[enderilluminatus]

(01-08-2015 12:05 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

They were a ruthless, wicked people who were the descendants of a wicked man. They attacked the Hebrews at Rephidim after they left from Egypt and again at Hormah.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Yeah man fuck those evil babies they sure got what was coming to them.

[Socrates]

Jepthah's daughter was "sacrificed"? Come on. He promised whoever came out to meet him first after winning the battle would be dedicated to God. She went to work in the temple. It was a sacrifice in the sense that she didn't get to have the normal life of marrying and raising a family but instead had her life dedicated in service to God. Yes, that is a sacrifice. But not quite in the same vein as "go kill your daughter" for me.

[enderilluminatus]

(01-08-2015 12:05 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

As for Jephthah sacrificing his daughter, he broke God's law in doing so and was definitely not rewarded for it.

What is it with you atheists taking everything out of context? You need to stop regurgitating Hitchens, who told plenty of half-truths and outright lies, and research what you're talking about on your own.

Yes he was, he led the Israelites into many battles for years afterwards.

I know the bible better than you, you didnt even know who Jephthah was.

[enderilluminatus]

(01-08-2015 12:10 PM)Socrates Wrote:  

Jepthah's daughter was "sacrificed"? Come on. He promised whoever came out to meet him first after winning the battle would be dedicated to God. She went to work in the temple. It was a sacrifice in the sense that she didn't get to have the normal life of marrying and raising a family but instead had her life dedicated in service to God. Yes, that is a sacrifice. But not quite in the same vein as "go kill your daughter" for me.

The vast majority of biblical scholars who read the text in the original language admit that he killed her. Sorry if that makes your god seem like an asshole.

[TheWastelander]

(01-08-2015 12:10 PM)enderilluminatus Wrote:  

(01-08-2015 12:05 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

They were a ruthless, wicked people who were the descendants of a wicked man. They attacked the Hebrews at Rephidim after they left from Egypt and again at Hormah.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Yeah man fuck those evil babies they sure got what was coming to them.

Don't start a war if you aren't willing to potentially risk everything. Simple as that.

Throughout most of history total war was a pretty normal, brutal thing.

[enderilluminatus]

So god's morality is relative to the time period and what is considered acceptable at the time.

[Krusyos]

(01-08-2015 12:22 PM)enderilluminatus Wrote:  

So god's morality is relative to the time period and what is considered acceptable at the time.

Since God is the ultimate standard of morality, God, by definition, can do no wrong.

[Plato]

I wrote a book dealing with this question - 2,500 years ago.

You guys not get round to reading it yet? How much more time do you need?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

[enderilluminatus]

(01-08-2015 12:48 PM)Krusyos Wrote:  

(01-08-2015 12:22 PM)enderilluminatus Wrote:  

So god's morality is relative to the time period and what is considered acceptable at the time.

Since God is the ultimate standard of morality, God, by definition, can do no wrong.

So christianity is based on a relative morality and if god declared tomorrow that the highest good was raping babies to death then that action would no longer be evil, but good.

What a worthless standard for morality.

[TheWastelander]

(01-08-2015 12:14 PM)enderilluminatus Wrote:  

(01-08-2015 12:05 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

As for Jephthah sacrificing his daughter, he broke God's law in doing so and was definitely not rewarded for it.

What is it with you atheists taking everything out of context? You need to stop regurgitating Hitchens, who told plenty of half-truths and outright lies, and research what you're talking about on your own.

Yes he was, he led the Israelites into many battles for years afterwards.

I know the bible better than you, you didnt even know who Jephthah was.

It's been years since I've read Judges. Next time I discuss this with you, I'll make sure to check out the latest atheist talking points and do my own research so I'll know your ridiculous arguments ahead of time.

[enderilluminatus]

I was raised in a baptist church. My father can read the bible in greek and hebrew. Im not an internet atheist who does this for fun. The god of the bible is an immoral fictional character.

