quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sean, why do you object to my posing an argument by starting with the assumption that God is real? Most people here at least claim to be familiar with the scientific method--which starts with making an assumption, formulating a testable, falsifiable theory from it, and then testing it and then retesting it for confirmation. If it works, then you have validated your assumption. Anyone who confuses this with "circular reasoning" has no business even claiming to know anything about logic or the scientific method.
I have not claimed this is circular reasoning. (Granted, I have accused you of this in another thread, but that was for a different reason.) I don't object to you starting with that assumption to make your point. What I'm saying is you have not given a reason to accept that the existence of God should be taken as an axiom. What difference does your point make if the axiom is not true? The statement (if A then B), while true, gives no one any reason to believe that (A) is true to begin with. You can analyze the truthfulness of (if A then B) up and down all day, you can make that assumption, formulate a testable, falsifiable theory from it, and test it and retest it for confirmation, but if (A) is false, none of it matters. If the existence of God is truly paramount to the eternal welfare of our souls, then we need a simple answer as to why we should believe it to be true.*
"If the light switch is up, then my bedroom light is on." "The light switch is not up."
Both statements are (currently) true. But the first one is just academic, and matters little in a practical sense, if the predicate evaluates to false.
I will even concede that your original (if A then B) statement in the other thread is true. But that doesn't speak at all to the truth value of (A).
*ETA: I will admit that this is an (if A then B) statement that is not proven to be true.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sean, in every statement that I have ever made that began with the assumption that God is real and the Bible is true, I have always given examples that show that what derrives from this assumption WORKS. This is the only reason I ever quote the Bible, so people can see for themselves how what the Bible says makes sense and does work, and that I haven't just been making things up about it.
By the way, I prefer not to indulge in lengthy use of syllogisms and axiomatic language. As one who specialized in use of Boolean Algebra in computer programming (see some of my published tutorial articles on computer programming), I have found that for most people, this kind of reasoning is not readily accessible for them. It may prove that I am erudite; but it will not persuade most people of the points I am trying to make. So that is why I do not reply in the same kind of language you employed. As much as possible, I try to express this as simply and plainly in common means of expression as I can, without use of jargon or excessive math.
[ February 05, 2011, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, let me try to be more clear. I'm not debating the logic that leads you from A to B. I even just conceded that about your original A->B statement in the other thread. I have no problem with your logical derivations (for the most part). But for non-believers, the derivations don't matter. Your axiom matters. Because for us it is not an axiom, and therefore we have no use for the derivation. When you say, "If A...", if we don't believe A, then what follows doesn't make any difference.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sean, in every statement that I have ever made that began with the assumption that God is real and the Bible is true, I have always given examples that show that what derrives from this assumption WORKS.
Sorry to nitpick, but just a couple of posts ago, which prompted me to respond, you said:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If you do not believe in God to start with, and if you do not believe in the promise of eternal life or the desirability of living in Heaven and the New Earth, then you could not possibly evaluate these things properly.
You have not derived this conclusion. I seem to recall that faith comes through hearing, and hearing through the Word of God - which seems to me to be the opposite of what you're saying here.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sean, of course it has not escaped my notice that non-believers do not accept the assumptions I am beginning with. My whole point is to persuade them to accept those same assumptions, by showing that they work. When you do start with those assumptions, then all the supposedly "unanswerable" questions of non-believers can be answered, quite adequately.
That statement you cited, that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" is a perfect example of what I mean.
Faith does not come from nowhere. It has reasonable, logical, and authoritative origins. Which are established as being just those things when you test them. Thus God challenges us all: "Come now, and LET US REASON TOGETHER, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." (Isaiah 1:18.)
(As an aside, a friend of mine at church bought a new white car, and also purchased a custom license plate that read: ISA 118. Her daughter told her, "You know Mom, now you're going to have to keep that car clean!")
[ February 05, 2011, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I predict no theist will have the honesty to give straightforward answers to any of these questions.
How are you defining straightforward? I like to know the measuring stick by which my destined failure is being judged.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is another promise God makes, challenging us to test Him:
"'Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. TEST ME IN THIS,' says the LORD Almighty, 'and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.'" (Malachi 3:10; NIV)
We see by this that in God's view, having faith does not preclude testing what He has promised.
As my church understands it, the New Testament form of tithing is to support those who proclaim the gospel. "Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel." (1 Corinthians 9:14; NKJV; see also v. 13: The temple and things of the altar were provided by the tithe in ancient Israel.) I think that any denomination, and any believer, who do not practice tithing, are missing a blessing that would strengthen their faith.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: That statement you cited, that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" is a perfect example of what I mean.
Faith does not come from nowhere...
No! That's not what you mean! I just said it's the opposite of what you're saying. You have been saying this whole time that it's an assumption that you're starting with. I have been trying to get you to explain how you come by that assumption. I have been asking, "Where is the entry point?"
