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.
...On the other hand, here is what I actually said in post #2542...I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish by misquoting me, but the historical record in this case is clear and easy for everyone to see.
I did not quote you, i referenced your post and applied the sentiment to your own expressed views. In a nutshell you said
"Wait! That's crazy!" "
"makes us think that ya'll are a bit batty"
"we are going to play the 'you are irrational' card"
And I am pointing out that people have the same exact response to some of the things you say
And I am pointing out that people have the same exact response to some of the things you say
Of course they do. The question is this: What evidence and arguments do they bring to support their position? People have said that spiritual deficiency (e.g., purposefully and stubbornly rejecting God, or being swayed by Satan, prideful ego, etc.) is the explanation for why I don't believe that Biblical claims are historically accurate or scientifically plausible. I can offer innumerable scientific and historical reasons for my beliefs, but what can they offer to support their position?
Generally speaking, the arguments against me boil down to variations on a couple of themes:
(1) Limited human knowledge and powers of reasoning are mere foolishness in the eyes of God (who is infinite, all-knowing, etc.) Thus if the Bible seems foolish to me, this is only because it is expressing truths that are beyond human reason. And why do they believe this? The reasons boil down to (1a) Because the Bible says so (or because one or more great religious leader has said so) or (1b) Because of divine revelation/mystical insight/faith that gives them special access to absolute truths.
(2) Science does actually support the Bible, but I just can't see that because I am ignorant of the actual science. And then they (2a) start giving references to publications that are generally not scientific publications and quoting people who are not actual scientists or (2b) they quote actual scientists or publications from decades or hundreds of years ago or (2c) they quote modern scientist who hold fringe views without digging into the details concerning why the general scientific community considers them to be fringe views or (2d) they misquote or quote out-of-context the views of some notable scientists or (2e) they make stark claims about what science "really says" but don't offer any reference sources because scientists are part of a grand conspiracy to push certain political and/or anti-religious agendas, and thus scientific publications fail to address the true evidence.
Again, I have to emphasize: I don't mind people having faith in God. My only concern is when people proclaim holy books to be historically true and/or supported by science. And part of my concern stems from this: After proclaiming the holy book to be factually true, they then use this as justification for a bunch of moral positions and/or social conventions that I find questionable, at best, and sometimes downright immoral.
Just to be clear: I have no problem at all if someone has faith in the idea that there was an Intelligent Creator who made us. But whenever I see someone publicly proclaim that this is a fact, or that science somehow proves this claim, or supports this claim, then I feel an urge to speak up and say "no". Maybe there is a Creator, and maybe not. Science doesn't say much of anything about that, either way. (But if you claim that the Creator is both all-powerful and has lovingly created the best of all possible worlds, then I think that logic tips the scale against this particular claim about the nature of the Creator.)
Again I want to emphasize a distinction between:
(1) The claim that God exists. (Where 'God' is just some general notion of a "higher-level intelligence" or "universal essence of Spiritual Being", etc.)
(2) The claim that God is the Creator of the universe.
(3) The claim that God has lovingly created the best of all possible worlds.
Hardly anyone can really complain about #1. But every time some specific properties are attributed to God (e.g., #2 and #3), these attributions generally make the existence of that particular conception of God less scientifically credible, and some combinations of properties are just flat-out irrational.
what the Creator has given us in our particular corner of the Universe (life as we know it on planet Earth) is free will for US to create the best possible world. God creates the system, and we operate within it. When we look around and see bad stuff, it is even more obvious why we should choose to "do the right thing." But it is up to us. Because we have free will. You keep leaving that part out. It sets the bar very high for personal responsibility. Something many people balk at, the personal responsibility part.
what the Creator has given us in our particular corner of the Universe (life as we know it on planet Earth) is free will for US to create the best possible world. God creates the system, and we operate within it. When we look around and see bad stuff, it is even more obvious why we should choose to "do the right thing." But it is up to us. Because we have free will. You keep leaving that part out. It sets the bar very high for personal responsibility. Something many people balk at, the personal responsibility part.