[scorpion]

In regards to Jephthah's daughter: http://ichthys.com/mail-Jephthahs-Daughter.htm

It's also important to understand the Old Testament in context. The Old Testament is essentially the history of the Israelites, and the different ways in which God interacted with them . The overriding theme of the Old Testament is that no matter how God attempts to deal with the Israelites (and he does so in a variety of ways throughout the OT, i.e. directly with Adam, Noah and Abraham, through the Law given by Moses, through prophets, kings, judges, etc..), they always seem to screw it up one way or another. The purpose of the Old Testament is to document clearly that even with direct guidance from God provided in a variety of ways, mankind is incapable of saving themselves, hence the need for an intercessor between God and man, the one who is both God and man: Jesus Christ. The Old Testament is basically extensive documentary evidence illustrating mankind's need for redemption, since even the most privileged people, the Israelites, who had direct communication with and blessings from God, still were incredibly hopeless.

Paul wrote about the Old Testament serving as an example for us and a tool for instruction:

Romans 15:4
For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope.

1 Corinthians 10:11
Now all these things happened unto them [the Old Testament Israelites] for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(01-08-2015 11:18 AM)enderilluminatus Wrote:  

(01-08-2015 09:21 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Deluge, your poll and opinion is biased because you didn't provide the option "Agnostic" between "Atheist" and "Not at all religious but believes in the existence of a God or higher power".

I don't believe in any God, higher power or a supernatural force. I am totally religionless. However, that doesn't make me an Atheist. I don't negate the existence of God or claim that it's impossible for God (and other stuff) to exist. Nor do I dislike religion just because it's religion. I just accept that I don't and can't know the truth on this matter.

You're an agnostic atheist.

No thank you. The word "atheist" makes me think of an obnoxious fedora-wearing Beta who spends his days posting empty diatribes on Facebook railing against the first convenient target in order to become a mini-celebrity within his echo chamber.

If we lived 30 years ago, I would have had no problem with your remark. But today, seeing what atheism has turned into, I refuse to be co-opted into it. Just leave me be.

[enderilluminatus]

(01-08-2015 01:37 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(01-08-2015 11:18 AM)enderilluminatus Wrote:  

(01-08-2015 09:21 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Deluge, your poll and opinion is biased because you didn't provide the option "Agnostic" between "Atheist" and "Not at all religious but believes in the existence of a God or higher power".

I don't believe in any God, higher power or a supernatural force. I am totally religionless. However, that doesn't make me an Atheist. I don't negate the existence of God or claim that it's impossible for God (and other stuff) to exist. Nor do I dislike religion just because it's religion. I just accept that I don't and can't know the truth on this matter.

You're an agnostic atheist.

No thank you. The word "atheist" makes me think of an obnoxious fedora-wearing Beta who spends his days posting empty diatribes on Facebook railing against the first convenient target in order to become a mini-celebrity within his echo chamber.

If we lived 30 years ago, I would have had no problem with your remark. But today, seeing what atheism has turned into, I refuse to be co-opted into it. Just leave me be.

Im sorry you dont like the label, i dont appreciate the association either, but it is what the words actually mean.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

No man. The mere fact that it's a modern two-word combination of a previously well-established term tells me that it's an artificial construct made to include unwilling people to make itself seem bigger, rather than an actual word with inherent meaning. For example, you surely wouldn't say that all "radicals" must be "radical feminists". And can you imagine any of these supposed "agnostic categories" being in singificant conflict or disagreement with each other? Of course not. That tells me that they are not actually different.

If we really must engage in these Wikipedia identity charades, let me be clarify my thoughts so I can be a "Weak Agnostic" ( )

Quote:

Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", or "temporal agnosticism")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Types

The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."

I would believe in God if I got proof of its existence. For example, for me proof would be God personally appearing to me and notifying me in advance and in great detail about a significant and normally unpredictable event. That has never happened to me, thus I am not religious. However, I don't know why it hasn't or if it's possible or not. I can only guess. It's simply beyond me, and that's just fine.

p.s. this section is interesting and describes the issue better:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Pos...._negative

Quote:

...many agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism, which they may consider no more justified than theism or requiring an equal conviction. The assertion of unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of gods is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.

[enderilluminatus]

Someone could be an agnostic theist.

