Tom wrote:
<keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1113661530.960747.260180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Tom wrote:
<keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1113571597.263591.55680@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
(snip0
yes, if we believe and know what is right, we have no choice but
to
choose
what is right if our will is free to do so. That is an obvious
thing
to me.
Really? It seems obvious to *me* that we could know our moral duty
and
yet knowingly decide to do something else.
In order to choose the wrong action, one must contradict 2 things.
First,
one must contradict what they believe to be right action, and they
must
contradict their own freedom to choose right action. That one will
choose
wrong action in light of the *totally free* option to do otherwise
proves
one never had a choice in the first place.
I'd say: your comment seems to preclude objective moral facts. It seems
to define morality as whatever a person believes is right and wrong. I
'd say there *are* objective moral facts. But let's put that aside. I
don't see how a person's choosing to do something they know is wrong
contradicts their freedom to do what's right. I don't follow that at
all. IMO they were free to do right or wrong and they chose to do
wrong. Why think that freedom implies only doing what's morally right?
(snip)
THE FOLLOWING IS MY OPINION. I AM NOT INSISTING THAT ANYONE ELSE
AGREE:
Sorry but I guess I wouldn't quite out it that way. I'd say that
what
we are *isn't* a product of what is acting on us, but that what is
acting on us affects the menu of choices we face.
The menu is a product of your experiences, biology, education,
knowledge,
and instinct. Nothing stands outside of that. Nothing. And nothing
can be
show to stand outside of our reality. That is the clincher.
I agree that the above factors are what produce the menu. I don't agree
that nothng stands outside of that. I believe that your soul (see
below) standa outside of that.
Because our souls
experience things through our bodies, what happens to our bodies
including our brains determines just what our menu of choices are.
Souls? what do you mean? I think the soul is your center of
awareness, the *I* of you. I believe your conscioiusness isn't a
biological product but instead your spiritual essense that is connected
to your body somehow. In oother words, I am a mind/body dualist.
For
example, an alcoholic feels an urge to drink that a non-alcoholic
doesn't feel. The choice facing an alcoholic wrt drinking is a
different choice than the choice facing a non-alcoholic. For this
reason none of us is in position to cast moral judgement on other
people--for all we know we'd do way worse than they if we faced the
same menu of choices they do.
Once again, our percieved choices are are the product of our biology,
experience, education, indoctrination, propensities, addictions, and
environment. Nothing stands outside of this. If there is something,
we know
nothing about it.
I agree our choices are the product of the factors you say above. For
example, a tendency to alcoholism is thought to be genetic and a person
who has the genetic make-up faces different choices than the person who
doesn't. But I'd say the *person* isn't his biology, the person is his
soul and the soul is who makes the choices from the menu produced by
the kinds fo things you mention.
This is why Jesus taught "Judge not, lest
you be judged".
Ironically, god is the the mother of all judges. And dare we judge
god being
an innocent bystander.
I'm not sure what you mean by this last one, but IMO God is the only
one who is *competent* to judge any of us since he *does* know exactly
what choices we faced and how we chose.
Anyway, IMO beneath the effect all our experiences and
genetics etc. has on the menu of choices lies our souls--the *I*
that
is each of us--which are what make the choice
The "I" that you speak of is the sand castle that results from self
awareness. It is an illusion within ourselves that has caused more
war and
prejudice than any other element of human nature.
IMO there can be no self-awareness without a self to be aware if
itself. The self is the *I*. I don't agree that the notion of self has
caused any war nor any prejudice, not one instance. The idea that I am
a different person from you doesn't make me fail to love you as I love
myself. I
It is both a blessing and
a curse. With self awareness, we can *reflect* on our actions. This
*forces*
our regard to what is right and wrong behaviour. As a result of that,
we are
compelled to imagine an absolute athourity with respect to what is
right and
wrong. Why should this not be a goal for the thinking mind in fact.
This is
why there are so many gods however. But certainly ther are not as
many gods
as there are chrisian denominations.
It seems to me you are specualting here (ain't nothing wrong with
that:-). But I don't agree with your above speculation because I don't
believe that God is made up.
(snip)
You are imposing a condition that is not necessary. Like a child
can
only be
happy if they choose the right mother when in fact they are born
out
of
their mother without choice. Now just imagine if we are born into
heaven and
we come to know god as our father just as we would in a material
order.
What's wrong with that version of reality that God could have
chosen?
I don't think I am *imposing* a condition at all. I think I am
suggesting a possible answer as to why a good God wouldn't create
us
from the beginning in heaven. In other words I am giving an aswer
as to
why a good God *would* make things this way and not that. Now I
believe
that such a good God exists and given that it seems to me that he
must
have a good reason for not creating us already in heaven; that
there is
a IMO reasonable possibility that is consistent with my theological
belief I've got no reason to discard that belief.
