was the death of 9,000,000 people. But apparently you don't see that as a problem. I don't know about "prosperity". I said peace, and genocide is not a very peaceful thing to do. <edited>

Let me append Bree's edit here. I had previously said something insulting out of anger. What I should have said is that I am insulted by your implication that I am fascist and find no problem with killing people.

Your God thinks that killing people is an acceptable method of getting His way, and you agree with him. Let me ask you: What should we do with people who we (you and I) agree are unethical and whose actions (from their lack of ethics) affect us negatively? (Don't bother responding with "Well, I know we shouldn't kill them!" This is understood, and I agree. Don't tell me what we shouldn't do. Tell me what we should do.)

alienward

January 24, 2006, 01:55 PM

How? The quote does not suffice, because I never said explicitly anything about two Gods. If you are saying that I implied this, then you'll have to explain where the implication is.
By saying they’re “in direct conflict. You’re also constantly saying things that are “in direct conflict�? with other theists’ claims about gods like claiming it's “mostly monotheistic�? while others say it's completely monotheistic, or polytheistic, and claiming it can't know everything while other calim it can.

Chaupoline

January 24, 2006, 02:15 PM

By saying they’re “in direct conflict. You’re also constantly saying things that are “in direct conflict�? with other theists’ claims about gods like claiming it's “mostly monotheistic�? while others say it's completely monotheistic, or polytheistic, and claiming it can't know everything while other calim it can.

Are you saying that she is wrong because other people have a diffrent interpretation of God than she does? If she is wrong, then why is she wrong? The excuse that it conflicts with what other people say is rediculous. What I believe Copper Scroll was saying is that the Bible had diffrent authors over a diffrent period of time. Each of these authors had their own interpretation of God. Much as Thomas Aquinas interpreted God diffrently from Pat Robertson. They are both speaking of the same God. But their speculations of that same God conflict slightly with one another. This doesn't mean that there are multiple Gods. This means that there are diffrent interpretations of God, just as there are diffrent political views.

Copper Scroll

January 24, 2006, 02:17 PM

By saying they’re “in direct conflict. . I said "the acts of murder and genocide are in direct conflict with the teachings of Jesus". Now the author(s) of Numbers attributed certain acts of murder and genocide to God. The authors of the Gospels attribute Jesus' teachings to God. So these two sets of authors have described and characterized God in two different ways (as I said before). This doesn't not mean they were referring to two different Gods.

alienward

January 24, 2006, 03:25 PM

Are you saying that she is wrong because other people have a diffrent interpretation of God than she does? If she is wrong, then why is she wrong? The excuse that it conflicts with what other people say is rediculous. What I believe Copper Scroll was saying is that the Bible had diffrent authors over a diffrent period of time. Each of these authors had their own interpretation of God. Much as Thomas Aquinas interpreted God diffrently from Pat Robertson. They are both speaking of the same God. But their speculations of that same God conflict slightly with one another. This doesn't mean that there are multiple Gods. This means that there are diffrent interpretations of God, just as there are diffrent political views.
No, I can’t say she is wrong, but I can say when she claims a god can’t know everything and another theist claims a god knows everything, either one of them is wrong, or they’re talking about two different gods.

You disagree with many theists on what the bible is. You think its just people’s interpretation of a god while other theists think it’s the word of a god. This just adds to the problem to the complete inability of theists to define a god. With the complete lack of evidence they can’t even agree on what books about a god are, let alone even one single attribute a god or gods.

Comparing a god to political views is useless. You might want to try comparing a god to the current U.S. president. If I say dubya is a lying weasel and you say dubya never lies but is still a weasel, we know one of us is wrong. If I say a god is a lying weasel and you say a god never lies but is still a weasel, we know one of us is wrong, or we're talking about two different gods.

alienward

January 24, 2006, 04:18 PM

I said "the acts of murder and genocide are in direct conflict with the teachings of Jesus". Now the author(s) of Numbers attributed certain acts of murder and genocide to God. The authors of the Gospels attribute Jesus' teachings to God. So these two sets of authors have described and characterized God in two different ways (as I said before). This doesn't not mean they were referring to two different Gods.
We’ve got the “Go commit murder and genocide.�? god and the “I would never say “Go commit murder and genocide.�?�? god. One is wrong or they’re referring to two different gods. You theists are tripping up on some pretty simple logic here. And I’ve been keeping out the third option which is they’re both wrong because there is no god or gods.

Copper Scroll

January 24, 2006, 04:48 PM

We’ve got the “Go commit murder and genocide.�? god and the “I would never say “Go commit murder and genocide.�?�? god. One is wrong or they’re referring to two different gods. You theists are tripping up on some pretty simple logic here.
I ain't tripping. You just proved that you tripped. Previously, you argued that the conclusion that there are (at least) two different Gods could be drawn from my statement (about genocide and Jesus). When asked to show how this conclusion is drawn, you switched up and added other possible conclusions (that someone was wrong in their characterization of God).

alienward

January 24, 2006, 05:24 PM

I ain't tripping. You just proved that you tripped. Previously, you argued that the conclusion that there are (at least) two different Gods could be drawn from my statement (about genocide and Jesus). When asked to show how this conclusion is drawn, you switched up and added other possible conclusions (that someone was wrong in their characterization of God).
Since theists tend to have this little problem where they can’t admit that maybe their claims about a god or gods are wrong, I usually start with telling them they and other theists making completely opposite claims about a god or god must be talking about two different gods. Let’s see if you’re open to the possibility of theists actually being wrong about their god claims. Could one of the bible authors be wrong in their “interpretation�? of the “Go commit murder and genocide.�? god or the “I would never say “Go commit murder and genocide."" god?

Yahzi

January 24, 2006, 11:34 PM

We are given the power to fix our flaws.
Are you saying humans can achieve perfection? Surely you do not mean to imply we can fix all our flaws.

The flaws themselves are not inevitable. It is nearly inevitable that we will have some flaws. There are important differences between those two statements.
In the context of this discussion, I can find no meaningful difference. Either we necessarily have flaws or we don't. Either those flaws matter - prevent us from going to heaven - or they don't. You have to pick one.

No.
Your saying "No" to a logical argument is not a logical refutation. You can say "No" to 2+2=4 all day long, but at the end of the day you're still wrong.

You have not explained how our choice is harder, yet the end result of making that choice harder is indistinguishable from not making it harder.

If the person is "good", she will repent of her sins and commit herself to righteousness.
You seem to have missed the long conversation on the problems of figuring out what righteousness is.

(You still, btw, have not answered your own previous assertion that my theology does not allow anyone to "go to hell.")
My inability to describe your theology in rational and coherent terms is not really my problem.

Again, you have subtracted "usually" from my statement.
Because it doesn't matter. Why in the world do you think it matters? If your car usually doesn't explode and kill you, does that in any way excuse the one time it does?

If it helps, just try to remember that I agree with you on the usually, and I am trying to talk about the unusual cases.

Your constant repetition of usually makes it sound like you don't care about the unusual cases. But that is not adequate, just as a theology that usually gets people into heaven is not adequate. Especially to the unusual cases.

I hope you are not implying that this has happened in our discussion. Questions I've said "I don't know" to certainly were not "How do you know that claim is true?".
I distinctly recall asking you how to account for something, and your response was "I don't know." You could try the search feature.

Are you serious? You asked why the Bible did not address a specific atrocity? You didn't ask for a general principle until afterwards.
Yes, I am serious, although it is hard to beleive you do not understand what occurred.

If your original position was that the Bible did contain a general principle that made listing each atrocity unnecessary, then why didn't you say so in the first place. Instead, you claimed that it was impossible to list every atrocity. Then I suggested one way to avoid having to list every atrocity was to provide a general principle. Whereupon you provided a general principle. Thus, agreeing that your original defense was utterly unsound. Which causes one to ask, why did you offer it in the first place?

The competitive posture you've assumed here is really interfering with the flow of this conversation.
If by competitive, you mean critical; and if by flow, you mean uinterrupted preaching; then yes.

That's the problem with a critical audience. They ask you to make all of your statements agree with each other. They don't accept contradictions or hand-waving over sticky points. And the problem with the internet is that everything is written down, so you can't just forget what you said before.

You say you refute, you destroy, you demolish, you shoot down etc. etc. when really all you do is respond and reply. It would help if you got rid of that chip on your shoulder.
Not really. I could use whatever metaphors you like, but it won't change the fact that your claims do not add up.

You have not really considered what the limitation on our knowledge of death/hell/unbeing/nonexistence entails. It means that it doesn't take a "moron" to choose it if that person is motivated by material pleasure (for example).
Either hell is a deterrent to rational people, or it is not. If it is only a deterrent to the irrational, then we are all in Satan's position. If it is not only a deterrent to the irrational, then some rational people will not be deterred by it. In which case we are right back to the original question: Why does God make it so rational people will go to hell? And if you say He does not, then you have to explain how hell is not destructive of our free choice.

You keep trying to do both: have hell such a fact of life that any rational person can recognize and avoid it (so that no innocents go to hell), while claiming it is so obscure it does not infringe on our free choice. This is logically contradictory.

Either hell compels us, or it does not. It cannot do both and neither at the same time.

You chose to use the words "idiots" and "morons". What I acknowledged was that people do things they know are wrong and risk hell. You called those people "idiots" and "morons".
You agreed. I was speaking hypothetically; I don't actually think they are morons. You were not speaking hypothetically; you actually do think they are morons.

I suppose I won't hear the end of this, but I don't care. I see your game; it's the same one you've used since the very beginning. You try eliciting insensitive responses from me whenever you get a chance.
No, I do not. What I try to do is show you how your responses are insensitive. I don't expect you to be outraged; I expect you to be disturbed that you were outrageous. And then apologize and say something like, "I didn't mean it that way. There must be something wrong with the way I said it, or with the concept itself, because obviously I can't mean that. Perhaps I will reconsider my position."

But you never do.

yada yada yada
You're not required to respond to every line of my post. If something I said is too trivial or irrelevant to generate a meaningful response, you can just ignore it.

I don't know about "prosperity". I said peace, and genocide is not a very peaceful thing to do.
I agree. Genocide is not peaceful. The problem for you is that the Bible is full of it. When you said God didn't mind that people died, you were right.

What I should have said is that I am insulted by your implication that I am fascist and find no problem with killing people.
I didn't mean to imply you were a fascist - that has other connations. I was only trying to point out what your attitude towards death and progress usually looks like in the real world.

If you don't like the results of your position, perhaps you should change your position.

Let me ask you: What should we do with people who we (you and I) agree are unethical and whose actions (from their lack of ethics) affect us negatively? (Don't bother responding with "Well, I know we shouldn't kill them!" This is understood, and I agree. Don't tell me what we shouldn't do. Tell me what we should do.)
What we should do depends entirely on our power. If we are weak, and the situation is dire (for instance, an armed man has broken into your house at night and attacks you), then killing them is a perfectly rational thing to do.

In more usual situations, where we have a great deal of power (the criminal is handcuffed in a courtroom), then we do more appropriate things. When it is possible for us to affect the criminal postively with our power - through education, counseling, or medicine - then we should do so (at least, as far as society can afford it). When it isn't, then we lock them away so they can't hurt others. (Or kill them, if society can't afford to keep them locked up).

The problem here is in my first sentence: our reaction depends on our power. But God has unlimited power. And that means God's actions cannot depend on power, since he can do anything he wants.

If I could do anything I wanted with criminals, I would fix them so they did not cause harm to others. I might decide that their freedom of choice prevented me from preventing them from harming themselves; I might choose to let them commit self-destructive acts. But under no circumstance would I allow them to harm other people. That's just insane.

Most criminals are broken, usually beyond our power to repair. We are justified in dealing harshly with them because we have no other options. But God has options; it is not necessary for God to deal harshly with anyone; there are no rules that God has to follow; there are no indifferent physical laws that constrain God's actions. God is not limited, and therefore his mercy cannot be limited.

Only the strong can afford mercy; only the weak can justify ruthlessness. Letting people die so your plan will work is called ruthless. If God is not weak, then He cannot justify being ruthless. If He cannot justify his ruthlessness, then He is not just.

The problem is not that you have correctedly identifed the Christian God as a butcher who sculpts humanity like bloody raw meat carved from dying animals; the problem is that you are not horrified by such a God.

ThorsHammer

January 25, 2006, 10:19 AM

What bothers me is that, inspite of the fact that the metaphor is now a shabby piece of cloth, there seems to be a trend backwards toward more and more use of that shabby excuse.

A recent Harris poll showed that more and more Americans are rejecting the theory of evolution despite the enormous amount of evidence accumulating daily in support of that explanation for the variety of organisms (including humans) that have developed.
Yes. I believe we are entering a new dark age. There seems to be a need for people to control what is beyond their understanding, and superstition/gods fits that bill. This is especially true when there is so much that isn't understood. This seems to happen in the wake of scientific strides.

Chaupoline

January 25, 2006, 12:08 PM

No, I can’t say she is wrong, but I can say when she claims a god can’t know everything and another theist claims a god knows everything, either one of them is wrong, or they’re talking about two different gods.

I would have to go with the idea that one of them is wrong. This is not a disqualifier for the existance of God.

You disagree with many theists on what the bible is. You think its just people’s interpretation of a god while other theists think it’s the word of a god. This just adds to the problem to the complete inability of theists to define a god. With the complete lack of evidence they can’t even agree on what books about a god are, let alone even one single attribute a god or gods.

This is metaphysics. The one thing that all theists agree on is that God exists. The details about reality and God's purpose for mankind is where the
debate occurs.

Comparing a god to political views is useless. You might want to try comparing a god to the current U.S. president. If I say dubya is a lying weasel and you say dubya never lies but is still a weasel, we know one of us is wrong. If I say a god is a lying weasel and you say a god never lies but is still a weasel, we know one of us is wrong, or we're talking about two different gods.

No, you can try to describe the motivations and actions of God, but the value of God comes from attempting to determine the purpose of mankind and the best moral system that will accomplish this purpose.

alienward

January 25, 2006, 01:17 PM

I would have to go with the idea that one of them is wrong. This is not a disqualifier for the existance of God.
It’s not a disqualifier for the existence of two gods either. This is because no one has a single shred of evidence to back up their god claims.

This is metaphysics. The one thing that all theists agree on is that God exists. The details about reality and God's purpose for mankind is where the
debate occurs.
Wrong. All theists do not agree God exists. They only agree they believe in the existence a god or gods. This is because no one has a single shred of evidence to back up their claims there is only one of them or zillions of them.

No, you can try to describe the motivations and actions of God, but the value of God comes from attempting to determine the purpose of mankind and the best moral system that will accomplish this purpose.
Looks like you believe in a god who wants us to guess what he likes, what he does, what humans are supposed to do, and the best behavior to get humans to do what they’re supposed to do. So, what’s your guesses on those four things and what are your guesses based on; a book, a vibe, something else?

Wads4

January 25, 2006, 05:18 PM

In other words, if God existed, then definitions of Him should converge over time, as more and more knowledge piles up. Sort of like shooting at an invisible elephant in front of a wall: eventually, with enough shots, the outline of the elephant begins to emerge. And at least we know some places where the elephant can't be. This is how science works.

On the other hand, definitions of God seem to diverge over time and observation.

I suppose if he actually existed, then such definitions might converge upon a true positive identification of God,- but as they diverge instead,- this seems more to demonstrate a kind of variation of the God-meme resulting in increasing diversification of possible God-definitions.

Wads4

January 25, 2006, 05:36 PM

"In the context of this discussion, I can find no meaningful difference. Either we necessarily have flaws or we don't. Either those flaws matter - prevent us from going to heaven - or they don't. You have to pick one."

If there is a God who designed us, why did he not make us perfect and without flaws? It should be the case that necessarily, we do not have any flaws if we are the product of a perfect being. If we were created with flaws, then that is what God wants, so it is blaphemous to oppose God's will and try and overcome such flaws (and to pray to alter the design also).
If however God is supposed to have given us freewill, we should randomly have flaws in our behaviour,--which we obviously do have, given all the "evil" in the world. So did God pre-determine our form and behaviour, or did he give us freewill? Or more likely, is the whole God concept unanswerable and incoherent?

Chaupoline

January 25, 2006, 08:11 PM

This is because no one has a single shred of evidence to back up their claims there is only one of them or zillions of them.
Natural Selection and the Big Bang point to one initial action that caused the universe. I associate this initial action as intended and and see this creator as the God of Abraham. I believe in one God because everything in the universe is interrelated based on a series of conjoining actions. If there were multiple Gods there would be multiple series of Natural Laws based on the whims of each god's preference.

what he likes

I do not know what God likes. I do not know why God is interested in humanity.

what he does

God created the universe, and has a special interest in humans. God has intervened in the past when outside forces attempted to destroy humanity, specifically the Grigorii of the Book on Enoch.

God made Mankind mortal, because they need to figure out how to prolong their own lives. This propels them to want to learn about their own physiology and what can harm them. The Grigorii counteracted this by interbreeding with humanity and creating the Nephilim. The goal would then be that mortal humans will be bred out of existance for the immortal Nephilim.

God was angry when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil because they attempted to take the easy path to knowedge. Mankind is given the capability to figure things out for themselves. The Nephilim also introduced new information to the Nephilim and humanity. This defeated the purpose of humanity learning everything on their own.

The flood came, destroyed the majority of the Nephilim population and their hold over humanity. Noah and his family were chosen because they didn't possess any angelic blood.

what humans are supposed to do

Genesis 2.18 Then the Lord God said, "It is not right that man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner." 2.19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was it's name.

Man is supposed to learn from his environment. The thing that sets humanity from the other animals is the extent of our brains for abstarct thought. We come up with concepts and categories for everything we observe and their relationship with everything else. The conflict of Man vs Nature is important because we must learn about our environment in order to propser.

Genesis 2.20 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner. 2.22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he had made into a woman and brought her to the man. 2.23 Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh..."

Our brains are also specially designed for language. We learn by bouncing our ideas off of each other. Power comes from the support of others, whether it is freely given or coerced.

Our purpose is to learn everything about the universe. We learn by observing the universe and then by bouncing these ideas off of other humans. Humanity needs to come up with a system that will respect other people and enable us to learn more about the universe.

the best behavior to get humans to do what they’re supposed to do

The best way for humanity to obtain these goals is to be left alone on the planet. [Speculation on my part] There are a finite number of souls that are born and reborn into the human species. [Origien of Alexandria] There is not a separate heaven and hell that people go to when they die, considering that human souls are born and then reborn on this planet. However, our actions make this planet a heaven or hell for our rebirths. God intevenes only when the physical human species is threatened with extinction. Through trial and error, humanity will realize that their best course of action is to work together and respect one another.

alienward

January 26, 2006, 12:26 AM

Natural Selection and the Big Bang point to one initial action that caused the universe. I associate this initial action as intended and and see this creator as the God of Abraham. I believe in one God because everything in the universe is interrelated based on a series of conjoining actions. If there were multiple Gods there would be multiple series of Natural Laws based on the whims of each god's preference.
Wow, I was expecting to look out my window and see a unicorn jumping across my yard after reading that post. Let’s take this one myth at a time.

Please explain what you think natural selection has to do with a cause of the universe. Did you not know the big bang theory only explains the universe began to expand about 13.7 billions years ago? Do you also not know that those two scientific theories you list falsify that Genesis account and expose that God of Abraham as a mythological creature? Is this “conjoining actions�? some kind of astrology thing? Why couldn’t a group of gods make a universe with everything interrelated anyway? Where is this requirement that multiple gods requires multiple series of natural laws?

MrWhy

January 26, 2006, 01:54 AM

Wads4

January 26, 2006, 02:44 AM

"Natural Selection and the Big Bang point to one initial action that caused the universe. I associate this initial action as intended and and see this creator as the God of Abraham. I believe in one God because everything in the universe is interrelated based on a series of conjoining actions. If there were multiple Gods there would be multiple series of Natural Laws based on the whims of each god's preference."

True, everything is interrelated,-but this is precisely because natural selection is the driving force producing convergent evolution, in which everything becomes honed and fine-tuned to everything else. Whereas, if everything was random and unconnected this surely would more likely point in the direction of a creator who can do what he likes. The idea of multiple Gods is just as preposteous as that of one God, especially a tribal deity who adopts some obscure middle eastern ethnic group, and its leader Abraham.
Everything has its own peculiar nature and strives to get ahead of its competitors resulting in natural selection, -in biology obviously, and apparently in cosmology as well. The Big bang was part of a natural sequence in the evolution of an eternal necessary universe.

Would you mind explaining "Grigorii"?--this is a new one on me.

Wads4

January 26, 2006, 02:56 AM

"This is metaphysics. The one thing that all theists agree on is that God exists. The details about reality and God's purpose for mankind is where the
debate occurs."

Surely an actually-existing-God should have made his purpose quite clear to humans, else how are we supposed to discover it and act upon it so as to fulfil his will?
If I am a pupil in a classroom, how will I learn anything if teacher says she has a purpose concerning my education, but won't tell me where to start or what to learn? Even if she dumps a large book (eg the Bible) on my desk, and tells me to get on with it,--what parts of it should I follow?--the loving parts, the genocide parts, or what? Teacher (God) needs to get more involved if she wishes to be taken seriously.

babyboy10777

January 26, 2006, 03:37 AM

What's up? I am a former Atheist who now believes in the GOD of love and standard morals, but not any specific religion. My religion is simple: Think good thoughts, say good things, do good deeds. Just my opinions:

* "All religions claim to worship the correct God(s)" - All religions are attempts to define the same GOD. He can reveal Himself as Jesus, Buddha, Allah, etc, or whatever the individual recognizes as "GOD". "The devil" is the absense of GOD or His shadow so to speak
* "So here is my challange: Define a God" - All positive energy: Love, joy, wisdom, etc; the positive perception of every atom (ie, Adam). Since everyone is unique, our lifestyle defines who "GOD is..." to us. For example, if you are a truly loving person, GOD will be. He is a reflection of your character multiplied by infinity. GOD can't be defined in one sentence, or even an entire book. Everyone has GOD integrated inside. Listen to your good conscience.

May I suggest the book CONVERSATIONS WITH GOD (NEALE WALSH). Neale was a man who wrote an angry letter to GOD, and eventually he had a conversation with GOD. CHECK THIS OUT:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0399142789/qid=1138267581/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-4245569-8199238?n=507846&s=books&v=glance
Click "Search Inside this Book".

WARNING: EXTREME CHRISTIANS HATE THIS BOOK, because it's not CHRISTIAN specific and it contradicts the Bible, but it is perfectly LOGICAL. Many Atheists have read this book and loved it.

Wads4

January 26, 2006, 06:13 AM

"
The flood came, destroyed the majority of the Nephilim population and their hold over humanity. Noah and his family were chosen because they didn't possess any angelic blood."

Where does the Epic of Gilgamesh fit into all this? He and his boy-friend Enkidu, plus Utnapistim who survived the flood,-that is at least three survivors. Was Gilgamesh, king of Uruk a "Nephilim"?
What sort of blood is "angelic blood",-is it "spiritual" blood,-and what group is it,-and what is the origin of an angelic blood group?

Wads4

January 26, 2006, 06:18 AM

babyboy10777

January 26, 2006, 09:24 AM

Hey, Wads. :cool:

First, no one can adequately describe GOD. That is why I said, "GOD can't
be defined in one sentence, or even an entire book, but I try.

* "Why bother with the term "God?" - What name do you suggest? Perhaps you associate the name "GOD" with the hypocrites who falsely represent Him and accuse Him of being hateful, prideful, judgmental, etc, everything GOD is NOT
* "If it is so vague, and can be virtually anything" - GOD's "personality" to you is yours to others. Is this not specific? From our perspective, GOD is like our good conscience. Imagination is reality. Visualizations are dynamically created in the spiritual realm.
* "so long as it's vaguely positive and nice" - I'm referring to positive spiritual energy -- Jesus, angels, unicorns -- however you perceive it, and it can manifest itself to the extent you believe it. I know what you're implying. I used to think the same way. A pastor once told me, "The trees, birds, etc, prove GOD's existence". What a joke. My response was, "Trees prove the existence of GOD as much they do Mickey Mouse"
* "You seem to have introduced only confusion" - Sorry, I assumed knowledge of the spiritual realm. Who gives clear explanations? The hypocrites? "I love you, but one false move, and you will BURN IN HELL"? Or "You MUST BE PERFECT" (implies self-perfection). Is this an acceptable definition of GOD?
* "If you were actually an atheist you might have done better just to remain so" - Well... I was dying at the time, crippled and unable to stand or walk for years, due to my "sins" (ie, writing articles against GOD, condemning souls to Hell). I had no choice but repent, and I'm thankful I did. GOD tells me He loves everyone unconditionally, regardless of race, religion or education, even Atheists. Ignore what the Christians say. Everyone is invited to Heaven.

After YEARS of begging GOD -- "Why won't you answer my prayers?!", "Why do you hate me so much?", "Why won't you do anything for me"?, "Why won't you prove yourself?", "Why create me knowing I would burn in Hell?", "You just can't wait to watch me BURN", etc -- I've recently started experiencing unexplainable phenomenon, such as messages, visions, spiritual encounters, miracles, instant physical healings, etc. Example: "You will awake tommorrow at 3:33PM". Time predictions like this occur all the time. That is why I know it's real.

Chaupoline

January 26, 2006, 10:31 AM

Please explain what you think natural selection has to do with a cause of the universe.

Natural Selection is the effect of an initial action, not the cause.

Did you not know the big bang theory only explains the universe began to expand about 13.7 billions years ago?

Yes, I knew that.

Do you also not know that those two scientific theories you list falsify that Genesis account and expose that God of Abraham as a mythological creature?

No, they don't. The universe is like a clock, and God is the clockmaker. The clockmaker designed the clock to be constantly in motion and to move the hands of the clock itself. The clockmaker can move the hands of the clock himself, but that isn't why the clock was designed. The Big Bang theory states that the universe began with a big bang and began expanding outward. The Big Bang was the initial action. Natural Selection talks about the effect of that initial expansion. God is the intended cause of that initial expansion.

Is this “conjoining actions�? some kind of astrology thing?

Conjoined actions means that in nature everything is interrelated. The moon orbits the Earth, which affects the tides, the tides erode the beaches, etc. There is a consistant pattern for everything. Everything affects everything else in the universe. This is a common theme among Eastern religions.

Why couldn’t a group of gods make a universe with everything interrelated anyway? Where is this requirement that multiple gods requires multiple series of natural laws?

Intention and ego. If there were multiple gods with their multiple intentions and egos reality would be chaotic and there wouldn't be any way that we could make sense of any of it. We would never be able to categorize nature because it would all change based on whichever God's whims were in control at the time. If there was one intention and ego involved for the group and they were unified in their endeavors, then they would still be considered one being. Much as our bodies are made up of a circulatory system, a respiratory system, etc. we are still considered one being, because there is one ego and one intention for us.

alienward

January 26, 2006, 10:54 AM

Would you mind explaining "Grigorii"?--this is a new one on me.
It’s Grigori. In bible mythology they’re a group of fallen angels that mated with human women to create a race of giants known as the Nephilim.

Chaupoline

January 26, 2006, 10:56 AM

Would you mind explaining "Grigorii"?--this is a new one on me.

The Grigorii were a choir of angels also known as the Watchers in the Book of Enoch, a Jewish Apocryphal book. Their story is similar to the story of Prometheus in Greek Mythology. Not only did they interbreed with human women and fathered the Nephilim, but they also taught mankind things that they were not supposed to be taught {again Prometheus and fire.] For their transgressions that were taken to heaven and chained there. In Genesis, there was one sentence devoted to the Nephilim, "that the sons of God found the daughters of Eve attractive and took them as wives, and from them created the giants known as the Nephilm, whom were the heroes of reknown." Gilgamesh was also a story depicting the flood as well as the demigod Nephilim.

What sort of blood is "angelic blood",-is it "spiritual" blood,-and what group is it,-and what is the origin of an angelic blood group?

An angelic bloodline constitutes the descendents of angels.

Surely an actually-existing-God should have made his purpose quite clear to humans, else how are we supposed to discover it and act upon it so as to fulfil his will?
If I am a pupil in a classroom, how will I learn anything if teacher says she has a purpose concerning my education, but won't tell me where to start or what to learn? Even if she dumps a large book (eg the Bible) on my desk, and tells me to get on with it,--what parts of it should I follow?--the loving parts, the genocide parts, or what? Teacher (God) needs to get more involved if she wishes to be taken seriously.

This is the fast track view of God's instruction. God should be directly involved with our education at all times. This is not respectful to humans. Humans would become dependent on God if everything they learn comes directly from God. This apparently is not the intention of God.

Yahzi

January 26, 2006, 12:49 PM

Or more likely, is the whole God concept unanswerable and incoherent?
Another answer is that God is evil, and He's just having a bit of sport.

For some reason, theists never seem to advance that answer.

Yahzi

January 26, 2006, 01:02 PM

Yahzi

January 26, 2006, 01:09 PM

Ignore what the Christians say
But listen to what you have to say?

Why? Because what you have to say is nicer? Well, it is nicer, but that doesn't make it any more true.

After YEARS of begging GOD... I've recently started experiencing unexplainable phenomenon
So you're saying God wants us to suffer self-doubt and fear for years before he'll be nice? Why would I want anything to do with such a creature?

That is why I know it's real.
How do you know you haven't started manufacturing these events yourself, to give yourself some respite from the constant stress of God ignoring you?

You're a microcosm of religion - first you invent a problem (God hates you), then you mistreat yourself until you can't stand it, and invent a solution (God is talking to you). Dude, you've just driven yourself nuts over this.

How about trying this explanation on for size: There is no God. He never spoke to you because He isn't there. You don't need to fear his wrath. You don't need to seek his approval. You're here, on your own, and while that can be scary, it is also liberating. You can preach your doctrine of universal love in complete confidence - it's what you believe, and thats good enough.

Chaupoline

January 26, 2006, 01:57 PM

Another answer is that God is evil, and He's just having a bit of sport.

For some reason, theists never seem to advance that answer.

The God is a masochist theory portrays a reality where we are the eternal victim. Our portrayal of God translates into our portrayal of reality. This is why there are so many diffrent interpretations of God. When you join a religion you are adopting that religious interpretations view of reality. I am an idealist in a way. I believe that humanity can solve all problems and that we should work together to accomplish these goals. As you have stated before, I believe that humanity is a corporate entity and that we are defined by the company that we keep. I don't agree with Nietzche that life is pain and that we are all victims.

The violent disagreement of so many different sects of religion rather implies we can't make sense of it now. :)

It means that there are many diffrent interpretations of reality, not that it is unknowable and chaotic.

Having only one God doesn't help; the whims of an ego are vastly less predictable than laws of physics. You've just explained why miracles are impossible.

I have a hard time believing in a need for miracles, but not in their possibility.

