Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Absolutely agree. Anyone can claim knowledge of anything.
But what if God does exist and the Bible is in fact true? If this is the actual case, then it logically follows that it is actually possible to know for certain why we are here.
I'd add the qualifier that one first would have to know that God exists and that the Bible is in fact true. Therein lies the rub for those of us who haven't experienced whatever it takes to know that, and who don't understand faith in the religious context (i.e., belief without hard evidence). The same would hold true if you replace "and the Bible is in fact true" with "and reincarnation is in fact true." It still would logically follow that it's possible for us to know why we're here, but it might be a very different answer than the Christian one.
Quote:
Be that as it may, and going back to your original response to my view of Secular Humanism, you stated that it's practical to make our stay here as pleasant and fulfilling as possible. This would, I suppose, be fine if we all had similar views as to what constitutes "pleasant" and "fulfilling." If morality is reduced to relativity then what reason would I have to hold myself in check? I mean, if I reason that breaking the societal law will benefit me in some way, and I reason that I can get away with it, why not go ahead and do it?
Because your Secular Humanist code of morality, sense of empathy, and feeling of connectedness to other people and living things prevent you from doing so (assuming they do). If survival of the species is programmed into our genes, and if humans need to cooperate to survive, then it doesn't logically follow that self-interest is at the heart of all decisions. Conversely, as I've mentioned, plenty of believers in God commit crimes because they think they can get away with it. You could argue that they don't logically think it through to divine punishment after death, but such is the case.
Quote:
Just to stay on track, this was your response to my question concerning our ability to reason logically towards things beyond verifiable "scientific method" type proof.
Let me put the question differently: Take the dilemma that is posed by our existence (I'm assuming that you believe that we all actually do exist).
Yes, I do.
Quote:
With respect to the different theories as to how existence came to exist, do you believe it possible to reason your way to the best logical alternative?
Yes, given enough information -- but I don't believe we have enough information at present to know how the universe came into existence (i.e., what caused the Big Bang and all that followed).
Quote:
My point was not to say that because of X we must therefore be forced to believe Y. I'm positing that there are very real consequences to a choice to live life under a moral relativistic framework. While you yourself may be inclined towards very altruistic behaviors, that doesn't necessarily mean that others would be so inclined. What happens when society goes stark raving crazy such as we've seen happen repeatedly throughout twentieth century history?
Lots of people get hurt and killed, and various other damage is done to the planet. But people have gone stark raving mad when society was primarily religious. Look at the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and the destruction of indigenous cultures. I once heard someone say that, if the Christians or the Moslems had had nuclear weapons during the time of the Crusades, either side probably would have used them. I see reason to doubt that.
Quote:
Are you positing that the violation of an established transcendent moral code is the same thing as operating under a relativistic framework where there is no framework for morality?
Again, you keep assuming that moral relativism is without a framework. I've provided a possible genetic basis for morality: that which is in the best interests of preserving our species, not just the individual. And preserving our planet is also in the interest of preserving our species. The frameworks are different in that, if there is no God or absolute standard of morality, then Hitler isn't rotting in hell. He just no longer exists. Just because his getting away with his atrocities is an appalling idea doesn't mean that it isn't so.
Quote:
How does violation of the law cause the law to become nonexistent? The law either exists or it does not exist.
I'm not sure I follow. A man-made law exists as a man-made law. If there is such a thing as divine law, then it exists, by definition. The question is whether divine law exists.
I'd add the qualifier that one first would have to know that God exists and that the Bible is in fact true. Therein lies the rub for those of us who haven't experienced whatever it takes to know that, and who don't understand faith in the religious context (i.e., belief without hard evidence). The same would hold true if you replace "and the Bible is in fact true" with "and reincarnation is in fact true." It still would logically follow that it's possible for us to know why we're here, but it might be a very different answer than the Christian one.
Well, there you go with that "know" term again. Why not use reason and logic to determine which world view appears to make the most sense? Either there is a God or God does not exist. Why not at least try to reason your way to the truth? Is it reasonable to believe that reincarnation is true and Christianity is false?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HonuMan
Because your Secular Humanist code of morality, sense of empathy, and feeling of connectedness to other people and living things prevent you from doing so (assuming they do). If survival of the species is programmed into our genes, and if humans need to cooperate to survive, then it doesn't logically follow that self-interest is at the heart of all decisions.