You said that unless one believes already, then one cannot properly evaluate these things.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: By the way, I prefer not to indulge in lengthy use of syllogisms and axiomatic language. As one who specialized in use of Boolean Algebra in computer programming (see some of my published tutorial articles on computer programming), I have found that for most people, this kind of reasoning is not readily accessible for them. It may prove that I am erudite; but it will not persuade most people of the points I am trying to make. So that is why I do not reply in the same kind of language you employed. As much as possible, I try to express this as simply and plainly in common means of expression as I can, without use of jargon or excessive math.
At the risk of sounding insulting, this actually makes this discussion more frustrating. Not because you won't talk using this terminology, but because I can now be sure you know exactly what I mean when I say (if A then B)=true speaks not at all to the truth value of (A).
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sean, pardon the expression, but where do you get off saying to me "No! That's not what you mean!" So you think you know better than I do what I mean? This is the kind of silly statement I usually prefer not to respond to.
Sean, Sean, please--Think! Where do you begin with in making any assumption in using the scientific method? You can make an assuption arbitrarily if you want to--so that you can then formulate a testable, falsifiable theory, and then test and retest it.
Oh yes, here is another "test" statement in the Bible: "Test all things; hold fast what is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21; NKJV) If you read the preceding verses, it is talking about light that we receive from the Holy Spirit, especially in the gift of prophecy. So even the prophesying of prophets is to be tested. God directs us to do this!
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sean, pardon the expression, but where do you get off saying to me "No! That's not what you mean!" So you think you know better than I do what I mean? This is the kind of silly statement I usually prefer not to respond to.
Pardon me for having the presumption to think I know what you mean merely by reading what you wrote.
ETA: And again, regarding the scientific method you are employing. Granted I haven't read you're entire posting history, but you haven't made a testable hypothesis that ends with, "therefore God exists"; it's always been a starting assumption.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps you are not as good a reader as you think you are, Sean. And the level of your presumption is unpardonable, in my estimation.
Frankly I am tired of trying to reason with you. You do not seem to do it very well, and I judge that you are wasting my time.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron also evaluates himself as a brave person by standing up to atheist agnostics, 'unafraid' to respond to their challenges, so.
Anyway, there seems to be a straightforward way to break this logjam: what is the scientific method, Ron and Sean?
Obviously I disagree with you, Ron, but if you really want to defend your position as someone using logic and the scientific method here, I believe that stance requires that you actually show you are using the scientific method instead of simply claiming you're doing so, which is what you're doing, and which is what Sean is challenging you on, repeatedly.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Most people here at least claim to be familiar with the scientific method--which starts with making an assumption, formulating a testable, falsifiable theory from it, and then testing it and then retesting it for confirmation. If it works, then you have validated your assumption.
That's not how it works. Science, and anything else, really, starts with presuppositions, which are beliefs that are required to reach a certain conclusion, but cannot possibly be proved. If you reach a conclusion using the scientific method, you may have validate your assumptions and hypothesis within the framework of your presuppositions, but you have done nothing in terms of verifying your presuppositions.
One of your presuppositions is that God exists. One of science's big presuppositions is that the world is orderly and comprehensible. Neither of these can be proven, even if you run a thousand experiments within the framework of these presuppositions. Your claim that your experiments and analysis proves that God exists does not follow from what you've presented to us.
ETA:
quote:When you do start with those assumptions, then all the supposedly "unanswerable" questions of non-believers can be answered, quite adequately.
Quite adequately to someone who already believes in the same presuppositions. For me, and others, who do not accept those presuppositions, your answers are nowhere near adequate.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: One of science's big presuppositions is that the world is orderly and comprehensible.
comprehensible for humans. and its a presupposition perhaps but not a guarantee (also the world isnt orderly beyond the fact that there are natural laws.) approaching science thinking it can make the world explicable in human terms is irrational.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, you (a) haven't made a single case for God using the scientific method, and (b) stated vehemently that only with belief in god can someone come to valid conclusions.
So unless you want to fit (a) into your equation plausibly, stop challenging Sean (who's really going to great lengths to try to discuss with you, even when that causes you to judge him with having unforgivable assumptions and not being worth your time) by throwing 'scientific' assumptions into your posts. Thaaaaaaanks.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Perhaps you are not as good a reader as you think you are, Sean.
First, you said, "If you do not believe in God to start with, and if you do not believe in the promise of eternal life or the desirability of living in Heaven and the New Earth, then you could not possibly evaluate these things properly."
Then, you said, "That statement you cited, that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" is a perfect example of what I mean."
Perhaps my reading comprehension is lacking, but these seem like opposite statements to me. How can faith come from the Word of God, if we are unable to properly evaluate the Word of God without faith? Or did you not mean the general "you" in that first statement, and were referring only to TomD? Or by "these things" were you talking about prayer only, and not the Bible? I don't know how the two statements can be reconciled otherwise.