As though you have any other choice in what you say about the
constraints of
your illogical faith. You have had many years of indocrtination. I am
no
stranger to indoctrination. I was born Catholic.
Illogical faith? That's ironic because I was thinking the same thing
about your faith:-). Years of indoctrination? You know that about me do
you? Did you know I was an atheist for years? Yor were born Catholic
but you were also born in a western world that has for the last many
years been intellectually hostile to religious ideas. When I was an
atheist like you I also accepted the half-baked objections to
Christianity. But the objects *are* half-baked, they depend on
fallacies and on unexamined (even unrecognized) presuppositions.
(snip)
We have to agree that God supposedly is outside of our simple
logic
if we
are to believe what he can and can't do.
I'm not sure I follow that. Could you elaborate?
IE one can argue that nothing is beyond the capabilities of god
including
anything that seems like a contradiction.
I wouldn't say that God can do contradictions. That's not a limit on
*GOd*, it limit on what can be sensibly proposed.
(snip0
If you are talking about *your* "not bad idea" then it has an
interesting quality; You'll never know if it's true, because if
it's
true you won't be alive to verify it. That is indeed an article
of
faith and will alwasy be unless you find out you're wrong.
I find that a finite existance more reasonable to a dream world.
And I find eternal life more reasonable than a dream world:-)
It does not take a single imaginary dream to expect that I will end
up like
the tree that falls in the forest.
Nor does it take an imaginary dream to supose that you'll spend
eternity with the Lord.
It does however, take a lot of
imagination to believe that the tree will rise again with a new found
importance and will live forever as a tree that is loved by an
imaginary
being in an imaginary place.
As you know we Christians are not saying that trees will be
resurrected:-) But it takes no imagination to believe that the one who
created and sustains the universe and its physical laws could cause a
tree to rise again. In fact it takes an inability to image all the
possibilities for a person not to realize that God if he exists *could*
do such.
IE if its
ok for all other living things to die, and I am a living thing,
then
I am ok
with dying. I don't want to fear death although every fiber in my
body and
mind is by nature unwilling to give it up. A very natural
instinct.
So
strong in fact that the desire to live will cause us to imagine an
eternal
life just to help cope with the knowledge of death. A product of
our
self
awareness.
I'll take this as *your* opinion:-)
indeed.
All I can say is that I don't think
it's a fear of death that motivates me.
Were you raised Catholic or Christian?
Sort of. When I was young my mom and dad took me and my brother to
church. Leter, when my parents quit going they would send me and my
brother to Sunday School where we recieved the least imaginable bit of
religious instruction. Sunday school was dumb but I had my friends
their. Religion was very mch ,imited to the background, after sports
and such. Anyway, when I was a freshman in high school, I became an
atheist. I continued to go to Sunday school even after I was an atheist
and didn't feel any kind of guilt at all for rejecting my "faith".
The idea of ending
consciousness doesn't scare me at all, in fact I don't understand
the
fear. But living forever in bliss does seem better:-)
You are cilinging to pleasure as though that is the meaning of life.
Heaven
it has been said "is the last ditch attempt of the ego to preserve
itself".
I tend to agree.
*Clinging* to pleasure? Where do you get that? You don't know that
much about me but you are darwing a lot of conclusions anyeay. I am not
offended at all by the way because you are basing your conclusions on
what you think applies to *all* religious people. I know Christiabs who
do the same thing whne it comes to atheists. But IMO people have too
many different reasons for the way we behave to make such guessing very
accurate.
(snip)
indeed they are rare, I would say that the Tsunami flood required
a
miracle
and god was asleep or unwilling. The latter is much less likely to
the
faithful; or should be. In a naturalistic world, the Tsunami flood
needs no
explanation.
I don't agree that natural disasters are the problem for theism
that
you do.
Except you have no excuse as to why your all powerful god likes to
witness
suffering....
False premise--it's no part of Christianity that God likes to watch
suffering. I wound't agree with you that the good reason God if he
exists has for making things the way he did must be because he likes to
watch people suffer.
...when he has to power to do something about it. Maybe you don't
have the same problem with that because you are willing to ignore the
contradiction. That is a possibility of course.
I'd say you are *imagining* a contradiction where none exists. But
continuing....
Perhaps there was some otherwise unattainable good that
required God creating the laws of nature so that they produced the
Tsunami; I see no reason think this isn't possible. In fact I see
no
reason to think it improbable.
And I see no reason that of all possibilities for a reality, your god
chose
to create one with tremendous suffering and evil.
God if he exists created a world with this amount of suffering and with
our being able to make decisions that affect how things turn out. Your
argument depends on there being something better that God if he exists
could have done. If God did different then preumably we would have done
different too, but given our freedom what reason is their to think that
we would have done better had God done different? As far as i can tell,
given our freedom there is no reason to supopse that God didn't make
the best choice available. And there is no reason to think that it
owuld have been better had God not given us freedom.
