Thanks for the explanation, but I find this to be pretty much the same as the “create a rock so heavy…” nonsense. But it is easily dealt with. When the day comes for a particular action A or B to happen, and assumiing that they are mutually exclusive, only one of them will actually happen. God’s omniscience foresaw that event. Anything else is just 4th-grade gamesmanship: constructing contradictions like the “rock so heavy”.
Ah, something to look forward to. And when you prove the inconsistency I’ll fill it out and send it in. When’s the first meeting? Do I need to know the secret handshake? Or do we just sniff each other like much of the rest of the animal kingdome? What are the dues? Can I pay with U.S. currency even though it indicates belief and trust in _ _ _? :eek:
I’m totally lost here. What was unclear about my post?
We should assume that they are not. That doesn’t mean they don’t contribute to our understanding. I compare inspiration to the purest water {God or the Holy Spirit} coming through an impure filter {a human} With the Bible we have the additional problem of various hands it passed through on it’s way to it’s current form. In a series of threads a while back with the tender contributions of badchad and others someone made the distinction between cherry picking our beliefs from selecting verses we like and rejecting others or calling what we do interpreting the Bible. One poster observed that it seemed a little disingenuous to reject verses and sections and then soften it with the term cherry interpretation. I hadn’t thought of that but I agree. I don’t think it’s a matter of interpreting the Bible or deciding just how inspired it is or isn’t. The Bible or anything else is just a tool we can use to stimulate our thoughts emotions and spirit. The inspiration isn’t in the paper or the words, or in some holy revered status we give the book. It’s in us.
I didn’t mean control in the evil sense. More in the nessecasry discipline sense. Here’s an interesting and somewhat related tangent. When Gandhi wanted to unite India to oppose British rule he got the Indians to reject western ways and clothes and return to their own culture with pride. Many years before a brilliant American Indian chief Tecumseh had done something similar. He had tried to unite the different tribes into standing aainst the advancing white man and created a villiage where all who rejected the white mans ways could come and live and return to Indian culture. He even installed a prophet in the form of his brother. Pretty interesting stuff. Get the people to have a sense of unity and identity in their culture. It’s getting harder as cultures mix so much. In some ways I see that as a good thing because I hope the need for US vs. Them will fade.
btw I’m going to friends for a Jewish Christmas this year. Any clue as to what that is?
We do make up God. The reality is we don’t know and we’re trying to figure things out. In the meantime we have some image of God that suits our purpose until we learn and understand a little more and that image changes. Paul called it seeing through a glass dark glass. Eastern beliefs might call it the veils of our self imposed illusions. As we let go of illusions we see more clearly. That begins with the desire to see clearly and willingness to lose our illusions. Thats more challenging than it sounds.
I don’t think it’s as vague as guessing and anybody guess is as good as another’s.
I believe we are all connected to the source and when we sense that connection the strongest {inspiration} we can see more clearly. The beauty of it is that we all have equal access. The Bible isn’t better than the Koran or Gita or Conversations with God. We don’t really need some religious leader to tell us his version of what God thinks. We need to believe in our own connection. We can each find whatever moves us but we have to feel that being moved is worthwhile and be willing to go there. Jesus said if we start with only the desire to have faith it’s enough.
Years ago I read a book called “Mr God this is Anna” which claimed to be a true story. In it this brilliant little waif tells a minister that she doesn’t need to go to church because she already knows it all. The minister scoffs but humors her with "Really, Anna? What do you know? "
“I know to love God with everything I am and I know to love everybody else that way too” she replied. “The rest is just fluff”
Indeed. We could spend a lifetime, or several, learning how to do that rather than it being a catch phrase to raise money for bigger churches.
First, being told not to look for evidence is giant red flag. I did look for the evidence, and I was given those explanations, and they didn’t hold up. Given such a huge claim like god, accepting it on no evidence, especially being told not to look for evidence, is a failure in basic intelligence at best, and insanity at worst. I would expect a child to do so, but I can’t see how a more rational being can accept such a claim.
No. A child does not have a fully formed rational process. You cannot expect them to make a judgement call about something as big as god. They will take what their parents tell them because that’s what they’ve been taught. I would expect an adult, however, to do things like wiegh the evidence and evaluate the reality of a claim before accepting it.
