Why would God sacrifice Himself ...?

[Liberal]

Quix:

I would not ask you to retract a single word. I believe that you are expressing yourself as honestly as you know how based on what little you know of me. It is certainly no secret that my writing style (much like my speech) is not very good.

What I would like to do is invite you to our home. There, we will share with you what things we have left: our food, our spare bed, and our warm hospitality. It is modest, but in the end, Love is all that matters, just as you say. Material things have never mattered much to me, not even when I was an atheist. They matter to me now only inasmuch as I am given to be their steward.

If you will contact Gaudere, I will permit her to give you our e-mail address. Edlyn and I will arrange to welcome you whenever you find it convenient. Perhaps you might could visit at the same time Tris does. I believe he is coming in May.

[xenophon41]

Lib, thanks for the tautology tutorial, truly! And I do understand the nature of axioms. As you say, we always seem to end up back at our different assumptions.

-The problem with accepting someone else’s subset of axioms is that they may be contradictory to another subset of axioms one has spent considerable time and effort acquiring, and has had some success employing. One wants a certain degree of confidence in the utility of the new set before one puts away the old set. This is the case here, I believe. Although your logic holds up within the framework of your assumptions, I feel your bases yield no more useful understanding than I can attain through my own. I’m not denying that your axioms may be as or more valid than mine; I simply choose, lacking the particular perceptual experiences you’ve related, to accept them in favor of mine. However, I believe we aspire to the same ideals. I believe that my approach is more direct than yours, although I may indeed have a different geometry to negotiate than the one you perceive.

[/quote]

BTW, I like it when you speak more directly. I believe the strength of parables lies in their illustrative properties, which means they must have a more direct message that they’re used to illuminate.

[Esprix]

Lib, I can’t say enough nice things about you, but I have to agree with others here - I feel like I’ve just read several versions of some strange combination of Jack Handy’s “Deep Thoughts,” those corporate motivational pictures and sayings my boss has mounted on his wall, e-mail glurge, a Tony Robbins motivational book, Chicken Soup For The Soul, Life’s Little Instruction Book and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, all framed within the context of the Baptist that came knocking on my door last week, with just a hint of the harmless yet slightly loony stranger who comes up to you on the street and asks if you’re saved, and feels perfectly justified in grinning moronically, nodding emphatically and chattering on for quite some time extoling the benefits of having found Jesus.

I mean, you know I do love you, but, as Edward Nygma once asked, “Does anybody else feel like a fried egg?”

Esprix

[Liberal]

Xeno:

Thanks for your advice. I will attempt to do better.

As my Savior said, “Do not store up for yourselves treasure on earth where moths destroy, and thieves come in and steal. Instead, store up for yourselves treasure in heaven where moths do not destroy, and thieves do not come in and steal.” For me, the parallel is clear: earth is the atoms, and heaven is the spirit.

Thus, when I look at the universe, I see a gravity field peppered with quantum convulsions. When I look at the Spirit, I see Love. The former is fleeting and heartless, whereas the latter is Eternal and Good. One is already dead within the reference frame of the other. That tells me which one is real. I’ve simply decided where I’d rather store my treasure.

Is that pretty clear?

[Spiritus_Mundi]

Perhaps the answer can be found here.

[Liberal]

Esprix:

I love you, too, my pagan brother! Your complex simile was delightful, thanks.

[Liberal]

Spiritus:

Wherever you go, there you are.

[Freyr]

Whew, you forget a thread for a few days and look what happens!

**jab1 wrote:

Could be. It’s not impossible. Besides, it is not considered a mental illness unless it seriously and negatively affects the person’s daily life, if it keeps you from working or having friends or leaving the house or causing you to commit crimes, etc.

I am curious: Why would you think it was an illness only if you were the only one suffering? If every person in the world had cancer, would that mean cancer is not an illness?**

The problem here is that while cancer can be quite clearly defined, mental illness, unless it has very specific, physiological causes, isn’t as easily defined. Also, as you stated, above, unless a mental condition causes specific problems, is it really an illness or just a quirk of personality and/or experience?

