An Intellectual's Christian Narrative: A Non-Magical Alternative (prophecy, soul, Isaiah)
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.
You know I am NOT saying any such thing since I have experienced God. What I AM saying is that expecting anyone else to believe in God because I have experienced Him is not reasonable. The only things we can expect others to accept are those things that have been validated and verified by science OR that they have experienced. Your major fault seems to be adding multiple implications for what are very simple statements. If science can't verify claims or assertions they simply are NOT verified, no need to posit lying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius
LOL, If science can't explain God, there is no God?
Of course NOT! I have experienced God so I know God exists and it has nothing to do with science. BUT, I have used science to explain to my intellect that science provides enough information to support plausible explanations for the existence of God and our role in it.
Quote:
HAHAHAHA, sorry, it's just so funny, faith is faith LOL. The whole idea is to believe in something you haven't seen. Do you think a person rose from the grave? Science will tell you otherwise, did Jesus raise from the grave or didn't he?
You and Tzaph seem to suffer from the same delusion that Faith REQUIRES belief in something that makes no sense and for which there is no conceivable justification. That makes Faith preposterous, NOT something admirable. Do you have faith that Leprechauns exist and have a pot of gold hidden somewhere? Why not if there is no need for any basis for Faith as you and Tzaph seem to suggest.
seems like saying "it can't be that" is the same thing as saying "it must be this"
flip side of the same coin
not really trap. sometimes we heave more than one valid claim. Like life was brought in from space or it started here. Both of those are reasonable. It is far less reasonable to say the earth shot out from our sun.
don't say "we"
those are your beliefs. those are your criteria.
and don't say it is about getting "others to accept." what you are describing is your own criteria for yourself, what determines whether you will or won't accept something yourself.
what you are saying is you don't do faith.
the extent of what you believe and will accept is restricted and limited to that which science verifies, and that which you personally experience.
that is not faith.
"validated by science" means we added more people to limit error and personal bias trap. Thats really what it means. "science" is more about the process than the conclusions these days. The one thing science holy books do better than religious holy books is that science followers naturally correct their holy books based on new information.
from example.
If a biology book and a holy book once said plants get their mass from the ground
then we test it.
After the test, scientists says that plants build themselves from CO2 and change their holy texted to match observation and you believe they build themselves from carbon in the ground because that's what they said in a holy book. What are we to do about that?
I don't do mystic's or anybody's "personal experience". Personal experience is a cop out when it becomes time to apply a notion to how we think reality is working. No offence mystic for the strong word "cop out", its more fire for effect, I know you get it.
.... I have used science to explain to my intellect that science provides enough information to support plausible explanations for the existence of God and our role in it. You and Tzaph seem to suffer from the same delusion that Faith REQUIRES belief in something that makes no sense and for which there is no conceivable justification. That makes Faith preposterous, NOT something admirable.
Do you have faith that Leprechauns exist and have a pot of gold hidden somewhere? Why not if there is no need for any basis for Faith as you and Tzaph seem to suggest .
Which means science is your theology.
Which is why when I asked what books inform you and guide you in your theology you listed science books.
You reject and ridicule faith.
The foundation and essence of being in relationship with God is faith.
You are saying it is preposterous to have faith in God.
You've missed the whole point.
And your standard insults of "delusion" and "preposterous" show yet again the low regard you have for faith in God and for people who have faith in God. There is nothing "intellectual" about that. And there most certainly is nothing of God's love in that.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-15-2017 at 08:12 AM..
And then, perhaps, we could build "machines" that have free will - i.e., we would build "machines" that stop being "machines" at the moment of their first free choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
why would you do that? what's the point?
It's too early to tell (we are still lacking some key theories), but it could turn out that free will goes hand-in-hand with true AI. IF we can build true AI without free will or qualitative consciousness, then that would probably be best. (We could put these machines to work and not have to feel bad for them - any more than we feel bad for our cars when we drive them, or our pencils when we put them in a sharpener and grind them down.) But I am not fully convinced that highly versatile AI can be achieved without a level of complexity - and, most importantly, a type of complexity - that develops sentience (i.e., "feelings" - and a potential for suffering). And with sentience, in turn, I suspect that some level of free will could be unavoidable.
One way or another, AI is eventually going to become reality (and I suspect it will be sooner rather than later). Humans have a long history of causing unnecessary suffering of many sorts over the centuries (via exploitation, oppression, ignorance, and profoundly prevalent insensitivity). I'd like to see us put a stop to this (or at least tone it down a bit), rather than create a whole new form of suffering for whole new sorts of beings. Technology for profit tends not to care about collateral damage - be it physical or moral. Philosophy (deep reflection about the nature of things for the sake of seeking wisdom, rather than profit) is critical if we want to humanity to be a bit less monstrous than we have already been.