I'm not positing that self-interest is "at the heart of all decisions." Logically, if I have concluded that morality is relative, what would cause me to suspend breaking the law if I determine that I can break the law, get away with it and have it benefit me?
Where in the world is this "Secular humanist code of morality?" How can anyone look around the world at all the atrocities occurring on a daily basis and conclude that man is basically good? I'm very serious here - just how do you do that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HonuMan
Conversely, as I've mentioned, plenty of believers in God commit crimes because they think they can get away with it. You could argue that they don't logically think it through to divine punishment after death, but such is the case.
Of course believers commit crime, however, they can still logically reason the what they did was in fact wrong.
What logic would the secular humanist employ in determining personal wrong doing other than personal preference or some sort of squishy inner guilt feeling?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HonuMan
Yes, given enough information -- but I don't believe we have enough information at present to know how the universe came into existence (i.e., what caused the Big Bang and all that followed).
When will there be "enough information?" In view of our finite existence, do you think that you'll have time to wait for it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HonuMan
Lots of people get hurt and killed, and various other damage is done to the planet. But people have gone stark raving mad when society was primarily religious. Look at the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and the destruction of indigenous cultures. I once heard someone say that, if the Christians or the Muslims had had nuclear weapons during the time of the Crusades, either side probably would have used them. I see reason to doubt that.
Moral judgments without a basis from which to judge. If it all boils down to personal preference, how does the moral relativist assign any wrong doing to anyone for anything?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HonuMan
Again, you keep assuming that moral relativism is without a framework. I've provided a possible genetic basis for morality: that which is in the best interests of preserving our species, not just the individual. And preserving our planet is also in the interest of preserving our species. The frameworks are different in that, if there is no God or absolute standard of morality, then Hitler isn't rotting in hell. He just no longer exists. Just because his getting away with his atrocities is an appalling idea doesn't mean that it isn't so.
Yes, I keep "assuming" that moral relativism is without a framework because it is without a framework. Look around! This inner sense of preservation of the species, empathy, furthering "best interests," preserving the planet...etc, where is it? Am I supposed to believe it exists because you say it exists?
Well, there you go with that "know" term again. Why not use reason and logic to determine which world view appears to make the most sense? Either there is a God or God does not exist. Why not at least try to reason your way to the truth? Is it reasonable to believe that reincarnation is true and Christianity is false?
Okay. Using only logic and reason, based on evidence that can be objectively verified (i.e., using the scientific method), I don't believe that there is an Abrahamic God, as described in the Bible. I won't go into my reasons, which have been stated in many other threads here, and which are best summarized by Richard Dawkins (although I don't share his hatred of religion).
I accept the possibility that there might exist some higher level of order or even intelligence to the universe that one could rightly call God. This is based on my years of studying science (in particular, quantum physics), philosophy, religion, spirituality, and so-called paranormal phenomena. Unlike many atheists, I can't dismiss all paranormal phenomena as hoaxes or tricks played by the human mind. I distinguish "paranormal" from "supernatural." I don't believe in the supernatural; that which exists is, by definition, natural -- but there are still things that we don't understand. I believe there's enough evidence to suggest that some paranormal phenomena are natural phenomema that we don't yet understand.
As for reincarnation, the late Dr. Ian Stevenson spent over 40 years investigating alleaged cases of reincarnation, taking care to use proper investigative practices and ruling out cases where hoax or coincidence were possible. Out of thousands of cases, he was left with quite a few that he couldn't explain in any other way. He took care to call them "suggestive of reincarnation" rather than "proof of reincarnation," because he wanted to be taken seriously by the scientific community. Carl Sagan deemed his findings worthy of further investigation. Most of the dismissals of his work are circular: "His cases can't be true, because reincarnation is impossible." Using your criteria of logic and reason, reincarnation addresses most of the problems I have with the Christian model (primarily the unfairness of being judged for all eternity based on the actions of once brief life, regardless of one's circumstances and experiences), and, over the years, I'd put together a reincarnation-based model of reality that made sense to me. It still holds together, except for the problem of the earth's exponentially expanding population (which some reincarnations explain by saying souls have incarnated on other planets, and others explain by saying that linear time is an illusion, and all of one's incarnations are happening simultaneously), and an explanation of how a soul can exist. Saying that it's "energy" begs the question of how that energy can remain coherent outside of the physical brain. It's all well and good to speak of the brain being an "interface for the soul to the physical world," but how would that function? As I said in an earlier post, quantum physics might find a way -- or maybe not.