From what I understand of your view, a child who is born in horrible circumstances and dies at age 5 has freely chosen to be born into these circumstances and suffer in this way. But I do not believe that free will works that way. And even if it did work that way, there is still the problem of evil. If a loving God creates a perfect system, how does extreme suffering get a foothold in the system? There is nothing logically incompatible with the idea that every soul is created with a fundamentally compassionate, loving disposition such that extreme cruelty, etc., would not be possible - or, at the very least, it would be so improbable that it would be extremely rare.
But, of course, from the perspective of an all-knowing infinite God, that idea is must me being utterly foolish. And you - having access to the Absolute Truth of reality - can simply wink knowingly at my foolishness. And if I ask for evidence or arguments, then that, too, is just further illustration of my ultimate foolishness, or hard-heartedness.
Just to be clear: I have no problem at all if someone has faith in the idea that there was an Intelligent Creator who made us. But whenever I see someone publicly proclaim that this is a fact, or that science somehow proves this claim, or supports this claim, then I feel an urge to speak up and say "no". Maybe there is a Creator, and maybe not. Science doesn't say much of anything about that, either way. (But if you claim that the Creator is both all-powerful and has lovingly created the best of all possible worlds, then I think that logic tips the scale against this particular claim about the nature of the Creator.)
Again I want to emphasize a distinction between:
(1) The claim that God exists. (Where 'God' is just some general notion of a "higher-level intelligence" or "universal essence of Spiritual Being", etc.)
(2) The claim that God is the Creator of the universe.
(3) The claim that God has lovingly created the best of all possible worlds.
Hardly anyone can really complain about #1. But every time some specific properties are attributed to God (e.g., #2 and #3), these attributions generally make the existence of that particular conception of God less scientifically credible, and some combinations of properties are just flat-out irrational.
you have just said that "science doesn't have much to say either way about the Creator."
so how can you use science to gauge traits of God to be "less scientifically credible."
You have said science is not a valid measuring stick for God, therefore it is irrational to use science as, well, a measuring stick for God.
From what I understand of your view, a child who is born in horrible circumstances and dies at age 5 has freely chosen to be born into these circumstances and suffer in this way. But I do not believe that free will works that way. And even if it did work that way, there is still the problem of evil. If a loving God creates a perfect system, how does extreme suffering get a foothold in the system? There is nothing logically incompatible with the idea that every soul is created with a fundamentally compassionate, loving disposition such that extreme cruelty, etc., would not be possible - or, at the very least, it would be so improbable that it would be extremely rare.
But, of course, from the perspective of an all-knowing infinite God, that idea is must me being utterly foolish. And you - having access to the Absolute Truth of reality - can simply wink knowingly at my foolishness. And if I ask for evidence or arguments, then that, too, is just further illustration of my ultimate foolishness, or hard-heartedness.
we are to use our free will to choose to "do the right thing" in whatever we are facing.
we are to choose good over evil.
if evil did not exist, there would not be a choice, and this would remove free will.
what if a primary purpose for us as humans is to recognize and use our free will in ways that are constructive instead of destructive? And to recognize the immense power and consequences of how we use our free will, that literally every single bit of our thought, speech, feeling, and action, directly impacts and effects the physical reality around us for better or chos v'sholom worse.
...Again, people are welcome to have faith in whatever they want to have faith in, but I'm saying that, for my part, I have faith in logic and - until something convinces me otherwise - I will continue to have faith in the explanatory power of the scientific method to eventually tackle these mysteries. (Although I do not have faith that our current physical theories will be sufficient to explain the "hard problem", and perhaps other questions related to the nature of consciousness. I think at least one more "paradigm shift" or "scientific revolution" is coming down the pike.)
and when that happens, we will smile and say, "yes, that is what religion has recognized all along"
sort of like saying Columbus "discovered" America.
no, indigenous people have lived here for thousands of years.
like that.