Barefoot Bree

January 26, 2006, 02:07 PM

The violent disagreement of so many different sects of religion rather implies we can't make sense of it now. It means that there are many diffrent interpretations of reality, not that it is unknowable and chaotic.
I fail to see a workable difference between those two. All we really have to go by is our interpretations of reality, there isn't really a single knowable Truth. If those interpretations vary wildly and chaotically, what's the difference between your position and Yahzi's besides semantics?

Stephen T-B

January 26, 2006, 02:46 PM

" I believe that humanity can solve all problems and that we should work together to accomplish these goals." (Chaupoline).

That is certainly very idealistic, and not tremendously realistic because every solution to a problem tends to throw up a whole lot more.
But at least there's a realisation here that if anything is to be changed and improved, we must knuckle down and do it ourselves instead of sitting around praying for god to do it for us.
In this respect, your sentiment reflects the thoughts of many atheists who believe we owe it to our fellow human beings to try to improve their lot.
Praying for god to do it certainly never worked, so while you may be an idealist, at least you understand that we have only ourselves to rely on.

alienward

January 26, 2006, 03:11 PM

God created the universe, and has a special interest in humans. God has intervened in the past when outside forces attempted to destroy humanity, specifically the Grigorii of the Book on Enoch.

God made Mankind mortal, because they need to figure out how to prolong their own lives. This propels them to want to learn about their own physiology and what can harm them. The Grigorii counteracted this by interbreeding with humanity and creating the Nephilim. The goal would then be that mortal humans will be bred out of existance for the immortal Nephilim.

God was angry when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil because they attempted to take the easy path to knowedge. Mankind is given the capability to figure things out for themselves. The Nephilim also introduced new information to the Nephilim and humanity. This defeated the purpose of humanity learning everything on their own.

The flood came, destroyed the majority of the Nephilim population and their hold over humanity. Noah and his family were chosen because they didn't possess any angelic blood.
Umm, who made the Grigori?

The flood story you refer to has been falsified.

alienward

January 26, 2006, 03:19 PM

Genesis 2.18 Then the Lord God said, "It is not right that man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner." 2.19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was it's name.

Man is supposed to learn from his environment. The thing that sets humanity from the other animals is the extent of our brains for abstarct thought. We come up with concepts and categories for everything we observe and their relationship with everything else. The conflict of Man vs Nature is important because we must learn about our environment in order to propser.

Genesis 2.20 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner. 2.22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he had made into a woman and brought her to the man. 2.23 Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh..."

Our brains are also specially designed for language. We learn by bouncing our ideas off of each other. Power comes from the support of others, whether it is freely given or coerced.

Our purpose is to learn everything about the universe. We learn by observing the universe and then by bouncing these ideas off of other humans. Humanity needs to come up with a system that will respect other people and enable us to learn more about the universe.
Genesis has been falsified starting with the first verse by the big bang and natural selection theories and facts supporting them that you mentioned.

Copper Scroll

January 26, 2006, 04:53 PM

Let’s see if you’re open to the possibility of theists actually being wrong about their god claims. I am open to the possibility that anybody can be wrong about anything.

Could one of the bible authors be wrong in their “interpretation�? of the “Go commit murder and genocide.�? god or the “I would never say “Go commit murder and genocide."" god? I agree with Jesus' and the early Christians critique of the nationalistic aspects of Jewish theology.

Copper Scroll

January 26, 2006, 05:38 PM

Are you saying humans can achieve perfection? Surely you do not mean to imply we can fix all our flaws.. I don't know if it's possible to fix all of our flaws, but I know that we should give it a shot... and we do have the power to do that.

In the context of this discussion, I can find no meaningful difference. Either we necessarily have flaws or we don't. The difference is simple: Each moment and instance in our lives presents for us the opportunity to succeed and the opportunity to mess up. Since we enter a nearly infinite number of these moments and instances, we are nearly bound to miss a few, at least. That means that it is nearly inevitable that we will have some flaws--that we will commit some sins. But these flaws can be overcome. We should not give in to them.

Either those flaws matter - prevent us from going to heaven - or they don't. You have to pick one. If we give in to them and let them take us over ---> hell.
Your saying "No" to a logical argument is not a logical refutation. Here's that word again--"refute". This...
In other words, God makes our choice harder and more confusing (which is what you call freerer). But, if our choice is made harder and more confusing, isn't it logically necessary that some people will fail because it is hard and confusing, rather than because they wanted to fail? Does not call for a refutation. It is a question that calls for a "yes" or "no" answer. I gave you my answer. If you want me to elaborate, say "Please elaborate".
You can say "No" to 2+2=4 all day long, but at the end of the day you're still wrong.
I'll take this to mean "Please elaborate" and say that it is not logically necessary that people will fail at a task because it is harder or more confusing than another task.
You have not explained how our choice is harder, yet the end result of making that choice harder is indistinguishable from not making it harder. I don't understand what this means.
You seem to have missed the long conversation on the problems of figuring out what righteousness is. And you have seemed to forgotten the plain reality that the ethics and reason of the various possibilities presented to us in situations is not usually hard to "figure out" at all. (possibly for the same reason you keep extracting "usually" from my statements on this issue?) Because it doesn't matter. Why in the world do you think it matters? If your car usually doesn't explode and kill you, does that in any way excuse the one time it does? The individual mistakes we make don't tend to ruin us in the way you have described. The word "usually" matters because you have a habit of characterizing us as morally confused (generally), which is untrue.
If it helps, just try to remember that I agree with you on the usually, and I am trying to talk about the unusual cases. You overemphasize these unusual cases because you describe them as having the potential to "cast us all in hell fire". It's not like that. God knows our knowledge is incomplete and God is merciful and God forgives. In order to be truly worthy of forgiveness, though, we must repent of the mistakes we are nearly bound to make--which we always have the power to do.
Your constant repetition of usually makes it sound like you don't care about the unusual cases. I don't mean to sound that way (and have said as much). Committing herself to righteousness, I'll agree, will not remove moral dilemmas from a person's life. But if this person is committed to righteousness, she can reasonably apply certain ethical principles (like the biblical ones I pointed out) to help her "figure out" which move(s) is the righteous one(s).

My inability to describe your theology in rational and coherent terms is not really my problem. But you regularly take a shot at anyway. You (and another poster here) previously concluded that my theology would allow for anyone to "go to heaven" because everyone is bound to do something right in their lives. You also took the opposite position--that everyone is bound to "go to hell" because everyone is bound to do something wrong in their lives. I indicated earlier that different "parts" of us have different fates in eternity. Everyone good and vituous has some imperfections, but they do not carry these imperfections with them in eternity. Those imperfections "go to hell". Folks we call "evil" (who probably serve the label) are made up (at least, almost) entirely of imperfections--flaws--sins. If one commits his whole self to fighting God's plan and going against God's will, that self he has committed to evil perishes.

If by competitive, you mean critical; and if by flow, you mean uinterrupted preaching; then yes. Why would I come here if I did not expect critique. Critique is what I came for, and I thank you for what measure of critique you have offered me. But your part of the dialogue often drifts away from critique and toward criticism and nagging and baseless accusations (about grammar, choice of words, etc.) and baseless bragging (about demolishing this and refuting that). This is the problem.

In which case we are right back to the original question: Why does God make it so rational people will go to hell? (I'll note that I don't entirely agree with your choice of words here, but) a person can be rational and still be wrong. A person can rationally make unethical and immoral choices. What makes it possible is the base motivations material life presents us with.

When it is possible for us to affect the criminal postively with our power - through education, counseling, or medicine - then we should do so (at least, as far as society can afford it). As a result of our intervention, then, this "criminal" should change; or we expect him to change. Right? After we are done, what has happened to the old "criminal". He is not a "criminal" anymore. He has changed. Some aspect of him (with hope) have died while the more positive aspects of him continue. You see, some parts of him are gone/nonexistent/dead. Some part of him, thanks in part to our intervention, has been condemned to hell--cast out. (We are back at the "percentage" approach.) Change is a fact of life--that's why I said "heaven" and "hell" are facts of life.

If I could do anything I wanted with criminals, I would fix them so they did not cause harm to others. By fix them, you mean eliminate their flaws--cast them out like demons.

I might choose to let them commit self-destructive acts. If a person's will his free, he chooses his actions and their consequences. So a free person can choose hell; it is a self-destructive act.

Chaupoline

January 26, 2006, 05:43 PM

If there were multiple gods with their multiple intentions and egos reality would be chaotic and there wouldn't be any way that we could make sense of any of it.

The violent disagreement of so many different sects of religion rather implies we can't make sense of it now.

It means that there are many diffrent interpretations of reality, not that it is unknowable and chaotic.

I fail to see a workable difference between those two. All we really have to go by is our interpretations of reality, there isn't really a single knowable Truth. If those interpretations vary wildly and chaotically, what's the difference between your position and Yahzi's besides semantics?

I hope this helps put things in perspective. I originally stated that multiple gods were implausible because of the effect that they would have had on reality. Yahzi countered that our interpretations of god are chaotic and cause violent disagreements. This is why I stated that diffrent interpretations of reality are diffrent from a chaotic reality. Hope this helps.

Genesis has been falsified starting with the first verse by the big bang and natural selection theories and facts supporting them that you mentioned.

The literal translation may have, but not the allegorical translation. Besides I thought you asked me what I believe. Claiming that a book has been falsified doesn't discount the statements that I have made. Focus on what I say, instead of jumping to conclusions about what you think I believe. I had previously stated that I pick and choose passages and books. Or are you of the impression that I am a fundamentalist Christian with my views on reincarnation?

alienward

January 26, 2006, 06:37 PM

The literal translation may have, but not the allegorical translation. Besides I thought you asked me what I believe. Claiming that a book has been falsified doesn't discount the statements that I have made. Focus on what I say, instead of jumping to conclusions about what you think I believe. I had previously stated that I pick and choose passages and books. Or are you of the impression that I am a fundamentalist Christian with my views on reincarnation?
No, I’m only of the impression that you are a theist and don’t care what flavor you are. I’m focusing on you going on about big bangs and natural selection and then quoting any saying stuff like this:

Genesis 2.18 Then the Lord God said, "It is not right that man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner." 2.19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was it's name.

Man is supposed to learn from his environment. The thing that sets humanity from the other animals is the extent of our brains for abstarct thought. We come up with concepts and categories for everything we observe and their relationship with everything else. The conflict of Man vs Nature is important because we must learn about our environment in order to propser.
So you’re saying the parts about the god making man first before the other animals, and the god bringing every type of animal from around the planet to the man are wrong, but the part about the god wanting to know what names the man would call other animals is right?

Genesis 2.20 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner. 2.22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he had made into a woman and brought her to the man. 2.23 Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh..."

Our brains are also specially designed for language. We learn by bouncing our ideas off of each other. Power comes from the support of others, whether it is freely given or coerced.
And here you’re saying you know natural selection is behind the design of our brains and the part about the good making a female human from a human male’s rib is wrong, and your bible quote has absolutely nothing to do your brain thing after it, right?

Our purpose is to learn everything about the universe. We learn by observing the universe and then by bouncing these ideas off of other humans. Humanity needs to come up with a system that will respect other people and enable us to learn more about the universe.
This is just false. If our purpose was to learn about the universe then we’d be able to exist in perhaps a little more than just about 0% of the universe. You’d have more of an argument trying to claim that humans were specifically designed so they can’t discover the universe. We need to replace ourselves with something that lasts a little longer than about 80 years and is made of something other mostly liquid water so we can go discover that universe.

Copper Scroll

January 26, 2006, 06:48 PM

It’s not a disqualifier for the existence of two gods either. This is because no one has a single shred of evidence to back up their god claims. Can I ask what you mean by "evidence"?

Yahzi

January 26, 2006, 08:18 PM

Our portrayal of God translates into our portrayal of reality.
Some of us portray reality without using the concept of god. Like, you know, science. It seems to work pretty well.

I am an idealist in a way.
As much as I agree with your idealism, I have to point that does not make it true. If God is as you have described him, then he is evil, regardless of how much you want him to be good.

I believe that humanity can solve all problems and that we should work together to accomplish these goals.
Then what the heck do we need God for?

I believe that humanity is a corporate entity
Do you understand that this is contradictory to morality? Treating others as objects is the opposite of morality. If you think human beings are merely members of a corporate moral entity, you cannot possibly treat each human being as a moral agent. You have just defined yourself to be unconcerned with morality.

I don't agree with Nietzche that life is pain and that we are all victims.
No, you agee with Stalin that human beings exist to serve the State.

Not really much of an improvement. :(

alienward

January 26, 2006, 08:20 PM

Can I ask what you mean by "evidence"?
It doesn't suprise me that a theist would have to question the meaning of a word like evidence. But it does suprise me a theist would have to ask about it in a forum like this.

Copper Scroll, do you see that quote of me in the post of yours? Just replace that tricky word "evidence" with the phrase "anything objective". Do I need to explain what I mean by "anything objective" or can you understand what I mean now?

Yahzi

January 26, 2006, 09:02 PM

I don't know if it's possible to fix all of our flaws, but I know that we should give it a shot
I never suggested we shouldn't try. I asked if it were possible to fix all of them. Your answer is clearly "no." So how does God decide who goes to hell and who goes to heaven?

If it is by results, then only the lucky people who don't have an inevitable flaw get in. You seem to recognize this as unacceptable (it's not obvious, since Calvinists seem to have no problem with it), and assert that it is intention that gets us to heaven.

But doesn't God know our intentions without having to observe our behaviour? And would there be anything bad about a world in which our intentions were the deciding factor? I mean, why are there accidents? What does God gain from allowing accidents - if all He is interested in is intentions, then why aren't good intentions good enough?

Does not call for a refutation. It is a question that calls for a "yes" or "no" answer.
When someone says, "This position is logically necessary," you must either agree or show how it is not. Simply denying it is inadequate. This is the structure of a logical debate, and you will encounter it over and over on these boards, so you might want to get used to it

it is not logically necessary that people will fail at a task because it is harder or more confusing than another task.
Only in the case where the task is so easy that making it harder still leaves it below the threshold of failure. In other words, if you take a simple task that no one can fail and double it, then you've made it harder, but it could still be a simple task that no one could fail.

But the task we are talking about is not that easy. Many people have failed it, and Satan (whose task was even easier) also failed.

And you have seemed to forgotten the plain reality that the ethics and reason of the various possibilities presented to us in situations is not usually hard to "figure out" at all.
I did not forget this. I have never, at any time, asserted that there is usually a problem. What I have asserted is that sometimes there is a problem, and that is important.

Your response is to say that it's not usually a problem. Ok, fine. What about the times when it is? Why don't those times matter? Stop talking about the usually - I agree with you. The problem is when the usually fails. That is what we are discussing.

You overemphasize these unusual cases because you describe them as having the potential to "cast us all in hell fire". It's not like that. God knows our knowledge is incomplete and God is merciful and God forgives. In order to be truly worthy of forgiveness, though, we must repent of the mistakes we are nearly bound to make--which we always have the power to do.
Again: you have now shifted your argument to intention, instead of result. You are defining the morality of an act by its intention, not its result. Thus, if Hitler was truly sincere in his beliefs, and honestly thought he was doing the right thing, God will forgive him.

One problem with this approach is as I said, above. If God is going to judge people by their intentions, why did he make a world in which intention and result can so easily be so wildly variant?

But if this person is committed to righteousness, she can reasonably apply certain ethical principles (like the biblical ones I pointed out) to help her "figure out" which move(s) is the righteous one(s).
And again you dismiss any possiblity of honest confusion. If someone does not understand what move to make, it is because they are not reasonable. The idea that it is possible for someone to disagree with you and still be a reasonable person just doesn't seem to make a dent.

I assert that people who have different facts than I have can come to conclusions I think are wrong, while still being perfectly reasonable. But you have defined the necessary facts as self-evident; you have asserted God's will can always be devined by honest inquiry; and that logically and necessarily commits you to denouncing anyone who disagrees with you as illogical or dishonest.

I have an out: different facts. You have expressely destroyed your out: people cannot have different facts of God in your theology. Ergo, I can assert other people are reasonable and still wrong, because I can assert they are ignorant of certain facts. But you cannot assert that people are ignorant of God's facts without destroying your entire theology.

Ergo: your theology compels you to call other people liars.

I indicated earlier that different "parts" of us have different fates in eternity.
I'm afraid this view of human nature is too incoherent. Until you can explain how human minds have parts which together form a single personality but are seperate moral agents, we can't make any sense out of this claim.

Everyone good and vituous has some imperfections, but they do not carry these imperfections with them in eternity.
You seem to think that moral flaws are separate pieces, like chrome fenders or window shades, that can be removed from the car without substantially altering it. I assure you, this view has no basis in psychology or modern philosophy.

It also begs the question of why God is going through this entire charade in the first place. If all He wanted was to winnow out the perfections, and discard the flaws, why did He make the flaws in the first place?

But your part of the dialogue often drifts away from critique and toward criticism and nagging and baseless accusations (about grammar, choice of words, etc.) and baseless bragging (about demolishing this and refuting that).
I don't intend to offer critique in an unhelpful way. For instance, what you call "bragging" is how I mark out to you where the important stuff is. If I say, "This seems problematic," that means I'm not sure you're wrong, and maybe it doesn't matter anyway. If I say, "I have just demolished your position," that means I am pretty dang sure you are wrong, and it is absolutely critical to your argument.

However, I must point out that the accusations about choice of words still stands. As I said before, I think you use words that express your position perfectly - they just contradict your previous expression of your position.

A person can rationally make unethical and immoral choices. What makes it possible is the base motivations material life presents us with.
What you are trying to say here is that people can have different "value judgements." For instance, you could choose to hit someone in the nose because you value the pleasure of that more than you disvalue the consequences.

Unfortuantely, this cannot possibly apply to heaven and hell, since heaven is defined as that which all people must necessarily value most, and hell is what everyone disvalues most.

I mean, it's not like a personal preference: it's not like any rational person could say, "No, you go on to heaven without me, I like hell better."

Some aspect of him (with hope) have died while the more positive aspects of him continue.
This language, while creative, is merely confusing. There is no need to invoke death when all you mean is change. Indeed, it is entirely possible (and more likely) that no part of the criminal has died, but merely that parts of him have grown. Criminals are not usually criminals because they have something more than functional people, but usually because they have something less - deficits in impulse control, empathy, rational thinking, emotional stability, self-identity, etc.

The things criminals do are rarely wrong, in and of themselves, but only wrong in context. The assets and abilities that criminals use are the same ones we use, just without mature and wise application. Murderers kill, but so do soldiers.

If a person's will his free, he chooses his actions and their consequences. So a free person can choose hell; it is a self-destructive act.
Sure, fine. But you have not answered why God allows people to choose other-destructive acts.

I can comprehend the idea of God letting Satan choose hell. Perhaps freedom is worth the occasional irrationality. But how can you defend God allowing Satan to choose hell for other people? It is one thing for God to allow us to choose our own punishments; it is something else entirely for God to allow us to inflict punishments on others. Don't you agree?

Copper Scroll

January 26, 2006, 11:21 PM

I never suggested we shouldn't try. I asked if it were possible to fix all of them. Your answer is clearly "no." So how does God decide who goes to hell and who goes to heaven? What contributes to the plan lives. What doesn't dies.

If it is by results, then only the lucky people who don't have an inevitable flaw get in. You seem to recognize this as unacceptable (it's not obvious, since Calvinists seem to have no problem with it), and assert that it is intention that gets us to heaven. When did I assert that? By speaking of repentance? Repentance doesn't mean intention. Repentance is like enlightenment. It's a change of mind and of heart. It is a commitment to right one's wrongs.
Again: you have now shifted your argument to intention, instead of result. Repentance has results.
And again you dismiss any possiblity of honest confusion. If someone does not understand what move to make, it is because they are not reasonable. The idea that it is possible for someone to disagree with you and still be a reasonable person just doesn't seem to make a dent. How does disagreeing with me come into this? I'm not the judge. I'm just as susceptible to choosing the wrong thing as anyone. I don't dismiss the possibility of honest confusion, but honest confusion doesn't dismiss an immoral choice. We are all bound to be confused sometimes, so we are all bound to sin sometimes. We can't take back our thoughts and actions because we were confused then but know better now. What we do is repent. We do what we can to straighten out messes we create--make up for the wrongs we do--and make a commitment to do better.

Now, I never said (and I don't think I even implied) that because a person gets confused sometimes they are unreasonable. But you might want to think about the word "confusion". Doesn't it mean essentially that reason has failed? Here's a definition I found: "a mental state characterized by a lack of clear and orderly thought and behavior". Lacking orderly thought would probably make reason impossible, right?

I'm afraid this view of human nature is too incoherent. Until you can explain how human minds have parts which together form a single personality but are seperate moral agents, we can't make any sense out of this claim. Who is this "we" you keep referring to?

Anyway, human nature is "the shared psychological attributes of humankind that are assumed to be shared by all human beings". Mind is "the higher functions of the brain". Personality is "the complex of all the attributes--behavioral, temperamental, emotional and mental--that characterize a unique individual". I've italized words to show that none of these terms refers to a monolith. They are each complex bodies made up of individual parts.

A moral agent is a compilation of individual thoughts and actions. If this agent strives for perfection, she will commit herself nurturing and building upon those patterns of thought and action (habits; personality traits) that contribute to the fulfillment of God's plan (virtues). And she will commit herself to removing from herself those patterns of thought and action that go against God's plan (sins). The virtues live. The sins die. Since she has committed herself to increasing her virtue and casting out her sins, she will never die. If a person does the opposite--allowing his sins to take over and rule his thoughts and actions--that person will share the fate of his sins. That person is his sins.

You seem to think that moral flaws are separate pieces, like chrome fenders or window shades, that can be removed from the car without substantially altering it. No. The point is that when we remove our sins from ourselves we are substantially altered. We are redeemed. We are better people.

I assure you, this view has no basis in psychology or modern philosophy. You'll have to back this up with more than an assurance.. and more than telling me what kinds of degrees you have.

It also begs the question of why God is going through this entire charade in the first place. If all He wanted was to winnow out the perfections, and discard the flaws, why did He make the flaws in the first place? (Again, I don't agree completely with the choice of words here, but to answer:
) To give you a reason to live. To give you something to do with your life.

However, I must point out that the accusations about choice of words still stands. ...without a base. You have not proven I ever misused a word.

Unfortuantely, this cannot possibly apply to heaven and hell, since heaven is defined as that which all people must necessarily value most, and hell is what everyone disvalues most. Who defines "heaven" and "hell" like that? You and who else? Not me. I did describe my view in a post, but it seems the only thing you remember about that post was me saying that hell is a fact of life.

I mean, it's not like a personal preference: it's not like any rational person could say, "No, you go on to heaven without me, I like hell better." If this person is free and has a mind of his own to evaluate issues, why can't he say this?

This language, while creative, is merely confusing. There is no need to invoke death when all you mean is change. Then why do born again Christians say that they are born again? I spoke to this very same thing in the "hell is a fact of life" post you remember selectively.

Indeed, it is entirely possible (and more likely) that no part of the criminal has died, but merely that parts of him have grown. With hope, whatever virtues he possessed before have grown, but with an equal amount of hope his bad habits have died. If this person ran with a street gang and regularly jumped unsuspecting passers-by, what happens to his old ways while we "reform" him (assuming we have the means to do this)? There are likely parts of him that have grown, but the habit of jumping old ladies is gone.

Criminals are not usually criminals because they have something more than functional people, but usually because they have something less - deficits in impulse control, empathy, rational thinking, emotional stability, self-identity, etc. So the hobby this guy makes out of jumping innocent old people (which, sadly, does happen) is because of a lack of impulse control? What about the impulse itself? I suspect that if I had no impulse control, I'd just be a lot fatter; I wouldn't go around beating up on innocent people. This guy has an impulse that I don't have. Or is it just because this guy also lacks empathy? Are you saying that all negative traits are simply a privation of positive traits?

Sure, fine. But you have not answered why God allows people to choose other-destructive acts. If we are free to do good and evil--and we are social creatures--and our knowledge is imperfect--some people can choose to do evil on others. As a moral person, I cannot excuse this evil, but I can say that it doesn't last. It might take a few seconds for one person to abuse or kill another. It might take months or years for the victim (if he is alive) and his loved ones to recover. But in eternity we do ultimately find peace as long as we do what we can to make it happen in our own lives and in the worlds around us. The short answer is that abuse, exploitation, and murder are consequences of our freedom. We should react to them with a mind to correct those who commit these sins. I doubt we would be as motivated to help each other become better people if these wrongs were never committed. (Again, this is not an excuse for exploitation or violence. I am only offering a constructive way of reacting to them.)

Copper Scroll

January 26, 2006, 11:37 PM

It doesn't suprise me that a theist would have to question the meaning of a word like evidence. But it does suprise me a theist would have to ask about it in a forum like this. An un-called-for dig. Whatever. I have dictionaries. The dictionaries generally say "something that proves the truth of something". If theists didn't have anything that proves (at least for them) the reality of God, we wouldn't have much to say here at all. We wouldn't be theists, I imagine. So, it appears we have different standards for what constitutes "evidence". I am asking you what you mean by "evidence".

Copper Scroll, do you see that quote of me in the post of yours? Just replace that tricky word "evidence" with the phrase "anything objective". Do I need to explain what I mean by "anything objective" or can you understand what I mean now? Yes, now I need you (or anyone here) to explain both. Thank you in advance.

Chaupoline

January 27, 2006, 12:56 AM

So you’re saying the parts about the god making man first before the other animals, and the god bringing every type of animal from around the planet to the man are wrong, but the part about the god wanting to know what names the man would call other animals is right?

Allegory is the representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form. The passages in Genesis aren't a science lesson about what came first. They are descibing the purpose of mankind and one of the things that set us apart from the animals.

Some of us portray reality without using the concept of god. Like, you know, science. It seems to work pretty well.

Using science, define the purpose of life. Using science, define good and evil. These are two aspects of reality that science cannot answer for us.

And here you’re saying you know natural selection is behind the design of our brains and the part about the good making a female human from a human male’s rib is wrong, and your bible quote has absolutely nothing to do your brain thing after it, right?

Again, this allegory.

This is just false. If our purpose was to learn about the universe then we’d be able to exist in perhaps a little more than just about 0% of the universe. You’d have more of an argument trying to claim that humans were specifically designed so they can’t discover the universe. We need to replace ourselves with something that lasts a little longer than about 80 years and is made of something other mostly liquid water so we can go discover that universe.

Are you trying to say that it is impossible for us to learn about anything outside this planet? We are problem solvers. Our bodies are frail, so we figure out a way around it. Our lifespan is brief, but we are able to procreate and therefore pass down our knowledge to our children so that they can take our place and continue to learn more about the universe.

As much as I agree with your idealism, I have to point that does not make it true. If God is as you have described him, then he is evil, regardless of how much you want him to be good.

God's intention is for us to progress as a people. That intention is not evil.

Then what the heck do we need God for?

We don't need God, as was his intention.

Do you understand that this is contradictory to morality? Treating others as objects is the opposite of morality. If you think human beings are merely members of a corporate moral entity, you cannot possibly treat each human being as a moral agent. You have just defined yourself to be unconcerned with morality.

Morality is the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. The question that everyone would then ask themselves is what is right or good conduct. They associate with groups whose standards of right or good conduct appeals to them, whether it is the GOP, ACLU, or NAMBLA. An individual human lives their lives in regards to their standards of morality. The group that they support is the corporate entity, who is designed to fulfill a certain purpose.

No, you agee with Stalin that human beings exist to serve the State.Not really much of an improvement. :(

This is going off the assumption that everyone supports the state. People support the group they associate with. Humanity doesn't serve the state. Humanity serves humanity. Nations come and go with time, but the people and their desire for progression are the constant.

Wads4

January 27, 2006, 02:28 AM

Wads4

January 27, 2006, 02:32 AM

It’s Grigori. In bible mythology they’re a group of fallen angels that mated with human women to create a race of giants known as the Nephilim.

Many thanks,--I thought they were Russians.

Wads4

January 27, 2006, 02:37 AM

The Grigorii were a choir of angels also known as the Watchers in the Book of Enoch, a Jewish Apocryphal book. Their story is similar to the story of Prometheus in Greek Mythology. Not only did they interbreed with human women and fathered the Nephilim, but they also taught mankind things that they were not supposed to be taught {again Prometheus and fire.] For their transgressions that were taken to heaven and chained there. In Genesis, there was one sentence devoted to the Nephilim, "that the sons of God found the daughters of Eve attractive and took them as wives, and from them created the giants known as the Nephilm, whom were the heroes of reknown." Gilgamesh was also a story depicting the flood as well as the demigod Nephilim.

An angelic bloodline constitutes the descendents of angels.

This is the fast track view of God's instruction. God should be directly involved with our education at all times. This is not respectful to humans. Humans would become dependent on God if everything they learn comes directly from God. This apparently is not the intention of God.

Thanks for all above,--though I still can't understand the concept of the absent teacher,-and I thought believers were dependent on God anyway, though this is usually rationalised away by saying "God helps those who help themselves",--though on the other hand, having helped yourself successfully, how do you know a God was ever involved in the first place?

Chaupoline

January 27, 2006, 10:16 AM

how do you know a God was ever involved in the first place?

The universe is a series of consecutive actions. However, it isn't chaotic. It is actually in an orderly pattern. My belief in God stems from my belief that there is order in the universe. My interpretation of who God is derives from how I relate to reality. A person who sees reality as tyranical and evil would then see God as being tyranical and evil.

I thought believers were dependent on God anyway, though this is usually rationalised away by saying "God helps those who help themselves"

Many theists adopt a dependent on God philosophy because it would then translate to a depend on our group mentality, and they could then manipulate their group.

concept of the absent teacher

Learning about the universe is the task set forth for humanity, but it isn't the course. The course is for humanity to act as a group that resepects one another. It is like those group strengthening camps where a company will send its employees out into the wilderness to learn survival skills. They are not there because the company wants them to be able to survive on eating berries and twigs. They are there so that they will bond and work out better together.

alienward

January 27, 2006, 11:00 AM

An un-called-for dig. Whatever. I have dictionaries. The dictionaries generally say "something that proves the truth of something". If theists didn't have anything that proves (at least for them) the reality of God, we wouldn't have much to say here at all. We wouldn't be theists, I imagine. So, it appears we have different standards for what constitutes "evidence". I am asking you what you mean by "evidence".
Sorry, I’m not trying to insult. But when talking to theists about gods it really is very common to get in rat holes over definitions of words like “one�? and “evidence�?.
Yes, now I need you (or anyone here) to explain both. Thank you in advance.
“evidence�?, “anything objective�? – anything anyone else can observe or evaluate and agree supports a proposition. How’s that?

Copper Scroll

January 27, 2006, 11:11 AM

“evidence�?, “anything objective�? – anything anyone else can observe or evaluate and agree supports a proposition. How’s that?
Better, thanks. (1. on evidence) So if two theists agree that a certain phenomenon is owed to God and is therefore proof of God's existence, then they are right? This phenomenon is evidence of God's existence?

(2. on objectivity) Objectivity is determined by a consensus of subjectivities, or is objective reality independent of subjective realities?