Quote:
I'm not positing that self-interest is "at the heart of all decisions." Logically, if I have concluded that morality is relative, what would cause me to suspend breaking the law if I determine that I can break the law, get away with it and have it benefit me?
Ah, you open the door for a new tangent. Logic is a useful and powerful tool, but it doesn't figure into human decision making as much as some people claim, or would like to believe. If logic starts with a premise, more often than not, the premise is based on emotion. Pure scientific and academic research? It's driven by curiosity, which is emotional. Applied research, such as medicine and technology? It's based on the premise that people want to live longer, happier, healthier, more fulfilling lives. There's no "logical" reason to want to live, other than survival instinct. As a Christian, there's no logical reason for you to fear death, or even to want to live longer, if you believe you're going to heaven. Helping others? If they're Christian, you presumably believe they're going to heaven, too, so they'll be fine without out. Converting non-Christians? Maybe, if you believe that's your duty. I'm not talking about committing suicide, just engaging in activities that help to keep you alive to enjoy your life on earth.
As for sports, hobbies, music, the other arts, even most professions -- most of them are based on emotions. There's nothing "logical" about watching a football game, or even playing chess (which employs logic, but isn't inherently logical as a passtime). I can use logic to make a case as to why I think a Lexus LS 460 is the best luxury sedan, but there's nothing inherently logical about wanting or driving a luxury sedan.
And that's okay. We're both logical and emotional beings. To get back to your question, you can still logically conclude that morality is relative, and act according to the emotions of compassion, empathy, and so on -- just as a Christian can stress the harsh, disciplinarian aspects of Christian laws.
Okay. Using only logic and reason, based on evidence that can be objectively verified (i.e., using the scientific method), I don't believe that there is an Abrahamic God, as described in the Bible. I won't go into my reasons, which have been stated in many other threads here, and which are best summarized by Richard Dawkins (although I don't share his hatred of religion).
I accept the possibility that there might exist some higher level of order or even intelligence to the universe that one could rightly call God. This is based on my years of studying science (in particular, quantum physics), philosophy, religion, spirituality, and so-called paranormal phenomena. Unlike many atheists, I can't dismiss all paranormal phenomena as hoaxes or tricks played by the human mind. I distinguish "paranormal" from "supernatural." I don't believe in the supernatural; that which exists is, by definition, natural -- but there are still things that we don't understand. I believe there's enough evidence to suggest that some paranormal phenomena are natural phenomema that we don't yet understand.
As for reincarnation, the late Dr. Ian Stevenson spent over 40 years investigating alleaged cases of reincarnation, taking care to use proper investigative practices and ruling out cases where hoax or coincidence were possible. Out of thousands of cases, he was left with quite a few that he couldn't explain in any other way. He took care to call them "suggestive of reincarnation" rather than "proof of reincarnation," because he wanted to be taken seriously by the scientific community. Carl Sagan deemed his findings worthy of further investigation. Most of the dismissals of his work are circular: "His cases can't be true, because reincarnation is impossible." Using your criteria of logic and reason, reincarnation addresses most of the problems I have with the Christian model (primarily the unfairness of being judged for all eternity based on the actions of once brief life, regardless of one's circumstances and experiences), and, over the years, I'd put together a reincarnation-based model of reality that made sense to me. It still holds together, except for the problem of the earth's exponentially expanding population (which some reincarnations explain by saying souls have incarnated on other planets, and others explain by saying that linear time is an illusion, and all of one's incarnations are happening simultaneously), and an explanation of how a soul can exist. Saying that it's "energy" begs the question of how that energy can remain coherent outside of the physical brain. It's all well and good to speak of the brain being an "interface for the soul to the physical world," but how would that function? As I said in an earlier post, quantum physics might find a way -- or maybe not.
It seems to me, that if you really and truly are convinced that atheism is the most logically reasonable world view, then you and I ought to be able to walk through a discussion on all the classical arguments for the existence of God and you would be able to explain why you think the atheist view is most reasonable.