Sci-fi/horror stories often focus on the ways in which we might discover or accidently create monsters, but I think the far greater and more urgent concern is our potential for turning ourselves into even greater monsters than we have already been. If we are not monsters, then we probably won't create them. But if we ourselves are monsters, then we will probably continue cycles of suffering as bad or worse than the sci-fi/horror genera portrays. AI is a double-edged sword. Profit will push the development relentlessly, with huge potential benefits to humanity, but huge potential dangers as well. So, yeah, we need to think deeply about the nature of consciousness and the nature of life.
Gaylen, why does any of this matter to you? In your words (good question by the way) "Why do you even care about this?"
Initially I thought you were claiming that we, or God, freely chose to exist - which is a logical contradiction of the deepest and most blatant sort. I suspected you were simply failing to notice the different between existence and birth, and my suspicion has now been confirmed. Anyway, I simply wanted to point out the distinction; I guess that pointing out distinctions is just in my nature as a philosopher. Also, as a writer, I'm always trying to find the quickest and most efficient ways to zero-in on the core of a misunderstanding so that the misunderstanding can be cleared up. In this case I'm seeking the best explanation, or metaphor, or example, or whatever it takes to explain this existential notion of being "thrown" into existence. As a non-temporal being, God did not "choose" to exist. God just is. Period. "Choice" is an act performed to achieve some goal. Given that God exists, God can choose to continue existing, but insofar as the primordial nature of reality is concerned, the term "choice" is simply a category mistake. God had no initial "choice" about existing. Existence just is. Existence is a non-temporal brute fact. The concept of choice simply doesn't apply.
There are several dimensions to the "why do I care?" question. Aside from the things I've already mentioned, there has also been a bit of a "sore spot" in my psyche lately due to the political climate. I don't want to veer us off in a political discussion here, so I won't say much more about it. But I'm just saying that I might be a bit oversensitive to irrationality these days.
So maybe, if you really get down to it, I don't really care all that much if people comprehend the "thrown-ness" of Existence, but when people display ignorance about it, I guess it is sorta like a tiny sliver or a hangnail; once I notice it, it seems I can't help but pick at it.
The living word of God is just that, living. It is not in a dead book.
The Bible is a book that helps people discern the living word of God. That is all. It is special because the words of the Bible are inspiring and trigger discernment. Otherwise, it is just a book.
... As a non-temporal being, God did not "choose" to exist. God just is. Period. "Choice" is an act performed to achieve some goal. Given that God exists, God can choose to continue existing, but insofar as the primordial nature of reality is concerned, the term "choice" is simply a category mistake. God had no initial "choice" about existing. Existence just is. Existence is a non-temporal brute fact. The concept of choice simply doesn't apply....
Yes. I agree that God "just is."
With regards to everything else in the universe however that does NOT apply. All of it was purposefully created by God. With intelligence and design. and by us often without intelligence and design. I want to make that distinction. For someone to say their current life and current circumstances "just is" does not apply because it too often and too easily veers into "and I can't do anything about it" and "it's so unfair"and "it's all their fault" "and God is the big meanie in the sky." Our current life is by our own choice. That is the distinction i am making.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-15-2017 at 08:58 AM..
With regards to everything else in the universe however that does NOT apply. All of it was purposefully created by God. With intelligence and design. and by us often without intelligence and design. I want to make that distinction. For someone to say their current life and current circumstances "just is" does not apply because it too often and too easily veers into "and I can't do anything about it." Our current life is by our own choice. That is the distinction i am making.
Here we will probably have to simply agree to disagree. It is possible that people chose to be born into their current circumstances in life, but until I see some evidence for it, I don't believe it is true. I don't think that a young child who dies of starvation in Ethiopia chose to be born and suffer, nor do I think that the suffering is a matter of karmic justice based on sins of a past life. To me, that view trivialized the horrific suffering of too many people. As in: "Oh, it just seems terrible from our limited point of view, but really that child's suffering is ok because he chose to be born into those circumstances and/or he deserved to suffer because of some past sins." As I see it, that point of view is horrifically misguided. I don't think that Reality is intrinsically fair or just. Rather, fairness and justice need to be earned, not simply assumed. I don't think there is a God who can ultimately just kiss our booboo's and make them all better.
I'm also unsure about the assumption that God (if such a being exists) is all good. I suspect that "God" is just, basically, "us" (the totality of beings). If we are not pure good, then God is not pure good either. "God" is no better or worse than our collective efforts as conscious beings. (Although I suppose one could try to identify all of our best potentials for beauty and goodness and call this "God." Despite a certain arbitrariness in assigning this label, there could be some genuine practical benefits in performing an act of anthropomorphicism and worshipping this "God" if it spurs us to be better people.)
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 12-15-2017 at 09:32 AM..
don't say "we"
those are your beliefs. those are your criteria.
and don't say it is about getting "others to accept." what you are describing is your own criteria for yourself, what determines whether you will or won't accept something yourself.
what you are saying is you don't do faith.
the extent of what you believe and will accept is restricted and limited to that which science verifies, and that which you personally experience.
that is not faith.
Notice he did not say "Get others to accept," he said "expect others to accept." The difference is in whether we should expect others to use good sense. Obviously we should not.
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.