Yahzi

January 27, 2006, 01:37 PM

Repentance doesn't mean intention.
So if someone does something intentionally bad, and then repents, it's ok?

What if that person happens to die before they repent? It's too late then?

Imagine two identical twins that together murder a guy for his money. On the way to the bank, a truck hits one of them by accident and kills him. The other one, recognizing the hand of God, repents on the spot, gives back the money, and becomes a True Christian.

When he dies, he goes to heaven. And his twin brother -who would have done the same, if the truck had hit the other one - goes to hell.

How is this fair?

It's a change of mind and of heart. It is a commitment to right one's wrongs.
One has to know what those wrongs are. What about people who sincerely beleive homosexuality is a chosen vice? They disown their son because he is gay, and then die before science can explain to them that they were wrong. Do they go to heaven or hell?

Again, if it were obvious in all cases what we should do, you might have a point. But it isn't, and so those unusual cases must be dealt with fairly.

How does disagreeing with me come into this?
Because you have repeatedly stated that God's will can be discerned by honest inquiry. Ergo, a failure to divine God's will necessitates dishonest inquiry.

They are each complex bodies made up of individual parts... A moral agent is a compilation of individual thoughts and actions.
But individual parts are not moral agents. Nor are they personalties; thoutghts cannot "die" and actions cannot "go to hell."

If a person does the opposite--allowing his sins to take over and rule his thoughts and actions--that person will share the fate of his sins.
Now you are asserting that a person and his sins are different entities.

You'll have to back this up with more than an assurance.
I am unable to educate you on the state of modern psychology and philosophy. However, I will pont out that above you defined moral agents as compilations, which demonstrates you are already aware of the basic concepts I was referring to.

What you need to do is explain how a "sin" can be a moral agent that experiences death and damnation, given that you have defined moral agents as compilations and sins as individual thoughts/actions. In other words, your definitions have once again contradicted themselves.

To give you a reason to live. To give you something to do with your life.
So God made our lives harder so we would have something to do? Thanks for nothing, God.

Furthermore, what about heaven? If life as a perfect object is so damn boring God felt it necessary to give us hardships like the Holocaust, then what are you going to do for the rest of eternity?

You have defined striving for perfection as the point of our life. Which begs the question, what is the point of our existance after we have achieved perfection in Heaven?

You have not proven I ever misused a word.
What would constitute proof? At one point I resorted to dictionary definitions to show that two phrases were not synonyms even though you expressely used them as such. If that's not proof, then what could I possibly do to demonstrate proof?

Who defines "heaven" and "hell" like that?
Are you asking who defines "heaven" as "that which everyone wants?" I am sorry, but that is what the word means to the rest of us (by us, I mean the English-speaking world). Again, I have to point out another case of equivocation.

Your view of heaven and hell completely conforms to the claims I made. You use heaven as a goal every rational person desires, and hell as what every rational person avoids. Now that that defintion has been turned against you, you want to disavow it: but without retracting your earlier usage of it.

If this person is free and has a mind of his own to evaluate issues, why can't he say this?
Was Satan free and with a mind of his own? Because you characterized Satan's choice as the epitome of irrational.

Now perhaps you will argue that Satan was not free because he knew what hell was. In which case your argument becomes, "Why isn't it rational to choose something you know nothing of?" But if heaven and hell are meaningless labels to us, how do they illuminate God's will?

Once again you want to assert that hell is both a) too obscure to infringe on our freedom, and b) so obvious no one has an excuse for not knowing what it is.

Then why do born again Christians say that they are born again?
You want me to explain Christian theology to you?

When Xians say they are born again, they mean "born in the spirit," instead of merely in the flesh. This whole frou-haha about "Life begins at conception" is just dogma; the original Xian idea was that spiritual life begins at baptism.

The born-again asserts that a new personality has now arisen. This in no way means the old one died. Which is why Xians are twice-born, not once-dead. Baptism is viewed as giving birth, not as killing. The spirit is a complement to the flesh, the final growth of human personality, not a replacement.

With hope, whatever virtues he possessed before have grown, but with an equal amount of hope his bad habits have died.
You did not understand the point I made.

If this person ran with a street gang and regularly jumped unsuspecting passers-by, what happens to his old ways while we "reform" him (assuming we have the means to do this)? There are likely parts of him that have grown, but the habit of jumping old ladies is gone.
Why did he jump old ladies? For money - but his habit of acquring money to feed his family still remains. It's just grown into more useful and effective methods. For thrills - but the same applies. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Habits are not things you "kill."

So the hobby this guy makes out of jumping innocent old people (which, sadly, does happen) is because of a lack of impulse control?
A lack of impulse control is a common feature among criminals, yes.

This guy has an impulse that I don't have.
We all have many impulses every day. Consider the impulses you have when you are angry at the words I write. Do you seriously expect us to believe you have no impulse to violence when you think I have just called you a racist and a fascist?

Little old ladies, with their implicit condemnation of grubby street hoodlums, no doubt invoke a similar impulse. The fact that one of these impulses is more justifiable (that is, no one faults you for being angry at being called a racist), does not in any way change the existance of the impulse.

In particular, your complaints in this case were misdirected: I did not call you a fascist or a racist, but merely pointed out how your statements were identical to those positions. And yet, if we were having this conversation in person, and you had no impulse control, I suspect violence would have occurrred. Even though your impulses would be wholly unjustifiable on a factual level.

So really, the difference between you and a criminal is not how you feel, but what what you do about how you feel.

Are you saying that all negative traits are simply a privation of positive traits?
Not all; but many. I am saying there is a high proportion of criminals who are criminals simply by lacking features we have, not by possessing features we don't.

As a moral person, I cannot excuse this evil,
Then how does God excuse it? If even you, from your limited moral perspective, recognize it as wrong, how does God justify it?

Haven't you just asserted that God is not a moral person?

but I can say that it doesn't last. It might take a few seconds for one person to abuse or kill another. It might take months or years for the victim (if he is alive) and his loved ones to recover. But in eternity we do ultimately find peace as long as we do what we can to make it happen in our own lives and in the worlds around us.
Ok. You know all those insensitive things I said about your views on racism, fascism, etc.? You know outraged you were when I seemed to assert that you were not a good and moral person? You know how much you complained when I pointed out how insenstive you were being to others?

Take all that, and multiply it by about ten billion. That's how insensitive what you just said was.

Copper Scroll to the father that watched his wife and daughters raped by Nazis and then killed by viscious dogs: "Your pain doesn't last."

Copper Scroll to the children dying of pontaine tumors, lying paralyzed in their beds in agony while they waste away: "In the long run, it doesn't matter."

Copper Scroll to every woman that has ever been raped: "You'll get over it."

You have just adopted the classic Christian response to the Problem of Evil: to deny that evil exists. You have just trivialized the pain and suffering of billions of people into insignificance. You sit in your comfortable armchair, in the midst of plenty, surrounded by more food and medicine and pleasure than most of the people in the world have ever known, and you tell those hungry, hurting people that pain doesn't matter.

You are correct, mind you: if eternal bliss follows this mortal life, then no amount of suffering is important. I am not objecting to your logical extrapolation. I am pointing out that your theology requires you to be utterly insensitive to other people's pain. I am pointing out that even the Nazis were more sympathetic to the Jews they butchered than your theology allows you to be to any victim, no matter how innocent.

This is why the doctrine of heaven is so poisonous: because it compels you to ignore pain in this life. Your theology compels you to dismiss rape victims and holocaust survivors as whiners.

The short answer is that abuse, exploitation, and murder are consequences of our freedom.
No they aren't. The police prove that - unless you are asserting that as an American you are not free because you can't rape and murder.

If the police can restrain rape and murder while still preserving our freedom, why can't God? Is God less smart than the cops?

I doubt we would be as motivated to help each other become better people if these wrongs were never committed.
Again with the favorite Christian motif: you can profit from the sufferings of others.

And never mind the complete and utter contradiction with your previous comment - that eternity of bliss renders these acts unimportant! You want to assert that in the long run we won't care, but in the long run these acts were necessary to motivate us. If we know that all pain will fade in the face of eternity of bliss, why do anything about it? Shouldn't we be focused solely on God's will, ignoring all pain and suffering as unimportant? Let the children of Africa go blind from easily preventable diseases - why does it matter? We should spend our money on getting them right with God, so they can have eternity. We should send them Bibles instead of medicine.

(Again, this is not an excuse for exploitation or violence. I am only offering a constructive way of reacting to them.)
It is an excuse for why God allows it. You offered these comments in direct response to how God could allow this. This is your excuse for why God lets it happen.

And while I realize that you put little stock in my advice, I feel compelled to suggest to you that rape victims will not find your comments constructive. The only people for whom your excuses for evil will work are people who do not suffer from the evil in question.

Yahzi

January 27, 2006, 02:02 PM

Using science, define the purpose of life.
The purpose of our genes: to reproduce.

The purpose of our brains: to assist our genes.

The purpose of our minds: what we choose it to be. After all, we don't have to do what our genes want.

Using science, define good and evil.
Good: that which we find fair and helpful. Helpful is an objective measurement: a thing either aids or does not aid us in achieving our goals. Fairness is also objectively measurable, as the "you cut and I choose" method of dividing a cake demonstrates.

These are two aspects of reality that science cannot answer for us.
Not only can science answer them, science provides vastly more useful answers than "Goddidit" or "God wants it that way."

God's intention is for us to progress as a people. That intention is not evil
Ignoring individual's moral rights is evil. Treating a people as a single entity ignroes individual moral rights. Ergo, God's intention is evil.

We don't need God, as was his intention.
Then why did he send Jesus? Why do we even know about God? If we don't need him, then why did He even bother to tell us he exists?

And if we don't need him, then why do we give a damn about what He wants?

Morality is the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
Morality is a biological construct. Even monkeys bitch when they don't get equal pay for equal work.

The group that they support is the corporate entity, who is designed to fulfill a certain purpose.
Since morality is a product of invididual biology, and not merely a social construct, your analogy fails.

This is going off the assumption that everyone supports the state.
Replace "state" with "society". Does it change my original charge?

Indeed, Stalin made it quite clear that his state represented humanity's best interest. The only reason there was a distinction between state and humanity is because not every person was under Stalin's control. Not through lack of trying, though.

The point remains: you demand subjugation of the individual to the interests of the corporate. This policy is indistinguishable from Stalin's in all but the particulars. (Have you ever read "Brave New World?" Perhaps you might want to look into it.)

There is a reason we reject your view of humanity. It is because it produces states like the one Stalin ran. Frankly, I can think of no better reason to reject a theory of human nature than the example of Stalin.

Well, maybe Hitler.

alienward

January 27, 2006, 02:11 PM

Better, thanks. (1. on evidence) So if two theists agree that a certain phenomenon is owed to God and is therefore proof of God's existence, then they are right? This phenomenon is evidence of God's existence?
Ok, so now you’re having trouble with the word anyone. This is your problem though. I’m really not into the word game playing. But we can try another word. How about “everyone�?:

“evidence�?, “anything objective�? – anything everyone else can observe or evaluate and agree supports a proposition.

Do I need to explain how this may exclude people in a coma, and that everyone doesn’t have to observe a certain phenomenon at exactly the same time?

(2. on objectivity) Objectivity is determined by a consensus of subjectivities, or is objective reality independent of subjective realities?

The latter. “anything objective�? – anything based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings. If you must insist on using alternative meanings for words, just go ahead and make up some new ones. Here you might want to go with “subobjective�?.

Copper Scroll

January 27, 2006, 03:03 PM

So if someone does something intentionally bad, and then repents, it's ok? What's ok? The intention that person had for doing "bad" or the person himself? If the person repents, I'll say, he's okay. The "bad" itself is not okay.

What if that person happens to die before they repent? It's too late then? I suppose, but I can't be the judge of that. We do what we can as a society to protect life. We have traffic laws because we don't want people getting hit by trucks in the way you've described.
How is this fair? It doesn't sound fair. Much in life appears unfair. But none of us has an objective look at all that goes on and what results of it.

One has to know what those wrongs are. Most things that we do wrong, we know are wrong. We seek more knowledge and understanding of the things we do wrong that we are not aware of (like when environmentalists tell us that we are abusing the planet or when medical scientists tell us that we are ruining ourselves with our diets).

What about people who sincerely beleive homosexuality is a chosen vice? They disown their son because he is gay, and then die before science can explain to them that they were wrong. Do they go to heaven or hell? I would think their fate would depend on more than their stance on homosexuality and the fact that they "disowned" their son (whatever that might entail). You are asking me to judge when I am not the judge.

Because you have repeatedly stated that God's will can be discerned by honest inquiry. Ergo, a failure to divine God's will necessitates dishonest inquiry. You said something about "disagreeing" with me. I still don't see what I have to do with it.

And I also said that we do often fail in our "honest inquiries".

But individual parts are not moral agents. Nor are they personalties; thoutghts cannot "die" and actions cannot "go to hell." The original term I used was "cease". See post 359.

Now you are asserting that a person and his sins are different entities. It is apparent that you (and others) are not used to approaching the ideas of "heaven" and "hell" the way I understand them. Similarly, people are not used to approaching the idea of the "person" or "moral agent" the way I understand them. A person is essentially her thoughts and actions--virtues and sins. In common discourse, a distinction is made between the person and that person's thoughts and actions. This is the reason why I chose this wording: "If a person does the opposite--allowing his sins to take over and rule his thoughts and actions--that person will share the fate of his sins." By saying that they share the same fate, point here is that this person is his sins. It is definitely not an assertion that they are different entities--no more than saying "Her hair fell out so those braids are gone" asserts that the braids and the hair are different entities.

I am unable to educate you on the state of modern psychology and philosophy. Make sure you blow your nose before you stick it so high up in the air.

What you need to do is explain how a "sin" can be a moral agent that experiences death and damnation, The original term I used was "cease". Essentially death means the same thing. I never used "damnation".

Furthermore, what about heaven? If life as a perfect object is so damn boring God felt it necessary to give us hardships like the Holocaust, then what are you going to do for the rest of eternity? The same as I am doing now--striving for perfection.

You have defined striving for perfection as the point of our life. Which begs the question, what is the point of our existance after we have achieved perfection in Heaven? I suppose in eternity, there is no such thing as "after". Achieving perfection is an eternal process.

What would constitute proof? At one point I resorted to dictionary definitions to show that two phrases were not synonyms even though you expressely used them as such. You accused me of claiming two words were synonyms when I never made that claim. Proof in that case would require showing me when I made that claim. In other cases, I suppose dictionary definitions or proper uses of the words in context would suffice. Like in this case:

Are you asking who defines "heaven" as "that which everyone wants?" I am sorry, but that is what the word means to the rest of us (by us, I mean the English-speaking world). I have read many mythic and mythological definitions of "heaven", and none say anything about satisfying everyone's desires. They generally say "the place where God lives". Prove me wrong before making generic claims about the English-speaking world.

Your view of heaven and hell completely conforms to the claims I made. You use heaven as a goal every rational person desires, and hell as what every rational person avoids. Now that that defintion has been turned against you, you want to disavow it: but without retracting your earlier usage of it. Apparently you have ignored (or never read) the post where I address this issue.

Once again you want to assert that hell is both a) too obscure to infringe on our freedom, and b) so obvious no one has an excuse for not knowing what it is. I have a problem with (b). I don't know what it means to die--to be nonexistent--to cease. All I know is that some things do cease.

Why did he jump old ladies? For money - but his habit of acquring money to feed his family still remains. You made up this motivation and attached it to the situation. No, sadly, some kids like jumping old people (apparently) just to jump old people. Perhaps it is owed to "mob violence".

Not all; but many. How is this determination made? Is impulsiveness a privation of impulse control or vice versa? Is empathy a privation of lack of empathy or vice versa? What about lack of lack of empathy?

There are good habits and bad habits--good thoughts and bad thoughts--good actions and bad actions. Good behavior can help to eliminate bad behavior, but bad behavior can help to eliminate good behavior in the same way. How does one determine which is a privation of which?

I am saying there is a high proportion of criminals who are criminals simply by lacking features we have, not by possessing features we don't. And I am saying criminals do crimes that I don't do. So a criminal does have something (criminal) that I don't have the same way I have other traits he doesn't have.

Then how does God excuse it? If even you, from your limited moral perspective, recognize it as wrong, how does God justify it? I didn't say God excuses or justifies it. I was answering a question that asks why God allows for it to happen. An answer that I provided a long time ago is that we are free.

Take all that, and multiply it by about ten billion. How sweet!
You have just adopted the classic Christian response to the Problem of Evil: to deny that evil exists. Never said that. I have indicated the opposite many times.

you tell those hungry, hurting people that pain doesn't matter. No.

This is why the doctrine of heaven is so poisonous: because it compels you to ignore pain in this life. For some theists, their ideas of what "heaven" is has had this effect, sadly. But this effect requires a disconnect between one's personal actions and the fate of the world. It is not the idea of "heaven" alone. It is a mythological view of what "heaven" is working in conjunction with the implicit message provided through many of our social institutions (often including religious institutions) that says that individual people are insignificant. My theology says that every person's life provides a nearly infinite number of opportunities to do right (aid God in the fulfillment of God's plan), and the choices are made freely instead of being forced on him.

If the police can restrain rape and murder while still preserving our freedom, why can't God? Whose freedom are you referring to? The criminal who rapes and murders?

Again with the favorite Christian motif: you can profit from the sufferings of others. If you don't react to rape and murder with a mind to help limit the occurrence of those acts, then how do you react to them?

If we know that all pain will fade in the face of eternity of bliss, why do anything about it? Because if you have the opportunity to do something about it and you don't as a rule, then you won't be there when "all pain fades" or for "eternity of bliss."

Shouldn't we be focused solely on God's will, ignoring all pain and suffering as unimportant? What is God's will if not to do something about the pain and suffering in us and around us?

And while I realize that you put little stock in my advice, I feel compelled to suggest to you that rape victims will not find your comments constructive. The only people for whom your excuses for evil will work are people who do not suffer from the evil in question. People very, very close to me have been raped. For all you know, I could have been raped, and if I had, I suppose you would not have chosen to word your comments differently because according to you--you have no social skills. If you have no social skills, how can you tell me anything about being insensitive?

Wads4

January 27, 2006, 03:05 PM

The universe is a series of consecutive actions. However, it isn't chaotic. It is actually in an orderly pattern. My belief in God stems from my belief that there is order in the universe. My interpretation of who God is derives from how I relate to reality. A person who sees reality as tyranical and evil would then see God as being tyranical and evil.

There is order in our pocket of the Universe, which has arisen at the expense of increased entropy elsewhere in the Universe, from what I understand of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. Reality is amoral, and independent of human judgements,-it just IS.

Many theists adopt a dependent on God philosophy because it would then translate to a depend on our group mentality, and they could then manipulate their group.

Yes I see human community as a microcosm of some human's belief in a big chief called God, on whom they are dependent and who dispenses law.

Learning about the universe is the task set forth for humanity, but it isn't the course. The course is for humanity to act as a group that resepects one another. It is like those group strengthening camps where a company will send its employees out into the wilderness to learn survival skills. They are not there because the company wants them to be able to survive on eating berries and twigs. They are there so that they will bond and work out better together.

I agree,-we all have to learn how to bond with our social groups,--no man is an island.

Chaupoline

January 27, 2006, 03:13 PM

The purpose of our genes: to reproduce.

The purpose of our brains: to assist our genes.

The purpose of our minds: what we choose it to be. After all, we don't have to do what our genes want.

Good: that which we find fair and helpful. Helpful is an objective measurement: a thing either aids or does not aid us in achieving our goals. Fairness is also objectively measurable, as the "you cut and I choose" method of dividing a cake demonstrates.

Not only can science answer them, science provides vastly more useful answers than "Goddidit" or "God wants it that way."

This is all speculation and does not follow the scientific method. You also danced around the topic of the purpose of life. Science can not answer these questions because they are not tangible questions.

Copper Scroll

January 27, 2006, 03:22 PM

Ok, so now you’re having trouble with the word anyone. This is your problem though. I’m really not into the word game playing. But we can try another word. How about “everyone�?: Well, ET, "anyone" and "everyone" are different words with different meanings and different connotations. Are you asserting that they are synonyms?

“evidence�?, “anything objective�? – anything everyone else can observe or evaluate and agree supports a proposition. This describes a consensus of subjectivities, which you reject below by saying:
The latter. ... that objective reality is independent of subjective realities. You previously said that everyone has to observe, evaluate, and agree on something in order for it to be objective. This would make objectivity dependent upon a convergence of subjectivities. Can you settle the contradiction?

“anything objective�? – anything based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings. If what you mean by "objectivity" is a "consensus of subjectivities", then I answer: What we, as subjective creatures, determine are facts are influenced by our personal beliefs and feelings. If we all share these beliefs and feelings, then our consensus is biased.

If what you mean by "objectivity" is truly independent of subjectivity, then I answer: purely objective truth is outside of our grasp. The best way of determining what is true objectively is for us to come to a consensus about it--but even this is not a perfect way at arriving at objective truth, since we all may be working with incorrect "facts" and irrational "feelings".

If you must insist on using alternative meanings for words, just go ahead and make up some new ones. Here you might want to go with “subobjective�?. (so hostile) Can we agree that what is true and real must be knowable?

Chaupoline

January 27, 2006, 03:51 PM

Ignoring individual's moral rights is evil. Treating a people as a single entity ignroes individual moral rights. Ergo, God's intention is evil.

What is evil? Are nations evil, or are individuals evil? What is a nation?

Why do we even know about God? If we don't need him, then why did He even bother to tell us he exists?

The way the story goes, God intevened in the lives of men to counteract the the influence of the Grigori in human lives.

And if we don't need him, then why do we give a damn about what He wants?

Inspiration. The Buddhists never came into contact with the God of Abraham and they wondered about nature of reality as well. The same goes for the Hindus, the Jains, and the Zorastrians. The speculations that we have about reality are our beliefs about God? We do this not because God wants us to, we do this because we need to in order to define who we are, and why we wake up in the morning. By treating other people with respect and working with them we make our society stronger and improve our world.

Morality is a biological construct. Even monkeys bitch when they don't get equal pay for equal work. Since morality is a product of invididual biology, and not merely a social construct, your analogy fails.

You are joking, right? Morality is a social interaction it has nothing to do with biology. If it did have to do with biology then everyone would act the same and believe the same. It would also justify the death penalty since rehabilitation is impossible. Monkeys have their own form of morality because they have their own form of society.

Replace "state" with "society". Does it change my original charge?

This is going off the assumption that everyone supports society.

Society is the institutions and culture of a distinct self-perpetuating group. The State is made up many diffrent societies and peoples. Everyone supports their society, but not everyone supports the policies of the State.

Indeed, Stalin made it quite clear that his state represented humanity's best interest. The only reason there was a distinction between state and humanity is because not every person was under Stalin's control. Not through lack of trying, though.

Stalin believed that his state represented humanity's best interest. The reason why anyone knows who Stalin is though is because he had the support of other people, and he was recognized as a world leader by other nations.

The point remains: you demand subjugation of the individual to the interests of the corporate. This policy is indistinguishable from Stalin's in all but the particulars. (Have you ever read "Brave New World?" Perhaps you might want to look into it.)

Community, Identity, and Stability? I do not demand subjugation of the individual interests to the corporate. I associate the corporate with the interests of the indivduals that make up the group. A group would not function without the support of others.

If you are going to tell me what I am proposing state where I proposed such a thing, instead of just labeling me as Stalin.

alienward

January 27, 2006, 06:12 PM

Well, ET, "anyone" and "everyone" are different words with different meanings and different connotations. Are you asserting that they are synonyms?
No, I just tried to “everyone�? because you don’t understand what “anyone�? means. You think it means "make sure you pick some theists".

... that objective reality is independent of subjective realities. You previously said that everyone has to observe, evaluate, and agree on something in order for it to be objective. This would make objectivity dependent upon a convergence of subjectivities. Can you settle the contradiction?
There is no contradiction. You’re just trying to change the meaning of the word objective.

If what you mean by "objectivity" is a "consensus of subjectivities", then I answer: What we, as subjective creatures, determine are facts are influenced by our personal beliefs and feelings. If we all share these beliefs and feelings, then our consensus is biased.

If what you mean by "objectivity" is truly independent of subjectivity, then I answer: purely objective truth is outside of our grasp. The best way of determining what is true objectively is for us to come to a consensus about it--but even this is not a perfect way at arriving at objective truth, since we all may be working with incorrect "facts" and irrational "feelings".
Again, it’s “objective�? – not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings.

(so hostile) Can we agree that what is true and real must be knowable?
No.

alienward

January 27, 2006, 06:47 PM

Allegory is the representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form. The passages in Genesis aren't a science lesson about what came first. They are descibing the purpose of mankind and one of the things that set us apart from the animals.
You were quoting from Genesis 2. Here’s another quote from Genesis 2:

This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. (NIV, Gen 2:4)
Perhaps you have some version of the bible that doesn’t say this. But you don’t need it anyway. It’s clear enough reading any version of the bible that the creation story in it was written as an actual account, not some cute little allegory.

Yahzi

January 27, 2006, 07:47 PM

It doesn't sound fair. Much in life appears unfair. But none of us has an objective look at all that goes on and what results of it.
Now it's the "hidden purpose" defense. What seems unfair is really not; it's all in God's plan.

First off, the Bible clearly states that we can know good and evil as God does. Arguing that we can't have complete objective knowledge so as to judge events like the holocaust makes a mockery of God's pronouncement: "I gave you the ability to know right from wrong, but not the ability to ever have enough knowledge to use it." What a cheap shot that would be.

Second off, it is a retreat to nilhism: if we can't judge the holocaust as unfair, then we can't judge anythign as unfair. Asserting that we can't know anything is not a logical defense: it is an admission that your position is useless.

Third, it is back to asserting evil does not exist.

I would think their fate would depend on more than their stance on homosexuality and the fact that they "disowned" their son (whatever that might entail). You are asking me to judge when I am not the judge.
I am asking you to apply your theology. What you are telling me is that your theology is useless because it cannot be applied.

You said something about "disagreeing" with me. I still don't see what I have to do with it.
Because you assert you do have a clue what God wants.

And I also said that we do often fail in our "honest inquiries".
Then how can you dismiss all those people who disagree with you as idiots?

The original term I used was "cease".
The word doesn't matter. The idea does. Habits do not "cease to exist" in anything like the sense that people do.

It is apparent that you (and others) are not used to approaching the ideas of "heaven" and "hell" the way I understand them.
By others, you mean the rest of the planet - as we have established, your perspective on "percentage admission" to heaven is unique. You might want to consider this comment in conjunction with the one above, about honest confusion. When everyone else approaches an idea differently than you, how do you know you are not the one who is confused?

Similarly, people are not used to approaching the idea of the "person" or "moral agent" the way I understand them.
Because your approach is incoherent. Your terminology is confusing, and your ideas are contrary to observed evidence.

A person is essentially her thoughts and actions--virtues and sins.
This view ignores the hardware; people are also partially determined by their biology. Furthermore, thoughts and actions are not normally divided into virtues and sins, since many actions are morally indifferent.

By saying that they share the same fate, point here is that this person is his sins.
Then how can their sins cease without them ceasing?

Either their sins are separate, so they can be removed and go to hell while the person does not, or they are not separate.

This entire approach - of dividing people into virtues and sins - does not seem helpful in any way.

Make sure you blow your nose before you stick it so high up in the air.
The topics we are discussing are well within the grasp of ordinary laymen in the field - of which I am one when it comes to psychology. Accusing me of arrogance does not excuse you from the responsiblity of eductating yourself on what is already known about human nature before you begin speculating.

The same as I am doing now--striving for perfection.
You assert heaven is no different than here? If your sins go to hell, and your virtues go to heaven, how can you strive to improve yourself by elminating your sins once you are in heaven?

You defined improving yourself as eliminating sins, and you defined heaven as the place your sins never get to. So how can you eliminate sins in heaven?

You accused me of claiming two words were synonyms when I never made that claim.
I accused you of using two phrases as synonyms. Arguing that you did not use words as synonyms when the question is over phrases is just nit-picking.

I have read many mythic and mythological definitions of "heaven", and none say anything about satisfying everyone's desires.
None?

Perhaps you should try reading the Bible. Or the Quran. Or... actually... maybe you could point me to descriptions of heaven that do not equate heaven with paradise.

I have a problem with (b). I don't know what it means to die--to be nonexistent--to cease. All I know is that some things do cease.
How can you know some things cease without knowing what it means to cease? Given that you don't know what cease is, how do you distinguish it from sink, expand, or frogulate?

If you don't know what cease means, why do you assume it is bad? How do you know Hell is undesirable if you don't know what it means to die?

You made up this motivation and attached it to the situation. No, sadly, some kids like jumping old people (apparently) just to jump old people.
Perhaps it is owed to "mob violence".
If you would like to speculate on why people do bad things, you will need to study the subject in more depth.

How is this determination made? Is impulsiveness a privation of impulse control or vice versa? Is empathy a privation of lack of empathy or vice versa? What about lack of lack of empathy?
Is the concept of "lack of impulse control" really that difficult?

There are good habits and bad habits--good thoughts and bad thoughts--good actions and bad actions. Good behavior can help to eliminate bad behavior, but bad behavior can help to eliminate good behavior in the same way. How does one determine which is a privation of which?
I gave you a method. I explained how the same responses can be good or bad depending on the circumstances, and how much of moral behaviour depends identifying and responding correctly to circumstances. And your response that you can't figure out what "lack of impulse control" means?

I didn't say God excuses or justifies it. I was answering a question that asks why God allows for it to happen. An answer that I provided a long time ago is that we are free.
The question I asked only two posts ago specifically mentioned freedom. In the distance of two posts you have managed to confuse the issue.

Why does God allow for evil to happen to others? If your answer is freedom, then explain why police stopping crime is not an infringement of freedom.

Never said that. I have indicated the opposite many times.
The quote you provided trivializes evil. Don't take my word for it; ask others.

My theology says that every person's life provides a nearly infinite number of opportunities to do right (aid God in the fulfillment of God's plan), and the choices are made freely instead of being forced on him.
Your theology also says that no amount of suffering on Earth matters. You cannot state a position and then simply disavow the logical extension of that position.

Whose freedom are you referring to? The criminal who rapes and murders?
Yes, of course.

If you don't react to rape and murder with a mind to help limit the occurrence of those acts, then how do you react to them?
How does God react to them? By doing nothing.

Because if you have the opportunity to do something about it and you don't as a rule, then you won't be there when "all pain fades" or for "eternity of bliss."
God has the opportunity. God doesn't do anyting about it as a rule. Does this mean God won't be in heaven?

What is God's will if not to do something about the pain and suffering in us and around us?
Then why doesn't God do anything about it?

Even if we allow the free will defense to justify God letting Satan choose hell, how does that allow God letting Satan hurt other people when even ordinary policeman are charged with protecting the innocent?

People very, very close to me have been raped.
Something close to 1/4 of all women in America have been raped. That pretty much garauntees that people very, very close to all of us have been raped.