I'll tell you something personal about myself, Ron. I am desperate for there to be an afterlife. Not necessarily the Christian afterlife. But a paradisical afterlife where I can be reunited with those who have passed. I am DESPERATE for it to be true. But I will not believe it if it doesn't make rational sense to me to hold such a belief, just for the purpose of my own comfort. I will not believe it without a reason to believe it.
A few years ago I started a thread with a question for atheists. In that thread I stated I was a theist. In actuality, I was coming to grips with admitting to myself that, after 20 years of being a devout self-professed born-again Christian, that I did not believe. I have never found a reason to. To become a believer, one must find a reason to believe. To be a non-believer, one does not need a reason not to believe; one must merely fail to find a reason to believe. I have thus far failed to find a reason.
If you judge that I'm wasting your time, well, so be it. Ultimately, Ron, all I'm trying to get you to do is answer the question, "Why should we begin with that assumption? Where's the entry point?" with an answer that makes logical sense to me. You haven't provided it yet, and I don't really want to jump on this bandwagon, but it is difficult for me to believe that you are not just dodging what you don't have an answer for.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Heaven is a beach house in the caribbean inhabited by all your best friends, and free burrito supremes for eternity, and you never get fat.
Make it fajitas and I'm officially converted.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by LIGHT: MightyCow, I don't get it... What exactly is your point? You pretty much stated the obvious. Don't you think it's important who or what we realign our will with?
OK, why is it important who or what you realign your will with? To me, it just sounds like a mental exercise in attempting to guess what's going to happen, which you call "realigning your will with God."
I'm not sure what the value of that practice is though, except perhaps to make one feel good about bad things, because they can be attributed to the unknowable nature of a divine.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sean, the Bible claims that "...God has dealt to each one a measure of faith." (Romans 12:3; NKJV)
In other words, God has given to everyone the ability to have faith. It is like every mind has been given a prepared garden, and God has planted the first seed.
How can this be verified? Try it and see. Water it, nurture it, feed it more of the testimony of Scripture, and see if it can grow. If there is a God who has planted this seed in the basic essence of you, then you can talk to God, and ask Him to increase your faith. And He will show you the things that will validate and strengthen belief. Enable you to see the logical reasons for faith, the evidences that God has provided all around you. All this requires is that you make a choice to be fair-minded and willing for God to reveal Himself to you.
You can kill that seed even as it sprouts if you choose to be demanding, unfair, and bitterly critical. Do not expect God to conform to your expectations, saying He must do this or that or you won't believe in Him, or even worse, that you won't believe He is really Good, and worthy of being worshipped. Allow for a moment the possibility that He is in fact vastly wiser and more knowledgeable than you. Let Him have the opportunity to reveal to you Who He really is.
Please do not jump to the conclusion that I am saying you must just close your eyes and blindly believe. I am not saying that. That is not what faith is. Faith can operate without conclusive evidence--such as seeing Him with your eyes when Jesus is visibly returning to this world in a sky filled with millions of angels. But faith does and is expected to require reasonable, persuasive, and logical foundations. Your preconceived opinions are not among those foundations.
Most of those who reject God have done no more than build a straw man that has nothing to do with Who or What God really is. They prove nothing with their arguments. The God they are rejecting does not and never did exist, because that is not the real God.
For example, if you cannot believe in a God who would torture souls for eternity in some undying death writhing in constant flame, check what Scripture really teaches about the state of the dead and the ultimate end of the wicked. God has been greatly misrepresented by many denominations and religions, and this is probably what has caused more people to be unable to believe than anything else.
Remember that because our race is born with a serious problem of having a void of separation between our own spiritual being and God, none of us are born with a right knowledge of God. We have to develop this. Another way of saying it is that none of us are born being right in our thinking, so if we ever wish to be right-thinking, we have to BECOME right-thinking.
Some of us are born with an attitude that is more conducive to allowing us to be willing to have faith increase--the Bible implies that John the Baptist responded to the drawing of the Holy Spirit even before he was born. Some of us almost from birth seem to be reaching toward God with yearning. But even those who for some reason are less aware of this in themselves, still have it to some extent. That is the promise of Romans 12:3. Everyone is able to develop faith, if they will look at the evidences God will provide them with, keeping their minds open, and maintaining a humble and patient and respectful attitude.