The point I’m making is that for one person to show abnormal or unusual behavior (as compared to a similar population of people) would probably be regarded as an illness. But if a significant number of people started showing the same behavior, without underlying physical causes, is it still a mental illness? If one person says he/she has spoken with non-coporeal beings, they’d be considered mentally ill. If LOTS of people report the same thing, might there be something to what they’re relating?

If we cannot presently understand something, then it must have supernatural causes? Maybe the cause is natural but we just haven’t found it yet?

We’re in violent agreement here. But why do you assume the Gods are supernatural? I’ve always thought that, for them, something like Unified Field Theory is basic kindergarten stuff.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology should have the appearance of magic." --Arthur C. Clarke. And vice versa?

Pretty much. Any problem with that?

Spiritus Mundi… ahem… what you attributed to Polycarp was originally written by me. Please credit the proper looney when drawing your conclusions.

**Gaudere wrote:

Well put, Spiritus. I do not think any atheist should necessarily consider all theists SuperDaddy-hungering madmen who make up imaginary friends to avoid the inevitabilty of their own death. (I would hope none would–and I do not–but I do not as yet have total control of the Evil Atheist Cabal and as such cannot dictate on matters of policy.**

There’s an Evil Atheist Cabal, too? Cool!

And spiritual matters tend to eschew such tests of empirical proof v. perception, though they may me amenable to Occam’s razor or logic.

This has always been a problem for me. If the Gods are real, why hasn’t anyone been able to prove them so? The only explaination I can make is that They want to remain hidden, except thru personal revelation, prehaps to make us realize that the universe can’t be reduced to a set of simple equations; some things must be taken on faith.

Libertarian, I basically agree with what you’re saying, but I think you and Jab1 talking about two different, almost mutually exclusive realms; the physical and metaphysical. Applying the axioms of one to the other causes both sides to break out in hives. Both are real and both have their uses. Jab1’s realm is the physical universe. Applying tradition logic and the scientific method has allowed us to understand it and use it, much to our benefit. Likewise, your realm, the metaphysical, gives us the moral context by which humans gauge their actions. Rather than trying to say which one is better than the other, realise that the two are co-dependent; we need both to form a cohesive, congruent understanding of ourselves and the world around us.

[jab1]

*Originally posted by Freyr *
unless a mental condition causes specific problems, is it really an illness or just a quirk of personality and/or experience?

I thought I made that clear. It’s not considered an illness if it does not seriously and negatively impact you life. Otherwise, it would be just a personality quirk or eccentricity.

If you can talk to your “gods” and still function in your day-to-day life, go ahead. (Me, I think it’s just your subconscious mind communicating with your conscious one. IOW, you’re talking to yourself, but you still have a good grip on reality. You’re not like this homeless man I once saw who was walking down the street shaking his fist and shouting at the thin air.)

why do you assume the Gods are supernatural? I’ve always thought that, for them, something like Unified Field Theory is basic kindergarten stuff.

The word supernatural means to me anything that is either not subject to natural law or is able to manipulate natural law to suit its purposes. Are the Gods immortal? If so, they are supernatural. Can they make matter appear from nothing? If so, they are supernatural.

**“Any sufficiently advanced technology should have the appearance of magic.” --Arthur C. Clarke. And vice versa?

Pretty much. Any problem with that?**

While a Star Trek transporter or phaser or a Star Wars lightsaber LOOK like technology, they are really magical devices, because, in order for them to function as shown, many natural laws would have to be broken. (The transporter uses a Heisenberg Compensator to defy the Uncertainty Principle. Phasers can disintegrate an object without it exploding, but at a lower setting they stun people. Huh?? And how does one make a beam of light stop just a few feet from its source?)