For all you know, I could have been raped, and if I had, I suppose you would not have chosen to word your comments differently
That would not excuse your insensitivity to others.

If you have no social skills, how can you tell me anything about being insensitive?
When the guy who has admitted his lack of social skills is astonished at your insensitivity, you might want to reconsider your position.

Chaupoline

January 27, 2006, 07:51 PM

Perhaps you have some version of the bible that doesn’t say this. But you don’t need it anyway. It’s clear enough reading any version of the bible that the creation story in it was written as an actual account, not some cute little allegory.

My interpretation is diffrent from yours then. I see it as allegory. Have you taken to Bible Bashing me because you don't like my interpretation of the Bible?

Bikerman

January 27, 2006, 08:10 PM

The God is a masochist theory portrays a reality where we are the eternal victim. Our portrayal of God translates into our portrayal of reality.

What ? So we base our reality on our perception of God ? Interesting.

This is why there are so many diffrent interpretations of God. When you join a religion you are adopting that religious interpretations view of reality. I am an idealist in a way. I believe that humanity can solve all problems and that we should work together to accomplish these goals. As you have stated before, I believe that humanity is a corporate entity and that we are defined by the company that we keep. I don't agree with Nietzche that life is pain and that we are all victims.

The reality is for most people that when you are born you join a religion and everything that entails. To that extent a religion is an inherited trait. There are some exceptions, but a miniscule percentage...

Copper Scroll

January 27, 2006, 10:48 PM

There is no contradiction. You’re just trying to change the meaning of the word objective. How can I be trying to change the meaning of this word when all I did was ask you to define it. You gave me two contradictory definitions and ignored the contradiction. I'll ask again: Is objectivity determined by a consensus of subjective people or is objectivity independent of the views of subjective people?

No. Then how do you determine what is true and real?

Copper Scroll

January 27, 2006, 11:57 PM

Now it's the "hidden purpose" defense. What seems unfair is really not; it's all in God's plan. I never said there was a hidden purpose. I'll even go as far to say that God's plan doesn't require anyone to be hit by a truck. But if someone is hit by a truck, this will not stop God's plan from being fulfilled.

if we can't judge the holocaust as unfair, The evil of the holocaust, I think, is pretty obvious. It's not a moral dilemma and there is no question about it's "unfairness".

I am asking you to apply your theology. What you are telling me is that your theology is useless because it cannot be applied. No, you asked me to judge people who I don't know and whose decisions and actions you have only described vaguely. If it were me, no, I would not "disown" a child for being homosexual.

The word doesn't matter. The idea does. Habits do not "cease to exist" in anything like the sense that people do. If a person is a compilation of habits, attributes, traits, etc. when one or more of these ceases, a part of that person ceases. The extent to which sins comprise a person is the extent to which that person ceases/dies. The extent to which virtues comprise a person is the extent to which that person lives eternally.

When everyone else approaches an idea differently than you, how do you know you are not the one who is confused? You know well, if you have read my posts in full, that I have acknowledged repeatedly that I am just as prone to "confusion" as anyone. This is the reason why your accusations that I think people who disagree with me are automatically stupid are... well... stupid.

Because your approach is incoherent. Your terminology is confusing, and your ideas are contrary to observed evidence. Well, since you've said it I suppose that I must accept this as truth--nevermind a little thing others in this forum love called "evidence".

This view ignores the hardware; people are also partially determined by their biology. Our biology too is a compilation of processes--actions. And we are far more than our biology. When we do something, it has repercussions that extend far beyond our bodies. When we say something, we have the potential to touch thousands of people we never even formally meet.
Then how can their sins cease without them ceasing? Because "they" are not only their sins. They are also their virtues, which never die.

This entire approach - of dividing people into virtues and sins - does not seem helpful in any way. What do you mean?

Accusing me of arrogance does not excuse you from the responsiblity of eductating yourself on what is already known about human nature before you begin speculating. You are arrogant because you presume that I am not educated about human nature--that I am not educated about philosophy--that I am not educated about child psychology, etc. And now you are arrogant because you assume that calling you arrogant was some sort of cry "Please, teach me, O wise and argumentative one with the philosophy degree!"

You assert heaven is no different than here? If your sins go to hell, and your virtues go to heaven, how can you strive to improve yourself by elminating your sins once you are in heaven? Eternal life is not a place and doesn't happen at a certain time. It is an eternal state of being we (within time) draw ever closer toward (as God plans).

maybe you could point me to descriptions of heaven that do not equate heaven with paradise. Technically, this is the first time "paradise" arises in our discussion. But fine: Go to Google and search "define: heaven". Then search for the word "paradise" on that page. And then look on that page for a definition that says that heaven must be pleasing to everyone--that it is what everyone desires.

Let me take this opportunity to make clear that previously there was no talk of any "heaven" or "hell" in my posts. I had always said "eternal life" and "death" or "ceasing". But as you and other posters persisted in using the words "heaven" and "hell" I took them on. This may lead to unnecessary confusion because so much mythology is attached to our concepts of "heaven" and "hell", leading myself and other theists here to emphasize that these are not really literally "places" within the universe. They are states--statuses. Mythologically, "heaven" is supposed to be the place where God lives. But God is omnipresent. "Hell" is supposed to be the place where God is not. If God is omnipresent that the only "place" God is not is in "nothingness"/nonexistence. Hence the equation between "hell" and death/unbeing/ceasing in my posts.

How can you know some things cease without knowing what it means to cease? Because I see some things here today and gone tomorrow, but have not consciously experienced being "gone".

If you don't know what cease means, why do you assume it is bad? I assume for the same reason most everyone living (of sound mind) assumes death is bad.

How do you know Hell is undesirable if you don't know what it means to die? How do you know death is undesirable?

If you would like to speculate on why people do bad things, you will need to study the subject in more depth. Here's something else I need to hit the books about. I know that money is the motive behind much of the violence in this world, but there is a such thing as "senseless violence"--young guys jumping people waiting for the bus and capturing it on videotape.
Is the concept of "lack of impulse control" really that difficult? No, what's difficult is how you determine which of two opposite traits is the privation of the other? You claimed that (most) bad traits are the privation of certain good traits. The following does not speak to this.
I gave you a method. I explained how the same responses can be good or bad depending on the circumstances, and how much of moral behaviour depends identifying and responding correctly to circumstances. But our ability to and habit in responding correctly or incorrectly to given circumstances makes our traits what they are. A soldier is not considered a murderer because that soldier doesn't kill in the same situations that a murderer kills in. For certain situations, killing is the response for a murderer when for a soldier it might not be. The stimulus-response junction is what makes the murderer a murderer--it is a trait. If the stimulus and response are separated the junction between them--and the trait--is destroyed, even if the response is moved and attached to another stimulus (like war).

If your answer is freedom, then explain why police stopping crime is not an infringement of freedom. It is an infringement on the criminal's freedom. (I am not saying it's wrong. The police are charged with keeping the general population safe and this does often require limiting some people's freedom.)

How does God react to them? By doing nothing. You know that this does not answer the question. I asked you "If you don't react to rape and murder with a mind to help limit the occurrence of those acts, then how do you react to them?" I assume that you don't react to rape and murder with the intention to limit them, because when I said this was a proper response you accused me of "profiting from the suffering of others" and "asserting that evil does not exist".

God has the opportunity. God doesn't do anyting about it as a rule. Does this mean God won't be in heaven? (1) It is our responsibility to care for this world. If God intervenes, it is out of grace. (2) By providing for us the tools we need to correct what is wrong in this world, God is "doing something about it". God's plan is unfolding.

Even if we allow the free will defense to justify God letting Satan choose hell, how does that allow God letting Satan hurt other people when even ordinary policeman are charged with protecting the innocent? I don't blame "the devil" for the bad things people do. I blame us because we are the ones who do it and are the ones who can fix it.

alienward

January 27, 2006, 11:58 PM

My interpretation is diffrent from yours then. I see it as allegory. Have you taken to Bible Bashing me because you don't like my interpretation of the Bible?
If you knew I was a YEC and I said and quoted the exact same thing:

You were quoting from Genesis 2. Here’s another quote from Genesis 2:

This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. (NIV, Gen 2:4)
Perhaps you have some version of the bible that doesn’t say this. But you don’t need it anyway. It’s clear enough reading any version of the bible that the creation story in it was written as an actual account, not some cute little allegory.
would you still play the "Bible Bashing" card?

alienward

January 28, 2006, 12:03 AM

How can I be trying to change the meaning of this word when all I did was ask you to define it. You gave me two contradictory definitions and ignored the contradiction. I'll ask again: Is objectivity determined by a consensus of subjective people or is objectivity independent of the views of subjective people?
I’ll give the same answer again: The latter.

Do all these attempts at distraction mean you don’t have anything objective for the existence of a god or gods?

Then how do you determine what is true and real?
Please take this distracting with objectivity and subjectivity to the Philosophy forum where it belongs. There’s an active thread titled “Is everything subjective?�? you can participate in.

Copper Scroll

January 28, 2006, 12:32 AM

I’ll give the same answer again: The latter. Good. So there is an objective reality independent of every individual person's subjective reality. (Each person, I hope you'll agree, has a subjective reality that is not identical to anyone else's. Your perspective in whole is particular to you and no one else--right?)

And I'll assume that you think the best way we have for determining what is real objectively is for each of us (who are subjective) to agree upon what is real. So consensus of subjectivities is a method we use for arriving at what is really independent of our subjectivities.

Why do we think that this method is any help at all? This method does not guarantee good results. There was a time when most people within certain societies agreed that the planet was flat. There was a consensus that the world was flat, but the consensus was wrong. Why? Because, subjectively the world appeared flat to everyone. Their agreement on what was real was wrong. How did they find out that the world is round? Someone observed it to be round and demonstrated it for others to observe, disproving subjective-yet-popular interpretations of what had been previously observed.

How do we know that some things we accept has real while we think we are being objective (when we are really only agreeing about what we observe subjectively) are not in fact unreal? How do we know that some things we accept as unreal are not in fact real? How do we know that in agreeing on our subjective interpretations of what we perceive that we are even getting close to the mark in trying to find objective reality? How do we even know that there is an objective reality--a reality independent of our subjectivities?

Do all these attempts at distraction mean you don’t have anything objective for the existence of a god or gods? I'm still trying to find the best way of figuring out what is "objective". It's not a distraction; it's a part of the process.
There’s an active thread titled “Is everything subjective?�? you can participate in. Thanks. I'll check it out. But my present line of questioning has everything to do with God's existence.

alienward

January 28, 2006, 10:44 AM

Good. So there is an objective reality independent of every individual person's subjective reality. (Each person, I hope you'll agree, has a subjective reality that is not identical to anyone else's. Your perspective in whole is particular to you and no one else--right?)
No, quarks and leptons are the same to everyone.

And I'll assume that you think the best way we have for determining what is real objectively is for each of us (who are subjective) to agree upon what is real. So consensus of subjectivities is a method we use for arriving at what is really independent of our subjectivities.
Some of us might not know what quarks and leptons are, but we know the world is real.

Why do we think that this method is any help at all? This method does not guarantee good results. There was a time when most people within certain societies agreed that the planet was flat. There was a consensus that the world was flat, but the consensus was wrong. Why? Because, subjectively the world appeared flat to everyone. Their agreement on what was real was wrong. How did they find out that the world is round? Someone observed it to be round and demonstrated it for others to observe, disproving subjective-yet-popular interpretations of what had been previously observed.
Why did they think the world was flat - no one had presented anything objective. How did they find out it was round – something objective was presented.

How do we know that some things we accept has real while we think we are being objective (when we are really only agreeing about what we observe subjectively) are not in fact unreal? How do we know that some things we accept as unreal are not in fact real? How do we know that in agreeing on our subjective interpretations of what we perceive that we are even getting close to the mark in trying to find objective reality? How do we even know that there is an objective reality--a reality independent of our subjectivities?
A theist often goes into apologetic gyrations when they are talking about something like providing anything objective for the existence of a god or gods.

I'm still trying to find the best way of figuring out what is "objective". It's not a distraction; it's a part of the process.
I’ll just take this to mean the answer is no, you don’t have anything objective for the existence of a god or gods.

Copper Scroll

January 28, 2006, 11:28 AM

No, quarks and leptons are the same to everyone.
Quarks and leptons may be a part of your subjective reality, but I was referring to your subjective reality in whole. As a whole system, your subjective reality is particular to you. You are the only one among us who experiences it.

Why did they think the world was flat - no one had presented anything objective. How did they find out it was round – something objective was presented. Not according to your definition of objectivity. You defined objectivity as independent of subjectivity. Information gained perceptually and processed cognitively by a subjective person is subjective. If people looking around and observing that the world is flat is a subjective interpretation of what is perceived, so is sailing around the world as seeing that the world is round--and so is flying into outer space and seeing that the planet is round. We cannot escape subjectivity. As long as our knowledge is limited--as long as there is something that we don't know--our view of reality is biased--at least biased against what we don't know by what we do know.

When presented with this experience of sailing around the world or flying into outer space, everyone can't help but to agree that the world is round. By your definition of objectivity, though, this does not make it objective. It's not likely, but we could all be wrong--like we were wrong before. If one person is subject to illusion because of his lack of knowledge, then we are all subject to illusion as a group because even as a group we don't know everything.

A theist often goes into apologetic gyrations when they are talking about something like providing anything objective for the existence of a god or gods. God hasn't even entered our conversation (yet). And this does not answer the question:

How do we know that some things we accept has real while we think we are being objective (when we are really only agreeing about what we observe subjectively) are not in fact unreal? How do we know that some things we accept as unreal are not in fact real? How do we know that in agreeing on our subjective interpretations of what we perceive that we are even getting close to the mark in trying to find objective reality? How do we even know that there is an objective reality--a reality independent of our subjectivities? My answer would be that we accept these ideas on faith.... faith that we are not deluded; faith that we are not the victims of some grand illusion; faith that intersubjectivity (consensus of subjectivities) can give us insight into what is truly objective; faith that there truly is an objective reality--though none of us can experience it directly.

I’ll just take this to mean the answer is no, you don’t have anything objective for the existence of a god or gods. We are getting closer.

lambsev

January 28, 2006, 11:29 AM

Yahzi

January 28, 2006, 12:08 PM

But if someone is hit by a truck, this will not stop God's plan from being fulfilled.
It will for the person who got hit by the truck.

How does an early death before you can repent serve God's plan?

If it does not serve God's plan, then why does he allow it?

The evil of the holocaust, I think, is pretty obvious. It's not a moral dilemma and there is no question about it's "unfairness".
So you can make moral judgements. So if I point out another holocaust, you would have no trouble identifying it as evil and unfair? Even if that holocaust was caused by God?

[qoute]No, you asked me to judge people who I don't know and whose decisions and actions you have only described vaguely. If it were me, no, I would not "disown" a child for being homosexual.[/quote]
Vaguely? How much more information do you need - is homosexuality moral acceptable or not is a simple question containing all the information required. Your inability to answer it as God would answer it is proof that discerning God's will is not that easy - despite your repeated claims that it is. This is why I keep bringing up homosexuality: because it is a simple example that shows that God's will is obscure in important areas.

The extent to which sins comprise a person is the extent to which that person ceases/dies.
Personalities don't die by degrees - they change into other personalities. Even if they did die by parts, there is a critical limit below which there are not enough parts left to constitute a whole person. And that limit is more than 50%. In other words, you can't divide a person up and get two whole people out of it. So what goes to heaven, and what goes to hell? The person can only go one place.

(I assert as evidence for these claims simple observation. If that is inadequate, you could always refer to some psychology books).

You know well, if you have read my posts in full, that I have acknowledged repeatedly that I am just as prone to "confusion" as anyone.
Actually, you haven't; you have in fact agreed at some point that everyone else is stupid. But that's not important right now. The important point is that you concede that God's will can confuse you in some cases; this means that you cannot defend God's will by claiming it is easy to understand.

So now you have to stop responding to the question, "How do we know what to do?" with the answer, "It's easy enough for anyone to figure out," because you have just conceded you cannot always figure it out.

Well, since you've said it I suppose that I must accept this as truth--nevermind a little thing others in this forum love called "evidence".
Above I have offered some examples.

Our biology too is a compilation of processes--actions. And we are far more than our biology. When we do something, it has repercussions that extend far beyond our bodies. When we say something, we have the potential to touch thousands of people we never even formally meet.
Now you are conflating "biological processes" with "personal actions." Again, your response simply ignores the context of the original question.

You are arrogant because you presume that I am not educated about human nature--that I am not educated about philosophy--that I am not educated about child psychology, etc.
I don't presume it. I respond to what you demonstrate in your posts.

And now you are arrogant because you assume that calling you arrogant was some sort of cry "Please, teach me, O wise and argumentative one with the philosophy degree!"
Remember the deal I offered you? If you didn't question my credentials, I wouldn't bring them up. I though we agreed they weren't relevant. Why do you go on about them so much?

The only reason you know I have a degree is because you presumed I did not understand philosophy. The only reason I offered my credentials was to eliminate your presumption. Not because I expect you to accept everything I say; merely because I expect you to presume I know what I am talking about until demonstrated otherwise.

Eternal life is not a place and doesn't happen at a certain time. It is an eternal state of being we (within time) draw ever closer toward (as God plans).
How do you know this? Where did you get this information from?

Technically, this is the first time "paradise" arises in our discussion.
Paradise and Heaven are generally considered synonyms, particularly in Xian theology.

But fine: Go to Google and search "define: heaven". Then search for the word "paradise" on that page. And then look on that page for a definition that says that heaven must be pleasing to everyone--that it is what everyone desires.
I did. The first defintion was "Eden" - the name of Paradise. One of the other definitions was the name of a movie. From this we conclude that your method is not really helpful.

Let me take this opportunity to make clear that previously there was no talk of any "heaven" or "hell" in my posts. I had always said "eternal life" and "death" or "ceasing".
If you type "define: heaven" into Google, you will see that Christians define Heaven to be the place where they live eternally. Now I realize you have redefined eternal life to not occur in a place or time (begging the question of what life is), but you cannot blame us for not knowing your radical departures from Christian theology before you explain them.

Indeed, your theology seems so dissimilar to Christianity that one wonders why you even accept that label. Wouldn't it be less confusing to others to create a new name for the new theology you have made up?

Mythologically, "heaven" is supposed to be the place where God lives. But God is omnipresent. "Hell" is supposed to be the place where God is not. If God is omnipresent that the only "place" God is not is in "nothingness"/nonexistence. Hence the equation between "hell" and death/unbeing/ceasing in my posts.
That seems sensible to me. Why don't you convince the Christians of it?

I assume for the same reason most everyone living (of sound mind) assumes death is bad.
This is my point: you presume that rational people disvalue death. You've just conceded the point. But your comments before and after this do not seem to acknowledge that.

How do you know death is undesirable?
The same way you do.

I know that money is the motive behind much of the violence in this world, but there is a such thing as "senseless violence"--young guys jumping people waiting for the bus and capturing it on videotape.
It's not actually completely senseless - they do it for specific reasons. They are stupid reasons, but they are reasons. It is senseless in the sense that it doesn't make reasonable sense; not in the sense that it is random and unmotivated. Since we are talking about motivations and impulses, the distinction is relevant.

No, what's difficult is how you determine which of two opposite traits is the privation of the other?
The answer to this question is either a) obvious, or b) requires an education in psychology that I cannot provide.

But our ability to and habit in responding correctly or incorrectly to given circumstances makes our traits what they are.
We are not habits. No one else describes the sum total of our actions, decisions, and purposes as "habits." When you use the word habit, you do not mean "automatic unconcious behaviour," which is what everyone else means by it.

Please reformulate your argument using a word that we can agree on the meaning of.

It is an infringement on the criminal's freedom. (I am not saying it's wrong. The police are charged with keeping the general population safe and this does often require limiting some people's freedom.)
But it's wrong for God to limit some people's freedom to keep the general population safe?

Perhaps you are going to assert God is not charged with that duty. But then how can you claim God loves us? Doesn't love carry with it the charge of keeping your loved one safe (to the extent that you can)?

If God's plan is to let each of us work on eliminating our flaws, then how is this helped by some nutcase shooting me in the middle of it all?

Your God - that ignores us in perfect neglect - is not good, loving, kind, merciful, or just. Now since you have rejected so much of Christian theology, perhaps you reject these traits also. Now would be a good time to say, "I, Copper Scroll, think God is amoral like all other natural phenomona." It would certainly have a large impact on my arguments.

You know that this does not answer the question. I asked you "If you don't react to rape and murder with a mind to help limit the occurrence of those acts, then how do you react to them?" I assume that you don't react to rape and murder with the intention to limit them, because when I said this was a proper response you accused me of "profiting from the suffering of others" and "asserting that evil does not exist".
How did you get there from here?

Of course I think that the proper response to murder is to limit it. My point is that God does not respond to murder by limiting it; thus, by both our understanding, God does not have the proper response.

In other parts of your post you asserted the remaining two claims. Running them together in one confusing comment will not undo what you said, or extricate you from the corner you painted yourself into.

(1) It is our responsibility to care for this world. If God intervenes, it is out of grace.
So if God plays favorites and saves one person on a plane that crashes (and lets the other 300 die), that's ok by you? You think that is fair? Would you think it was fair if I did it?

(2) By providing for us the tools we need to correct what is wrong in this world, God is "doing something about it".
What tools? The tools we need to correct what is wrong in this world were all created by humans. Like medicine, machinery (the primary reason slavery no longer exists), psychology, literacy, fire...

God didn't do anymore than provide us with life and a logically consistent universe. Your position argues that giving Einstein a pencil and a piece of paper is "providing" him with the solution to general relativity.

Heck, you even reject the idea that God gave us the Bible as a cheat-sheet.

God's plan is unfolding.
How do you know? You can't tell the difference between God's plan and being hit by a truck.

I don't blame "the devil" for the bad things people do. I blame us because we are the ones who do it and are the ones who can fix it.
Where in my comment did I say the devil is to blame for bad things people do?

What I said was, why does God allow the devil to cause harm to other people? And by extension, why does God allow people to cause harm to other people? Nowhere did I suggest the devil was to blame for Hitler.

The original question was (with clarifications added):

"Even if we allow the free will defense to justify God letting Satan (or a person) choose hell, how does that allow God letting Satan (or a person) hurt other people when even ordinary policeman are charged with protecting the innocent?"

Could you please answer this question?

Yahzi

January 28, 2006, 12:15 PM

So consensus of subjectivities is a method we use for arriving at what is really independent of our subjectivities.
Not exactly. It's not like we all vote on what we saw. Rather, we all look at something and see if we get the same results. We don't just poll people standing around at random; we set up a very specific experiement, and then each person experiences the same subjective expereince.

In other words, your claim that our subjective expereinces are unique is false. The entire point of a reproducible experiment is that you can obtain the same subjective expereince as the last guy. The way science works is by limiting the variables so that we can in fact share subjective experiences.

Why do we think that this method is any help at all?
Because it works. Given that you're reading this on a computer, that should be kinda self-evident. :D

There was a consensus that the world was flat, but the consensus was wrong. Why?
Because the proper observations had not yet been made. Once principled and systematic observations were introduced, the consensus changed as soon as any one expereinced those observations for themselves.

I'm still trying to find the best way of figuring out what is "objective". It's not a distraction; it's a part of the process.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Phillip K. Dick.

Stephen T-B

January 28, 2006, 02:07 PM

"God is a person, some call Him the one in three and three in one. When dealing with the Person of God we are at the first" (lambsev) .
Oh, right.
Just like the sort of person you meet strolling down the street.
With three heads.
Well, next time I spot this character, I'll know it's God.
Thanks

alienward

January 28, 2006, 03:27 PM

Quarks and leptons may be a part of your subjective reality, but I was referring to your subjective reality in whole. As a whole system, your subjective reality is particular to you. You are the only one among us who experiences it.
Yes, while those quarks and leptons that were once part of a chicken are in my body, I am the only one experiencing them.

Not according to your definition of objectivity. You defined objectivity as independent of subjectivity. Information gained perceptually and processed cognitively by a subjective person is subjective. If people looking around and observing that the world is flat is a subjective interpretation of what is perceived, so is sailing around the world as seeing that the world is round--and so is flying into outer space and seeing that the planet is round. We cannot escape subjectivity. As long as our knowledge is limited--as long as there is something that we don't know--our view of reality is biased--at least biased against what we don't know by what we do know.
We’re talking about anything objective for the existence of a god or gods, not whether they are skinny or fat.

When presented with this experience of sailing around the world or flying into outer space, everyone can't help but to agree that the world is round. By your definition of objectivity, though, this does not make it objective. It's not likely, but we could all be wrong--like we were wrong before. If one person is subject to illusion because of his lack of knowledge, then we are all subject to illusion as a group because even as a group we don't know everything.
Everyone can’t help but agree the world exists either. “Ooooo, but maybe it’s an illusion…�? the theist says.

God hasn't even entered our conversation (yet). And this does not answer the question:
Despite your denial, this entire conversation has been about the fact there is nothing objective for the existence of a god or gods.

My answer would be that we accept these ideas on faith.... faith that we are not deluded; faith that we are not the victims of some grand illusion; faith that intersubjectivity (consensus of subjectivities) can give us insight into what is truly objective; faith that there truly is an objective reality--though none of us can experience it directly.
You can save the "we can’t be sure about the reality of anything it’s all just faith, so you might as well have faith in a god or gods" scam for Sunday school.

We are getting closer.
No, nothing has changed. There is still not a shred of anything objective for the existence of a god or gods.

Chaupoline

January 30, 2006, 06:45 PM

If you knew I was a YEC and I said and quoted the exact same thing would you still play the "Bible Bashing" card?

What is a YEC, and what does that have to do with anything?

Yahzi

January 30, 2006, 07:21 PM

What is a YEC
Young Earth Creationist - one who thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old.

RexT

January 31, 2006, 01:39 AM

All religions claim to worship the correct God(s), but none really explain what they are.

It would be impossible for me to expect you to find an elephant without first providing you with a description of the creature... even if you did happen across an elephant, you would have no way of knowing if it was the creature you were looking for.

So here is my challange: Define a God.

(Merriam-Webster: God n: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality)
Hello to all,
I am new to the forum, but am eager to join this important topic. Like everyone else, I too have thoughts about the nature of God. It seems that whether such exists or not, can only be determined by first providing a universally acceptable definition. I’m not certain I have such a definition, but here is my first attempt.

One way to define God universally is; the invisible nucleus, about which orbits theists, atheists and agnostics in the self-expression of one’s acquired knowledge or gnosis, (the Greek word for spiritual knowledge) and belief. It is impossible even to define oneself without a reference to this nucleus. Thus, God can be defined as the core reference against which rational humans measure their individual gnosis and belief, and through which is articulated artistic as well as rational self-expression. Therefore, the real goal in defining God is to define self, which cannot be completed without some reference to God, positive, negative or neutral.

In this sense, when an individual defines God, they actually define a measurement of themselves that is exactly equal to their level of gnosis compared to their level of belief. This can be described mathematically as, a ratio between the amount of gnosis and belief in the definition of an individual, which thus reveals and defines an individual. Obviously, the ideal measurement would be achieved when one reaches complete gnosis, at this point all belief and all doubt would cease. I will not elaborate here, but belief and doubt are very closely related terms; in that, whenever there is the one the other is always present in an equal amount. Now, to determine the level of one’s gnosis, the measurement is given by the amount of belief or doubt that remains in the definition of the individual. This is self-evident since; if one attains complete gnosis of what God is or is not, there is no more need merely to believe in God or attempt to define God, as we are now doing. (e.g.), it would be rather silly to awaken in heaven and say, “I believe in life after death�?. No, I would say, “I now know there is life after death�?, no more doubt or belief. No other measurement of oneself is more important than the ratio of gnosis to belief; it really does define a person in a very specific way; it defines how well a person knows self; this is a measure of spiritual development. Few ever bother to take such a measure of self, but then few have much idea of what they really are. Most think that they define themselves by labels such as, male-female, husband-wife, young-old, handsome-homely, doctor-lawyer- Indian chief, theist, atheist, agnostic, etc. etc. this is not what we are; it is what we do. AZSuperman made this point quite well in a reply to John A. Broussard.

This is where it gets interesting. Most people tend to describe God as an entity who ...(fill in the blank). This begs the question as to whether someone can become God by performing a said action, whether God (Yahweh, Zeus, Allah, take your pick) existed as some other sort of entity prior to performing said action.

In your description, you listed the following actions:
1. Created the universe
2. Showed his rump to Moses
3. Condoned and encouraged genocide by his chosen people
4. Committed the most extensive killing (by slow, painful drowning) of human beings all on his own

All of the actions can be scripturally verified. But was Yahweh a God before he created the universe? Before he mooned Moses? Before he encouraged genocide? Or before he killed the humans himself?

If God is a classification one earns by performing an action (i.e.: A person becomes a murder by murdering someone; they're not a murderer until after performing the prerequisite action) then you're still left with the question, What is God? What is the entity which has earned the classification of "God?"

What we are beyond the labels is actually identical to what God is beyond
the labels. Thus, achieve gnosis of self and God will become self-evident. At such a state of gnosis, one is no longer theist, atheist or agnostic, but has become Gnostic. Until then, we are correct to continue these types of discussions.

knotted paragon

January 31, 2006, 03:15 AM

Howdy RexT,

Welcome to IIDB and EoG. You have a good idea going, and I like the way you present it. But,

In this sense, when an individual defines God, they actually define a measurement of themselves that is exactly equal to their level of gnosis compared to their level of belief.

From a naturalistic perspective, any fictional or mythic being that has a capitalized name (Daffy Duck, Lucifer, Superman, Odin) yields similar results.

Consider that Odin is the invisible nucleus, about which orbits people who are faithful to Odin, people who lack a belief in Odin, and those who state that there is not enough data available about Odin to make an informed decision on the subject...

this is a measure of spiritual development. Spiritual?

But I do like this:Thus, achieve gnosis of self and God will become self-evident. It has a Buddhist ring to it.

Chaupoline

January 31, 2006, 09:28 AM

If you knew I was a YEC and I said and quoted the exact same thing would you still play the "Bible Bashing" card?

Young Earth Creationist - one who thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Thanks for the info Yahzi. Of course, I would call the Bash card. Everything is dependent upon interpretation. That is why there are so many denominations in Christianity. My position is that we define God with our views of reality.

Chaupoline

January 31, 2006, 10:00 AM

One way to define God universally is; the invisible nucleus, about which orbits theists, atheists and agnostics in the self-expression of one’s acquired knowledge or gnosis, (the Greek word for spiritual knowledge) and belief. It is impossible even to define oneself without a reference to this nucleus.

Gnosticism always sounds too complicated. Is the invisible nucleus our personal interpretation of reality?

Thus, God can be defined as the core reference against which rational humans measure their individual gnosis and belief, and through which is articulated artistic as well as rational self-expression. Therefore, the real goal in defining God is to define self, which cannot be completed without some reference to God, positive, negative or neutral.

So is gnosis our knowledge of reality and belief our unproven speculations (hunches) of reality.