It is like God says to us, "Yes, I know you have trouble believing. Let me help you. Come now, let us reason together. (Isaiah 1:18) Test me, (Malachi 3:10). Jesus heard with favor the earnest prayer of the desperate man who said: "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!" (Mark 9:24; NKJV)
Sometimes what prevents us from receiving light from the Lord that will increase our faith, is that we are reluctant to risk having to give up some sinful practice that we enjoy. While cherishing sin does separate us from God, God does not require that we overcome every sin in our lives before He will listen to us and answer our prayers. He is willing to take us where we are, and patiently lead us one step at a time. And remember this about God: He is not a celestial killjoy out to spoil our fun. Anytime He purposes to take anything away from us--for our sakes--that we might presently enjoy, He always gives us something in its place that is much better--right now in this life, as well as in the life to come. "So Jesus answered and said, 'Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel's, who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time--houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions--and in the age to come, eternal life.'" (Mark 10:29, 30; NKJV)
Just be willing to believe that God is Good, despite your doubts, and He will show you that He is. But do not expect that God will remove every possibility of doubt. He purposely allows some hooks to remain for those who are determined to hang their doubts upon them. This is because everyone must freely choose to trust in God and commit themselves whole-heartedly to Him, and removing all possibility of doubt would be forcing them to believe. This would be no solution at all, for the Bible tells us: "Even the demons believe--and tremble!" (James 2:19; NKJV) It is not enough to know the truth, even with absolute certainty. What matters is choosing to commit yourself utterly to faith in the Goodness of God, surrendering yourself to that Goodness.
[ February 05, 2011, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:For example, if you cannot believe in a God who would torture souls for eternity in some undying death writhing in constant flame, check what Scripture really teaches about the state of the dead and the ultimate end of the wicked.
What does it say about these things, as you see it?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can't you let yourself trust God? Just a little? Enough to take this a little seriously? A little prayer, a little scripture reading, a little attempt to follow Christ? A little trust is all it takes to start--and that's the same for all relationships.
Well, no, that's not true at all. Trust is not all it takes for all relationships-it's a necessary component of all good relationships, but a relationship with anyone cannot be built with just trust. Not quite the same thing.
And speaking strictly in terms of persuasiveness, LIGHT, you're approaching this in a pretty unpersuasive way if you're really attempting to preach to the unbelievers. Telling someone who doesn't believe in God, who isn't even sure that God exists, "Can't you just trust God," is...well, it's just going to fall completely flat, and there's a good chance it's going to be at least a little insulting, because there's the possible implicit suggestion that you think they're lying: that they don't actually have doubts that God exists, or that they don't know their own minds or something.
Starting off with the belief, "God is unknowable," throws a wrench in the notions of faith, trust, and confidence in God. Not in other human beings or in those ideals in general.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can't you let yourself trust God? Just a little? Enough to take this a little seriously? A little prayer, a little scripture reading, a little attempt to follow Christ? A little trust is all it takes to start--and that's the same for all relationships.
You assume a lot. I know very few atheists who didn't go through a period of time, in some cases years, where they fought the good fight in trying to make religion, generally Christianity, work on its own terms.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: I predict no theist will have the honesty to give straightforward answers to any of these questions.
How are you defining straightforward? I like to know the measuring stick by which my destined failure is being judged.
Come on. I can do it easily. Kara learned absolutely nothing in the last 4 days of her life. And she learned nothing in 2010, because she was dead. So her life was not so much of a learning experience.
Infants who die of malaria before they are old enough to think get nothing out of their so-called "learning experience" of life.
But if you insist, I can try some yes or no questions for you.
If you had prayed for the health of Kara Neumann, do you believe she would have died of diabetic ketoacidosis? What if someone like BlackBlade, who claims that his prayers have improved his own health, had prayed for Kara?
Is it sometimes a mercy when God strikes a healthy girl with a deadly chronic disease?
Did the Neumanns have enough faith in God? Or too much?
It would be nice to get lots of answers to these questions, just so that were all know where we disagree. For instance, we already know Ron's answer about the God's correctness in killing or sickening children, but I bet not all the theists will agree with him.
But there's no way to know unless the theists go on record with some specific claims. I think that this is a good place to start.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can't you let yourself trust God? Just a little? Enough to take this a little seriously? A little prayer, a little scripture reading, a little attempt to follow Christ? A little trust is all it takes to start--and that's the same for all relationships.
You assume a lot. I know very few atheists who didn't go through a period of time, in some cases years, where they fought the good fight in trying to make religion, generally Christianity, work on its own terms.
I have watched people torture themselves over this for years and years. Sometimes, they are appealing to God frequently as they agonize over their sexuality and wanting as sincerely as it is humanly possible to be to be faithful and straight and filled with the faith/love of God.
Then they have either killed themselves or become athiest/agnostic and immediately started being happier and accepting of their sexuality.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I was thinking that the way you phrased the original question demonstrated an insurmountable bias against any answer that any theist might give. You expressed doubts about theists' honesty and straightforwardness.
It's difficult to talk with someone who thinks you're going to be dishonest. That sort of bias really kind of makes the conversation moot.
But let's see how it goes, okay?
quote:If you had prayed for the health of Kara Neumann, do you believe she would have died of diabetic ketoacidosis? What if someone like BlackBlade, who claims that his prayers have improved his own health, had prayed for Kara?
I would have taken her to the hospital, praying for her the whole time. I would have prayed for the doctors; prayed for her health; and prayed for her parents. I would have prayed to know God's will, and to put my heart in line with what it is He wants. I would have followed the doctor's instructions for care with the same amount of dedication that I try to follow God's commandments.