That is entirely
inconsistent with how you would describe your god is it not? And as
the
closest analogy, it is also entirely inconsistent with any any parent
who
looks out for the well being of their child. Is your similar to a
parent or
not? He is refered to as your father in heaven. What does that mean?
There'd be an inconsistency if God acted maliciously to create a world
of pain and suffering. But if it's better that we are free in spite of
the suffering that results than it would be in a sanitized world
without freedom, then a merciful God (and a merciful parent) would opt
for the former.
(snip)
There are much more important things in a persons life than
whether god is working hard to make sure gravity is a reliable
law.
. What
about disease and tragedy? Should God spend just a little less
time
on the
laws of nature and start looking out for his supposedly loved ones
perhaps?
Your question presupposes that God isn't doing enough. Why think
that?
Because he is not doing anything objective or measureable. For a
creator of
all that is measureable, this seems to be another great mystery.
How would you conceivably measure the good that God does? Is your
question really the old classic "why doesn't God just materialzie in
front of us all and make things better?" If that's your question I'll
address it, but i don't want to be guiolty of arguing against a
strawman.
(snip)
There is no scientific evidence for or against God.
all of reality imo is evidence for case against the existence of
god...
Scientific evidence is somewhat different, but I'd say the argument
from design is a very strong argument *for* God, and I would note
that
most people find it pretty convincing.
Argument from design? Do you mean infectious disease? Your own tail
bone?
Your appendix? HIV? Children with 2 heads?
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6998205/
Most people do not find the argument very convincing. And if they do,
they
have not taken much time to study the assertions.
No. I mean the fact that there exist laws of nature, that the moon
continues to be in the sky for billions of years etc.
This
is because he is nowhere to be found.
I don't agree what with his having found me, I'd say:-)
If god is spending his time with the simple matters of peoples lives
then
someone should get fired, and it shouldn't be you.
I don't agree with your opinion that God isn't doing enough. We sinned
and God did the ultimate on the cross IMO.
(snip)
Is suffering noble? Sometimes it is, I'd say, at least it is noble
when
a person volunarily accepts suffering to help others.
That is a rare exception to the rule, I am talking about all the
other
suffering that god freely ignores.
We are unfortunately drifting into rhetroci instead of discusison, it
seems to me. All I can say is that I don't think you have a good reason
to say that God if he exists is ignoring our suffering or not doing
enough about it.
I don't know
exactly what God's plan is so I can't say exactly what purpose God
has
for not preventing all suffering
in otherwords you have no explaination for the contradition. No big
surprise.
Uh no. There is no contradiction. For there to *be* a contradiction
there'd have to be no possible purpose that would make God's mercy
consistent with our present suffering. You seemt o think no such
possibility exists, but you offer nothing to support your assertion and
IMO you have no reason to think that'd you;d be more able than God to
see such a possibility if it exists--you are in no position to second
guess God.
I can offer specualtions as to why God might do what he does, but I
can't say for sure. Would you like me to speculate?
(although I tend to think it is
wrapped up in the fact that we humans have been granted the ability
to
make choices).
We can make all the choices we want, we will never be able to pick
and
choose our consequences.
Often we choose our consequences; often choosing the action means
choosing the consequence that comes with it.
But I also have no reason to think that we'd expect to
be able to tell that from here. IMO the existence of suffering
doesn't
give us a valid reason to think God probably doesn't exist.
If heaven is free from suffering, then god apparently values the fact
that
we don't suffer. Yet he stands by idley while we do in fact suffer.
Go
figure.
You assert God's ideleness; I don't agree.
(snip)
agreed, thats a big IF and we should not try to fool the starving
in
the
world that god is going to come out of the clouds to make bread.
I'd say that we ought to do what *we* can to get them bread.
Apparently, it is more important for you to aleviate suffering than
it is
for god.
IMO your objection is based on a superficial analysis. It's like the
teen-agrer who says "your parents just want to boss you around, why
else would they make you come in by midnight?". Your view presupposes
that if God did have a good reason for not divinely decreeing the end
of hunger that reason would be obvious. But why on earth think that we
could second guess God like that? Now I can imagine possible reasons
for God not to decree and end to hunger, but I'd be speculating. The
fact that there exist possible answers to the "contradiction" though is
what proves it isn't a contradiction. IMO the reason is still balled up
in the idea free will. Let me elaborate. Possibly, what is ultimately
important is that we freely embrace Christ and end up in heaven. Now
given we are free, God has to include in his providential plan his
knowledge of what we would freely do under whatever circumstances he
could actualize. Possibly, the reason God doesn't decree then end of
hunger is that if he did an insufficiently small number of people would
freely embrace Christ and end up in heaven.