In this sense, when an individual defines God, they actually define a measurement of themselves that is exactly equal to their level of gnosis compared to their level of belief. This can be described mathematically as, a ratio between the amount of gnosis and belief in the definition of an individual, which thus reveals and defines an individual. Obviously, the ideal measurement would be achieved when one reaches complete gnosis, at this point all belief and all doubt would cease.

Complete gnosis would be complete knowledge of reality, which means there would be no need for hunches because we know everything.

I will not elaborate here, but belief and doubt are very closely related terms; in that, whenever there is the one the other is always present in an equal amount.

This is because belief is our hunches of what reality is, and doubt is our hunches of what reality is not.

No other measurement of oneself is more important than the ratio of gnosis to belief; it really does define a person in a very specific way; it defines how well a person knows self; this is a measure of spiritual development. Few ever bother to take such a measure of self, but then few have much idea of what they really are.

Know thyself. Self introspection is key to our development.

Most think that they define themselves by labels such as, male-female, husband-wife, young-old, handsome-homely, doctor-lawyer- Indian chief, theist, atheist, agnostic, etc. etc. this is not what we are; it is what we do. AZSuperman made this point quite well in a reply to John A. Broussard.

This is a Zen concept. Ignore the abstract and see things the way they are.

What we are beyond the labels is actually identical to what God is beyond the labels. Thus, achieve gnosis of self and God will become self-evident. At such a state of gnosis, one is no longer theist, atheist or agnostic, but has become Gnostic. Until then, we are correct to continue these types of discussions.

This would then define atheism as a religion, something which atheists would deny till the day they die.

Yahzi

January 31, 2006, 11:23 AM

This would then define atheism as a religion, something which atheists would deny till the day they die.
Yup.

Religion, after all, does not mean any system of beliefs.

Yahzi

January 31, 2006, 11:41 AM

Thus, God can be defined as the core reference against which rational humans measure their individual gnosis and belief, and through which is articulated artistic as well as rational self-expression.
That's not God. That's human nature. I don't know why you would call it God. That seems like a confusing label for "the essential core of human nature."

Obviously, the ideal measurement would be achieved when one reaches complete gnosis, at this point all belief and all doubt would cease.
That will never happen. Human brains are smaller than the universe. Therefore, they must always represent the external world in approximation, and thus they can never "know" without some doubt.

I will not elaborate here, but belief and doubt are very closely related terms; in that, whenever there is the one the other is always present in an equal amount.
I don't find this assertion to be at all self-evident.

What we are beyond the labels is actually identical to what God is beyond the labels.
What we are beyond labels is unable to talk. That doesn't sound very fun.

At such a state of gnosis, one is no longer theist, atheist or agnostic, but has become Gnostic.
Isn't Gnostic a label?

Chaupoline

January 31, 2006, 01:34 PM

Yup.

Religion, after all, does not mean any system of beliefs.

Yeah, theism is based on belief, and atheism is based on doubt.

Thus, God can be defined as the core reference against which rational humans measure their individual gnosis and belief, and through which is articulated artistic as well as rational self-expression.

That's not God. That's human nature. I don't know why you would call it God. That seems like a confusing label for "the essential core of human nature."

The key phrase is core reference, Yahzi. Since God represents our knowledge and hunches of reality, God would then inspire our self-expression.

That will never happen. Human brains are smaller than the universe. Therefore, they must always represent the external world in approximation, and thus they can never "know" without some doubt.

Gnosis is not a destination. It is a journey. It was what RexT is aspiring towards. Doubt doesn't inspire knowledge, our guesses lead to new discoveries.

I will not elaborate here, but belief and doubt are very closely related terms; in that, whenever there is the one the other is always present in an equal amount.

I don't find this assertion to be at all self-evident.

I don't either. I don't think that they are always present in an equal amount. Doubt is a good test for belief, but I don't think that it is always present.

What we are beyond labels is unable to talk. That doesn't sound very fun.

He is talking about the concept of Zen, which means ignore the abstract and focus on reality. What it means is that our labels cause feelings when spoken because of connotations, and those labels get in the way of our observations of reality. Instead of focussing on the set of associations implied by a label, we need to focus on reality itself.

RexT

January 31, 2006, 01:56 PM

That's not God. That's human nature. I don't know why you would call it God. That seems like a confusing label for "the essential core of human nature."
You are exactly correct; it is the most essential core of human nature. I call it God only because it is a very precise aspect of human nature, our God nature. No one has ever nor will anyone ever “prove�? God one way or the other by pointing to something external to him or her. Thus, whenever you or I speak of God, we must be referring to some aspect of our internal selves. This internal reference is not arbitrary; it is specific to one and only one aspect of human nature, the nature to be aware of what we are beyond any exoteric label. Likewise, you or I cannot prove that such an aspect of human nature exists, it is revealed only by our own introspection and discovery of it.

That will never happen. Human brains are smaller than the universe. Therefore, they must always represent the external world in approximation, and thus they can never "know" without some doubt.
Yes, it’s quite a dilemma isn’t it? we cannot expand the size of our brains, but we are still capable of expanding our gnosis and reducing our doubt by investigating the core of what we are and what we mean by the term God.
I don't find this assertion to be at all self-evident.
It is quite simple; the more that is known about something, the less uncertainty that remains. Belief is not the same as knowing and thus doubt enters because the mind cannot fool itself into accepting that belief can fill the position of knowing. Deep down, we all know the difference between belief and knowing. therefore, it is self-evident only when this is acknowledged.

What we are beyond labels is unable to talk. That doesn't sound very fun.
This is not exactly true, but you do make a good point. Since you can know this, you are proving my assertion that you have an invisible core of knowing that is distinct from the things that are known. It is easy to discuss the things that are known, not so easy to talk about the knower of these things. Our attempt to define God is really an attempt to define the knower of things apart from the things that are known. In essence, we are trying to define consciousness. As you likely know, there is quite a separate debate, as to whether consciousness is an emergent property of matter or whether matter is an emergent property of consciousness. I will not speculate which is which, but there does seem to be a distinction.
Isn't Gnostic a label?
It can be used as a label. Gnosticism was/is a religion. I use it here as a specific measurement of how well a person knows self apart from labels. I am what I am, but there seems to be some degree of separation between what I am and what I know about myself. How can I measure this degree of separation, what standard shall I use to measure against? The standard I am using, that we all use on some level, is measured not against the world around us, but the invisible core of our self. It is this that we call God for lack of a better understanding.

RexT

January 31, 2006, 01:58 PM

RexT

January 31, 2006, 02:48 PM

Howdy RexT,

Welcome to IIDB and EoG. You have a good idea going, and I like the way you present it. But,

From a naturalistic perspective, any fictional or mythic being that has a capitalized name (Daffy Duck, Lucifer, Superman, Odin) yields similar results.

Consider that Odin is the invisible nucleus, about which orbits people who are faithful to Odin, people who lack a belief in Odin, and those who state that there is not enough data available about Odin to make an informed decision on the subject...

Thanks for the compliment.
I could not agree with you more. Daffy Duck, Lucifer, Superman, Odin, these all reflect certain aspects of human nature. Daffy comes from our humorous aspect, Lucifer from our evil aspect, Superman from our heroic aspect and so on… The God aspect of our human nature then would include every aspect or else it would define something very specific about our nature. I am not aware of a debate to define Daffy Duck or Superman that has caused as much controversy as the God debate. The controversy arises not only between people of different beliefs, but within each individual. Thus, it must define something very specific about human nature. My assertion is that it defines a division between what we actually are and what we believe we are. On the path of self-discovery, we encounter many aspects of ourselves, Daffy Duck, Lucifer, Superman, Odin, and many others. Each does as you say, “yields similar results�?, they tell us about an otherwise intangible aspect of ourselves, but the term God, as I have used it in the universal sense, is not one particular of the many peripheral aspects; it is the single core of our being from which the others radiate. When we attempt to define this core, we begin from the surface, defined by exoteric labels, then drilling down we find intangible labels, Daffy Duck-humor, Lucifer-evil, Superman-heroics, Odin-esoteric gods. If we continue to drill toward the core of our being, we should discover, in theory, a self that cannot be labeled, and radiating from this invisible nucleus of self is as many labels as you can imagine. Thus, how do we define God, from the outside in or the inside out? “Thus, God can be defined as the core reference against which rational humans measure their individual gnosis and belief, and through which is articulated artistic as well as rational self-expression�?. This is a very specific aspect of human nature.

RexT

January 31, 2006, 02:52 PM

Yeah, theism is based on belief, and atheism is based on doubt.
Very astute observation; it shows an equality between these two.

RexT

January 31, 2006, 04:30 PM

Gnosticism always sounds too complicated. Is the invisible nucleus our personal interpretation of reality?
No, it is the core of our being. This core does not seek to interpret reality; that work is done by the conscious mind; it seeks only to express itself and to know itself through such expressions. I realize that this sounds like a Zen concept, but I am only speaking from personal experience; how my own gnosis has increased over my life. Anyway, such labels as Zen, religion, theism, atheism; these have not helped us in finding a definition of God and are only indirectly related to what I have stated.
So is gnosis our knowledge of reality and belief our unproven speculations (hunches) of reality.

You are on the right track here. I would only change “knowledge of reality�? to “knowledge of self�?. Reality is merely an ambiguous term that is subject to interpretation, and interpretation is greatly governed by belief. You would assert that there is an absolute reality out there somewhere that no one could misinterpret; it has yet to be found, though it may exist. It really does require a conscious mind to make any kind of interpretation whatever; thus, our topic, which is to define God, is inextricably linked with the mind that seeks to define such. Just as it is impossible to define self without some reference to God, it is impossible to define God without some reference to self. These two exist with a certain distance between them. That is, gnosis of self or god is divided by a void that we naturally tend to fill with belief, speculation, interpretation, hunches, etc. As you correctly state, “Complete gnosis would be complete knowledge of reality, which means there would be no need for hunches because we know everything.�? Again, I would change reality to self. Then, gnosis, which is not a noun in this sense, but a verb, is the closing of the void, the force or activity of closing this void and rendering self to wholeness.
This would then define atheism as a religion, something which atheists would deny till the day they die.
I am not exactly sure what is meant by the term “religion�?, but it probably falls within the void that I alluded to above. I meant by my original post,
Originally Posted by RexT
At such a state of gnosis, one is no longer theist, atheist or agnostic, but has become Gnostic.
that these labels define certain beliefs; atheism is as much a belief as theism, whether it also constitutes a religion I do not know.

Yahzi

February 1, 2006, 02:17 AM

Yeah, theism is based on belief, and atheism is based on doubt.
I don't think that's accurate. Leaving aside the torturous arguments over what atheism means, there is clearly a category of people who lack belief in God simply through ignorance of the claim. Those people can't be said to doubt the existance of God. Yet they obviously aren't theists (with respect to the particular God being discussed), either, since they lack belief.

Since God represents our knowledge and hunches of reality, God would then inspire our self-expression.
Isn't it just as reasonable to say God is the result of our self-expression? That is, that God is something we make up to express ourselves.

those labels get in the way of our observations of reality
As much as I admire Zen, the fact is that science works by applying labels. It is the separation of things into categories that allow us to so successfully manipulate those things. Pretty much all Zen does is make you feel relaxed and calm. While those are neat, there are lots of other good things to strive for, and science seems a lot more effective at producing them, labels and all.

Yahzi

February 1, 2006, 02:29 AM

Thus, whenever you or I speak of God, we must be referring to some aspect of our internal selves.
That's a really bad label, then. Most people use God to mean the Christian god, who is clearly intended to be an external entity.

I think a better label would be "the divine spirit," or just "human nature." Calling it God just confuses the issue.

Yes, it’s quite a dilemma isn’t it?
Not really a dilemma. Just a brute fact.

we are still capable of expanding our gnosis and reducing our doubt by investigating the core of what we are and what we mean by the term God.
If you mean we are able to become better people by applying some introspection, then sure. But to assume that introspection is all that is necessary would be a huge mistake. We profit more from investigating the external world, and then reflecting on how that affects our internal world.

Since you can know this, you are proving my assertion that you have an invisible core of knowing that is distinct from the things that are known.
I don't think it is all that invisible. I don't seem to have any problem accessing it.

not so easy to talk about the knower of these things.
My name is Yahzi. I am 6'2", stunningly handsome, sauve, brilliant, and enamored of women who say things like "Ethicis should be derived from first principles." (So far I've only found one woman like that, but I'm pretty damn enamored of her. :D )

I could go on about myself for days. Really, it doesn't seem that difficult to talk about me.

In essence, we are trying to define consciousness.
See, calling it God doesn't really help me any.

As you likely know, there is quite a separate debate, as to whether consciousness is an emergent property of matter or whether matter is an emergent property of consciousness.
I don't think it is fair to call it a debate. On one side you have the materialists, and on the other side you have a lot of mystics ducking baseball bats. :D

I am what I am, but there seems to be some degree of separation between what I am and what I know about myself.
Of course there is. I don't understand why you would think otherwise. Your brain evolved to avoid being eaten by tigers. Introspection is a usefull ability to that end, but it's hardly the most important thing your brain does. Just as you cannot consciously control or even understand the working of your stomach, you have no special insight into the working of your brain. I really don't see what is mysterious about this.

wordy

February 1, 2006, 03:48 AM

Unpolite of me to not read every post in the long thread. I liked this post though.
alienward wrote: There is absolutely nothing to demonstrate a God or gods are anything more than a figment of human imagination. If theists would go with that definition: God or gods – a figment of human imagination, they would at least finally have a clear and consistent definition.

Do we know of religions that accept this view? Would all atheists accept it. Would atheists get a long peacefully with such religions?

Chaupoline

February 1, 2006, 09:41 AM

I don't think that's accurate. Leaving aside the torturous arguments over what atheism means, there is clearly a category of people who lack belief in God simply through ignorance of the claim. Those people can't be said to doubt the existance of God. Yet they obviously aren't theists (with respect to the particular God being discussed), either, since they lack belief.

There are theists, there are atheists, and then there are undecideds. Theists believe in the existence of God, atheists doubt the existence of God, and undecideds are ignorant of the concept of God.

As much as I admire Zen, the fact is that science works by applying labels. It is the separation of things into categories that allow us to so successfully manipulate those things. Pretty much all Zen does is make you feel relaxed and calm. While those are neat, there are lots of other good things to strive for, and science seems a lot more effective at producing them, labels and all.

I was under the impression that Zen's value comes from ignoring the abstract in order to see reality the way it is and then reassigning an abstract concept to it. I agree that categories allow us progress in our gathering of knowledge, but we need to make sure that our abstract concepts don't lose their meanings because of connotations.

Since God represents our knowledge and hunches of reality, God would then inspire our self-expression.

Isn't it just as reasonable to say God is the result of our self-expression? That is, that God is something we make up to express ourselves.

God represents our knowledge and hunches of reality, as I stated. However, our interpretation of what God is, is the result of our self-expression.

This is why there are so many diffrent religions. It reflects the interpretation of the observer. There is a force that they are describing, but the observer expresses their views with their description of God.

wordy

February 1, 2006, 11:21 AM

God represents our knowledge and hunches of reality, as I stated. However, our interpretation of what God is, is the result of our self-expression.

This is why there are so many diffrent religions. It reflects the interpretation of the observer. There is a force that they are describing, but the observer expresses their views with their description of God.

Chaupoline, I find much truth in this too.

But as I remember both believers and us atheists usually want a bolt and nuts kind of God to debunk. If God is wa y of seeing the world, a way of self-expression then not much to fight about?

alienward

February 1, 2006, 01:27 PM

From the Cambridge dictionary:

God (MAKER) Show phonetics
noun [S not after the]
(in especially Christian, Jewish and Muslim belief) the being which made the universe, the Earth and its people and is believed to have an effect on all things:
Do you believe in God?
Because there is not one shred of evidence the universe was made by a god or gods, or that a god or gods is effecting anything, and they know it, some theists try and get away with using a completely definition like a god or gods is just a representation of one thing or another.

Chaupoline

February 1, 2006, 01:38 PM

Chaupoline, I find much truth in this too.

But as I remember both believers and us atheists usually want a bolt and nuts kind of God to debunk. If God is way of seeing the world, a way of self-expression then not much to fight about?

Alienward's argument with me was in how I interpreted Genesis. This argument was rediculous because it wasn't about my interpretation of reality, it was about my interpretation of writings that led to my interpretation of reality. Yahzi, however, argued about my statements of humanity as a corporate entity. This philosophical argument was worthy of debate, since it directly involved my interpretation of reality. Fundamentalist Christians case against Mormons on the inconsistencies of the Book of Mormon is stupid. They should instead debate Mormons interpretation of reality vs their own.

The same can be stated in Islam. Bush will refer to Islam as a religion of peace and then direct our attention though to a certain practice of Islam which has an interpretation of reality that is stated as not being the same as "Good" Islam. As RexT stated, our association with labels is misleading. Just because I say that I am Black, or Jewish, or Christian does not mean that I am like all Blacks, Jews, or Christians. However, there are many people that will give a pass to someone because they claim the same group that they are a part of. There are also people whom show disdain to those that claim a group that they oppose.

Because there is not one shred of evidence the universe was made by a god or gods, or that a god or gods is effecting anything, and they know it, some theists try and get away with using a completely definition like a god or gods is just a representation of one thing or another.

So why is this representation wrong? How does this change my interpretation of reality? Would it change anything if instead of referring to the creator as God, I called it something else?

alienward

February 1, 2006, 05:37 PM

So why is this representation wrong? How does this change my interpretation of reality? Would it change anything if instead of referring to the creator as God, I called it something else?
It’s not wrong, it’s just that when you say a God is just a representation, it’s a different definition than the definition found in dictionaries like the one I quoted that say a God is a being that created the universe, the earth, and people.

Using different definitions for words than dictionaries wouldn’t necessarily change one’s perception of reality.

You contradict yourself when you claim a God is just a representation and then ask if you should call “the creator�? something other than God. Your interpretations of reality might not be changing but your definitions of God sure are.

RexT

February 1, 2006, 09:36 PM

Yeah, theism is based on belief, and atheism is based on doubt.
I really like this Phrase Chaupoline. It supports my assertion that belief and doubt go together like the two sides of a coin; they are equal and opposite. Therefore, each must exist in equal amounts. Of course, this does not mean that there are an equal number of theists and atheists or an equal amount of nickels and dimes; it shows that whenever there is the one side of a coin the other must also exist. Do you not see that theists and atheists are opposite sides of the same god coin?

If you do then you will understand why I said that this is self-evident.

RexT

February 1, 2006, 09:50 PM

That's a really bad label, then. Most people use God to mean the Christian god, who is clearly intended to be an external entity.

I think a better label would be "the divine spirit," or just "human nature." Calling it God just confuses the issue.
Thanks for the reply Yahzi. You are right that I have presented confusing ideas. You have helped me to see some of my mistakes. Its a bad habbit of mine that because I know the steps that led to my conclusions, I just assume that everyone knows what I know. I am working on another draft that I hope will make more sense and be less confusing.

Chaupoline

February 2, 2006, 09:34 AM

It’s not wrong, it’s just that when you say a God is just a representation, it’s a different definition than the definition found in dictionaries like the one I quoted that say a God is a being that created the universe, the earth, and people.

God is a representation of the creator of our reality. We just associate God as a being like us.

Using different definitions for words than dictionaries wouldn’t necessarily change one’s perception of reality.

Our perceptions of reality aren't defined by lexical definitions. Lexical definitions are used to communicate our perceptions of reality to other people. However, in time our perceptions of reality get shaped because of the connotations associated with the words that we are using.

You contradict yourself when you claim a God is just a representation and then ask if you should call “the creator�? something other than God. Your interpretations of reality might not be changing but your definitions of God sure are.

I asked if I should change the name based on the representation of the creator of reality, because you do not think that it goes along with the lexical definition of God.

alienward

February 2, 2006, 03:54 PM

God is a representation of the creator of our reality. We just associate God as a being like us.
Since many theists do not associate a god as a being like humans, and some groups of theists are actually forbidden to do so by books claimed to be the word of their god, a claim we associate a god with humans can only apply to some theists.

Our perceptions of reality aren't defined by lexical definitions. Lexical definitions are used to communicate our perceptions of reality to other people. However, in time our perceptions of reality get shaped because of the connotations associated with the words that we are using.
We just saw above why theists are unable to define what a god is. They can’t agree on a single attribute.

I asked if I should change the name based on the representation of the creator of reality, because you do not think that it goes along with the lexical definition of God.
Theists can’t even agree on whether a god or gods created people, the earth, or even the universe. You've said:

God is a representation of the creator of our reality.
and

God represents our knowledge and hunches of reality, as I stated.
If you can find a dictionary that defines God like you do – the creator of hunches, then no, no change is needed.

RexT

February 2, 2006, 08:13 PM

Ok, that was my first attempt at defining god and I agree that it was more confusing than helpful. Therefore, I will attempt to remove the vague assertions and ambiguities. The term “invisible nucleus�? is merely an ad hoc analogy that I chose for expressing a standard concept that I considered to be familiar to most. I could have just as easily chosen the model of an atom, the solar system, or a wagon wheel. Each is based on a concept of things that revolve around a central core, the point that they all reference and have in common. The concept is basically a simple one really, or so I thought. Try to think of this concept as the focal point that all humans share in common that we each reference in our own unique way as it pertains to the specific concept of god. Perhaps the analogy is finally useless, but I don’t think so. It can, if not taken too literally, help to explain the more nebulous concept that I am trying to express.

Perhaps, it might simplify things to strike the word “invisible�? from the definition. However, the goal as I see it is not merely to simplify, but to establish a universal definition of god that is strong enough and comprehensive enough to be convincing to almost anyone brave enough to seek real truth; a lofty goal indeed. So I believe that the word invisible remains relevant, as I will explain later.

It has been mentioned by some that a universal definition of god would present no target of attack, implying that it would remove all the fun and excitement. If this board is merely intended as a game of war and conflict, then I will accept my foolishness for not seeing this. It wouldn’t be the first time I was accused of being too serious. If on the other hand, sincerity is to take center stage on this board, then I would like to offer my earnest appraisal of the EoG, for what its worth. I too admire a good game, I love life with all its fallibilities and frailties and I love knowledge. I cannot say in good conscious which one I love more; it’s hard to imagine a world without each of these. Frankly, I would not want to live in such a world.

With that said, I will proceed based on the following premise: different states of mind lead to different definitions of god.

Definition types based of different states of mind

Sincerity
Playfulness
Conflict
Confusion
Curiosity
Skepticism
etc.

Of these, I have chosen to base my definition on type (1.). I realize as well as anyone that a universal definition is not exactly fun and exciting. It can’t be used to define a straw-god or perhaps I should say an avatar-god that is easily torn apart by even the weakest militant. Examples of avatar-gods are those created by the Greeks, Egyptians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians and so on. We have all had our turn at attacking these soft targets, though some have been softer than others have, and we have been repeatedly successful in casting them into the recycle bin of myth. The game has been so delightful and rewarding that we have sometimes forgotten that underneath these avatar-gods is a frail mortal being, alone and vulnerable just as we. Underneath these protective avatar-gods and mortal bodies is a sentient being identical to us, confused, uncertain, bewildered, and longing to possess even one thing that is real. Therefore, I see no particular use in creating yet another of these avatar-gods, which are as easy to create, as they are to destroy. I find that this game no longer challenges me and its inevitable results only sadden me. Yet, if this is all that is wanted, then ask and I will create another god, but please be sure to specify what type of god you are looking for; creator types, vengeful types, personal loving types, etc.

One final, but critical note about avatar-gods; by using psychoanalysis, it has been shown that these avatar-gods actually represent not merely the aggregate aspects of human nature, but more specifically, those aspects that have been repressed; usually emotions and feelings, but sometimes ideas that are repressed. It is here, in what Jung called the psyche (the aspects of the ego that are not shown to others) that the usual god concept, the avatar-gods find their real purpose. They facilitate a certain type of self-expression that would otherwise manifest itself as some form of psychosis. This is because; each aspect of human nature must be expressed, if not through a socially acceptable channel then through a mental deviation. With that said, I can now explain why I use the term “invisible nucleus�?. There are two reasons that this term applies to the god concept.

1.Because it is a repressed aspect of the psyche, it remains invisible to others. Though it most often manifests either in the outright creation of some god or the adoption of a ready-made, socially established god that happens to be a close enough match.

2.Because an individual rarely understands this and thus does not see this as an aspect of self it is thus invisible to them, instead they project these repressed aspects onto an external god, ergo, the term avatar-god.

The avatar-god is then created from the elements of a repressed psyche. This is not a new concept; it was dwelt with by others such as, Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell. It is now in light of the human psyche that the concept of gnosis finally starts to make sense. In this context, gnosis is gained when an individual becomes aware of this invisible process of transferring the repressed psyche onto an avatar-god. Whenever a person becomes aware of this particular role that god plays, it marks a shift in their overall level of consciousness; the level is no doubt raised by some degree. Yes, this is like learning in general, but to discover a hidden process working in one’s own psyche has a profoundly different effect. Its one thing to learn how to control a car, it is quite another to learn how control one’s mind. Learning in general is not personal, and only changes the level of information that is possessed, learning the true nature of self is very personal, and changes the level of consciousness available to that person. No, this is not mere conjecture, it is verified by personal experience – don’t believe me – try it for yourself. Once such a self-revelation occurs, and it should be noted that in no way is this limited to the god realization, it becomes easier to receive the next and the next.

Now, lest the fair-minded atheist think him or her immune to such a self-delusion – I shall remind them of their own fascination with god. For whom the association is not by identification with an avatar-god, but by the self-proclaimed power to destroy it. What exactly do they think they have defeated; it is nothing more than an element of their own repressed psyche that they unknowingly fear or despise.

Of course, I do not expect these ideas to be embraced with open arms; it is naturally painful, sometimes unbearably so to look into one’s bare psyche and see themselves as they really are. If you find that you cannot do this – then don’t do it! Otherwise, an amazing hidden world awaits your exploration. Its depths are unknown. Some who do go find what they claim to be an immeasurable treasure, others go and never completely return. BEWARE ALL WHO ENTER this invisible nucleus!! Perhaps it is better to stay on the surface – preferably solid dry ground – avoid all those hideous creatures that might lurk beneath. In this light, it is now possible to understand what I meant by the invisible nucleus, about which orbits theists, atheists and agnostics in the activity of self-expression. It defines god universally, because it has nothing to do with belief of doubt; it is pure human nature and it pertains specifically to the development of gnosis, consciousness and self-actualization. I must agree with Chaupoline, gnosis is not a destination; it is a journey.

Lastly, as I know that this does not represent a definition of god that most expect to hear, I have developed a definition of a real god that is independent of human nature, which I might present at a latter time, I hesitate to present it until the relation between human nature and the avatar-god is first understood. Otherwise, we just end up mixing apples with oranges.

BlessNot

February 2, 2006, 09:53 PM

phoenixthoth

February 2, 2006, 10:28 PM

Hope you don't mind me butting in... :)

When two things, two concepts for example, are equivalent then one can define the first thing to actually be the second thing. For example, I can define modus ponens to be (P&(P-->Q))-->Q, then show the equivalence between that and
(Q v not(Q)) & ((P&(P-->Q))-->Q), and, finally, correctly say that modus ponens could be defined (or re-defined, if you prefer) to actually be the statement
(Q v not(Q)) & ((P&(P-->Q))-->Q). (I hope that
(Q v not(Q)) & ((P&(P-->Q))-->Q) is equivalent to modus ponens--but you get the idea.) Another sort of silly example is that the number zero could be defined to be the empty set and 1 could be defined to be 0 u {0}, where u is the set-theoretical union operator. But 0 u {0} = {0} u 0 so one could be defined as {0} u 0 instead. Another example is that 4 could be defined as either the sucessor of 3 or as 2+2. Both definitions are equivant, they lead to exactly the same tautologies, and all statements involving them are equivalent.

With all that crap I just said, let me get my point out. ;)

I think a lot of definitions and statements about God, when properly combined, are equivalent to the statement, "God is the totality of all that exists." Thus that is what I take to be the definition of God. This is not your god, most likely, especially if you're Christian. This is also not the god athiests don't believe in.

Cheers

RexT

February 2, 2006, 11:18 PM

"God is the totality of all that exists." Thus that is what I take to be the definition of God. This is not your god, most likely, especially if you're Christian. This is also not the god athiests don't believe in.

Cheers
Splendid definition, I couldn't have put it more succinctly. The problem you will meet however, is that folks don't seem to like universality... something about it not providing an easy target of attack. Otherwise I'm onboard.

-RexT

alienward

February 2, 2006, 11:29 PM

With all that crap I just said, let me get my point out. ;)

I think a lot of definitions and statements about God, when properly combined, are equivalent to the statement, "God is the totality of all that exists." Thus that is what I take to be the definition of God. This is not your god, most likely, especially if you're Christian. This is also not the god athiests don't believe in.
Unbelievable. I can’t get over how theists posting in this forum know so little about gods and forms of theism. Here’s a dictionary definition for you from Encarta:

1. belief that God is everything: the belief that God and the material world are one and the same thing and that God is present in everything
I’ll let you go find the word. Maybe you’ll at least got read up on the basic god concepts of theism before you come back here acting like you just made up a new god and make more bogus claims about atheism.

phoenixthoth

February 2, 2006, 11:54 PM

I think at least one of the omni- properties normally attributed to God does not apply in my definition. But, then again, omniscience I don't think is a well-definable term anyway, except in a naive sense; sort of like how "set" in math is undefinable, except in a naive sense (but still is a word that gets used a lot).

I wouldn't say God created the universe. I wouldn't separate God from creation at all. What about the notion that God is creation by which I both mean the created and the process of creation, thus making the question "what created the universe" sort of like how the chicken/egg problem is naively viewed at first glance in the questions deeper circularity, or kind of self-sembioticness. (Sorry for the run-on... normally I'm grammatically correct but I ain't always.)

RexT

February 3, 2006, 12:58 AM

Unbelievable. I can’t get over how theists posting in this forum know so little about gods and forms of theism. Here’s a dictionary definition for you from Encarta:

Originally Posted by phoenixthoth
"God is the totality of all that exists."

I’ll let you go find the word. Maybe you’ll at least got read up on the basic god concepts of theism before you come back here acting like you just made up a new god and make more bogus claims about atheism.

Please excuse my ignorance; it is hard to know everything, but I wondered if you would point me to where I could get the info to learn why this definition is rejected. Perhaps you would include your own opinion as well?

thanks -RexT

wordy

February 3, 2006, 06:01 AM

RexT wrote Splendid definition, I couldn't have put it more succinctly. The problem you will meet however, is that folks don't seem to like universality... something about it not providing an easy target of attack. Otherwise I'm onboard.

I come to think of a claim made by Wim Drees. His view are that religions are particular. I find much truth in this.

Religions are more like languages. That is why we fail to find a universal definition on God or gods.