I believe that God would reveal his will so that my prayers would be turned toward the right purpose-- either in gratitude, or for comfort.
I believe God listens to our prayers, and responds. I believe that prayer allows us to draw closer to him to hear and understand his response. I believe that occasionally God intervenes in miraculous ways, but that trying to decipher his methodology for doing so is seldom a worthwhile endeavor. There are too many variables to come up with a consistent, rational answer; ultimately, I have faith that he knows more than I do.
quote:Is it sometimes a mercy when God strikes a healthy girl with a deadly chronic disease?
No; but I don't believe that everything that happens is God's doing either. Life is complicated; God is not omnipotent. I believe, however, that he can turn all tragedy, no matter how deep, into strength when we turn to him and try to understand what he's doing to us.
I'm reminded of an instance when Jesus was asked to heal a man who had been born blind. His disciples wondered if the man was being punished, or if the man's parents had committed some sin that caused his blindness. Christ's answer was that the man was blind in order to show God's greatness; and then he healed him. Sometimes, tragedy strikes to teach the individual a lesson; sometimes tragedy strikes to teach individuals around the afflicted a lesson.
Sometimes, tragedy is an effect of a complicated universe where people have agency and God can't always intervene.
quote:Did the Neumanns have enough faith in God? Or too much?
I don't know the Neumanns; I can't answer this question directly. They seem at best foolish; at worst murderous. God gave us minds for a reason; we have medicine and doctors and technology for a reason. They are as much a blessing as rain and sunlight.
quote:Infants who die of malaria before they are old enough to think get nothing out of their so-called "learning experience" of life.
In Mormonism, mortality is not the first time we're aware. We believe in a life before this one in which we were individuals, aware, and intelligent, but in which we were bodiless. Mormonism holds that we agreed to come to this life, even knowing the grief and pain that would be waiting here for us, just for a chance to get a body. While an infant isn't cognizant as we'd recognize it of its situation, if the child dies, the spirit that rises from it is completely aware of what it has experienced; it retains all its character, knowledge and understanding from its pre-earth life.
So, for Mormons at least, it's not entirely correct to say that the infant hasn't learned anything.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was pretty well written, it almost made me forget you were a theist, and inherently discredited!
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
LIGHT, the problem with "trusting God," as you put it, is that the technique of trust you demand is exactly the same method by which one can brainwash oneself. In other words: I have no doubt that someone who chooses to "trust" in Allah, or Yahweh, or Jehovah, or Odin, might eventually conclude that he has indeed chosen the one true faith, the church of the god or gods that will make him content and happy. I don't doubt this because I need merely to observe the world as it is to know that it is true.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: No; but I don't believe that everything that happens is God's doing either. Life is complicated; God is not omnipotent.
Really? What are the other forces that do things that God cannot do and cannot seem to control? Does that mean you believe in more than one god? I didn't know you believed that God is not omnipotent...
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
LIGHT: When I find out that a bunch of innocent people in Egypt have been murdered by police, I would rather be disappointed and rebel against that state of affairs, than to just accept that some unknowable being wants that for some reason or another and decide that it must be a good thing.
And for reference, I was a Christian for more than 20 years before I realized that it's illogical and that I can't find a shred of reason to believe in God.
Let me ask you a question: Can you let yourself trust Odin? Just a little? Are you willing to honestly and with an open mind pray to Odin, and ask Him to deliver you from the lie of Christianity?
quote:Really? What are the other forces that do things that God cannot do and cannot seem to control? Does that mean you believe in more than one god? I didn't know you believed that God is not omnipotent...
Mormons in general believe that God is not omnipotent, in that there are physical laws He cannot break (conservation of matter and energy, I think, is specifically called out as a feature of reality that God did not invent, and cannot violate), and there are moral contradictions He cannot twist out of (He cannot institute a system founded on perfect justice, and then operate unjustly within it, without destroying the system).
Questions like "can God make a rock so large He cannot lift it" are laughable to Mormons because in Mormon philosophy, God is not required to be able to do contradictory things in order to be "omnipotent enough" to count as God.
Some Mormons extend this idea to speculate that there are likely more physical laws that God adheres to, which haven't been specifically listed out for us. He might do so because He must, or because it's a condition of the system He has set up, or because He intends to bring about an outcome that benefits from adherence to those laws.
Whatever the reason, it seems to be borne out in observation. Regardless of the personal faith-based reasons that we, as individuals, might have to believe in God, we observe the same ordered, predictable universe that atheists do, and this seems to indicate that, for the most part, the universe abides by consistent laws, and that God's interactions with it manage to maintain that consistency.
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does that mean you believe in more than one god?
I'm not sure how you get there from the rest of the discussion. Why would rejecting the classical definition of an omnipotent God require us to believe in more of them?
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: No; but I don't believe that everything that happens is God's doing either. Life is complicated; God is not omnipotent.