What I was asking you was “Can magic have the appearance of technology?” Sure. It’s like asking if an illusion can have the appearance of reality. It wouldn’t be a very good illusion if it didn’t!

Libertarian, I basically agree with what you’re saying, but I think you and Jab1 talking about two different, almost mutually exclusive realms; the physical and metaphysical. Applying the axioms of one to the other causes both sides to break out in hives.

Amen!

[Spiritus_Mundi]

Wherever you go, there you are.

Hey, man, what’s in the big pink box?

[Liberal]

Nothing of consequence.

[xenophon41]

My new sig:

[jab1]

“Subjective idealism.” Taken to the extreme, it becomes solipsism. Libertarian comes close to solipsism when he says that no one can logically prove his own existence to another.

[Liberal]

Jab:

I think I know the name for Libertarian’s philosophy. “Subjective idealism.”

I take issue with some minor points of Berkely, but you are essentially correct. Examine the Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous

Hylas Notwithstanding all you have said, to me it seems that, according to your own way of thinking, and in consequence of your own principles, it should follow that <you> are only a system of floating ideas, without any substance to support them. Words are not to be used without a meaning. And, as there is no more meaning in <spiritual Substance> than in <material Substance>, the one is to be exploded as well as the other.

Philonous How often must I repeat, that I know or am conscious of my own being; and that <I myself> am not my ideas, but somewhat else, a thinking, active principle that perceives, knows, wills, and operates about ideas. I know that I, one and the same self, perceive both colours and sounds: that a colour cannot perceive a sound, nor a sound a colour: that I am therefore one individual principle, distinct from colour and sound; and, for the same reason, from aft other sensible things and inert ideas. But, I am not in like manner conscious either of the existence or essence of Matter. On the contrary, I know that nothing inconsistent can exist, and that the existence of Matter implies an inconsistency. Farther, I know what I mean when I affirm that there is a spiritual substance or support of ideas, that is, that a spirit knows and perceives ideas. But, I do not know what is meant when it is said that an unperceiving substance hath inherent in it and supports either ideas or the archetypes of ideas. There is therefore upon the whole no parity of case between Spirit and Matter.

Hylas I own myself satisfied in this point. But, do you in earnest think the real existence of sensible things consists in their being actually perceived? If so; how comes it that all mankind distinguish between them? Ask the first man you meet, and he shall tell you, <to be perceived> is one thing, and <to exist> is another.

Philonous <I> am content, Hylas, to appeal to the common sense of the world for the truth of my notion. Ask the gardener why he thinks yonder cherry-tree exists in the garden, and he shall tell you, because he sees and feels it; in a word, because he perceives it by his senses. Ask him why he thinks an orange-tree not to be there, and he shall tell you, because he does not perceive it. What he perceives by sense, that he terms a real, being, and saith it <is or exists>; but, that which is not perceivable, the same, he saith, hath no being.

Hylas Yes, Philonous, I grant the existence of a sensible thing consists in being perceivable, but not in being actually perceived.

Philonous And what is perceivable but an idea? And can an idea exist without being actually perceived? These are points long since agreed between us.

Hylas But, be your opinion never so true, yet surely you will not deny it is shocking, and contrary to the common sense of men. Ask the fellow whether yonder tree hath an existence out of his mind: what answer think you he would make?

Philonous The same that I should myself, to wit, that it doth exist out of his mind. But then to a Christian it cannot surely be shocking to say, the real tree, existing without his mind, is truly known and comprehended by (that is <exists in> ) the infinite mind of God. Probably he may not at first glance be aware of the direct and immediate proof there is of this; inasmuch as the very being of a tree, or any other sensible thing, implies a mind wherein it is. But the point itself he cannot deny. The question between the Materialists and me is not, whether things have a <real> existence out of the mind of this or that person, but whether they have an <absolute> existence, distinct from being perceived by God, and exterior to all minds. This indeed some heathens and philosophers have affirmed, but whoever entertains notions of the Deity suitable to the Holy Scriptures will be of another opinion.