I could be wrong but my gut feeling that instead of words like "represent" we could use words like refer to or god as a word that is a reference.

the word refers to cultural interpretations of a way to live. It is particular to that culture that refers to their God. the word God couldn't represent any god, it always refer to a particular interpretation within a social context.

But me only wild guessing and I am very skeptical to social constructs too. I am more a supporter of Evolutionary Psychology.

I think gods are a byproduct of our need to be social animals.

God as a word refers to the highest authority for and within a group of believers. it is a functional word.

Chaupoline

February 3, 2006, 09:42 AM

Since many theists do not associate a god as a being like humans, and some groups of theists are actually forbidden to do so by books claimed to be the word of their god, a claim we associate a god with humans can only apply to some theists.

Most theists associate human like qualities to their God or Gods. God has been described as being happy, sad, angry, loving, etc. This is a common thing that humans do. Humans tend to do the same thing with other animals, plants, and inanimate objects.

We just saw above why theists are unable to define what a god is. They can’t agree on a single attribute.

This is because theism is not a single belief system. There are Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and Zorastrians to name a few. Is your argument against God based on the fact that there are so many diffrent religions and denominations?

Theists can’t even agree on whether a god or gods created people, the earth, or even the universe.

This is because theists interpret reality differently.

Alf

February 3, 2006, 10:38 AM

I think it is important to keep your toungue straight in this line of argument.

Wrong: Theists cannot agree among themselves therefore they are just wrong.

Correct: If there really was a very powerful God worthy of worship and worshipping him was beneficial to us and he was benevolent so he would want us to enjoy this benefit then he would make sure that we learned about him so that we could worship him and no other god, therefore in this world there would only be one type of deity and all would worship this deity. However, the real world have not one deity but many and therefore such a deity as described above does not exist.

It is important to recognize that the diversity in and of itself does not prove that theism is wrong. After all it could be that one of them got it right and all the others got it wrong. It is even possible - and more likely - that they all got it wrong but there was still some deity out there which nobody believed in and who nobody knew about but which still was there moving around in mysterious ways.

However, it is the set of assumptions that 1) This deity is benevolent and therefore want the best for us and 2) The best for us is to worship him because unbelief lead us to hell while belief lead to heaven combined with the realization that there isn't only ONE religion in the world that lead the conclusion that such a god does not exist.

The point is that if there really was such a god then he would have a problem:

1. He could try to reveal himself to people so that they could all drop their old religions and follow him. Although there has been various reports of such revelations they all seem to contradict each other and none of them can be taken as reliable.

2. Maybe it isn't important which religion you believe in - then why do the religions claim it is important that you convert to their set of beliefs? Also, to some degree it obviously MUST be important. If a deity want us to be nice to each other it wouldn't do well if people believed in a religion where harming other people was acceptable. However, not only is it acceptable but some religions even encourage it as long as it is those "unbelieving heathens". This, they can do with impunity - a benevolent god should stop them but doesn't do it, why? Could it be that he doesn't exist?

3. Maybe God isn't nice and doesn't care. In this case he will most likely send us in hell anyway if there is an afterlife, so what is the point of worshipping this deity?

Hence we conclude that such a god as described is impossible as a consequence of the diversity. However, the diversity in itself is not the problem, it is when combined with those other premises that it becomes a problem.

Alf

Chaupoline

February 3, 2006, 11:33 AM

If there really was a very powerful God worthy of worship

Worthy of worship is a subjective phrase, based on the observer's criteria. This has no bearing on whether there is an intelligent creator God.

and worshipping him was beneficial to us

You are now focussing on a being that gives handouts.

and he was benevolent so he would want us to enjoy this benefit

Again, your criteria for a benevolent God is subjective to handouts and wants your worship.

then he would make sure that we learned about him so that we could worship him and no other god,

This is going off the belief that God cares about whether we worship him.

therefore in this world there would only be one type of deity and all would worship this deity.

And your theory of a benevolent God would constitute a being that gives us hand outs, wants us to worship him and makes it's presence known to all of us. I feel that this being would want us to be put into a dependent position. I do not see such a being as benevolent.

However, the real world have not one deity but many and therefore such a deity as described above does not exist .

the real world have not one deity but many - No, this is incorrect. Mankind has many religions. This does not mean that everyone is correct and that everyone's deity or deities exist.

such a deity as described above does not exist - Yes, the God that you described does not mesh with reality. Therefore your God does not exist. The Alfian God who gives out handouts, wants our worship and makes it's presence known is not real. This is not the same criteria that I state for my God so therefore your assessment is invalid.

It is important to recognize that the diversity in and of itself does not prove that theism is wrong. After all it could be that one of them got it right and all the others got it wrong. It is even possible - and more likely - that they all got it wrong but there was still some deity out there which nobody believed in and who nobody knew about but which still was there moving around in mysterious ways.

True.

However, it is the set of assumptions that 1) This deity is benevolent and therefore want the best for us and 2) The best for us is to worship him because unbelief lead us to hell while belief lead to heaven combined with the realization that there isn't only ONE religion in the world that lead the conclusion that such a god does not exist.

1) Benevolence is a subjective statement
2) This goes off the theory that life after death is either going to be paradise of punishment due to whether we worship God or not.
- My belief is that when we die we will be reborn as a newborn on this planet and that our actions affected whether this planet will be heaven or hell for our new birth. This is not dependent on whether we wordship God or not.

The point is that if there really was such a god then he would have a problem

The God that you proposed does not exist. You didn't intend it to you. You were just building up a Straw Man that you felt would be easy to prove wrong.

Yahzi

February 3, 2006, 12:53 PM

omniscience I don't think is a well-definable term anyway,
And omnipotence is? "Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?"

All of the omni-terms are undefinable. Which means God is undefinable. Which is kinda the point. Theists define God in undefinable terms so they can't be proved wrong; and atheists ask, "If you don't know what you are talking about, why are you doing it so loudly?"

phoenixthoth

February 3, 2006, 07:39 PM

Please excuse my ignorance; it is hard to know everything, but I wondered if you would point me to where I could get the info to learn why this definition is rejected. Perhaps you would include your own opinion as well?

thanks -RexT
I don't know that this definition has been promoted much to have even been rejected. I would say that and that it's simply not the God of the Bible and to some people anything that goes against the Bible is incorrect.

And omnipotence is? "Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?"

All of the omni-terms are undefinable. Which means God is undefinable. Which is kinda the point. Theists define God in undefinable terms so they can't be proved wrong; and atheists ask, "If you don't know what you are talking about, why are you doing it so loudly?"
Why does that mean God is undefinable? Are you assuming that any definition of God must include something along the lines of God is a being with omnipotence, etc.?

alienward

February 3, 2006, 08:40 PM

Please excuse my ignorance; it is hard to know everything, but I wondered if you would point me to where I could get the info to learn why this definition is rejected. Perhaps you would include your own opinion as well?

thanks -RexT
The definition isn’t rejected. Are you asking for something else? Atheists lack a belief in a god or gods – including the god is everything claim. My opinion - the claim is nonsense. And here is a fact - there is no evidence everything is a god.

RexT

February 3, 2006, 08:44 PM

I don't know that this definition has been promoted much to have even been rejected. I would say that and that it's simply not the God of the Bible and to some people anything that goes against the Bible is incorrect.

Yes well, I,m well past "the god of the bible" and still searching for the truth, unlike all those who already know the absolute truth. I just wanted look into the objections of Pantheism since it appears on its face to be a viable consideration.

Why does that mean God is undefinable? Are you assuming that any definition of God must include something along the lines of God is a being with omnipotence, etc.?
Your point here is that omnipotence, etc. is undefinable yet god might still exist without such attributes? Then how does this fit with Pantheism?

-RexT

SkyDancer_0202

February 3, 2006, 09:06 PM

You're posing a point that should be central in any discussion of god(s). Too often I find myself on this board wading through a morass to find out just what god we are talking about..

And this board is better than most, imo!

Just this morning on another board, someone asked whether going to church is neccessary to having a personal relationship with god. Someone else asked: "which god" - and she was basically accused by someone else of posting nonsense for the sake of disrupting. I thought she asked the most important question one would have to clarify before answering the OP - and, of course, had to say so ;)

phoenixthoth

February 3, 2006, 09:15 PM

The definition isn’t rejected. Are you asking for something else? Atheists lack a belief in a god or gods – including the god is everything claim. My opinion - the claim is nonsense. And here is a fact - there is no evidence everything is a god.

Who said "God is everything" is the definition of God?

That there is no evidence everything is a god is a ridiculously irrelevant statement. You've totally misunderstood the statement "God is the totality of all that exists."

For example, if the letters a, b, and c are all the 'things' that exist, then we can denote the totality of all that exists as {a,b,c}. Note that none of the following is correct:
a={a,b,c}
b={a,b,c}
c={a,b,c}.

phoenixthoth

February 3, 2006, 09:19 PM

Yes well, I,m well past "the god of the bible" and still searching for the truth, unlike all those who already know the absolute truth. I just wanted look into the objections of Pantheism since it appears on its face to be a viable consideration.

Your point here is that omnipotence, etc. is undefinable yet god might still exist without such attributes? Then how does this fit with Pantheism?

-RexT

Does a pantheist think God is omnipotent? I don't know. I don't think God is gyrtitic, either. Does that make God not God? (BTW: gyrtitic is just a generic undefined word.)

RexT

February 3, 2006, 09:50 PM

The definition isn’t rejected. Are you asking for something else? Atheists lack a belief in a god or gods – including the god is everything claim. My opinion - the claim is nonsense. And here is a fact - there is no evidence everything is a god.
The lack of belief in everything is reasonable to me given the nature of our reality, but If there is no credible objection to Pantheism then why should it be rejected outright and not rather considered as a possible route to greater understanding. You see alienward, I'm not searching for a new belief or a reason to doubt; I'm searching for the truth about why I exist and I'm willing to except it in whatever form it might present itself. My fear is that if I reject everthing prima facie, I might miss something important. I don't see how having a lack of belief in something, or for that matter a belief in something helps me to reach my goal. Therefore, I thought it important to get an atheistic perspective on Pantheism. I appreciate you giving me your opinion though.

thanks -RexT

RexT

February 3, 2006, 10:00 PM

Does a pantheist think God is omnipotent? I don't know. I don't think God is gyrtitic, either. Does that make God not God? (BTW: gyrtitic is just a generic undefined word.)
I like the way you think; it reminds me of myself. I once made up a similar term as gyrtitic (Farapollos)to make the point that if you don't know what Faropollos means, even whether it is singular or plural, then you cannot say whether it exists or not. From my viewpoint the word "god" suffers from this same condition; it simply has no standard meaning. But as you correctly say, this does not preclude the existence of an actual god, whatever that might be.

RexT

February 3, 2006, 10:18 PM

Who said "God is everything" is the definition of God?

That there is no evidence everything is a god is a ridiculously irrelevant statement. You've totally misunderstood the statement "God is the totality of all that exists."

For example, if the letters a, b, and c are all the 'things' that exist, then we can denote the totality of all that exists as {a,b,c}. Note that none of the following is correct:
a={a,b,c}
b={a,b,c}
c={a,b,c}.
It is obvious that a subset cannot define the larger set. Perhaps this is why, we being a subset of everything that exists, cannot define god, we simply lack the information. However, it appears to me that you are merely splitting hairs on this one. If what you say is true, then why even bother to include the word god in the term. Wouldn't it mean the same thing if you stated "reality is the totality of all that exists"?

phoenixthoth

February 3, 2006, 10:49 PM

I like the way you think; it reminds me of myself. I once made up a similar term as gyrtitic (Farapollos)to make the point that if you don't know what Faropollos means, even whether it is singular or plural, then you cannot say whether it exists or not. From my viewpoint the word "god" suffers from this same condition; it simply has no standard meaning. But as you correctly say, this does not preclude the existence of an actual god, whatever that might be.

I don't think I've ever come so close to agreement with anyone at IIDB before. :) Of course, the opposite is true too: it does not imply the existence of an actual god either, which is why atheism is perfectly reasonable. I don't know a whole lot about pantheism but I am pretty sure that is the closest thing to an already made collection of beliefs that I agree with regarding God. By the way, I heartily recommend the works of David Hawkins (The Eye of the Eye: From Which Nothing Is Hidden (http://www.addall.com/detail/0964326191.html) and I: Reality and Subjectivity (http://www.addall.com/detail/0971500703.html), for examples), especially the chapters on the nature of God.

It is obvious that a subset cannot define the larger set. Perhaps this is why, we being a subset of everything that exists, cannot define god, we simply lack the information. However, it appears to me that you are merely splitting hairs on this one. If what you say is true, then why even bother to include the word god in the term. Wouldn't it mean the same thing if you stated "reality is the totality of all that exists"?

I think that's precisely the problem. God's transcendence makes it impossible to define. Yes, I think it would mean the same thing. I just use the word God instead. It can be and probably is misleading when I use that word instead of "reality" or "truth" or "nature" or "the ultimate" or "the universe". It can be mistakenly thought that I mean the xian God when I don't.

Incidentally, in math you can have a={a} or even a={a,b,c}, despite what I implied about the impossibility of that. Check out this site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperset). Enjoy!

Now, in light of hypersets, I have the view that the circularity "all is in all", a sort of holographic property of the universe, is possible if not actual. A lot of one's paradigm depends on one's axioms/assumptions. Allow for hypersets and you can get this weird circularity and a new paradigm emerges.

RexT

February 4, 2006, 12:11 AM

phoenixthoth

February 4, 2006, 12:32 AM

Well phoenixthoth, it is always great to reach some type of agreement. For future reference though, my math skills only reach about a 10th grade level - not something i like to admit.

Thanks for the links, but I would be more interested in your own personal views of pantheism than in reading what all the professionals have to say. Here is the situation as I see it. No matter what we read, see, hear; its meaning has to be supplied by the person receiving it. Unfortunately, this means that even if we received the most intelligent and factual piece of info in existence; it is useless if it cannot be comprehended. Obviously, every individual is going to assign a different meaning it. That leaves you and me et. al. in a virtual world of isolation with only ourselves to rely on for truth. In this sense then, I value the info that I get from direct communication like this forum more than the info I get from indirect sources like books. Its not that the direct info is more accurate; its merely because it is interactive, allowing the opportunity for rebutal, correction, etc. To me, life is a conversation. In fact, my most basic concept of god, existence, reality, whatever... is that god is a never-ending conversation.
I'll try to explain as I get a chance and I want to invite you to be PM'ed or PM me in case we get side-tracked: I think you've hit the nail on the head with your last comment in the first paragraph, "god is a never-ending conversation." Logos. Logic. Language. God said let there be light, not "God created light." I think that God is or is related to language itself, the most general meta-language possible but as soon as I say that, I run into a Russell-type paradox involving a highest meta-language of meta-languages. It also has to do with where I think self-aware structures exist in mathematics: well formed (logical) formulas which are self referential or, otherwise, what are called "agents" which are specfic types of collections of formulas. God is the ultimate self-aware math structure, thus making it in some sense omnipresent and omniscient though those words are just as undefinable as the word set or line. Interesting equation there: life=conversation=god, sort of.
I have considered the concept of a holographic universe; it looks plausable to me. I may be that this was the meaning behind the mustard seed parable attributed to Jesus. I dont know, but it seems to fit my understanding of holography; that the greatest is contained in the least, or as you put it, "all is in all".

-RexT
If all is in all, and God is the totality of all that exists, then that seems to agree with one line in the Bible where it says "the kingdom of God is within." There are a couple-three lines in the Bible that seem correct to me.

Kylop

February 4, 2006, 12:51 AM

A God is a creator of a Universe.

phoenixthoth

February 4, 2006, 12:56 AM

A God is a creator of a Universe.
That puts undue separation between God and creation. What do you mean, a universe? There is only one, even if that one contains many sub-parallel universes; there is only one ultimate universe.

Kylop

February 4, 2006, 01:01 AM

God creates a creation. Yeah there's one Universe and a God created it.

phoenixthoth

February 4, 2006, 01:06 AM

God creates a creation. Yeah there's one Universe and a God created it.

God doesn't and has not done anything. It just IS.

Kylop

February 4, 2006, 01:10 AM

Why would the Universe come into being?

phoenixthoth

February 4, 2006, 01:19 AM

Why would the Universe come into being?
Why did come into being and not that it always was?

Kylop

February 4, 2006, 01:20 AM

Because time has to start somewhere.

phoenixthoth

February 4, 2006, 01:21 AM

Because time has to start somewhere.
Why?

Kylop

February 4, 2006, 01:23 AM

Start counting and you'll find out.

RexT

February 4, 2006, 01:23 AM

I'll try to explain as I get a chance and I want to invite you to be PM'ed or PM me in case we get side-tracked: I think you've hit the nail on the head with your last comment in the first paragraph, "god is a never-ending conversation." Logos. Logic. Language. God said let there be light, not "God created light." I think that God is or is related to language itself, the most general meta-language possible but as soon as I say that, I run into a Russell-type paradox involving a highest meta-language of meta-languages. It also has to do with where I think self-aware structures exist in mathematics: well formed (logical) formulas which are self referential or, otherwise, what are called "agents" which are specfic types of collections of formulas. God is the ultimate self-aware math structure, thus making it in some sense omnipresent and omniscient though those words are just as undefinable as the word set or line. Interesting equation there: life=conversation=god, sort of.

If all is in all, and God is the totality of all that exists, then that seems to agree with one line in the Bible where it says "the kingdom of God is within." There are a couple-three lines in the Bible that seem correct to me.

Your are indeed welcome to PM me. Now about all this math; it is a language no doubt, but one that sadly I cannot speak very well. I do however have a fair grasp of logical concepts, so if you expect me to understand what you are saying, you will have to translate your math into logical terms. The equation that I derive my conlusion of logos from is very simple, (-∞ + ∞) = 0. It would however take a good deal of explaining, which I will not do here.

Yes, the kingdom of god is within and without. Perhaps you have read the Gospel of Thomas found in the Gnostic tradition of first century Christianity that contains much more of this type of thinking. The basic idea, which was condemmed and suppressed by the Roman church is that truth, whatever that might amount to, is ultimately found within. If this is correct, then it implies that science and the so-calle objective reality is reduced to mere analogy. That is, it can only point to the truth, approxamate it in some visible way, but itself is not the ultimate reality.

Whether this reveals itself to be correct remains to be proven, but it is the means by which I have personally gained the greatest insights. Thus, it has been through this experience that I have come to place a great deal of trust in the concept.

phoenixthoth

February 4, 2006, 01:41 AM

Start counting and you'll find out.
Ok.

...,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,... is one way to count. Where's the beginning of
<----------->
???

Is it "negative infinity?"

Explain how the set of natural numbers pertains to time. If you start by assuming that time is like a set with a beginning, then of course time will have a beginning.

Recent theories have even likened time to the compex plane which has a beginning less so even than a line.

Your are indeed welcome to PM me. Now about all this math; it is a language no doubt, but one that sadly I cannot speak very well. I do however have a fair grasp of logical concepts, so if you expect me to understand what you are saying, you will have to translate your math into logical terms. The equation that I derive my conlusion of logos from is very simple, (-∞ + ∞) = 0. It would however take a good deal of explaining, which I will not do here.
The concept of equation is deeper than one might think. -oo + oo = 0 is typically considered incorrect, btw. Anyways, consider 1+1=2. At least from some point of view, there is more information on the left hand side than the right hand side. If -oo + oo = 0 were correct, there's a hell of a lot more information on the left hand side than on the right, yet they're equal. But in the linguistic equation "God is the totality of all that exists," I'm not sure where the side of more information is. :)

Yes, the kingdom of god is within and without. Perhaps you have read the Gospel of Thomas found in the Gnostic tradition of first century Christianity that contains much more of this type of thinking. The basic idea, which was condemmed and suppressed by the Roman church is that truth, whatever that might amount to, is ultimately found within. If this is correct, then it implies that science and the so-calle objective reality is reduced to mere analogy. That is, it can only point to the truth, approxamate it in some visible way, but itself is not the ultimate reality.

Yes, I have. Interesting how "coming into being before coming into being" kind of relates to something Kylop wrote about the universe coming into being. You can't knock science around here; a lot of people worship it. Observation is king!

Whether this reveals itself to be correct remains to be proven, but it is the means by which I have personally gained the greatest insights. Thus, it has been through this experience that I have come to place a great deal of trust in the concept.
Well a whole lot that remains to be proven is believed, some of it rightly so and of course some not. To me, truth does not need a proof to be true. It just is true. Of course, a disprove makes something untrue so all I'm suggesting is that proof is not essential to a truth, kind of like how there are truths that are unprovable:
"This statement is unprovable," for example.

Kylop

February 4, 2006, 01:45 AM

0 is the beginning isn't it?

Kylop

February 4, 2006, 01:46 AM

There are no set of natural numbers. Time is time. You're counting time.

phoenixthoth

February 4, 2006, 01:54 AM

0 is the beginning isn't it?

There are no set of natural numbers. Time is time. You're counting time.

Counting involves the set of natural numbers. Counting (time, for instance) is a correspondance between something (like time) and the set of natural numbers or one of its subsets. Your assuming that there is a correpsondance between time and the set of natural numbers.

0 is the beginning of the set of natural numbers but that doesn't imply time has a beginning.

Kylop

February 4, 2006, 02:00 AM

0 is the beginning of time.

Alf

February 4, 2006, 02:04 AM

Worthy of worship is a subjective phrase, based on the observer's criteria. This has no bearing on whether there is an intelligent creator God.

If the universe was not created such a creator God does not exist and we can dismiss any belief in it. Either way, this argument you raise is irrelevant as you will see below.

You are now focussing on a being that gives handouts.

That would describe the christian god among others fairly well.

Again, your criteria for a benevolent God is subjective to handouts and wants your worship.

Yes, that describes the christian god among others fairly well.
,

This is going off the belief that God cares about whether we worship him.

Yup. That would be the abrahamic gods among others.

And your theory of a benevolent God would constitute a being that gives us hand outs, wants us to worship him and makes it's presence known to all of us. I feel that this being would want us to be put into a dependent position. I do not see such a being as benevolent.

Ah, this might be an inherent contradiction embedded in the term benevolence itself. Indicating that it is logically impossible for any being to be "truly benevolent". This would be sad news for most who worship such a god such as the christians, muslims etc.

the real world have not one deity but many - No, this is incorrect. Mankind has many religions. This does not mean that everyone is correct and that everyone's deity or deities exist.

Maybe, but how do you figure out which one is real and which one is fake? We have exactly the same amount of evidence for all of them (exactly zero).

such a deity as described above does not exist - Yes, the God that you described does not mesh with reality. Therefore your God does not exist. The Alfian God who gives out handouts, wants our worship and makes it's presence known is not real. This is not the same criteria that I state for my God so therefore your assessment is invalid.

Maybe invalid to you but since it describes the christian God among others fairly well it is relevant for all christians.

They believe that there is a benevolent and powerful god who they worship - obviously they must therefore consider him worthy of worship. Nobody would worship a god they did not deem worthy of worship. For example Satan and Gabriel are also beings more powerful than ordinary men and yet few people worship those. The reason is that they do not deem them worthy of worship.

They also believe that this god will eventually send us to heaven or hell after we die and being benevolent he would wish that as many of us as possible get to heaven and as few of us as possible get to hell. Since the criteria for being sent to hell is whether we believe in him or not, this translates to the point that he will want as many of us to believe in him as possible. Anything else would indicate lack of compassion and that would indicate he wasn't benevolent since compassion is one of the things that indicate benevolence.

So, if you by "handouts" mean that he let himself be known through "divine inspiration" etc then that describes the christian god to a tee. The problem is of course that he doesn't give this divine inspiration to all of us. Consequently, this must mean that he doesn't want us to join him in heaven and he wants to send us to hell and be tortured there. Consequently, he does not have compassion and he is a tyrranic bastard and not benevolent as the christians claims he is.

1) Benevolence is a subjective statement

So, are you saying that God is not benevolent? If so we are not talking about the christian God or anything like that and your objection is irrelevant.

The diversification is among the christians, muslims and judaism and the argument is targeted mainly towards those and only work for other gods in so far as they fit the same description. I never claimed the line of reasoning has validity beyond that.

2) This goes off the theory that life after death is either going to be paradise of punishment due to whether we worship God or not.

Yep. That would be exactly what the christians tries to tell us.

- My belief is that when we die we will be reborn as a newborn on this planet and that our actions affected whether this planet will be heaven or hell for our new birth. This is not dependent on whether we wordship God or not.

Reincarnation is not part of the christian belief. Buddhism, hinduism and other religions that believe in reincarnation rather than a heaven/hell afterlife is not affected by this line of reasoning and a separate line of reasoning must be provided for them. I don't know at this moment if there is any proof that indicate that buddhism must be wrong because of diversity among buddhists.

The God that you proposed does not exist. You didn't intend it to you. You were just building up a Straw Man that you felt would be easy to prove wrong.
Not a strawman. There are people who believe in such a god. In fact lots of people. The majority of people on earth I believe if you add up all christians, all muslims and all jews.

Hardly a strawman.

Alf

Alf

February 4, 2006, 02:06 AM

A God is a creator of a Universe.

Then there is no god since the universe was not created.

Welcome to atheism.

Alf

Alf

February 4, 2006, 02:11 AM

God creates a creation. Yeah there's one Universe and a God created it.

That is actually impossible.

Definition: "A universe is all that exist"

I.e. if X exist it exists in the universe. If X is not in the universe it does not exist.

Was the universe created? Assume G created the universe. Then one must assume that there was a time when G existed and not the universe but this is absurd. If G existed, he must exist in the universe since the universe is all that exist and if G is not in the universe G does not exist and consequently cannot create it. It is assumed that something must exist in order to be able to do anything including creating universes.

Conclusion: The universe was not created and G does not exist.

QED.

There, I just proved to you that your God does not exist. You can thank me later, when you join us atheists :)

Actually, there are several other proofs as well. For example it is impossible that there is a time T when G exist and the universe does not. This is because if time exist then space too must exist and if time and space exist then energy must also exist and consequently the universe must exist. So, if time exist the universe must exist and so there cannot be a time T when G exist and the universe does not.

QED

There, proof number 2 that God did not create the universe.

Alf

phoenixthoth

February 4, 2006, 02:12 AM

0 is the beginning of time.
How can a number, any number, be the beginning of time :confused:

If time had a beginning, then I could designate or represent it by a number but the number would not be identical with the begining of time.

Alf

February 4, 2006, 02:13 AM

Because time has to start somewhere.

This is actually false and if you think about it, you will agree.

Imagine that time started somewhere. Let us say at time T2. Then this must mean that there is a time T1 when time did not exist. However, that is absurd. Consequently it is false that time had to start somewhere.

Alf

Alf

February 4, 2006, 02:15 AM

Start counting and you'll find out.

Actually this is not proof of anything. Check my reasoning that shows that time did not start somewhere and you will see that this counting argument is not an argument at all.

Alf

RexT

February 4, 2006, 02:15 AM

The concept of equation is deeper than one might think. -oo + oo = 0 is typically considered incorrect, btw. Anyways, consider 1+1=2. At least from some point of view, there is more information on the left hand side than the right hand side. If -oo + oo = 0 were correct, there's a hell of a lot more information on the left hand side than on the right, yet they're equal. But in the linguistic equation "God is the totality of all that exists," I'm not sure where the side of more information is.

As I said, I know little about math and thus do not take -oo + oo = 0 to be a mathematical equation at all. What it means to me is merely a shorthand for saying that existence (+ oo) and nonexistence (-oo ) represents the active state of a binary system, while the zero represents the ground state of the system. It is fundamentally a simple concept based on the premise that reality cannot be reduced to an absolute zero-complexity. It states that existence/nonexistence are conjagate values that cannot be logically separated, that is, one has no meaning without the other. In this model, it is meaningless to say that the universe came from nonexistence. To say this implies its conjagate opposite - existence. These two must instead allways be present simultaneously. The only true distinction that can be made then, is not whether something exists or is noneistent, but whether existence/nonexistence is determinate or indeterminate. In the equation -oo + oo = 0, we see both the determinate (-oo + oo) and the indeterminate (0) states of the binary system. The fact that the two sides are equal is the proof of this.

The only thing missing in this idea is that which determines which of the two states the system is in...perhaps god.
-RexT

phoenixthoth

February 4, 2006, 02:15 AM

That is actually impossible.

Definition: "A universe is all that exist"

I.e. if X exist it exists in the universe. If X is not in the universe it does not exist.

Might be a bad definition. Why the word 'in'? What does that mean? Is the concept of love in the universe? Not love, but the concept of love. OR do you not think that concepts exist?

phoenixthoth

February 4, 2006, 02:19 AM

This is actually false and if you think about it, you will agree.

Imagine that time started somewhere. Let us say at time T2. Then this must mean that there is a time T1 when time did not exist. However, that is absurd. Consequently it is false that time had to start somewhere.

Alf
"However, that is absurd." Why? And even if so, so what? Richard Simmons is absurd yet he exists. ;) Berkeley thought it was absurd for Newton to use infinitesimals. So what if your opinion is that something is absurd?

Alf

February 4, 2006, 02:22 AM

0 is the beginning isn't it?

The current theories is one of two possible. One is that there never was a time 0.

I.e. all valid times T are such that T > 0.

Thus, for any time T you can find an earlier time before it. For example T/2 is less than T and is therefore before T but it is also true that T/2 > 0 if T > 0 and so all times are always strictly positive numbers.

The time T = 0 is not a valid time so you cannot go back in time indefinitely.

This theory indicate a finite time but without a beginning.

The other theory assume any value is valid for time, so again you have no beginning. T = 0 is in the set but so is any other value, including negative values and time has existed indefinitely in the past.

This theory indicate an infinite past and also without a beginning.

In neither case did time have a beginning.

I personally think the first theory is the most reasonable one but that is because I assume that infinities does not exist in the real world. Other people think that infinities are possible and they often assume the second theory makes sense.

Alf

phoenixthoth

February 4, 2006, 02:24 AM

As I said, I know little about math and thus do not take -oo + oo = 0 to be a mathematical equation at all. What it means to me is merely a shorthand for saying that existence (+ oo) and nonexistence (-oo ) represents the active state of a binary system, while the zero represents the ground state of the system. It is fundamentally a simple concept based on the premise that reality cannot be reduced to an absolute zero-complexity. It states that existence/nonexistence are conjagate values that cannot be logically separated, that is, one has no meaning without the other. In this model, it is meaningless to say that the universe came from nonexistence. To say this implies its conjagate opposite - existence. These two must instead allways be present simultaneously. The only true distinction that can be made then, is not whether something exists or is noneistent, but whether existence/nonexistence is determinate or indeterminate. In the equation -oo + oo = 0, we see both the determinate (-oo + oo) and the indeterminate (0) states of the binary system. The fact that the two sides are equal is the proof of this.