Really? What are the other forces that do things that God cannot do and cannot seem to control? Does that mean you believe in more than one god? I didn't know you believed that God is not omnipotent...
I don't know that there are "forces" that can do things God cannot do. But here are some limitations that God has:
God cannot circumvent the effects of sin without the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
God cannot force someone to choose to obey his commandments.
God cannot create a world in which we gain the experience he wants us to have without also exposing us to sin, pain, and misery.
God cannot commit sin and remain God.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure how you get there from the rest of the discussion. Why would rejecting the classical definition of an omnipotent God require us to believe in more of them?
Well, if God is not omnipotent, then that leaves space for another being with even greater dominion. For instance, if God cannot alter laws of physics, then perhaps there is a greater god that can.
If I'm not mistaken, part of the reason for Armoth's belief in God is that he finds it the most reasonable explanation for the existence of our universe. A god that exists within that universe - subject to its laws rather than being responsible for them - is less compelling in that regard.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sean, why do you object to my posing an argument by starting with the assumption that God is real? Most people here at least claim to be familiar with the scientific method--which starts with making an assumption, formulating a testable, falsifiable theory from it, and then testing it and then retesting it for confirmation. If it works, then you have validated your assumption. Anyone who confuses this with "circular reasoning" has no business even claiming to know anything about logic or the scientific method.
Where's your control test? To be conclusive, you must also test at least one other hypothesis against the initial one to see if it holds up as well or better. Maybe have one person pray to God for an outcome, another pray just as fervently to Odin for the opposite, and one go about his or her business in the absence of a personal god and see what happens.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me explain quickly what (IMO) the problems are with Ron's "scientific method" as applied to the hypothesis that God exists.
1) The scientific method is intended to test hypotheses and discard the ones that don't work. While this might share a superficial similarity to "let's assume there's a God, and then evaluate observable phenomena from that perspective," there's a difference: there is no scenario in which someone performing the latter "experiment" will actually reject the existence of God based on observed reality. This isn't just a claim of mine, either; it is one of the founding principles of Christian apologetics and Christian "science": that you start with the assumption that God exists (and, slightly more rarely, that the Bible can be considered entirely true), and then look for the most plausible arguments that reconcile observable reality with those assumptions.
It is this sort of logic that gives us theories like "animals were put into suspended animation on the ark" or "the speed of light was different back then." It's worth noting that, yes, if physical laws changed to match the scenarios described in the Bible, those scenarios would not violate physical law -- but since the only reason to believe that they changed is that otherwise the scenarios described in the Bible are highly unlikely, this becomes a classic example of circular reasoning.
Again, though, this doesn't mean that it's not TRUE. It's entirely possible that there is a God, and that physical laws have changed, etc. The question then becomes: is this the most likely possibility? Occam's Razor, IMO, then comes down firmly against it; "God" is a proposition of such enormous complexity that it requires considerably more positive evidence than has been presented.
2) There is no testable, predictive value in the "God" theory, making actual verification of a hypothesis rather difficult. One cannot get from "God exists as described in the Bible" to "but this test, if positive, will disprove His existence, or make it X% less likely." Heck, it's arguable that several people have presented exactly such tests over time -- tests of the effectiveness of prayer, tests of historical accuracy, tests of scientific accuracy, tests of logic -- and an entire field of study and argument has arisen to do little more than explain to the satisfaction of believers why such tests will always be insufficient. More importantly, though, applying the scientific method to God does not produce any usefully predictive information; we cannot say, once we assume that God exists, that anything else about someone's observable reality will change in any observable way. There is nothing that we can do, even assuming that God is real, that will perceptibly and predictably change the world based on the effect God has on the rest of physical reality.
And, again, the field of apologetics will attempt to tell you why this is, to rationalize this lack of observable impact. But compare this to real science. Imagine for a moment that we have "assumed" that a given compound contains oxygen. We have burned it, exposed it in a spectrometer, mixed it with phosphorous and nitrates and the like, etc. -- and at no point has the compound betrayed any suggestion that oxygen is part of the mixture. A scientist, faced with this negative evidence, would be asked by his peers to justify the lack of predictable indicators -- and if he could not do so, perhaps by citing a predictable effect of some other components of the compound (an effect that would be repeatable and could be independently verified), his peers would dismiss his claim as baseless.
3) Another issue here is that the evidence in favor of the "God exists" hypothesis (or the "The Bible is true" one) does not tend to itself be measurable, concrete evidence. It relies heavily on the social "sciences," with things like "this historical event appears to have been accurately depicted, based on similar historical accounts from a few hundred years later," or "this makes me feel good," or "this person healed more rapidly than we might have expected." This isn't to say that this evidence isn't valuable, but rather that it becomes very hard to actually measure and compare it; if I have six miraculous healings provided as proof of religion A's claim, and three completely accurate (if somewhat cryptic) prophecies on behalf of religion B, and thirty perfectly described historical events on behalf of religion C, which one is doing "better?" Which one has more of a claim? (And, of course, the situation in the real world is nowhere near as clear-cut as that.) Is a religion more likely to be the One True Faith if its historical accounts are accurate? Or is a religion with heavily fictionalized history but a few very accurate prophecies in its scripture more credible? What if a lot of people insist that they've seen angels, or laid hands on their children to heal them, or have learned how to levitate?