Of course they do. The question is this: What evidence and arguments do they bring to support their position? People have said that spiritual deficiency (e.g., purposefully and stubbornly rejecting God, or being swayed by Satan, prideful ego, etc.) is the explanation for why I don't believe that Biblical claims are historically accurate or scientifically plausible. I can offer innumerable scientific and historical reasons for my beliefs, but what can they offer to support their position?
Generally speaking, the arguments against me boil down to variations on a couple of themes:
(1) Limited human knowledge and powers of reasoning are mere foolishness in the eyes of God (who is infinite, all-knowing, etc.) Thus if the Bible seems foolish to me, this is only because it is expressing truths that are beyond human reason. And why do they believe this? The reasons boil down to (1a) Because the Bible says so (or because one or more great religious leader has said so) or (1b) Because of divine revelation/mystical insight/faith that gives them special access to absolute truths.
(2) Science does actually support the Bible, but I just can't see that because I am ignorant of the actual science. And then they (2a) start giving references to publications that are generally not scientific publications and quoting people who are not actual scientists or (2b) they quote actual scientists or publications from decades or hundreds of years ago or (2c) they quote modern scientist who hold fringe views without digging into the details concerning why the general scientific community considers them to be fringe views or (2d) they misquote or quote out-of-context the views of some notable scientists or (2e) they make stark claims about what science "really says" but don't offer any reference sources because scientists are part of a grand conspiracy to push certain political and/or anti-religious agendas, and thus scientific publications fail to address the true evidence.
Again, I have to emphasize: I don't mind people having faith in God. My only concern is when people proclaim holy books to be historically true and/or supported by science. And part of my concern stems from this: After proclaiming the holy book to be factually true, they then use this as justification for a bunch of moral positions and/or social conventions that I find questionable, at best, and sometimes downright immoral.
religion seeks to address: ethics, integrity, compassion, generosity, kindness, honesty, dignity, respect, humbleness, bringing the sacred into the mundane, accountability, personal responsibility, bringing peace into the world, being in relationship with the Creator.
do you look to science for guidance in those arenas? Where do you look to for guidance in those areas in terms of authority, resources, subject matter expertise, instructions, practical how-to steps? What is the "gold standard" for you in those areas in being held to a high level of integrity and personal responsibility?
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-19-2018 at 12:11 PM..
It is truly saddening that your continued animus toward me and my Synthesis seems determined to disavow any scientific underpinnings to my views. Your views do seem to be entirely religious but mine are absolutely NOT. If you actually tried to read and understand the discourse between me and Gaylen objectively you might learn something but your obvious animus seems to prevent any such possibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
every person's religious beliefs have scientific underpinnings.
because science is a subset of religion. science is a window into the Creator. Everything in the physical and natural world including science is a map to God.
the religious don't have a problem with this.
the anti-religious do.
You conflate religious BELIEFS, which are created by human minds, with belief in God. They are NOT the same thing. Human religious beliefs run from the absurd to the ridiculous, some totally devoid of any grounding in reality. They are defended NOT because they make sense but because their believers think they defend God. Most do the exact opposite and undermine belief in God because they are so irrational. Science is how we keep rationality in our beliefs about God. When it is ignored or denigrated the beliefs remain unhinged from reality.
You conflate religious BELIEFS, which are created by human minds, with belief in God. They are NOT the same thing. Human religious beliefs run from the absurd to the ridiculous, some totally devoid of any grounding in reality. They are defended NOT because they make sense but because their believers think they defend God. Most do the exact opposite and undermine belief in God because they are so irrational. Science is how we keep rationality in our beliefs about God. When it is ignored or denigrated the beliefs remain unhinged from reality.
what a very strange statement.
I agree with what Gaylen wrote a few posts ago (post #3000, exceprt below), that science has very little to say one way or the other about God.
no one is denigrating or ignoring science. However if you look to science to guide your "beliefs about God" then you are the person looking in the cookbook to find out how to repair a car. it is irrational to do so.
from post #3000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
... Maybe there is a Creator, and maybe not. Science doesn't say much of anything about that, either way. ...
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-19-2018 at 01:00 PM..
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.