It will *always* be up to you to feed the hungry. We live in a
naturalistic world.
Nothing will change without someone making a change.
As long as there are hungry people it is our responsibility to feed
them, I agree. I don't agree it's a naturalistic world. IMO your
believe that it is is a matter of faith.
The old saying, Give a man a fish and he will be fed for the day, but
teach
him how to fish and he will sit in the boat all day and get drunk!
;-)
he he he:-)
Thats where
is all breaks down. Imagine all the best qualities of god that you
can and
then anything that is good in your life, attribute to god. Then
when
any
goes wrong, chalk it up to nature but don't dare try to make the
all
powerful one culpable for anything that goes wrong. Pardon me for
not
being
able to shake the contradiction.
But there is no contradiction. That we can't tell exactly what
reason
God has for making things the way he does
Then we can conclude that god is illogical.
I don't agree. It is perfectly logical for God not to eliminate the
necessary conditions to make things better rather than worse.
Not that it is necessarily bad,
only that we can never understand him.
I think we can understand enough, the same as how a 3 years old child
can understand his mommy and daddy love him even if he cannot
understand the *reasons* his parents choose what they do.
<is exactly what you'd expect
given the infinity of God's intellect and the relative puniness of
our
own.
It is not puny since we are the source of all gods.
Another difference of opinion I see.
We have to personalise god and make *him like us* in order to have a
relationship. Why then should he not follow the same prescription for
how we
treat each other?
I don't agree that we *can* make God like us. God is real and
consequently is the way he is.
(snip0
(snip)
You have ample motivation to believe not reason to believe. There
is
a big
difference.
There is definitely a difference, but I'd stil say we have ample
reason
to believe. We have our properly basic belief that God exists,
That is an assertion...
yes it is. As are many of your above statements as well. Assertions are
very convenient ways to assert to the truth of a proposition you
know:-) Assertions are of course not proof and I incredibly politely
refer to *my* assertion as my opinion:-)
and primarily an indoctrination since no person can
provide proof for that.
I don't think it follows that an unprovable claim is therefore
indoctrination. On the other hand, I think there are quite a few
perfectly sound proofs that God exists. But it is a myth that reason
demands that we accept nothing without proof. That is impossible in
fact. Reason can't even *begin* without starting premises, the raw
materials from which we draw reasoned conclusions. Those starting
assumptions are our foundational knowledge and they themselves are not
the result of proof. If reason demanded (it doesn't) we never accept
such things then reason could not (but it can) tell us anything about
reality.
You call it a basic belief and that is fine but stop
and consider where that comes from. Can you remember that far back?
Yes. I am 47 years old and I quit being an atheist near about 1991.
the fact
the universe exists is reason to believe that God exists,
not so, the existance of the universe is a brute fact. God is an
untestable
assertion.
Sort of like the untestable assertion you just made? :-)
the existence
of moral facts is reason to believe that God exist IMO.
Morality did not suddenly appear with the development of the
christian god.
Here you presuppose the Christian God was developed. Obviously I don't
share that presupposition.
Morality is exactly = (equal) with our ability to reflect on our
actions.
This *forces* us to consider what is right and wrong action. It is
our self
awareness that has given birth to morality. Self awareness is the
flower of
evolution. All manner of religion and gods sprouted *exactly* after
the
development of self awarness in our species.
1. From what you describe above, I don't see what criterion a person
who reflected upon his actions would use to deem something right or
wrong. A person could consider his actions, he could see that if he
takes my sandwich he'll save a couple of bucks, he notes that he could
then spend the money on a beer after work, so he takes my sandwich. In
other words, self-reflection doesn't make something right and something
else wrong, there has to be something about the act reflected on that
makes it right or wrong. IMO if all there is is matter then there is
nothing wrong--whatever happens *obeys* the laws of nature and is thus
exactly what "ought" to occur.
2. I seriously wonder what possible evidence you could have for the
view you describe above? How can you possibly know when humanity
evolved self-awareness?
I could just as
easily say that you have ample motivation *not* to believe because
that
relieves you of having to consider where you stand with God.
If I die tomorrow, I would have no regrets. You would err if you
suggest
that humans cannot be spiritual and *good* without an organised
religion to
fill out their report card.
I'm not saying that at all although I admit I don't understand how a
perosn who doesn't believe in spirit can be spiritual (maybe we are
using the word "spiritual" differently). I know some deeply
compassionate people who are atheists and I know some real pricks who
are Christians. My point was that it is all too easy to offer
speculative psychoanalyis to explain why another person believes what
she believes.
Ordinarily
I prefer not to speculate on the motivations of the people who
disagree
with me.
Smart man.
sometimes:-)
see you later
Keith
.