-RexT
I like the way you think but I think the logic lawyers will tear it apart. :( I get your general idea though. Could there possibly be degrees to existence, "does God exist" maybe having an answer besides yes or no? The mu concept seems related to this. And fuzzy logic. I'm trying to write a paper on a universal set using three truth values, true false and neither. I try to skirt Russell's paradox with the third truth value. On paper, it's just math, but to me, I'm trying to prove that God is a consistent idea. However, there already are set theories with universal sets (i.e., a set of all sets) so I don't really need to finish except to satisfy my own curiosity. I don't think the universe is as black and white as just true/false.

phoenixthoth

February 4, 2006, 02:26 AM

The current theories is one of two possible. One is that there never was a time 0.

I.e. all valid times T are such that T > 0.

Thus, for any time T you can find an earlier time before it. For example T/2 is less than T and is therefore before T but it is also true that T/2 > 0 if T > 0 and so all times are always strictly positive numbers.

The time T = 0 is not a valid time so you cannot go back in time indefinitely.

This theory indicate a finite time but without a beginning.

The other theory assume any value is valid for time, so again you have no beginning. T = 0 is in the set but so is any other value, including negative values and time has existed indefinitely in the past.

This theory indicate an infinite past and also without a beginning.

In neither case did time have a beginning.

I personally think the first theory is the most reasonable one but that is because I assume that infinities does not exist in the real world. Other people think that infinities are possible and they often assume the second theory makes sense.

Alf
You don't seem to argue that T=0 is invalid. You start by assuming T=0 is not possible, that T>0 and then prove that T>0. Am I missing something?

Alf

February 4, 2006, 02:27 AM

0 is the beginning of time.

Wrong.

In the first theory where time is finite you could posit a value of 0 to be the beginning of time. However, since 0 is not itself a valid point in time in that theory it is still not the beginning of time.

In the second theory where time is infinite the value 0 is just a number among many and have no special significance.

Also in the finite theory you could assume that time "began" at any other value, for example at 4 and say that all valid points in time is such that T > 4. It would be more complicated because T/2 would in this case not necessarily always be greater than 4 so you would essentially find an earlier time by doing something like (T - 4)/2 + 4 = T/2 + 2, this value would be guaranteed less than T when T > 4 and would also itself be greater than 4.

Again, the value of 0 is just a number.

So, you are wrong either way you look at it.

Alf

RexT

February 4, 2006, 02:31 AM

I like the way you think but I think the logic lawyers will tear it apart. :( I get your general idea though. Could there possibly be degrees to existence, "does God exist" maybe having an answer besides yes or no? The mu concept seems related to this. And fuzzy logic. I'm trying to write a paper on a universal set using three truth values, true false and neither. I try to skirt Russell's paradox with the third truth value. On paper, it's just math, but to me, I'm trying to prove that God is a consistent idea. However, there already are set theories with universal sets (i.e., a set of all sets) so I don't really need to finish except to satisfy my own curiosity. I don't think the universe is as black and white as just true/false.
My hypothesis would agree with your true false and neither. Notice that in the the determinate state (-oo + oo) you have only true and false, but in the indeterminate state of zero you have neither. This is a very strange state that indicates that there is neither existence nor nonexistence. That which determines which state the system is in must be that which we call god or volition.

RexT

February 4, 2006, 02:42 AM

Also to address your idea of degrees of existence/god; our present reality is an odd mixture of the two states; it is partially determinate and partially indeterminate. This is scientifically supported by quantum mechanics.

phoenixthoth

February 4, 2006, 02:47 AM

Wrong.

In the first theory where time is finite you could posit a value of 0 to be the beginning of time. However, since 0 is not itself a valid point in time in that theory it is still not the beginning of time.

In the second theory where time is infinite the value 0 is just a number among many and have no special significance.

Also in the finite theory you could assume that time "began" at any other value, for example at 4 and say that all valid points in time is such that T > 4. It would be more complicated because T/2 would in this case not necessarily always be greater than 4 so you would essentially find an earlier time by doing something like (T - 4)/2 + 4 = T/2 + 2, this value would be guaranteed less than T when T > 4 and would also itself be greater than 4.

Again, the value of 0 is just a number.

So, you are wrong either way you look at it.

Alf
Isn't that assuming there are only two ways to look at it? ;)

phoenixthoth

February 4, 2006, 02:48 AM

RexT

February 4, 2006, 02:57 AM

Also there is the undecidable and unprovable in math.
Well, math is after all just another language. Like all language; it can only approximate reality. My guess is that language is not what god is, but what god does. It is like an imperfect image.

phoenixthoth

February 4, 2006, 03:02 AM

But if God is both a never-ending conversation and the totality of all that exists, that suggests that language is the basis of reality. Some language, not our primative natural language.

RexT

February 4, 2006, 03:10 AM

But if God is both a never-ending conversation and the totality of all that exists, that suggests that language is the basis of reality. Some language, not our primative natural language.
Yes, but what are we when in deep sleep - blessed rest - and the conversation pauses? We and god and all that exists are indeed a great conversation, but we must be more than this unless you would claim that we cease to exist durring periods of rest.

RexT

February 4, 2006, 03:14 AM

phoenixthoth, you should look beyond all the noise to see what you are when the noise ceases.

wordy

February 4, 2006, 03:28 AM

could not God be said to exist in a social context as a reference of authority for those using that cultural context. A way to say that one are loyal to that tribe? The definition of God then would be something like

'God is referred to among believers when all human authorites fail to satisfy their need of a moral authority on how to behave within their cultural tradition'

God exists is then a means to creating that authority. They need to make it plausible that God exists cause else the authority would go.

Kylop

February 4, 2006, 03:39 AM

alienward

February 4, 2006, 10:03 AM

Most theists associate human like qualities to their God or Gods. God has been described as being happy, sad, angry, loving, etc. This is a common thing that humans do. Humans tend to do the same thing with other animals, plants, and inanimate objects.
Ok, so we have established that when you say: “We just associate God as a being like us.�? you mean: “Most theists just associate God as a being like us.�?

This is because theism is not a single belief system. There are Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and Zorastrians to name a few. Is your argument against God based on the fact that there are so many diffrent religions and denominations?
No, my argument for a lack of belief in a god or gods is based on the facts that there is no evidence for the existence of a god or gods, there is no evidence any aspect of the universe requires the existence of a god or gods, and there is no evidence that claims for the existence of a god or gods are anything more than figments of peoples’ imaginations.

This is because theists interpret reality differently.
That’s just an apologetic way of saying theists are completely unable to demonstrate their claims about the existence of a god or gods are anything more than figments of their imaginations.

alienward

February 4, 2006, 10:16 AM

Who said "God is everything" is the definition of God?

That there is no evidence everything is a god is a ridiculously irrelevant statement. You've totally misunderstood the statement "God is the totality of all that exists."

For example, if the letters a, b, and c are all the 'things' that exist, then we can denote the totality of all that exists as {a,b,c}. Note that none of the following is correct:
a={a,b,c}
b={a,b,c}
c={a,b,c}.
You’ve got to be joking. If {a,b,c} is everything, then {a,b} is not everything. Why are you trying to pretend I said “God is anything�?? And I’ve got this god beat, I’m missing an appendix, but I’m still a human.

phoenixthoth

February 4, 2006, 12:49 PM

Yes, but what are we when in deep sleep - blessed rest - and the conversation pauses? We and god and all that exists are indeed a great conversation, but we must be more than this unless you would claim that we cease to exist durring periods of rest.
We are just silent. Silence is already part of the conversation: just look at all the space between a period and a capital letter. Some silence, at least. That's something I wonder about the great conversation in one's head: thought. I think therefore I am. Now apply your question to a time between thoughts. Do we cease to exist? I don't think so :grin:. Just may be a bit harder to prove we exist when we're unconscious and asleep. But then who would be doing the proving and who would we be proving to? ;)

Silence is very important in "my" paradigm. I think understanding can be silent. I will write a few symbols down now but don't let your mind chatter on about what these symbols mean, OK? Just be silent in your head and understand:

9/11

When I think, I don't spell it all out. Don't know about anyone else. I can think "on september 11th...," without finishing the statement because I understand the significance of those symbols. Love is a good one. I write love but do you have to contemplate all the various aspects of love, making your head a chatterbox, in order to at least understand what I mean? Don't think so. Silence can be the carrier wave of understanding. It could be either a sound with zero wavelength, the lack of sound, or a sound wave of infinite wavelength, a soundwave stretched out infinitely, to be loose with my language.

If God ever communicates with us, I think it is done silently; the silent understanding is induced in the recepient. Then that understanding is horrifically mutilated and altered by the recepient's ego and brain.

Time can't be a negative number. It can be zero. If there wasn't a zero there wouldn't be anything. My theory is that the Universe just appeared and is infinite. How God is connected to this would be that he was responsible for it. He didn't pre-exist until everything appeared and he took conciousness as it's creator.
You're right: time can't be a negative number. However, you certainly can represent time as a negative: -10 seconds ago, I wrote "time can't be a negative number." Equating numbers with time is ridiculous. Numbers are used only to represent a point in time, numbers are not time. So time can't be zero, either, nor can time be the number 1. You can say 1 second after this I will write a period but that does not make time=1. What came first, God or the universe, in your theory?

You’ve got to be joking. If {a,b,c} is everything, then {a,b} is not everything. Why are you trying to pretend I said “God is anything�?? And I’ve got this god beat, I’m missing an appendix, but I’m still a human.
You said "God is everything." There's a distinct difference between that and "God is the totality of all that exists." You also said words to the effect of "there is no evidence that everything is a God" I thought to disprove the definition "God is the totality of all that exists." "everything is God" in my analogy is a={a,b,c}.

Yahzi

February 4, 2006, 01:30 PM

Are you assuming that any definition of God must include something along the lines of God is a being with omnipotence, etc.?
No, I was just pointing out that ominpotence was as badly defined as omniscience.

But it does seem to be the case that gods are almost always defined by omni attributes. Apparently theists just can't resist one-upping their gods until they hit the ceiling. ;)

Yahzi

February 4, 2006, 01:37 PM

but If there is no credible objection to Pantheism then why should it be rejected outright and not rather considered as a possible route to greater understanding.
The credible objection is: there is no evidence for it.

I don't see how having a lack of belief in something, or for that matter a belief in something helps me to reach my goal.
Defining truth as that which there is evidence for, instead of that which there is no evidence against, helps you achieve your goal a lot, insomuch as it narrows the field in what we have to consider as true. And the field is too wide. Even after narrowing it, it's too wide for any one person to study all of it.

The problem with Pantheism is that it is a useless speculation. We know it is useless because there is no test that can disprove it. And the entire point of speculations is to make predictions; that is, to propose tests that can disprove them.

Pantheism isn't bad; it's just unnecessary.

alienward

February 4, 2006, 02:20 PM

The lack of belief in everything is reasonable to me given the nature of our reality, but If there is no credible objection to Pantheism then why should it be rejected outright and not rather considered as a possible route to greater understanding. You see alienward, I'm not searching for a new belief or a reason to doubt; I'm searching for the truth about why I exist and I'm willing to except it in whatever form it might present itself. My fear is that if I reject everthing prima facie, I might miss something important. I don't see how having a lack of belief in something, or for that matter a belief in something helps me to reach my goal. Therefore, I thought it important to get an atheistic perspective on Pantheism. I appreciate you giving me your opinion though.
Are you talking about classical pantheism or natural pantheism? Theists can’t agree on what the god is for any kind of theism, including this one. The complete lack of evidence to back up the claims of this kind of theism is a good enough reason to have a lack of belief in this kind of theism, just like it is for all the other types of theism.

Please explain why a god is everything that exists and why if only helium existed you would still have a god or would not have a god.

phoenixthoth

February 4, 2006, 02:27 PM

No, I was just pointing out that ominpotence was as badly defined as omniscience.

But it does seem to be the case that gods are almost always defined by omni attributes. Apparently theists just can't resist one-upping their gods until they hit the ceiling. ;)
It does seem that way, I agree. Speaking of badly defined words, this takes the cake:

Defining truth as that which there is evidence for, instead of that which there is no evidence against, helps you achieve your goal a lot, insomuch as it narrows the field in what we have to consider as true. And the field is too wide. Even after narrowing it, it's too wide for any one person to study all of it.

My "problem" is that I say God exists by definition: God is the totality of all that exists. Your problem is that you define truth so that it will not by true by definition (to you at least) that God exists. The word truth is just as bad as omniscience or omnipotence. You got the logical conundrum "God can create a rock he can't lift" which is neither true nor false. That contradiction to you implies that omnipotence is not well defined. Therefore, the following similar contradiction should convince you that truth is just as bad as omni-something:
Suppose truth is definable. Then so is the word false. Then "this statement is false" is neither true nor false. This contradiction implies that truth is undefinable.
We know it is useless because there is no test that can disprove it. And the entire point of speculations is to make predictions; that is, to propose tests that can disprove them.
I disagree. Your choice made that if no test can disprove speculation X then speculation X is useless is a personal one, if popular (especially among scientists), and arbitrary. I find speculation also a wonderful way to occupy your mind. Speculating on God's true nature is more useful than playing GTA or chess, imho. Now if it turns out that God's true nature is that God is the totality of all that exists, then speculating that was not useless. I think you're talking more about scientific speculations than unscientific ones. Lastly, the Bible predicts that you will go to hell when you die if you are an infidel. That's a testable prediction. Just kill yourself. It's the ultimate experiment. ;)

phoenixthoth

February 4, 2006, 02:32 PM

Are you talking about classical pantheism or natural pantheism? Theists can’t agree on what the god is for any kind of theism, including this one. The complete lack of evidence to back up the claims of this kind of theism is a good enough reason to have a lack of belief in this kind of theism, just like it is for all the other types of theism.

Please explain why a god is everything that exists and why if only helium existed you would still have a god or would not have a god.

I agree, there is good reason to have a lack of belief in any kind of theism.

Why would I explain a false statement? I said "God is the totality of all that exists" which is a far cry from "God is everything that exists."

If helium only existed then God would be the totality of all the helium. That totality exists, and therefore God would still exist. Of course it's not the same God as the God of a universe containing more than helium.

RexT

February 4, 2006, 07:23 PM

We are just silent. Silence is already part of the conversation: just look at all the space between a period and a capital letter. Some silence, at least. That's something I wonder about the great conversation in one's head: thought. I think therefore I am. Now apply your question to a time between thoughts. Do we cease to exist? I don't think so :grin:. Just may be a bit harder to prove we exist when we're unconscious and asleep. But then who would be doing the proving and who would we be proving to? ;)

Silence is very important in "my" paradigm. I think understanding can be silent. I will write a few symbols down now but don't let your mind chatter on about what these symbols mean, OK? Just be silent in your head and understand:

9/11

When I think, I don't spell it all out. Don't know about anyone else. I can think "on september 11th...," without finishing the statement because I understand the significance of those symbols. Love is a good one. I write love but do you have to contemplate all the various aspects of love, making your head a chatterbox, in order to at least understand what I mean? Don't think so. Silence can be the carrier wave of understanding. It could be either a sound with zero wavelength, the lack of sound, or a sound wave of infinite wavelength, a soundwave stretched out infinitely, to be loose with my language.

If God ever communicates with us, I think it is done silently; the silent understanding is induced in the recepient. Then that understanding is horrifically mutilated and altered by the recepient's ego and brain.

Yes, I agree with you about silence. Consider how important the silence is in music; it is integral to it and can be as beautiful as the notes. I should apologize for my thoughtless answer to you last night; I was just very tired and sleepy at the time.

Communication through silence has reveled the most profound insights that I have known. Whether this was from god or some unknown part of myself I cannot say, but if it is a part of me, then it makes me wonder how little I really know about myself.

RexT

February 4, 2006, 07:51 PM

The credible objection is: there is no evidence for it.

Yes, well Descartes wondered if there was any proof that he himself existed. And you know, the only evidence he could find that was trustworty, was that he could think. Not much to go on, but if its all we have...

Defining truth as that which there is evidence for, instead of that which there is no evidence against, helps you achieve your goal a lot, insomuch as it narrows the field in what we have to consider as true. And the field is too wide. Even after narrowing it, it's too wide for any one person to study all of it.
Well, I trust that this definition of truth helps you to reach your goal Yahzi, but I could never reduce the meaning of my existence to what you call evidence. Of course, I too took that route once upon a time, but finally it was just too unfulfilling for me to let others define my existence. I will say this to you with good intentions, so don't take it the wrong way; we will all grow old and we will die knowing neither the truth of this world nor if our lives had any meaning. However, we do have a certain choice in this matter if we are courageous enough to see it. That choice is either to define the meaning of life for ourselves or let the experts and leaders do it for us. I choose the former.

The problem with Pantheism is that it is a useless speculation. We know it is useless because there is no test that can disprove it. And the entire point of speculations is to make predictions; that is, to propose tests that can disprove them.

Pantheism isn't bad; it's just unnecessary.

There, you see what I mean. I don't know if you are an expert Yahzi, but even you want to tell us all what is useless and what is necessary.

RexT

February 4, 2006, 08:10 PM

Are you talking about classical pantheism or natural pantheism? Theists can’t agree on what the god is for any kind of theism, including this one. The complete lack of evidence to back up the claims of this kind of theism is a good enough reason to have a lack of belief in this kind of theism, just like it is for all the other types of theism.

A lack of belief. Is this the purpose and meaning of your life alienward, to acquire an insurmountable lack of belief? Is this some kind of theory or proposal to make the world a better place? If so, then do you have some evidence or proof to back up the claim that having a lack of belief guarantees a world full of happy friendly people? If not, then is this a good enough reason to have a lack of belief in having a lack of belief?

My interest in pantheism is that it might have the potential to explain an aspect of reality that traditional religions cannot. Of course this might take years of research and dedication. It might be a waste of time, but then if it gives my short life here in this unresolved mystery called a universe some purpose and meaning, how could you prove me wrong?

alienward

February 5, 2006, 12:18 AM

Why would I explain a false statement? I said "God is the totality of all that exists" which is a far cry from "God is everything that exists."
Oh sorry, how about “God is the totality of everything.�?? Why do you think this?

If helium only existed then God would be the totality of all the helium. That totality exists, and therefore God would still exist. Of course it's not the same God as the God of a universe containing more than helium.
If there is this universe and a helium only universe there must be two different gods. Either that, or the totality of everything is those two universes and the god is now not the same god as god of the totality of this universe or god of the totality of the helium only universe – or maybe now there's three totality gods. My point here is we don’t have a clue whet the totality of everything is. So why would you think a god is the totality of everything when none of us has the slightest clue what everything is?

alienward

February 5, 2006, 12:31 AM

A lack of belief. Is this the purpose and meaning of your life alienward, to acquire an insurmountable lack of belief? Is this some kind of theory or proposal to make the world a better place? If so, then do you have some evidence or proof to back up the claim that having a lack of belief guarantees a world full of happy friendly people? If not, then is this a good enough reason to have a lack of belief in having a lack of belief?

My interest in pantheism is that it might have the potential to explain an aspect of reality that traditional religions cannot. Of course this might take years of research and dedication. It might be a waste of time, but then if it gives my short life here in this unresolved mystery called a universe some purpose and meaning, how could you prove me wrong?
I asked one question and you replied by not answering it while asking five questions yourself. What’s with that? At least my answer to the first four is the same - No.

As for that last question, I’ll answer it when you complete your “years of research and dedication�? and present something that can be falsified.

Yahzi

February 5, 2006, 02:16 AM

God is the totality of all that exists.
But that's inappropriate. We already have several names for the totality of all that exists: universe, reality, etc. And "God" quite clearly means a personal entity to the vast majority of people that have ever used the word. So why would we redefine God to be Universe? Why not just admit there is no God, only a Universe?

What value is there in using the word "God" other than the ability to fool theists into thinking you are on their side?

Suppose truth is definable. Then so is the word false. Then "this statement is false" is neither true nor false. This contradiction implies that truth is undefinable.
No it doesn't. It implies that the statement "this statement is false" is not a valid statement. (That is, is not a properly formed statement).

Your choice made that if no test can disprove speculation X then speculation X is useless is a personal one, if popular (especially among scientists), and arbitrary.
It is not personal or arbitrary; it is the essence of rational thought (it is also known as Occam's razor, or the parsimony principle).

I find speculation also a wonderful way to occupy your mind.
What you do for pleasure has nothing to do with the value of a hypothesis as a statement about the world. Mistaking "entertaining you" as "valuable to the rest of us" is a rather naive mistake.

Speculating on God's true nature is more useful than playing GTA or chess, imho.
GTA and chess at least have well-defined rules, and that forces you into a certain amount of discipline, which allows for progress and improvement. Speculating on God, on the other hand, is the same on the 1,000 day you do it as it was on the 1st.

Lastly, the Bible predicts that you will go to hell when you die if you are an infidel. That's a testable prediction. Just kill yourself. It's the ultimate experiment. ;)
A good experiment is replicable. The one you suggest is not.

Yahzi

February 5, 2006, 02:24 AM

Yes, well Descartes wondered if there was any proof that he himself existed. And you know, the only evidence he could find that was trustworty, was that he could think. Not much to go on, but if its all we have...
I don't understand your objection. It looks like the nilhism defense; the claim that nobody can know anything for sure. Is that what you are getting at?

Well, I trust that this definition of truth helps you to reach your goal Yahzi, but I could never reduce the meaning of my existence to what you call evidence.
I have no idea what this means.

I will say this to you with good intentions, so don't take it the wrong way; we will all grow old and we will die knowing neither the truth of this world nor if our lives had any meaning.
I know the truth of this world, and I know what meaning my life has.

That choice is either to define the meaning of life for ourselves or let the experts and leaders do it for us.
How is this in conflict with materialism? Are you suggesting that because I listen to scientists and their dry old facts, I am letting experts define the meaning of my life?

I think truth, however dull, is always infinitely richer than fantasy, however baroque.

There, you see what I mean. I don't know if you are an expert Yahzi, but even you want to tell us all what is useless and what is necessary.
You think that speculations that can't be tested are useful? Do you think this is true in any other field, like your bank account, car mechanics, or your medical care?

Yahzi

February 5, 2006, 02:27 AM

If so, then do you have some evidence or proof to back up the claim that having a lack of belief guarantees a world full of happy friendly people?
It doesn't guarantee it, but it sure does remove one huge obstacle to rational thought.

My interest in pantheism is that it might have the potential to explain an aspect of reality that traditional religions cannot.
How is it an explanation to say, "God is the totality of everything." What can you do with that knowledge that you could not do before you had it? In other words, how would you test that claim?

It might be a waste of time, but then if it gives my short life here in this unresolved mystery called a universe some purpose and meaning, how could you prove me wrong?
Dude, you can spend your life deciphering the mysteries of Lord of the Rings if you want. That's fine. Just don't pretend it has anything to do with reality.

Gawen

February 5, 2006, 08:15 AM

If so, then do you have some evidence or proof to back up the claim that having a lack of belief guarantees a world full of happy friendly people?
"Belief in God gives makes the world full of happy friendly people" If it were true, it would be an Ad Hoc fallacy.
or
Argumentum ad ignorantiam: The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.

I'm quite sure there are a few other fallacies involved, depending how you phrase the question or statement. Frankly, this question opens up a different can of worms; suitable for a thread of it's own, but not suited for this forum.

phoenixthoth

February 5, 2006, 07:03 PM

Yes, I agree with you about silence. Consider how important the silence is in music; it is integral to it and can be as beautiful as the notes. I should apologize for my thoughtless answer to you last night; I was just very tired and sleepy at the time.

Communication through silence has reveled the most profound insights that I have known. Whether this was from god or some unknown part of myself I cannot say, but if it is a part of me, then it makes me wonder how little I really know about myself.

I too was tired; how appropriate for a comment about rest.

There even is a symphony of silence alone which has been copyrighted. The Berzerker has a song of 66.6 seconds of silence. And then there are all those dramatic pauses in speech as exemplified by William Shatner's portrayal of Captain Kirk. Also, yeah, silence in music between notes, whether it is for 10 miliseconds or a couple of seconds, silence is quite significant. It's kind of needed, one might say, to distinguish the other notes. No, that's not quite true if you consider chords which are some notes combined.

If think I'm too cool for school then I'm gonna get schooled. I mean that in the sense of the ignorance I have of God and myself. But that's pretty natural because both are pretty complex, especially the former. I think it is possible to train yourself to be able to eliminate or bypass your ego and get the right message from silence and have that silent understanding.

If there is this universe and a helium only universe there must be two different gods. Either that, or the totality of everything is those two universes and the god is now not the same god as god of the totality of this universe or god of the totality of the helium only universe – or maybe now there's three totality gods. My point here is we don’t have a clue whet the totality of everything is. So why would you think a god is the totality of everything when none of us has the slightest clue what everything is?

Your antecedent is false. Therefore, everything breaks down after that.

There is not "this universe" and "a helium only universe." If helium is the only substance that exists, then God would then be, in that impossibly hypothetical case, the totality of all the helium. There is only one universe.

But that's inappropriate. We already have several names for the totality of all that exists: universe, reality, etc. And "God" quite clearly means a personal entity to the vast majority of people that have ever used the word. So why would we redefine God to be Universe? Why not just admit there is no God, only a Universe?
Actually, language permits the existence of synonyms. You said yourself we already have more than one word for it: universe and reality. Now why is "universe" necessary if we already have the word "reality," hm? To answer your question, why ever redefine anything? Or do you think that language has not evolved in the sense that no words have ever been redefined? It's done when a better definition is found or formulated.

What value is there in using the word "God" other than the ability to fool theists into thinking you are on their side?
It doesn't matter if you don't appraise what I value at the value I value it at. Not whatsoever.

Quote:
Suppose truth is definable. Then so is the word false. Then "this statement is false" is neither true nor false. This contradiction implies that truth is undefinable.
No it doesn't. It implies that the statement "this statement is false" is not a valid statement. (That is, is not a properly formed statement).
Define: valid statement. Because I can come up with a well-formed formula in first order logic which means "this statement is false." See http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~dale/godel/godel.html for more details, a semi-lay account of things which can be formalized in books such as any logic book including the tarski self-reference lemma.

Just because you don't like the result doesn't mean it's an invalid statement. That's an argument of desire. What's wrong isn't that "this statement is false" is not a statement, it's that "false" is undefinable; so, so is true. I can play the same game of desire and say:
"God can't create a rock he cannot lift"
is simply an invalid statement and that omnipotence is perfectly well-defined.

Quote by me:
Your choice made that if no test can disprove speculation X then speculation X is useless is a personal one, if popular (especially among scientists), and arbitrary.
It is not personal or arbitrary; it is the essence of rational thought (it is also known as Occam's razor, or the parsimony principle).
That is not what Occam's razor says, nor is what I said in my quote parsimony. Occam's razor has to do with two competing theories, not whether a speculation is falsifiable.

Quote:
I find speculation also a wonderful way to occupy your mind.
What you do for pleasure has nothing to do with the value of a hypothesis as a statement about the world. Mistaking "entertaining you" as "valuable to the rest of us" is a rather naive mistake.
Right back at ya'.

GTA and chess at least have well-defined rules, and that forces you into a certain amount of discipline, which allows for progress and improvement. Speculating on God, on the other hand, is the same on the 1,000 day you do it as it was on the 1st.
Actually, that's not correct. My 1000th day was quite unlike my 1st day. Maybe your 1000th day was the same as your 1st day. I dunno.

Quote:
Lastly, the Bible predicts that you will go to hell when you die if you are an infidel. That's a testable prediction. Just kill yourself. It's the ultimate experiment.
A good experiment is replicable. The one you suggest is not.
You took it too seriously.

RexT

February 5, 2006, 10:47 PM

"Belief in God gives makes the world full of happy friendly people" If it were true, it would be an Ad Hoc fallacy.
or
Argumentum ad ignorantiam: The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.

I'm quite sure there are a few other fallacies involved, depending how you phrase the question or statement. Frankly, this question opens up a different can of worms; suitable for a thread of it's own, but not suited for this forum.
I agree with you completely. But I was not trying to make an argument with the question. Just trying to be a mirror to reflect back this statement, The complete lack of evidence to back up the claims of this kind of theism is a good enough reason to have a lack of belief in this kind of theism, just like it is for all the other types of theism.
The point that I intended was that belief or lack of belief is irrelevant. Yet, I do apologize and will attempt to refrain from such in the future.

RexT

February 5, 2006, 11:13 PM

I asked one question and you replied by not answering it while asking five questions yourself. What’s with that? At least my answer to the first four is the same - No.
My apologies, I didn't answer your question because I do not know the distinction between classical pantheism and natural pantheism. I must admit my ignorance in this matter. All that I know about pantheism is my own understanding which I have developed independently of others views. In fact, I only learned the word after I joined IIDB. I simply used it because in the way others here have used it, it seemed to fit my own understanding of reality.
As for that last question, I’ll answer it when you complete your “years of research and dedication�? and present something that can be falsified.

Ok you asked for it. I had already completed my “years of research and dedication�? when I said that. Its a bit long, though I tried to keep it as short as possible and still get in enough detail, but here is my presentation for you to falsify. I have entitled it The Grand Conversation

DEFINITION OF GOD:
The totality of all that exists, which includes all that has been and all that is yet to be.

ASSERTIONS

God is both being and nonbeing, thus becoming
God is self-referential and self-defining
God is self-awareness
God is intelligence
God is ambiguous

ASSERTION:

The universe is the language of God or GUL for God's universal language

The first 5 premises are exactly the properties and behavior of matter/energy. It is self-referential and self-defining, yet is in a state of becoming. How do we know this, the Heisenberg uncertainty principal, quantum vacuum fluctuation and the wave/particle duality all make it clear that nothing is absolute, i.e., reality is ambiguous. Reality is neither determinate nor indeterminate; it is the synthesis of both, thus in a state of becoming. As it can be shown that ambiguities always occur in the use of language, then showing that the universe is also a language, would indicate that it is intelligent and self-aware. The only known source of language is a mind. Thus, if the universe is in fact a language, then it is the mind of god.

EVIDENCE:

First correlation:
Language is based on laws that even God cannot violate. Any violation of these laws would effectively reduce language to gibberish.

Three basic laws of language: (not a complete list)

It must have a speaker and listener
It must convey a meaningful message
It must have an alphabet and vocabulary

Matter/energy is also based on laws that even God cannot violate. Any violation of these laws would reduce matter/energy to gibberish.

Second correlation:
COMPARISON BETWEEN MATTER/ENERGY AND LANGUAGE

Law# 1. Speaker-listener: This corresponds to the emission-absorption of matter/energy

Law# 2. Meaningful message: This one is difficult to compare because it requires us to speak the language of god. Notwithstanding, it is possible to decipher some parts of the message. This is possible because of the strong correlation between matter/energy and mathematics, a language that we can speak.

Law# 3. Alphabet & vocabulary: This comparison is rather easy to make.

Letter = word = sentence = paragraph = ---->
Quark = atom = molecule = compound = ---->

As regards life forms:

Cell = tissue = organ = organism = --------->
Specie = genus = family = order = --------->

As regards society:

Citizen = family = community = nation = ---------->

As regards business, government, science, religion, education…the list goes on.

Language language everywhere, have you nothing to say…I say that the universe is a language and that life is a conversation.