Where Berkely and I part ways is that he is deeply concerned with epistemology, and I have found epistemology to be irrelevant. What is important is the metaphysic. It isn’t the knowledge that matters, but the morality.

Mere knowledge that the atoms are not real might convince a man that he has license to steal and destroy, when in fact, his moral decision to steal and destroy will condemn him.

On the whole, I feel just like Philonous did here:

Hylas I understand you; and must needs own you say things plausible enough. But, give me leave to put you in mind of one thing. Pray, Philonous, were you not formerly as positive that Matter existed, as you are now that it does not?

Philonous I was. But here lies the difference. Before, my positiveness was founded, without examination, upon prejudice; but now, after inquiry, upon evidence.

Thus, I no longer believe that the moon is a foot in diameter, owing to my understanding of perspective and distance.

Taken to the extreme, it becomes solipsism. Libertarian comes close to solipsism when he says that no one can logically prove his own existence to another.

Well, taken to the extreme, democracy is anarchy, evolution is Social Darwinism, and atheism is existentialism.

I do not assert the inability to prove your own existence based on any philsophical grounds, but upon the very rules of logic themselves. As I’ve made plain repeatedly, the impotence in that regard is due to tautology, not ontology.

[jab1]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
PhilonousI know that nothing inconsistent can exist, and that the existence of Matter implies an inconsistency.

Did he ever explain what this inconsistency is?

PhilonousAsk the gardener why he thinks yonder cherry-tree exists in the garden, and he shall tell you, because he sees and feels it; in a word, because he perceives it by his senses. Ask him why he thinks an orange-tree not to be there, and he shall tell you, because he does not perceive it.

What if that gardener hallucinated? Then he’d be perceiving something that did not exist (unless you consider the hallucination itself something perceived).

Philonous And what is perceivable but an idea? And can an idea exist without being actually perceived?

No, because an idea is abstract. Abstract things exisnt only in the mind. Concrete things exist independently of the mind. The universe existed billions of years before there were people to perceive it.

HylasAsk the fellow whether yonder tree hath an existence out of his mind: what answer think you he would make?

Hylas sounds like my kinda guy!

Philonous The same that I should myself, to wit, that it doth exist out of his mind. But then to a Christian it cannot surely be shocking to say, the real tree, existing without his mind, is truly known and comprehended by (that is <exists in> ) the infinite mind of God.

Ah, I was wondering when He would show up. So concrete things exist because God perceives them? But it does not necessarily follow that if God did not exist, nothing else would. Natural law explains why things exist without invoking a deity.

Where Berkely and I part ways is that he is deeply concerned with epistemology, and I have found epistemology to be irrelevant. What is important is the metaphysic. It isn’t the knowledge that matters, but the morality.

But morality cannot exist in a vacuum of knowledge! If you don’t know it’s wrong to steal, you will steal whatever you need or want! Those peaceful, honest people that libertarianism needs to succeed would not exist if it was not possible to know what peace and honesty IS. Epistemology tells us how we know what is moral and what is not.

Well, taken to the extreme, democracy is anarchy

Democracy is a form of government; anarchy is a lack of any kind of government.

evolution is Social Darwinism

Social Darwinism is the philosophy of evolution mis-applied. Evolution is a scientific principle and should not be applied in a social context.

[jab1]

And Britannica says: Existentialism

rejects epistemology and the attempt to ground human knowledge.

Aren’t you the one who said epistemology is irrelevant?

It also says:

it is compatible with both atheism (Heidegger and Sartre) and with Christianity (Kierkegaard, Marcel). Existentialism as such entails no particular political doctrines, but its stress on responsibility and its aversion to conformism and to whatever impairs human freedom can be conducive to political freedom (Sartre).

Now who has the greater potential to become an existentialist, you or me?