Would you be up for that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HonuMan
Ah, you open the door for a new tangent. Logic is a useful and powerful tool, but it doesn't figure into human decision making as much as some people claim, or would like to believe. If logic starts with a premise, more often than not, the premise is based on emotion. Pure scientific and academic research? It's driven by curiosity, which is emotional. Applied research, such as medicine and technology? It's based on the premise that people want to live longer, happier, healthier, more fulfilling lives. There's no "logical" reason to want to live, other than survival instinct. As a Christian, there's no logical reason for you to fear death, or even to want to live longer, if you believe you're going to heaven. Helping others? If they're Christian, you presumably believe they're going to heaven, too, so they'll be fine without out. Converting non-Christians? Maybe, if you believe that's your duty. I'm not talking about committing suicide, just engaging in activities that help to keep you alive to enjoy your life on earth.
As for sports, hobbies, music, the other arts, even most professions -- most of them are based on emotions. There's nothing "logical" about watching a football game, or even playing chess (which employs logic, but isn't inherently logical as a passtime). I can use logic to make a case as to why I think a Lexus LS 460 is the best luxury sedan, but there's nothing inherently logical about wanting or driving a luxury sedan.
And that's okay. We're both logical and emotional beings. To get back to your question, you can still logically conclude that morality is relative, and act according to the emotions of compassion, empathy, and so on -- just as a Christian can stress the harsh, disciplinarian aspects of Christian laws.
That's all I have time to respond to right now.
This is most probably my fault - my responses could certainly stand to be better articulated. You seem to be missing my point.
The moral relativist can use logic to rationalize away any "feelings" of guilt over wrong doing. I'm not positing that just because they can, that they necessarily will. Also, I'm not positing that those holding to moral absolutes would be any less likely to act against those same moral absolutes. I'm simply asserting that the person holding to moral absolutes has the ability to logically deduce that wrong doing is in fact wrong. That's all.
It seems to me, that if you really and truly are convinced that atheism is the most logically reasonable world view, then you and I ought to be able to walk through a discussion on all the classical arguments for the existence of God and you would be able to explain why you think the atheist view is most reasonable.
Would you be up for that?
Tentatively yes, with the caveat that I have zero expectation that I'll change your mind, or you'll change my mind. You're obviously intelligent and have given the matter a lot of thought, and it sounds like you're well read, so I assume you're familiar with the arguments and the counter-arguments, and where they usually come to stalemates in the weeds of detail. Again, I should stress that I don't see any evidence for the Abrahamic concept of God (i.e., the omnsicient, omnipotent, supernatural creator of the universe who selectively intervenes in human affairs and judges souls at death for all eternity), but things get murkier if you're talking about other concepts of God. I'm an atheist when it comes to the Abrahamic God, and an agnostic when it comes to, say, more Eastern concepts of God. So if you say, "I contend that the God of the Bible is true," then I'll debate it. If you say, "I believe that there's some sort of God, and that he/she/it isn't fully comprehendable to us while we're alive," then I'll say, "You might be right. My honest position is 'I don't know.'"
Most intelligent discussions of God/no God usually work back to, "Everything has a cause, right? So there has to be a first cause for the universe. That cause has to be God." "Then who or what created God?" "God is eternal." An atheist alternative to that is that our universe might have been created by the collision of two other universes or something like that, which in turn were created by collisions between other universes, and so on. These universes are collectively known as the multiverse, and the multiverse is eternal -- i.e., there is no first cause. To me, an eternal multiverse makes as much sense as an eternal God. But we're really into "not enough information to make an informed judgment" territory here.
Another common stalemate involves increasingly vague definitions of God, often to the point of "God is all that is." That isn't very helpful, although it usually comes with the implication that there's some sort of organized intelligence and awareness at the highest level, as opposed to the purely mechanistic view of the universe espoused my many atheists. Again, that sort of God seems much more likely to me than the Abrahamic version.
Quote:
This is most probably my fault - my responses could certainly stand to be better articulated. You seem to be missing my point.
The moral relativist can use logic to rationalize away any "feelings" of guilt over wrong doing. I'm not positing that just because they can, that they necessarily will. Also, I'm not positing that those holding to moral absolutes would be any less likely to act against those same moral absolutes. I'm simply asserting that the person holding to moral absolutes has the ability to logically deduce that wrong doing is in fact wrong. That's all.