I understand that few believers will look at it this way, since of course they will tend to view their religion as the most accurate and miraculous (on all counts) out there.
-------
Anyway, I hope this helps.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure how you get there from the rest of the discussion. Why would rejecting the classical definition of an omnipotent God require us to believe in more of them?
Well, if God is not omnipotent, then that leaves space for another being with even greater dominion. For instance, if God cannot alter laws of physics, then perhaps there is a greater god that can.
If I'm not mistaken, part of the reason for Armoth's belief in God is that he finds it the most reasonable explanation for the existence of our universe. A god that exists within that universe - subject to its laws rather than being responsible for them - is less compelling in that regard.
quote:Really? What are the other forces that do things that God cannot do and cannot seem to control? Does that mean you believe in more than one god? I didn't know you believed that God is not omnipotent...
Mormons in general believe that God is not omnipotent, in that there are physical laws He cannot break (conservation of matter and energy, I think, is specifically called out as a feature of reality that God did not invent, and cannot violate), and there are moral contradictions He cannot twist out of (He cannot institute a system founded on perfect justice, and then operate unjustly within it, without destroying the system).
Questions like "can God make a rock so large He cannot lift it" are laughable to Mormons because in Mormon philosophy, God is not required to be able to do contradictory things in order to be "omnipotent enough" to count as God.
Some Mormons extend this idea to speculate that there are likely more physical laws that God adheres to, which haven't been specifically listed out for us. He might do so because He must, or because it's a condition of the system He has set up, or because He intends to bring about an outcome that benefits from adherence to those laws.
Whatever the reason, it seems to be borne out in observation. Regardless of the personal faith-based reasons that we, as individuals, might have to believe in God, we observe the same ordered, predictable universe that atheists do, and this seems to indicate that, for the most part, the universe abides by consistent laws, and that God's interactions with it manage to maintain that consistency.
It's interesting. If Mormons think that the paradox about "God not being able to create a rock He cannot lift" being laughable because they admit He is limited, Jews find it laughable because they believe it is not a limitation to not be able to limit one's self.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: No; but I don't believe that everything that happens is God's doing either. Life is complicated; God is not omnipotent.
Really? What are the other forces that do things that God cannot do and cannot seem to control? Does that mean you believe in more than one god? I didn't know you believed that God is not omnipotent...
I don't know that there are "forces" that can do things God cannot do. But here are some limitations that God has:
God cannot circumvent the effects of sin without the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
God cannot force someone to choose to obey his commandments.
God cannot create a world in which we gain the experience he wants us to have without also exposing us to sin, pain, and misery.
God cannot commit sin and remain God.
In Judaism, God = Morality. They are one and the same. God cannot sin because He is God. There is no possibility to say that IF He sins, He can't be God anymore.
Basically, It seems that in Mormonism there is an external existence in which God is merely a player. That seems polytheistic to me because there is existence beyond God. And who created THAT existence?
Is the Old Testament considered doctrine in Mormonism? Or do they believe it has been corrupted - I forget.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you want to define it that way. Of course, even the depictions of God in the Jewish Bible seem to imply a sentience independent of the concept of existence itself, but that's just one of those religious paradoxes. *grin*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: If you want to define it that way. Of course, even the depictions of God in the Jewish Bible seem to imply a sentience independent of the concept of existence itself, but that's just one of those religious paradoxes. *grin*
I'd be interested to hear those examples, if you don't mind.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Basically, It seems that in Mormonism there is an external existence in which God is merely a player. That seems polytheistic to me because there is existence beyond God. And who created THAT existence?
"Merely a player?"
Well, He's still God. But yep-- we admit impediments.
quote:Is the Old Testament considered doctrine in Mormonism? Or do they believe it has been corrupted - I forget.
It's considered doctrine, but with caveats. Did you have a specific question about how Mormonism interprets a certain doctrine within the Old Testament?
quote: And who created THAT existence?
I believe it's turtles all the way down.
It's unrevealed as yet. But like every other Mormon whose ever thought about these things, I've got some wicked-cool ideas about it.
Well, they're cool to me. Probably heresy to anyone else...
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Scott, the words of Jesus carry more weight because Jesus (for us) is God. Paul was not.
But Jesus didn't write the Bible, kmboots.
quote:I also believe that the people who were writing it down (and those who chose what became canon) were people - rooted in a specific time and place and context with their own ideas and brains and wills.
