My point was that people living in a certain age aren’t irrational for accepting the common beliefs of that age, even though later ages may reject those beliefs.
Just like the Austrailia example the fact that many people accept that God is, will influence others. Many people never really examine their belief in detail. It’s not nessecary for them to function in the day to day world. Also like the Austrailia. Lot’s of people wll say they believe there is a God or something like God but they don’t really think about the details. I don’t consider that irrational.
If you’d like to encourage people to do just that I’m all for it.
If you reject the subjective nature of the spiritual journey and the significance of the spiritual experience then it is you who is being unrealistic and perhaps irrational. If you fail to see the similarities between the emotional and conscious qualities of faith that is exercised by believers and non believers then you are missing a crucial point. I seriously doubt you’ll ever get people to reject their beliefs by demanding they provide objective evidence. Perhaps those who were already on the verge.
I think the better tactic is to provide real objective evidence about specific details of belief. Over time that real evidence becomes commonly accepted and a shift in beleif occurs. I’m grateful for books like “The End of Faith” “Misquoting Jesus” and the Dawkins book. They stimulate dialogue and the thought process. As more information is readily available to more people, and cultures and ideas are shared I do think we’ll see a move away from rigid doctrinal beleifs to something more open and free thinking.
btw, I certainly agree that atheists can just as kind and compassionate in helping the needy as any believer. I’m also certain that lots of believers don’t realize this. Feel free to help your cause by demonstrating this principle to those irrational and crazy people.
also; I deal with the public daily. Churches will come to me to purchase equipment for their church. I have never had anyone make any attempt to preach to me or expound on their beliefs. A couple of times a pastor has handed me a card and say “Thanks for your help Dan, let me know if I can ever do anything for you”
A couple of times someone has asked for a discount because after all, “it’s for the Lord” That does irritate me but I’ve managed to find creative ways to deal with it without losing business.
I think it’s a matter of perspective. From our perspective within linear time it is hard to grasp. The more I’ve thought about it, the more I’ve become a “be here now” kind of guy.
Some random stuff that is somewhat related.
There’s a passage in the Book of Mormon that says “the course of God is one eternal round” I think Joe Smith was a phony but I do wonder where he got his source material.
A few years ago I was talking to a neighbor who was going for his masters in Physics. His theory was about black holes becoming self sustaining. It was over my head really, but as he described how the edge of the black hole expanded downward until it met and sustained itself I thought of the BOM passage.
In the book, “MR God this is Anna” Anna has an epiphany that she shares with the author. While people have points of view , God has infinite viewing points.
And if I invented a time machine to go back and murder my grandfather before my father was born, after that I wouldn’t be around to invent it, so my father would be born, so I would be born and invent the time machine, … No problem. Of course I can choose to not murder my grandfather, but that doesn’t eliminate the underlying paradox.
He’s not making predictions (which may be incorrect) he has exact knowledge of the future. Sure, he won’t choose to change his mind in the vast majority of the cases, but, since we’re talking hypotheticals here, what if he does? Remember, he has already seen his choice, and what he has seen cannot be changed. So, it’s not that he chooses not to change his mind, he cannot change his mind, and is thus not omnipotent - since any action he takes falls into the category of those he can hypothetically change his mind about.
Are you familiar with time travel paradoxes? If so, let me know how you think they can be resolved.
Say he saw the future at time t, and the event in question is at time t + 2n. If he “changed his mind” at time t+n by what you say at time t he would have seen the new decision, so he never would have really changed his mind at time t+n at all, since the action he performs at time t+2n is what he foresaw at time t. Thus, it is logically impossible for him to change his mind between time t and t+2n. Since time t is negative infinity, God can never change his mind, and is bound to the “decisions” reflected in his first glimpse of the future - and I put decisions in quotes since it is not clear how he could have made these decisions before he saw what they were going to be.
My hypothesis: any construct that gets you into the kind of mess we see here just doesn’t exist.
I think prediction is an ok word to use, since it could be a 100% correct prediction. But you’re right, it’s not absolutely right, i’m just finding it difficult to think of a better word to use in it’s place.
I think the problem you’re getting into is that you’re suggesting the change in mind must have a cause which is only in existence in one timeline. God changes his mind, which alters his original prediction, which means he never changed his mind. I’m not seeing where that follows; what about the change of mind means he never makes the change in the first place?
To go back to the leaf example, if God knows the leaf will fall tomorrow, and yet you persuade him otherwise, it means God in the first place knew you’d change his mind. And yet that’s still a perfectly non-paradoxical situation; nothing about the new state of affairs (God sees you persuade him to let the leaf fall today) means that the actual persuasion will not take place.
If he knew you were going to change his mind, did he really change his mind at all since he clearly knew he was going to agree to it before you even spoke to him!