I think I understand what you're saying, but it seems to me that your very definition of "wrong" requires the existence of moral absolutes. However, I'd like you to address the point I've brought up about theists having to make subjective judgements as to what constitutes "wrong." Even if moral absolutes exist, doesn't their "absoluteness" become meaningless if they can be interpreted differently by different people? I brought up "Thou shalt not kill," and all the exceptions that are made, depending on how believers choose to interpret what God meant by "kill" -- especially in light of all the capital offenses listed by the Old Testament God. For example, the Spanish Inquistion, or the Salem Witch Trials. I have no doubt that some of those Christians involved truly believed that some people were possessed by Satan, and that, for the sake of their mortal souls, they had to be tortured into confession and then executed -- an extreme version of "tough love." They had no trouble finding Biblical passages to back them up. I'm sure Torquemada logically deduced that he was doing the right thing, based on his understanding of the moral absolutes he believed in. I don't think you'd find many Christians today who would sanction such a thing. So where are the moral absolutes? Except in the most theoretical academic sense, how is the moral decision-making process of the moral relativist different from that of the moral absolutist?
Tentatively yes, with the caveat that I have zero expectation that I'll change your mind, or you'll change my mind.
Thanks for placing your cards on the table 'up front,' I suppose it's only fair that I should do the same.
My belief is that the vast majority, if not all, atheists/agnostics/skeptics are, in actuality, well aware of God's existence. The truth is that they don't want God and, if they were to at least be honest with themselves, would admit that they in fact actually hate or, at the very least, greatly disdain God. So, there obviously is certainly no amount of reasoning that I could possibly bring to the table that would cause you to change your view...nor that of any other professing atheist/agnostic/skeptic.
However, I do believe there is a difference between us. I'll freely admit my personal bias in favoring the Christian world view but this is due to my conviction that absolute truth does exist and Christianity is the absolute truth. Truth is what I value. In my view, this frees me in the sense that I'm willing to entertain/consider all views in my pursuit of truth. If the Bible and Christianity are false, and such can be reasonably and logically demonstrated to me - I would drop it in a second. In my view, a real "free thinker" will be determined to follow the truth where ever it leads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HonuMan
You're obviously intelligent and have given the matter a lot of thought, and it sounds like you're well read, so I assume you're familiar with the arguments and the counter-arguments, and where they usually come to stalemates in the weeds of detail. Again, I should stress that I don't see any evidence for the Abrahamic concept of God (i.e., the omnsicient, omnipotent, supernatural creator of the universe who selectively intervenes in human affairs and judges souls at death for all eternity), but things get murkier if you're talking about other concepts of God. I'm an atheist when it comes to the Abrahamic God, and an agnostic when it comes to, say, more Eastern concepts of God. So if you say, "I contend that the God of the Bible is true," then I'll debate it. If you say, "I believe that there's some sort of God, and that he/she/it isn't fully comprehendable to us while we're alive," then I'll say, "You might be right. My honest position is 'I don't know.'"
I appreciate your candor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HonuMan
Most intelligent discussions of God/no God usually work back to, "Everything has a cause, right? So there has to be a first cause for the universe. That cause has to be God." "Then who or what created God?" "God is eternal." An atheist alternative to that is that our universe might have been created by the collision of two other universes or something like that, which in turn were created by collisions between other universes, and so on. These universes are collectively known as the multiverse, and the multiverse is eternal -- i.e., there is no first cause. To me, an eternal multiverse makes as much sense as an eternal God. But we're really into "not enough information to make an informed judgment" territory here.
To ask the question: What caused God? is to presuppose God's nature i.e., to make the assumption that any supposed God would have to be a created being or some sort of uncaused effect that pops into being out of nothing - that is, if the term 'nothing' is even conceivable. How can those who are unprepared to entertain the existence of God be in any position to presume upon God's nature? To say, 'I don't believe God exists, but, if God were to exist then God's nature would have to be such and such...' Such statements cross the line into nonsense reasoning IMO.
Here is a scientific question for you: Could you give an example of an uncaused effect?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HonuMan
Another common stalemate involves increasingly vague definitions of God, often to the point of "God is all that is." That isn't very helpful, although it usually comes with the implication that there's some sort of organized intelligence and awareness at the highest level, as opposed to the purely mechanistic view of the universe espoused my many atheists. Again, that sort of God seems much more likely to me than the Abrahamic version.