Consider:
1) If you believe that Paul was a prophet and that the Bible teaches the uncorrupted Gospel, then shouldn't his words weigh as much as Christ's? They spring from the same source, after all-- God.
2) If you believe the record of Paul's words can be corrupted by men with their own ideas, brains, and will, how is the record of Christ's words any different? In this case, both the words of Christ and the words of Paul are equally suspect.
3) If neither of the two apply to you, how do you explain the ability of Christ's words to remain uncorrupted throughout the years, and why wouldn't that ability apply also to Paul?
I don't believe that Paul was a prophet. Or if he was, his letters were not prophecies. I think Paul's words are (probably) pretty much as he wrote them.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Armoth, many Mormons believe they will actually be gods in the afterlife. There is doctrinal support for the concept and there have been explicit statements from past church leaders to that effect, though the modern search seems more shy about discussing that concept.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Armoth, many Mormons believe they will actually be gods in the afterlife. There is doctrinal support for the concept and there have been explicit statements from past church leaders to that effect, though the modern search seems more shy about discussing that concept.
Of course, being a God in Mormonism means something different than what most people think of.
1) We will still worship and honor God as the Father of our spirits and our Creator, and Jesus Christ as the Savior.
2) Being a god means having a family in the life after this, and being able to have children throughout eternity. It means marriage and parenthood according to laws that God (or the universe, depending on who you ask) has established.
3) We don't know a whole lot more than that about it, save that Joseph Smith said that it would take a LONG time to get to that point, even after salvation.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't believe that Paul was a prophet. Or if he was, his letters were not prophecies. I think Paul's words are (probably) pretty much as he wrote them.
Option 4!
How did you come to this conclusion?
Were the men who copied down/authored the gospels prophets? Why give their words more weight than Paul's?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course, being a God in Mormonism means something different than what most people think of.
I dunno. What I hear most frequently from members is how they look forward to creating their own worlds. That's pretty much the most basic concept of what a god is - a supernatural creator.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a feeling the discussion will have moved on by the time I post this, but I'll go for it anyways. This is in response to Armoth's comments on a Mormon God being omnipotent (or not being more to the point).
quote:An acquaintance with these attributes in the divine character, is essentially necessary, in order that the faith of any rational being can center in him for life and salvation. For if he did not, in the first instance, believe him to be God, that is, the creator and upholder of all things, he could not center his faith in him for life and salvation, for fear there should be a greater than he, who would thwart all his plans, and he, like the gods of the heathen, would be unable to fulfil his promises; but seeing he is God over all, from everlasting to everlasting, the creator and upholder of all things, no such fear can exist in the minds of those who put their trust in him, so that in this respect their faith can be without wavering. ... For without the idea of the existence of these attributes in the Deity, men could not exercise faith in him for life and salvation; seeing that without the knowledge of all things, God would not be able to save any portion of his creatures; for it is by reason of the knowledge which he has of all things, from the beginning to the end, that enables him to give that understanding to his creatures, by which they are made partakers of eternal life; and if it were not for the idea existing in the minds of men, that God had all knowledge, it would be impossible for them to exercise faith in him.
And it is not less necessary that men should have the idea of the existence of the attribute power in the Deity. For, unless God had power over all things, and was able, by his power, to control all things, and thereby deliver his creatures who put their trust in him, from the power of all beings that might seek their destruction, whether in heaven, on earth, or in hell, men could not be saved; but with the idea of the existence of this attribute, planted in the mind, men feel as though they had nothing to fear, who put their trust in God, believing that he has power to save all who come to him, to the very uttermost.
This is (mainly) why I always describe God as omnipotent. I've learned here that I am apparently familiar with a different definition than most people use though. To me omnipotence means having all power that is available in the universe; I've learned to many (most?) it means power to do anything. God (as understood by Mormons) has the first but not the second. He has all knowledge, and all power that is available. Meaning there is no other God, or chance of a God that could be more powerful, or play a spoiling role in the plan of salvation. Joseph Smith acknowledged that without certain guarantees of the attributes and characteristics of God one could not have faith in Him to save His children as He might be thwarted by known powers or laws. Thus he (Joseph Smith) enumerated what those attributes and characteristics were and included omnipotence (as I understand it) and omniscience to set our hearts at ease.
Hope that made sense.
*The Lectures on Faith has a rather interesting and confusing history. I wont get into it, but just to give a perspective of how reliable it is considered as a text a few words. Its actual content is most often attributed to Joseph Smith directly, though most "scholars" of the work (quotations as even I'm not sure what I mean by that) seem to think it was written by another Church leader under Joseph Smith's direction. For a time it was in the LDS scriptures but was removed after deciding that the lack of a Church wide vote kept it from being official cannon. I think that most Mormons would consider it to be, while not doctrine per-se, as close as one could get without being there. Perhaps equivalent to the words of a modern day prophet? I'm sure it varies from member to member but in the end it is not scripture, but is highly regarded by most as being a trusted source.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