Third correlation:
The laws of language also apply (somewhat) to the mysterious thing called consciousness.

Law# 1. Speaker-listener: Consciousness is both expressive and receptive.
Law# 2. Meaningful message: Consciousness is the arbiter of meaning.
Law# 3. Alphabet & vocabulary: This is a difficult comparison because consciousness merely mimics the alphabet and vocabulary structure of language. That is, it temporarily forms itself into these structures to grasp and determine their meaning. Consciousness can assume the laws and features of any language, but is not bound by them. For example, if a language is reduced to gibberish because of a violation of one of its laws, consciousness remains operative and merely assigns the meaning – gibberish – to it. Consciousness does have a hierarchy-like structure to it, which is not exactly like the structure of language. It can better be described as layers or degrees and states. Therefore, though consciousness is similar to language and matter/energy, it is more powerful and seems to subsume these others.

Now, we have these three aspects of reality/god:

Language
Matter/energy
Consciousness

Each is conspicuously like the other; they are all:

both being and nonbeing, thus becoming
self-referential and self-defining
self-aware
intelligent
ambiguous

In the sense that God is the totality of all that exists, the universe would then be god defined. That is, the universe is a linguistic expression of god defining self. In the sense that God is the totality of all that is yet to be, the universe would be an evolving conversation. In this conversation, nothing has been decided and there is nothing like an omega point or final goal to the conversation. The universe as a conversation is not intended to decide anything; it is merely the ongoing event of self-expression.

This is why we will never reach a final conclusion about reality/god, but must instead continue the conversation forever. What we can manage to complete however, is our coming to realize this condition of reality/god, know why it must be this way and except it for what it is. Atheists and theists alike have always demanded that the other do something that they themselves cannot do, namely, to supply a final conclusion to the conversation of reality.

CONCLUSION:

Universe = Language = God = The Great Conversation

phoenixthoth

February 6, 2006, 12:00 AM

The Grand Conversation

DEFINITION OF GOD:
The totality of all that exists, which includes all that has been and all that is yet to be.

ASSERTIONS

God is both being and nonbeing, thus becoming
God is self-referential and self-defining
God is self-awareness
God is intelligence
God is ambiguous

ASSERTION:

The universe is the language of God or GUL for God's universal language

The first 5 premises are exactly the properties and behavior of matter/energy. It is self-referential and self-defining, yet is in a state of becoming. How do we know this, the Heisenberg uncertainty principal, quantum vacuum fluctuation and the wave/particle duality all make it clear that nothing is absolute, i.e., reality is ambiguous. Reality is neither determinate nor indeterminate; it is the synthesis of both, thus in a state of becoming. As it can be shown that ambiguities always occur in the use of language, then showing that the universe is also a language, would indicate that it is intelligent and self-aware. The only known source of language is a mind. Thus, if the universe is in fact a language, then it is the mind of god.

EVIDENCE:

First correlation:
Language is based on laws that even God cannot violate. Any violation of these laws would effectively reduce language to gibberish.

Three basic laws of language: (not a complete list)

It must have a speaker and listener
It must convey a meaningful message
It must have an alphabet and vocabulary

Matter/energy is also based on laws that even God cannot violate. Any violation of these laws would reduce matter/energy to gibberish.

Second correlation:
COMPARISON BETWEEN MATTER/ENERGY AND LANGUAGE

Law# 1. Speaker-listener: This corresponds to the emission-absorption of matter/energy

Law# 2. Meaningful message: This one is difficult to compare because it requires us to speak the language of god. Notwithstanding, it is possible to decipher some parts of the message. This is possible because of the strong correlation between matter/energy and mathematics, a language that we can speak.

Law# 3. Alphabet & vocabulary: This comparison is rather easy to make.

Letter = word = sentence = paragraph = ---->
Quark = atom = molecule = compound = ---->

As regards life forms:

Cell = tissue = organ = organism = --------->
Specie = genus = family = order = --------->

As regards society:

Citizen = family = community = nation = ---------->

As regards business, government, science, religion, education…the list goes on.

Language language everywhere, have you nothing to say…I say that the universe is a language and that life is a conversation.

Third correlation:
The laws of language also apply (somewhat) to the mysterious thing called consciousness.

Law# 1. Speaker-listener: Consciousness is both expressive and receptive.
Law# 2. Meaningful message: Consciousness is the arbiter of meaning.
Law# 3. Alphabet & vocabulary: This is a difficult comparison because consciousness merely mimics the alphabet and vocabulary structure of language. That is, it temporarily forms itself into these structures to grasp and determine their meaning. Consciousness can assume the laws and features of any language, but is not bound by them. For example, if a language is reduced to gibberish because of a violation of one of its laws, consciousness remains operative and merely assigns the meaning – gibberish – to it. Consciousness does have a hierarchy-like structure to it, which is not exactly like the structure of language. It can better be described as layers or degrees and states. Therefore, though consciousness is similar to language and matter/energy, it is more powerful and seems to subsume these others.

Now, we have these three aspects of reality/god:

Language
Matter/energy
Consciousness

Each is conspicuously like the other; they are all:

both being and nonbeing, thus becoming
self-referential and self-defining
self-aware
intelligent
ambiguous

In the sense that God is the totality of all that exists, the universe would then be god defined. That is, the universe is a linguistic expression of god defining self. In the sense that God is the totality of all that is yet to be, the universe would be an evolving conversation. In this conversation, nothing has been decided and there is nothing like an omega point or final goal to the conversation. The universe as a conversation is not intended to decide anything; it is merely the ongoing event of self-expression.

This is why we will never reach a final conclusion about reality/god, but must instead continue the conversation forever. What we can manage to complete however, is our coming to realize this condition of reality/god, know why it must be this way and except it for what it is. Atheists and theists alike have always demanded that the other do something that they themselves cannot do, namely, to supply a final conclusion to the conversation of reality.

CONCLUSION:

Universe = Language = God = The Great Conversation
If so, the grammar of this language would then be the results described in Physics.

The bit about self-reference is interesting. There is a whole lot of information available and probably a lot not known, about self-referecing statements. The statement "this statement is false" can be formalized into a logical contradiction implying that truth is undefinable; that gives you the ambiguity of language.

Very thought provoking overall. Thanks for sharing.

RexT

February 6, 2006, 12:48 AM

If so, the grammar of this language would then be the results described in Physics.

The bit about self-reference is interesting. There is a whole lot of information available and probably a lot not known, about self-referecing statements. The statement "this statement is false" can be formalized into a logical contradiction implying that truth is undefinable; that gives you the ambiguity of language.

Very thought provoking overall. Thanks for sharing.

If truth is undefinable, then what does that say about the utility of definitions. moreover, what does it say about the status of truth? It would seem to suggest that reality is founded on paradox. If this is the case, then Self-referencing would mean that there is no need for an infinite regression to explain god. God is self-explained by stating that reality is anything I say it is and yet not this at all.

Chaupoline

February 6, 2006, 12:55 AM

Ah, this might be an inherent contradiction embedded in the term benevolence itself. Indicating that it is logically impossible for any being to be "truly benevolent". This would be sad news for most who worship such a god such as the christians, muslims etc.

No, it simply asks how is this benevolent, and then determining whether this is a benevolent act. Handouts are not benevolent, because it leads to dependency.

Maybe, but how do you figure out which one is real and which one is fake? We have exactly the same amount of evidence for all of them (exactly zero).

Listen to what they say and then play it off of how it interprets reality. If you disagree with the interpretation you disagree with the religion.

They believe that there is a benevolent and powerful god who they worship - obviously they must therefore consider him worthy of worship. Nobody would worship a god they did not deem worthy of worship. For example Satan and Gabriel are also beings more powerful than ordinary men and yet few people worship those. The reason is that they do not deem them worthy of worship.

I believe that there is a benevolent and powerful God, whom I respect very much, and even worship not because I want handouts from this being, but rather because I am in awe of its benevolence towards us. It's example inspires me to want to be a better person.

They also believe that this god will eventually send us to heaven or hell after we die (and being benevolent he would wish that as many of us as possible get to heaven and as few of us as possible get to hell.)

What I believe is that when we die, that we will be reborn into a newborn on this planet. Through the actions of humanity, this world will become a heaven or a hell (and being benevolent God would wish that this planet will be a heaven.)

Since the criteria for being sent to hell is whether we believe in him or not, this translates to the point that he will want as many of us to believe in him as possible. Anything else would indicate lack of compassion and that would indicate he wasn't benevolent since compassion is one of the things that indicate benevolence.

Since the criteria for being sent to hell is whether we have screwed up this planet and made it a hell. God will have wanted as many of us to respect one another and work together to make everyone benefit on this planet. Anything else would indicate a lack of compassion which is one of the things that indicate benevolence.

So, if you by "handouts" mean that he let himself be known through "divine inspiration" etc then that describes the christian god to a tee. The problem is of course that he doesn't give this divine inspiration to all of us. Consequently, this must mean that he doesn't want us to join him in heaven and he wants to send us to hell and be tortured there. Consequently, he does not have compassion and he is a tyrranic bastard and not benevolent as the christians claims he is.

God picked one community on the entire planet to communicate with. Since everyone on the planet will be reborn at their deaths, everyone will have been in this community during one of their lives. With Christianity, the descendents of Israel are not the only ones that are subsequently blessed and this would then spread to the entire world.

The diversification is among the christians, muslims and judaism and the argument is targeted mainly towards those and only work for other gods in so far as they fit the same description. I never claimed the line of reasoning has validity beyond that.

Reincarnation is not part of the christian belief. Buddhism, hinduism and other religions that believe in reincarnation rather than a heaven/hell afterlife is not affected by this line of reasoning and a separate line of reasoning must be provided for them. I don't know at this moment if there is any proof that indicate that buddhism must be wrong because of diversity among buddhists.

Origien of Alexandria was a Christian theologian that first spoke of a finite number of souls and reincarnation. The idea of reincarnation compliments with Christianity fairly well as I have shown. I consider myself a Christian. I do not believe in a God that gives out handouts. This is what the Three Temptations of Christ symbolized.

The three temptations of Christ were about the mistake of creating a dependency of the people on God through the church.

1. Transforming the Stones into Bread - You can control people by making them dependent on you for the necessities of life. This is a tool that the warlords in Somalia use to control the population. It is also not respectful of the population. Jesus' answered, "It is written, that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God." The Word of God is not the authority of the church. It is the reality of the world that we live in. People need to work together to thrive in this world of conflict. Man vs Nature. People need to treat each other with respect and help each other. Man vs Man. This is the Word of God. This is what is continually stressed.

2. Miracles (throwing himself off the cliff in order because the angels would save him) - If the angels saved you from harm whenever you were in danger, there would be no consequences for your actions in the course of Man vs Nature. This is disrespectful to Mankind because we need consequences for our actions. God sent multiple prophets to the planet and the people didn't have a lasting change. When Babylon overtook Israel, enslaved the population
and destroyed the Temple of Solomon, Israel realized that there were consequences. However, when the Persians released the Jews they fell back into their old rut. There needs to be consequences and the quick save does not help us.

The Washington Consensus is a quick save policy for foreign development, but it does not help the people that it is supposed to. It just makes third world nations become dependent upon the United States, and opens them up for us to exploit their people.

3. Dominon over all the nations of the Earth - By turning down this temptation Jesus stated that organized state religion was disrespectful towards the practicioners of the religion. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto God what is God's." Dostoevsky states as much in The Grand Inquisitor in the book The Brother's Karamazov.

phoenixthoth

February 6, 2006, 01:09 AM

If truth is undefinable, then what does that say about the utility of definitions. moreover, what does it say about the status of truth? It would seem to suggest that reality is founded on paradox.

Well the definable words will come down to words that aren't definable. Definitions still have their utility and the collection of undefinable words is to be kept at a minimum. (Consider the word "set" in set theory or "line" in Euclidean geometry.) Definitions all have a certain degree of circularity. I forget the classical example of this so let's consider one for which this circularity more apparent: set.

(1) set: A group of things of the same kind that belong together and are so used
(2) group: An assemblage...
(3) assemblage: A collection...
(4) collection: A group...

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circularity .
Seems like you'd also like:
http://www2.imm.dtu.dk/~tb/selfrefsli.pdf

My point is that defining is a useful process despite its inherint circularity.

Truth can exist without it being definable. In some circles, you'd phrase that as "you can't prove a statement absolutely true."

So I wouldn't say based on paradox.

Alf

February 6, 2006, 01:46 AM

Might be a bad definition. Why the word 'in'? What does that mean? Is the concept of love in the universe? Not love, but the concept of love. OR do you not think that concepts exist?

The "concept of love" cannot be detached from any individuals who "love". If you do, it becomes meaningless. Thus, you can very much say that "love" is in the universe and cannot be detached from it. You have "love" you say? Who loves and what is the target of their love? Both the subject and the object are definitely things IN the universe. Case closed.

Alf

Alf

February 6, 2006, 01:47 AM

"However, that is absurd." Why? And even if so, so what? Richard Simmons is absurd yet he exists. ;) Berkeley thought it was absurd for Newton to use infinitesimals. So what if your opinion is that something is absurd?
It is absurd because you are claiming that there was a time T1 when time did not exist.

If you don't see the contradiction in that claim I cannot help you any further - it should be obvious.

Alf

Alf

February 6, 2006, 01:53 AM

You don't seem to argue that T=0 is invalid. You start by assuming T=0 is not possible, that T>0 and then prove that T>0. Am I missing something?

Yes you are missing something. My point was to show that you get a coherent theory even if you take the following set of assumptions:

1. Time past is finite. I.e. time has a certain age and it is meaningless to talk about "before" or "older" than that age.

2. There was no "first time".

I.e. the two statements do NOT contradict each other as many people appear to assume. Many people say that "because the past is finite there must have been a first time" and that claim is flat out wrong.

However, if you add in the fact that IF you added in a first time - a time 0 if you like - then you get all sorts of contradictions. If time = 0 as a first time existed, what was before it? If it was a valid point in time this is a valid question. However, the answer is absurd whether you say "yes" or "no". If you say "yes" then you end up saying that there was a time when time did not exist and if you say "no" you end up saying that there is a time "0" but no time before it which is also absurd.

Consequently, we may conclude that since the other theory is absurd while the theory that T > 0 etc is not incoherent it is the only one of the two that makes sense.

Alf

Alf

February 6, 2006, 01:55 AM

Isn't that assuming there are only two ways to look at it? ;)

Any other way lead to contradiction.

Alf

Alf

February 6, 2006, 02:03 AM

But if God is both a never-ending conversation and the totality of all that exists, that suggests that language is the basis of reality. Some language, not our primative natural language.

I guess many people will ask for what you are smoking here, it must be good.

First of all, our "primitive natural language" is not as inadequate as you might think. The point is, whatever you learn, whatever you think, whatever you see, whatever idea you have - it can be expressed in language and not only that. It MUST be possible to express it in language. If you cannot express an idea in language it does not exist.

Yes, this might not be language per se as in words. A baby hasn't learned to talk yet and he still manages to think. Thinking in images also works and is a form of language too.

However, the reason why we get smarter is mainly a result of our word and symbolic language. That we can group a sequence of sounds together and make it have a meaning simply because we agree that it should have that meaning and thus can encode abstract emotions and concepts as well as physical things and even talk about language itself using language indicates that it is quite open and unlimited.

Also, that you can group a sequence of symbols and have the sequence of symbols also mean the same thing as the sequence of sounds and so get a more or less one-to-one correspondence between spoken and written language also indicate that it is a quite powerful tool.

However, what has God got to do with any of this?

Why define "God" which is a loaded word which many people have very strong opinions about what it is supposed to mean as "the totality of all that exists" when "the totality of all that exists" can just as well be defined as "the universe" and that's it?

Alf

Alf

February 6, 2006, 02:09 AM

Time can't be a negative number. It can be zero. If there wasn't a zero there wouldn't be anything. My theory is that the Universe just appeared and is infinite. How God is connected to this would be that he was responsible for it. He didn't pre-exist until everything appeared and he took conciousness as it's creator.

If time started at time 0 and we are now at time T then time is not infinite, it is T (a finite number).

The only way the universe can be infinite is by saying that time extend indefinitely into the past and that means negative numbers and the time 0 is just a random point in time that you decide to call "time 0".

Personally I don't think the universe is infinite because I don't think infinities can actually exist in the real world. Yes, I know infinity exists in math and I use it myself often enough and I am quite familiar with it. My point is that I don't think there actually exists anything in the real world that correspond to infinity in any way. Consequently, I believe the universe is finite both in space and time.

However, some people think the universe is infinite but if so, then naturally the time 0 is just a random point in time that you decide to call "time 0" and it has no special significance.

In fact, the time 0 is always a random point but if you think that time is finite it is natural to refer to time 0 either as an existing point in time as you do, but since that lead to contradiction the other option is to refer to time 0 as the lower bound of the set of possible points in time. The time 0 is itself not a possible point in time in this case.

Alf

Alf

February 6, 2006, 02:18 AM

Yes, well Descartes wondered if there was any proof that he himself existed. And you know, the only evidence he could find that was trustworty, was that he could think. Not much to go on, but if its all we have...

Please put Descartes quote to rest. Yes, it is famous and some people still thinks it is deep in a way. However, it is quote obvious that Descartes was wrong. The statement is NOT deep in any way.

"I think therefore I am" (cogito ergo sum). What does it mean? "I think" he says, who does that thinking? Oh, yeah, it is "I" so by assuming that "I" exist and that "I" can think, I can reach the conclusion that "I" exist. Really deep! P and Q implies P. Sorry, pal.

Descartes was wrong. This is old and outdated philosophy. Take any class in introductory philosophy and you will learn what I just told you. They can also tell you about many other philosophical ideas that is just plain dead ends. For example Aquinas proofs of God, the idea that "nothing can come from nothing" and the idea that the world need a sustainer to name a few. They are all bogus and yet, we frequently see people here claiming they can prove god because of arguments based on those premises.

Please try to get yourself updated. There are actually things that has happened in philosophy since Descartes' time and people have proven him wrong.

Alf

Alf

February 6, 2006, 02:24 AM

Quote:
Suppose truth is definable. Then so is the word false. Then "this statement is false" is neither true nor false. This contradiction implies that truth is undefinable.

This is false. Some statements can be classified as "true" and it is well defined what we mean by that. Other statements can be classified as "false" and it is also well defined.

That does not mean that all statements must necessarily be one of the two. There are also statements which is neither and the "this statement is false" is typically an example of the "neither" group. It is not true, nor is it false.

The fact that the statement is neither true nor false does not mean "truth" is undefined. Truth can be very well defined if you want to and you can deduce that statements such as "2 + 2 = 4" and "the blue ball is blue" is true and it is all well defined.

That does not imply that all statements have to be either true or false.

Alf

Alf

February 6, 2006, 03:29 AM

No, it simply asks how is this benevolent, and then determining whether this is a benevolent act. Handouts are not benevolent, because it leads to dependency.

I disagree. Yes, prolonged handouts can create dependencies but some times it is the benevolent thing to do. If people experience an earthquake or a tsunami then giving them shelter and food and other handouts is exactly the right thing to do as immediate help.

Then, once the immediate crisis is over, a benevolent individual will ponder how to make them self-sufficient and lessen their dependency on handouts.

However, this implies that handouts aren't necessarily "not benevolent". It depends on the situation.

Listen to what they say and then play it off of how it interprets reality. If you disagree with the interpretation you disagree with the religion.

So I disagree with all religions. My main objection is that I see no evidence that there is at all any god out there and so their foundation, the basis for doing what they do and thinking as they do is wrong. A christian may say that he does not kill because God commanded us not to kill in the bible. However, if there is no god then he base this rule on the wrong reason. In contrast, I do not kill, not because it says so in an old book but because I think it is the right way to be towards my fellow human beings. I think that is a much sturdier ground since it is not based on an imaginary god who does not exist.

I believe that there is a benevolent and powerful God, whom I respect very much, and even worship not because I want handouts from this being, but rather because I am in awe of its benevolence towards us. It's example inspires me to want to be a better person.

How can you be in awe of its benevolence towards us? Because it hasn't wiped us out yet? Seeing as there is no evidence this god has done anything at all - good or bad - towards us, I have problems mustering much awe towards it.

The point is, if this deity ends up sending me to hell because I did not believe in him, I'd say it is his will that he wanted to send me to hell. If he wanted me not to go to hell, he could have given me proof of his existence and proof of the existence of this heaven and hell and then tell me how to get to heaven. Failing to do that, it is his wish that I go to hell if that is what will happen. Given this, it is hard to call him "benevolent". "evil tyrant" would be more fitting but there is of course also one other explanation that is easier to accept based on the lack of evidence and that is "not existing" and neither this god nor this hell or heaven actually exists. This is the explanation that I will go for based on the evidence I have so far.

What I believe is that when we die, that we will be reborn into a newborn on this planet. Through the actions of humanity, this world will become a heaven or a hell (and being benevolent God would wish that this planet will be a heaven.)

Then you are definitely not a christian. Reincarnation is contrary to christian dogma. Did you check out buddhism? Buddhists believe in reincarnation.

However, reincarnation has problems on its own.

1. We know that the number of people is on a steady increase. Where do all these extra people come from? Reincarnation - if restricted to humans - would imply that the number of people remain constant, so that a new born baby wasn't born until some other guy died so that his "soul" or whatever you call it, could transfer over and inhabit the new body.

2. Speaking of this "soul" in what manner is this "soul" supposed to exist? All evidence indicate that there is no "soul" so what exactly is it that transfer from one body to another when we die and get reborn?

3. You can of course explain the increase of people by assuming that other animals also have "souls". However, the soul problem in (2) above still remain. Also, there is no indication that the number of "souls" if you count animals and humans remain constant on earth. The number of humans increase and many other animals decrease but I don't think it adds up to 0 so the problem remain. Also, what kind of "soul" do an ant who is a bug and is heavily influenced by instincts have?

I would say that reincarnation is a dead end. There is absolutely no evidence FOR it and as you can see there are heavy arguments against it.

Since the criteria for being sent to hell is whether we have screwed up this planet and made it a hell. God will have wanted as many of us to respect one another and work together to make everyone benefit on this planet. Anything else would indicate a lack of compassion which is one of the things that indicate benevolence.

Ah, but there are some problems with this. The heaven/hell belief is mostly advocated by christians and similar religions and they often consider it a "sin" to attempt to turn the earth into a heaven. They claim that any such attempt is doomed to fail and might actually just make things worse.

Also, the christians image of hell is very much similar to North Korea, old DDR or soviet union under Stalin or China under Mao or some such with a police that check out everyone and make sure you never "sin" or if you do, you get sent off to hell immediately. All day is filled with singing praises to God much like people in North Korea fill up their days by singing praises to Kimg Jung Il.

Most of us doesn't like to live in places like that and yet, they claim heaven is a wonderful place a place where you want to go and it is their highest wish to end up in heaven.

They really are a pitiful lot, I feel sad for them.

Granted, you are not christian so I hope you are not inflicted with such a disease. I also agree with you if you mean to say that we should do our best to make this world a better place for most people and that the only ones who "suffer" are people who "deserve" it in one way or another. Of course, the problem is then who decides who deserves it and not but that is a big discussion in itself. The basic idea is to make this world a better place for as many people as possible and I can agree to that.

God picked one community on the entire planet to communicate with. Since everyone on the planet will be reborn at their deaths, everyone will have been in this community during one of their lives. With Christianity, the descendents of Israel are not the only ones that are subsequently blessed and this would then spread to the entire world.

How convenient. Of course, we ignore the fact that reincarnation is completely contrary to both jewish and christian thinking. We also ignore that the God depicted in that bible where you draw the claim that God picked this community is a sadistic evil tyrant in the OT and slightly better in the NT except that there they talk about hell a lot which makes him as bad in NT as he is in OT.

We also ignore the fact that the places where they DO talk about reincarnation are communities that were far away from the middle east and appear to be far more likely to be communities "picked by God" if you like. After all, it is only the jews, the muslims and the christians who claim that god "picked" the jews. This idea is not found anywhere else. Most communities claim that God "picked" them and the christians and muslims only claim that the jews where originally picked because they base their own religion on the OT and the old jewish god. They still think that God picked "them" in that muslims thinks that God "picked" muhammed and the christians thinks that God did not "pick" Jesus but he IS Jesus and although Jesus was a jew that is seldom focused on - in particular among those who were anti-jews during much of europe's history. Indeed, they often hated jews exactly because "they crucified Jesus". So, God maybe did not "pick" the europeans but they adopted Jesus as a "european" so in a sense God "picked" them too. Just check out how caucasian Jesus appear in all pictures of him - he was a jew but he doesn't look like one.

Origien of Alexandria was a Christian theologian that first spoke of a finite number of souls and reincarnation. The idea of reincarnation compliments with Christianity fairly well as I have shown. I consider myself a Christian. I do not believe in a God that gives out handouts. This is what the Three Temptations of Christ symbolized.

It is contrary to christian theology. Yes, there are christians who has at times advocated it and in particular early church fathers before the christian faith was completely "established" (you know the trinity etc and all the other stuff not mentioned in the bible). However, I think you will find that most theologians will reject reincarnation and say it is contrary to christian thinking. Christians think of a heaven and hell thingy. The gospels make it very clear that Jesus primary subject was how horrible hell was and that everyone should convert to save themselves from hell.

Reincarnation will generally indicate that the bible's statements about hell is false. If you are reincarnated then there are the following options:

1. You just reincarnate indefinitely - no heaven and hell. The gospels are all wrong. Jesus was wrong. No christian will say that Jesus was wrong.

2. You stop reincarnating at some point and then you get sent to heaven or hell. You have two sub-options:
2a) You get sent to hell if you have been an unbeliever in at least one of your lives. It is fairly safe to say that if reincarnation is true then all of us have been non-christian in at least one life and so we all get sent to hell and it doesn't matter what you do or do not do. Heaven is a lonely place with only God and his angels and Jesus etc. No people there.

Again, this is contrary to christian thinking where some of us get sent to heaven.

2b) You get sent to hell if you were an unbeliever in your last life. I.e. previous lives are ignored, only the last one counts.

This appear unjust. A just god would not do it this way unless perhaps he arranged some system so that if you were a believer in some life then you would stay believer in the rest of your lives until doomsday. However, that would indicate that the number of christians should increase over time by a lot. We do not see that huge increase. There is no reason to think that this is the case.

2c) You get sent to hell if you were an unbeliever in all your lives. If you were a believer in one life you get sent to heaven. Again, if you then were a beliver in a previous life, you can do whatever you want in this life. This is also contrary to christian thinking.

So no, I would say that reincarnation is contrary to christian theology. It was and has been explored by some christians but it has largely been rejected by christians becuase 1) There is nothing in the bible to suggest it. 2) What you find in the bible appear to run contrary to it. The conclusion is therefore that reincarnation is not compatible with christianity. There may be exceptions but this is the general concensus among christian theologists.

The three temptations of Christ were about the mistake of creating a dependency of the people on God through the church.

Where did you get THAT from?

1. Transforming the Stones into Bread - You can control people by making them dependent on you for the necessities of life. This is a tool that the warlords in Somalia use to control the population. It is also not respectful of the population. Jesus' answered, "It is written, that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God." The Word of God is not the authority of the church. It is the reality of the world that we live in. People need to work together to thrive in this world of conflict. Man vs Nature. People need to treat each other with respect and help each other. Man vs Man. This is the Word of God. This is what is continually stressed.

Fair enough except that the quote given does not support your conclusions. The quote appear to indicate that "people not only need material things, they also need scripture".

How you get from that to your conclusion is far from obvious.

2. Miracles (throwing himself off the cliff in order because the angels would save him) - If the angels saved you from harm whenever you were in danger, there would be no consequences for your actions in the course of Man vs Nature. This is disrespectful to Mankind because we need consequences for our actions. God sent multiple prophets to the planet and the people didn't have a lasting change. When Babylon overtook Israel, enslaved the population
and destroyed the Temple of Solomon, Israel realized that there were consequences. However, when the Persians released the Jews they fell back into their old rut. There needs to be consequences and the quick save does not help us.

This is wrong in several respects. One, it doesn't follow from the premises. Secondly, it is debatable whether there actually were any temptation in the desert. It is in most modern interpretations considered a mythological or legendary story which is included to give some theological points. One point has already been covered - that man need more than just bread and water, he also need holy scripture. This was one theological point. The second point is that you should not test your god. I.e. throwing yourself off a cliff in order to expect God to save you, is doomed to fail because God does not save people in such situations. Of course, as atheist I don't think God save us in any situation but also christians accept that God does not save us in this situation and that was theological point number two.

Your story appear nice and all but it doesn't follow from premises and there is no reason to think that it is related. Also, I don't think it has anything to do with dependency. The old church WANTED people to depend on the church. This was the only way they could get legitimacy. If people did not depend on the church, the church would be useless.

Hence, I don't think the early church nor the bible stressed so much about dependency here. This is a modern interpretation which a modern person might worry about but which was not at all the concern of early christians.

The Washington Consensus is a quick save policy for foreign development, but it does not help the people that it is supposed to. It just makes third world nations become dependent upon the United States, and opens them up for us to exploit their people.

Not famliliar with that consensus but yeah. I agree that the way most develped nations run their aid to poor countries is wrong in this respect. They want the people in poor countries to buy products from their own country and become dependent on them and they want companies in the rich country to open production fasicilities in the poor country to exploit the low wages there etc.

I once heard a guy from Africa explain it this way: White men came to our land. We owned the land and they owned bibles. They gave us bibles to read and we read and read. Suddenly we looked up and they owned the land and we owned the bibles.

3. Dominon over all the nations of the Earth - By turning down this temptation Jesus stated that organized state religion was disrespectful towards the practicioners of the religion. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto God what is God's." Dostoevsky states as much in The Grand Inquisitor in the book The Brother's Karamazov.
I am fairly confident that not all christians will interpret the above story in the way you do. For example organized state religions was very much the norm in europe and still is in modern times. We are today having a debate of separating church and state in Norway but we aren't there yet. In Norway it is often the christians who want such a separation befcause they don't like that non-christians such as government and other officials have any say in deciding who is to be bishop etc. In this I actually agree with the christians. I am very much in favor of separating the church and the state. Howver, that debate aside, it is clear that most christians in europe has traditionally NOT interpreted that story as a "church vs state" as you depict it. Rather referring above to the theological points that the bible story tries to make, this is a story that Jesus was not going for worldly power and as such can be seen in relation to the events around easter later on. This is important because around that time many jews believed in a Messiah but to them the Messiah was a king or army leader who would liberate Judea from roman rule. The christians made a point that their Messiah was a religious figure and would not go for roman rule. Also, worldly power is different from the religious power and in this respect it IS relevant what you say, in that it is also an indication that the church should stay away from worldly power. However, as the church became powerful they generally ignored that part.

One should keep in mind though that the early christians were generally living in communist like units where they shared everything and everyone gave away much of their possessions to their congregation when they joined it and owned little if anything for themselves. The quote is therefore also a theological point related to this way of anti-materialism which was an important and strong point for early christians.

Alf