For current purposes, how about if we define God as a Transcendent and Eternal Being?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HonuMan
I think I understand what you're saying, but it seems to me that your very definition of "wrong" requires the existence of moral absolutes. However, I'd like you to address the point I've brought up about theists having to make subjective judgements as to what constitutes "wrong." Even if moral absolutes exist, doesn't their "absoluteness" become meaningless if they can be interpreted differently by different people? I brought up "Thou shalt not kill," and all the exceptions that are made, depending on how believers choose to interpret what God meant by "kill" -- especially in light of all the capital offenses listed by the Old Testament God. For example, the Spanish Inquistion, or the Salem Witch Trials. I have no doubt that some of those Christians involved truly believed that some people were possessed by Satan, and that, for the sake of their mortal souls, they had to be tortured into confession and then executed -- an extreme version of "tough love." They had no trouble finding Biblical passages to back them up. I'm sure Torquemada logically deduced that he was doing the right thing, based on his understanding of the moral absolutes he believed in. I don't think you'd find many Christians today who would sanction such a thing. So where are the moral absolutes? Except in the most theoretical academic sense, how is the moral decision-making process of the moral relativist different from that of the moral absolutist?
Thanks for placing your cards on the table 'up front,' I suppose it's only fair that I should do the same.
My belief is that the vast majority, if not all, atheists/agnostics/skeptics are, in actuality, well aware of God's existence. The truth is that they don't want God and, if they were to at least be honest with themselves, would admit that they in fact actually hate or, at the very least, greatly disdain God.
That, to me, is as presumptuous as atheists who claim that, deep down, most or all theists know that God doesn't exist, but they just can't face the fact that there is no life after death, that there are no moral absolutes, and that life isn't fair. Both positions assume that there is a single, objective set of facts, that careful examination of those facts can lead to only one conclusion, and that anyone who claims to have reached a different conclusion must be in denial. I understand how people can conclude that there is a God. I explained how I used to believe quite strongly in reincarnation, and how God (although not the Christian version) was part of that model. But continued critical thinking and new information revealed flaws in my previous thinking and made me question some of my previous assumptions, to the point that I was no longer sure about God an reincarnation.
It would make no sense to me hate or disdain God. That could only come from a place of pathological egotism -- i.e., "I refuse to acknowledge anything greater than myself!" People who know me say I'm pretty humble. I don't consider myself innately better or worse than anyone else. I have my strengths and my flaws. I stand in awe of many people, animals, and other aspects of nature. I'm married to a Christian. I admire many things about religion, even as I acknowledge that many terrible things have been done its name. I would love to be able to firmly believe in God, to know that there's life after death, and to know that there's ultimate fairness and justice. I just don't see the evidence. If you still say, "Come on, be honest -- you know there's a God, but you just disdain him," then you need to examine your own biases and where they come from. I'd liken it to misogynist males I've known who believe that all men feel the same way about women being stupid and inferior to men, but some just won't admit it.
Quote:
So, there obviously is certainly no amount of reasoning that I could possibly bring to the table that would cause you to change your view...nor that of any other professing atheist/agnostic/skeptic.
However, I do believe there is a difference between us. I'll freely admit my personal bias in favoring the Christian world view but this is due to my conviction that absolute truth does exist and Christianity is the absolute truth. Truth is what I value. In my view, this frees me in the sense that I'm willing to entertain/consider all views in my pursuit of truth. If the Bible and Christianity are false, and such can be reasonably and logically demonstrated to me - I would drop it in a second. In my view, a real "free thinker" will be determined to follow the truth where ever it leads.
Okay, my reference to "zero chance" was an unfortunate use of hyperbole. I'm equally committed to the pursuit of truth, and my view of truth has changed many times throughout my life based on new experiences and information. Otherwise, this discussion would involve my trying to convince you of the truth of reincarnation and the concept of God I had 10 years ago. So if you really believe you have an argument or piece of information that hasn't been presented and countered on this forum before (I've been a faithful reader for the past year), by all means, I'd love to hear it.
Quote:
I appreciate your candor.
To ask the question: What caused God? is to presuppose God's nature i.e., to make the assumption that any supposed God would have to be a created being or some sort of uncaused effect that pops into being out of nothing - that is, if the term 'nothing' is even conceivable. How can those who are unprepared to entertain the existence of God be in any position to presume upon God's nature? To say, 'I don't believe God exists, but, if God were to exist then God's nature would have to be such and such...' Such statements cross the line into nonsense reasoning IMO.
To which I'd counter: Assuming the existence of God, how can you presuppose his nature? On what basis do you believe that your particular interpretation is correct? Other people, who are equally sure of their powers of logic and reasoning, have come to different conclusions. How do you know that the Hindus. Buddhists, or deists aren't closer to the mark?
Quote:
Here is a scientific question for you: Could you give an example of an uncaused effect?