If that’s what they are really doing, and they really have direct experience of god, fine. So how many people have this? I’ve certainly never met one. At least, Ive never met anyone who could give any evidence that they’ve experienced god.
Bullplop. The plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data’. This is only evidence to someone who wants to believe, and will accept anything to make themselves feel right. A claim like like god requires a whole heck of a lot more ‘evidence’ than that to be believable.
Also bullplop. You’ve got it backwards. Accepting anything but coincidence is only ok if you’ve been told to accept it. Coincidence should be the default explanation, with evidence required before it’s shown to be the wrong explanation. Anything else is gullibility.
If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work. No amount of wordplay is going to change that. If there’s a principle that works, we don’t have it. If you have to be credulous for something to work, then you already have a problem before things have even started.
I don’t need to answer the question in the negative. The claimant is the one who need to offer evidence. Until they can, they are wrong. No has yet to offer any evidence that they have firsthand experience with god.
You are using words like ‘appeal to a higher power’ and ‘faithful’ completely wrong here. I do not appeal to a higher power to get my phone lines fixed, I talk to someone who has different knowledge than me. I am not faithful with my payments, I pay what I owe. Just because you don’t know about the phone line doesn’t make it magical.
No, of course not. Now, say if you couldn’t go see your automechanic and you had to go to his specialists who assured you they would take your problem to him, and these specialists told you that the mechanic was all knowing and all powerful and all loving, and then when you get your car back its still broken just about everytime, except for the one time the door handle came off and you found the screw and put it back yourself, and the specialists told you sometimes a broken car is what you need, that would be insane.
Provided of course, that you can show that said success was the result of the attempt, and not just coincidence.
Wrong. I do not need to prove their reasons false, as the claimant, they need to prove them to be true. Until they can they don’t fall under the exception.
Well, I guess it depends on your definition of insane. You can be a little insane. I think that delusional fits just fine. Belief without real evidence is delusional. Is that better?
By the way, wok, thank you for using my gift ‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’'s. Now I can concentrate on your arguments, which I find well-reasoned and stated! Have you read or heard Julia Sweeney’s Letting Go of God? I just listened to the CD last night and it was excellent, funny and moving.
No, I am denying that one can be made, absent any faith-based argumentation.
Most followers of Abrahamic faiths already believe in an after life, and also condemn murder. So, no, you are incorrect.
And you have not provided any proof that dead people cannot enjoy anything. As mentioned, this is an unprovable, unfalsifiable statement.
And you would also need to provide proof that enjoyment is the summum bonum in order to base a morality on it.
But you seem to be denying that there is any such evidence, and therefore would like to base your moral arguments on stuff like assertions about things like murder being wrong because dead people cannot enjoy anything. Which is, as mentioned, a statement of faith, both because no one can communicate their feelings or lack thereof post mortem, and because you have not demonstrated that enjoyment or its lack are valid bases for moral argumentation.
There is no way to establish a morality without faith-based acceptance of axioms. And thus we are reduced to contradictory arguments like that produced by the OP, where those who act on their belief in God should be marginalized, because belief in God is not rationally based, whereas believers in the prohibition of murder should not be marginalized, even though their belief is equally irrational.
See how it works? You cannot argue that any moral decision is invalid if it is faith-based unless you can come up with some non-faith-based moral decision. Or admit that all moral decisions are equally invalid, and therefore give up moral argumentation altogether.
They’re not *equally * invalid. As I pointed out, we can observe directly the results of many secular moral codes, whilst with theistic codes we cannot know whether the intended effects come about or not. Moral codes based on religion require more faith; your argument that because secular codes require faith thus they are just as requiring of belief as religious codes isn’t accurate.
Hmmmmmm interesting point friend Shodan has raised. In defense of your own statements here can you name a moral code that is secular based that any society has followed. Can you name any results that have been directly observed?
Murder is bad for society. Therefore murder is bad. There, that wasn’t so hard.