Say more about alternate timelines. If it is the case that God both lets the leaf fall and does not let the leaf fall, then there is no problem (I think.) Say you’re predicting the roll of a die. If you say it will be 1,2,3,4,5 or 6, it is not that impressive. If somehow, however, in some timeline any call you make will turn out right, you are always right somewhere?
Nah, that doesn’t work What I’m getting at is that God is omniscient in the timeline where he doesn’t change his mind, and omnipotent in the timeline where he does, so if you sum the timelines he’s both. I doubt there are many theologies built around this - let’s build a church and make some cash!
Last night I was thinking about this and it occured to me that an omnipotent and omniscient God would never change his mind. If God reacts not to time and event but to spiritual condition then true to God’s nature of love and truth he will react accordingly to our changing spiritual condition. {That we we get to have free will}
If God is true to his very essence and nature is it reasonable to say God isn’t omnipotent if he can’t act outside his nature? Is he not omnipotent if he can’t stop being God and do something outside his nature? That doesn’t seem reasonable to me.
There are certainly actions god can take or not take that are equally true to his nature. I can’t imagine a leaf falling or not falling would in any way go against God’s ultimate good.
However, a God who is “forced” into one set of actions does not seem omnipotent. Somewhere in the Bible God admits being responsible for or creating evil also. A God might not choose to do evil, but he could do it.
Finally, if what you say is true, it makes most prayers (except those of the mastubatory variety) pretty useless, right?
Probably, but if God responds to spiritual condition and is duel omni my question is why would he ever need to change his mind about anything, perioid? Spiritually speaking he knows if and when that leaf should fall.
Being true to your nature is not being forced, it is simply being.
That’s a tricky one. In some religions as we grow and understand our own true nature the yin and yang fades and finally disappears. A minor example. I remember being in an experience of receiving something from someone and realizing in a moment of insight that in receiving we give and in giving we receive if our hearts and minds are in the right place. At that moment instead of two acts it becomes one act. Many things in life are good or bad not because of the label attached to the act but because of the condition of the heart and mind of the person. Sex, killing, helping someone or refusing to help can be that way. It isn’t the physical act that determines the what the act is , but rather the spiritual condition of the person.
I suppose in the sense that God created the tree with the fruit then God created evil too.
I’m not familiar with that verse. Perhaps someone will help us out.
In my own studies I’m begining to think that evil does not exist for God but only in our own persepctive. For God it’s spiritual condition. In tune or out of tune. In communion or not. Yin and Yang exist in a world of duality. In God there is no duality. His essence is consistant.
I’ve been doing a little reading in "The Course in Miricles’ Interesting ideas.
I may be getting this wrong but I think their concept is that we, as part of the whole created the concept of evil when we believed we were seperate from God and each other.
I don’t think so. Prayer is more an exercise in aligning ourselves rather than trying to get God to do something for us. Remember what Jesus taught, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven”
Well, no. An omnipotent, omniscient being would never change their mind, since they’d know what to do (and be able to do it) in the first place.
I suppose it’s sort of like multiple universes… only there’s only ever one and it doesn’t change. Seriously though, I think it’s difficult to talk about without using the wrong language (or my vocabulary isn’t large enough to explain what i’m on about, of course). I do see what you’re getting at, and it’s possible i’m making a logical flaw in there somewhere. I’ll think about it, anyway.
Scientology Mark II, anyone?
I think evil is actually the wrong term, really. If there is a god that has set out the objective morality of the universe, then by definition the things that are in communion with it would be “good” and those not “bad”. But being “good” is not the only word used to describe gods; often it is omnibenevolent, all-loving, compassionate. And there are certainly parts of the universe that increase suffering - something that would seem to be at odds with the existence of an all-loving, omnipotent, omniscient god. Abstract concepts like good and evil can certainly mean many things, but I doubt that cutting a person in full communion with god would not cause them pain.
God certainly can do whatever he wants. But, how does he determine what to do? If God has free will - and he must - seeing the future cannot constrain him from changing it.
As I said. {in theory anyway} It’s not choosing to act in the way we think of it. Will the leaf fall or won’t it? God, being consistent in his essence responds to spiritual condition. We, being connected to God and each other beyond any disconnecting, are an integral part of response, by our own spiritual condition, and our desire to change our spiritual condition.
If the essence of God is love and truth, and let’s add intelligence, then God will remain consistently true to his own nature. Not choosing something outside his nature is not a lack of omnipotence since it is only perception.
Well, guys, all I can close on is to say that this sounds like the plot of Dogma.
Here’s god, saying “I see the leaf falls, and that’s the way I want it. But maybe I’ll just keep it from falling.”
And the universe ends.
Seriously though, I think it’s difficult to talk about without using the wrong language (or my vocabulary isn’t large enough to explain what i’m on about, of course). I do see what you’re getting at, and it’s possible i’m making a logical flaw in there somewhere. I’ll think about it, anyway.