No -- which implies something eternal on the front end of the universe. One explanation, of course, is an eternal God -- an uncaused effect. That requires saying that the scientific laws of a God-created universe don't apply to God himself. That's arrived at through a process of elimination, rather than any direct evidence.
Another explanation is an eternal multiverse -- in other words, there is no "first cause." Our minds have trouble grappling with the concept of infinity. Quantum physics theory (which I don't pretend to fully understand) allows for the possibility of other universes, so it's not just wild speculation.
Then there's the possibility that it's something entirely different that we don't yet understand -- for example (to wildly speculate), that linear time is an illusion, and what we perceive as cause-and-effect is but an aspect of something more complex. An analogy is a movie: it unfolds in real time as you watch it, but it already exists in complete form before you watch it. Imagine being a higher-dimensional being that is capable of observing all the frames and making sense of them in a single instant. Then imagine a multiverse that exists in complete form, which we could perceive if we were 11th-dimensional beings, but that only seems to contain linear time and cause-and-effect because we're three-dimensional beings moving through the fourth dimension of time.
Quote:
For current purposes, how about if we define God as a Transcendent and Eternal Being?
Fine, but there we get into the problem I mentioned earlier of vagueness. As I said, I'm an agnostic when it comes to the existence of something like that. It's specific presuppositions of what such a God is that I'm atheistic about. There could be such a God, but who doesn't intervene in creation, as deists claim. There could be such a God, but it doesn't necessary follow that humans have eternal souls. There could be such a God, but no absolute morality.
Quote:
Do you believe in the existence of good and evil?
Presumably not in the way you define them, because I've already established that I believe in moral relativism. I believe they're human-defined concepts, which vary from culture to culture and individual to individual, but generally "good" is ascribed to that which promotes human life, happiness, and fulfillment, and "evil" is ascribed to that which does the opposite. Many people extend that to animals and the ecosystem in general (e.g., it's evil to torture animals or dump toxic waste into a lake). It implies moral choice, so animals are usually exempt (although people do speak of "good dogs" and "bad dogs" based on their behavior), and nature is always exempt (nobody said "bad planet!" in response to the Haitian earthquake or the Asian tsunami, as if the earth does such things with the express purpose of causing harm to humans).
Suppose that all humans died, perhaps as the result of a virus, but that no other species were affected. I presume you believe that all souls would then end up either in heaven or hell. Do you believe that good and evil would still exist? As I understand it, there are no moral choices to be made in heaven or hell. Animals are incapable of moral choice. Would good and evil exist only as past-tense concepts?
That, to me, is as presumptuous as atheists who claim that, deep down, most or all theists know that God doesn't exist, but they just can't face the fact that there is no life after death, that there are no moral absolutes, and that life isn't fair. Both positions assume that there is a single, objective set of facts, that careful examination of those facts can lead to only one conclusion, and that anyone who claims to have reached a different conclusion must be in denial. I understand how people can conclude that there is a God. I explained how I used to believe quite strongly in reincarnation, and how God (although not the Christian version) was part of that model. But continued critical thinking and new information revealed flaws in my previous thinking and made me question some of my previous assumptions, to the point that I was no longer sure about God an reincarnation.
It would make no sense to me hate or disdain God. That could only come from a place of pathological egotism -- i.e., "I refuse to acknowledge anything greater than myself!" People who know me say I'm pretty humble. I don't consider myself innately better or worse than anyone else. I have my strengths and my flaws. I stand in awe of many people, animals, and other aspects of nature. I'm married to a Christian. I admire many things about religion, even as I acknowledge that many terrible things have been done its name. I would love to be able to firmly believe in God, to know that there's life after death, and to know that there's ultimate fairness and justice. I just don't see the evidence. If you still say, "Come on, be honest -- you know there's a God, but you just disdain him," then you need to examine your own biases and where they come from. I'd liken it to misogynist males I've known who believe that all men feel the same way about women being stupid and inferior to men, but some just won't admit it.
I really wasn't trying to offend you. It was honest and candid for you to make certain things clear at the outset and my intention was to do like wise. It was my inner honest assessment and I had no expectation that you would agree with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HonuMan
Okay, my reference to "zero chance" was an unfortunate use of hyperbole. I'm equally committed to the pursuit of truth, and my view of truth has changed many times throughout my life based on new experiences and information. Otherwise, this discussion would involve my trying to convince you of the truth of reincarnation and the concept of God I had 10 years ago. So if you really believe you have an argument or piece of information that hasn't been presented and countered on this forum before (I've been a faithful reader for the past year), by all means, I'd love to hear it.