Faith based ethics rely on the same thing that society based ethics does: reward and punishment. Break the law, go to jail/burn in hell. Follow the law, enjoy the fruits of a harmonious society/go to heaven. Only, the big difference is that we have absolutely no real evidence that heaven or hell exists.
I agree with this with the qualifier that people often accept God often for subjective experiences. Sometimes it’s something they were taught by their parents or culture that is emotionally hard to give up. Some seem to need to be directed by others about what is 'true" Many though have their own experiences that form a foundation for their beliefs. Certainly they should continue to examine the information available and refine their beliefs but it’s incorrect to say they have no legitimate reasons to believe,
Unfortunately many adults don’t seem to have a fully formed rational process either. Many intelligent people accept certain beliefs because they are told what is true by someone else and, for reasons I can’t explain, embrace those beliefs, without really examining them in detail. Quite often though it comes from some powerful personal experience. That may not be specific or conclusive evidence but it is inaccurate to call it no evidence.
It’s called testimony. It doesn’t come with an objective confirmation kit.
Here’s the big error I see in many atheist arguments. The claimant only needs to provide evidence if they are trying to prove something to you or someone else. If Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses knock on your door to tell you the good news ask them for evidence. If a religious activist group tries to pass laws because of a passage in the Bible then please call them to task. Otherwise your opinion about evidence and what beliefs are justified or rational is only your opinion with exactly that amount of importance.
Incorrect. You have your beliefs about what is and is not true or even likely to be true, and others have theirs. Until somebody makes an assertion that the other is wrong neither has any need to prove their beliefs or try to disprove other beliefs. The person making the assertion that the other is wrong is the one who is required to prove their own assertion.
If your assertion is , there is no objective evidence that God is, you might be able to establish that. If your assertion is God does not exist you won’t be able to prove that. If your assertion is people who believe in God are insane or delusional I seriously doubt you can prove that either.
That isn’t really what I meant - sorry I wasn’t clear. I’m not suggesting that secular moral codes have shown better results or have been more successful in the past. Pretty much any code is open to abuse (assuming it’s not an immoral code to begin with, of course).
Shodan’s right in saying that any moral code has some level of faith; with religious morality, that faith comes in two parts. You have faith that the code is correct (i.e. that whatever god/gods it is you worship, they’re good, what they say is good) and that your following of the code in practice actually does work (in this case, actually making your god happy). With secular morality, there’s still faith of the first kind, in that whether murder is good or not is still a value judgement we’re making for ourselves. But for the second part, there are actual results; how successful we are can be directly observed. If my code depends on maximising people’s happiness, I can actually look and see whether my actions cause happiness. So suggesting that secular morality is actually just as faith-based as religious codes is untrue.
Except you start with an axiom without providing evidence. That makes it faith based.
Except faith based ethics are not just about heaven and hell. My question was can we find a secular code of ethics that doesn’t have it’s roots in religious beliefs?
I understand. I was wondering if there was an example of a secular moral code to observe. Communism wouldn’t be a very positive example. I would add that the faith in religion based moral codes also have some amount of verification through direct observance. It’s not just a future reward of heaven and hell or a sense that God is pleased. Making an effort to be more kind , considerate of others, more forgiving, because of religious teachings may yield positive results which might seem like faith justified. Imagine someone who after a spiritual experience cleans up their life in various ways. It seems normal that they might see the results as a direct result of their new found faith.
Of course its correct to say that. ‘Legitimate’ means its real, accurate, etc. Bad logic, blind faith, emotional desire, subjective experiences, trusting a non-authority, etc are not legitimate reasons. You can’t say ‘Well, he believes in god cause some guy told him to’ and call that a legitimate reason.
Good, I’m with you.
If you want to claim a powerful experience came from god, you had better be prepared to back up such a big claim.
Awww, now you lost it. It doesn’t have to be specific or conclusive, it just has to be real and accurate. Subjective experiences, powerful though they may be, can’t be used as evidence of god unless it can be shown that it was in fact god, and not one of the hundreds of other things a human does with experiences. If it isn’t good evidence, it isn’t evidence at all.