Is it reasonable for me to infer from this that you believe there is such a thing as absolute truth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HonuMan
To which I'd counter: Assuming the existence of God, how can you presuppose his nature? On what basis do you believe that your particular interpretation is correct?
To which I'd counter that, if there is a God, and Jesus really existed, and the Bible is a basically reliable record of God's revealed truth, well, then I wouldn't have to presuppose anything. I would in fact be simply choosing to believe the revealed truth about God's nature.
As far as the second question, that's what this discussion is all about - isn't it? First things first. It may be useful for us to first hash out our "reasoning" behind our belief in the existence or nonexistence of a Transcendent Eternal Being.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HonuMan
Other people, who are equally sure of their powers of logic and reasoning, have come to different conclusions. How do you know that the Hindus. Buddhists, or deists aren't closer to the mark?
...you could add atheists, skeptics and agnostics to the list as well. You may not agree, but the way I see it, all world views require faith to one degree or another. Christianity is no different. As of now, I just happen to see Christianity as also being the most reasonable and logical alternative. I'm no expert in the field of comparative religion but I try to stay informed and keep an open mind. Part of the reason I frequent this forum is to perhaps come in contact with other views/opinions that I haven't yet considered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HonuMan
No -- which implies something eternal on the front end of the universe. One explanation, of course, is an eternal God -- an uncaused effect. That requires saying that the scientific laws of a God-created universe don't apply to God himself. That's arrived at through a process of elimination, rather than any direct evidence.
Another explanation is an eternal multiverse -- in other words, there is no "first cause." Our minds have trouble grappling with the concept of infinity. Quantum physics theory (which I don't pretend to fully understand) allows for the possibility of other universes, so it's not just wild speculation.
Then there's the possibility that it's something entirely different that we don't yet understand -- for example (to wildly speculate), that linear time is an illusion, and what we perceive as cause-and-effect is but an aspect of something more complex. An analogy is a movie: it unfolds in real time as you watch it, but it already exists in complete form before you watch it. Imagine being a higher-dimensional being that is capable of observing all the frames and making sense of them in a single instant. Then imagine a multiverse that exists in complete form, which we could perceive if we were 11th-dimensional beings, but that only seems to contain linear time and cause-and-effect because we're three-dimensional beings moving through the fourth dimension of time .
I really have no problem with such theories as those dealing with multiple universes. I do draw the line when skeptics take the next step of reasoning that this would increase the odds that the apparent fine tuning of our universe could have happened by chance. Theories are one thing, drawing conclusions from theories is quite another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HonuMan
Fine, but there we get into the problem I mentioned earlier of vagueness. As I said, I'm an agnostic when it comes to the existence of something like that. It's specific presuppositions of what such a God is that I'm atheistic about. There could be such a God, but who doesn't intervene in creation, as deists claim. There could be such a God, but it doesn't necessary follow that humans have eternal souls. There could be such a God, but no absolute morality.
Good. Transcendent and Eternal Being for now. I may use the term God from time to time. If you feel that I'm ascribing more to the God term than that of a Transcendent Eternal Being, well, I'm sure you'll call me on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HonuMan
Presumably not in the way you define them, because I've already established that I believe in moral relativism. I believe they're human-defined concepts, which vary from culture to culture and individual to individual, but generally "good" is ascribed to that which promotes human life, happiness, and fulfillment, and "evil" is ascribed to that which does the opposite. Many people extend that to animals and the ecosystem in general (e.g., it's evil to torture animals or dump toxic waste into a lake). It implies moral choice, so animals are usually exempt (although people do speak of "good dogs" and "bad dogs" based on their behavior), and nature is always exempt (nobody said "bad planet!" in response to the Haitian earthquake or the Asian tsunami, as if the earth does such things with the express purpose of causing harm to humans).
Suppose that all humans died, perhaps as the result of a virus, but that no other species were affected. I presume you believe that all souls would then end up either in heaven or hell. Do you believe that good and evil would still exist? As I understand it, there are no moral choices to be made in heaven or hell. Animals are incapable of moral choice. Would good and evil exist only as past-tense concepts?
Before I respond to all this, I just want to make sure that I have this straight. You don't believe in the existence of objective right and wrong or good and evil - keeping in mind the above qualifiers?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