I couldn’t care less what someone thinks in their head. As long as it doesn’t leave their head, I have absolutely no say in it. But, and here’s the important point, religion isn’t a ‘just in the head’ kind of belief. It’s everywhere. To the people who buy into it, it’s just part of the backround, it’s supposed to be there. But those of us who reject it, it looms large. We are looked at as outsiders, different, wrong. People don’t just claim god exists, it’s a basic assumption in their lives. This argument doesn’t work because it isn’t just in people’s heads like you say. There are big huge buildings and organizations and people leading the gubmint that claim it. What do you honestly think would happen if I questioned Dubbya about the existance of god?
I can’t assert that someone is wrong, unless that someone has already said something for me to assert is wrong.
That’s only true if the the assertion has already been established. ‘god is real’ is an assertion that’s been around for a long time, and has yet to be established.
Ok, I’ll do it. Watch, I’m going to list all the objective evidence that god exists right here:
Hmm, I can’t seem to find any. If you find any let me know.
Of course, you can’t prove a negative. It is up to the claimant to provide proof for the claim, otherwise it must be assumed to be wrong. If you claim that god exists, please provide evidence to back this up, otherwise I’ll continue to assume that it’s wrong.
Delusion:
an act or instance of deluding.
the state of being deluded.
a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.
Until the claim ‘god exists’ is proven, anyone who believes it can be argued to be delusional.
That doesn’t resolve the problem. At time T, God, with omniscience, knows that action A will happen at time T+N. At time T+ N-1, can God decide to make action B happen instead? If he can, then he was not omniscient. If he cannot, he is not omnipotent. In your example, God is not changing anything. There is no logical problem with omniscience by itself, or omnipotence by itself, but the combination - which is part of your definition of God, is logically inconsistent. Do you see why you haven’t answered the question?
You were talking about inconsistency in the universe. A universe that God created to look like an evolved one need not exhibit any inconsistency - so I don’t understand why you brought it up.
Okay, but why do you think there is any pure water flowing at all? Why is the Bible any more inspired than the latest book by Richard Dawkins? All books can be examined for the light they shine on the human condition, but this can be a secular light, not a spiritual one.
Not a clue. Maybe it includes a Hanukah bush?
Well, there you go saying things I agree with again. That’s no fun. I personally don’t need any god, but I recognize that people do, and if they follow your philosophy I have no problems with it at all.
First of all, the legal system is based on evidence but is not science. That takes care of that objection.
Second, what do you consider a faith based argument? If it is anything less strong than a mathematical proof, in your view, we’ll just have to disagree. Philosophical arguments may be invalid, but they’re not faith based.
Actually, I don’t recall anyone ever mentioning an afterlife in my five years of Hebrew school, and I don’t remember any of our rabbi’s sermons talking about it. You goyim seemed to invent this.
Religious prohibitions on murder seem to be more along the lines of God forbade it, for whatever reason, or that you are interfering with God’s plan - the basis, if I understand it correctly, for the Catholic prohibition on suicide. Plus there is the possibility that the lawmakers weren’t all that sure about the afterlife, or that religion is just inconsistent.
Try to read what I wrote. I said they cannot enjoy life. I also said that they might be enjoying death.
That would be hardly the only justification. You’d include a person’s right to control his own destiny, which is taken away by being murdered. (Unless you think that is a faith based statement also.)
Basically you are saying that the statement that the dead can’t enjoy life is faith-based. I suppose you say that the statement the sun will come up in the morning is also faith based. Sounds like extreme skepticism to me, and I suffered through a Theory of Knowledge class ruined by a couple of these guys. Isn’t worth my time anymore.
and others someone made the distinction between cherry picking our beliefs from selecting verses we like and rejecting others or calling what we do interpreting the Bible. One poster observed that it seemed a little disingenuous to reject verses and sections and then soften it with the term cherry interpretation. I hadn’t thought of that but I agree. I don’t think it’s a matter of interpreting the Bible or deciding just how inspired it is or isn’t. The Bible or anything else is just a tool we can use to stimulate our thoughts emotions and spirit. The inspiration isn’t in the paper or the words, or in some holy revered status we give the book. It’s in us.
I personally don’t need any god, but I recognize that people do, and if they follow your philosophy I have no problems with it at all.