[scorpion]

(01-08-2015 11:50 AM)Slim Shady Wrote:  

@ Scorpion:

You say that not believing in god leads to hedonism, then nihilism, and delay of suicide etc. I might give you this point [although I will say that the time to the delay is worth it].

But I realized that this point is against the fundamental argument. I might agree with you that certain religious codes work for the greater benefit of man. But the point is what is TRUE. And just because not believing in god leads you down a certain path...well I'd rather know the truth and live in hell than follow something false.

That goes back to the fundamental idea of "Red Pill". The matrix is comfortable. The outside is hard. I'd rather be free and in pain than a slave to dogma.

I understand where you're coming from. I also value truth very highly, and would not be able to believe in something if I didn't think it was true. I'm not big on self-delusion. Hence, it follows that since I proclaim myself to be a Christian, I fully believe that Christianity is true.

There is a reason that Christ said of himself, "I am the way, the truth and the life." God is truth. In the end, God is the only eternal truth, because everything else will decay and return to dust. This is the ultimate uncomfortable fact about existence that no one wants to think or talk about.

Further, as I have pointed out repeatedly in this thread, it's not like science or atheism can make a legitimate claim to possess knowledge of "the truth". Science completely fails to prove any kind of existential or metaphysical truth, it simply describes the material world. For example, imagine you stumble upon a house build in the middle of nowhere. Science can tell you the exact dimensions of the house, analyze the various colors of paint, carefully catalog every item in the house, measuring and weighting each, and such. In short, science can tell you a great deal about the house as a physical object. Science cannot, however, tell you who built the house, or for what purpose. That is outside its purview, and on those questions science can only speculate.

The universe is the house, and science helps us to understand its physical properties. But science cannot tell us why it's here, why we're here. Some would simply say those answers are unknowable. But are they? Have you really looked? Or would you simply rather believe they are unknowable because that means you are unaccountable to anyone but yourself?

Are you really interested in the truth, or just in what is most convenient to believe?

As for considering atheism "freedom" and belief in God "slavery", there's a pretty strong case to be made that it's actually the exact opposite. Man is naturally a slave to sin, to his own passions.

2 Peter 2:19
They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption.

John 8:34
Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin.

Romans 6:16
Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey--whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?

So man is naturally a slave to sin, which leads inevitably to self-destruction and death. How can man escape sin? We go back to where we began: the truth.

John 8:32
And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

[Apollo]

(01-08-2015 02:07 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

Further, as I have pointed out repeatedly in this thread, it's not like science or atheism can make a legitimate claim to possess knowledge of "the truth". Science completely fails to prove any kind of existential or metaphysical truth, it simply describes the material world. For example, imagine you stumble upon a house build in the middle of nowhere. Science can tell you the exact dimensions of the house, analyze the various colors of paint, carefully catalog every item in the house, measuring and weighting each, and such. In short, science can tell you a great deal about the house as a physical object. Science cannot, however, tell you who built the house, or for what purpose. That is outside its purview, and on those questions science can only speculate.

The universe is the house, and science helps us to understand its physical properties. But science cannot tell us why it's here, why we're here. Some would simply say those answers are unknowable. But are they? Have you really looked? Or would you simply rather believe they are unknowable because that means you are unaccountable to anyone but yourself?

Science is not a purpose in itself, it is simply a process which humans have developed to attempt to understand the environment in which they exist.

Going back to your house example, the question was whether or not we could find the answers to who and for what purpose the house (or universe if you will) was built. From your comments, I am curious as to how your answer is God when the default answer, by your own logic, should be that there is no way to know.

We could study the architectural structure of the house, the materials used to build the house, the history of the area in which the house was built, compare the house to existing infrastructure, etc. etc. The point being that the house contains a body of evidence for us to learn more about so that we can at the least attempt to employ some sort of reasoning our answer.

Ultimately, I realize this all leads to a perpetual "who-dun-it" mystery of cosmic proportions dealing with Big Bang's, Black holes, natural selection and what not, but is that not the best that human reason has to offer at this point in time? How is God, by any standard of human reason, a more compelling argument for the existence of man? And why are the folk tales, written experiences, and the ideas derived from a select group of slaves in the Talmud any more credible and superior than the spiritual ideologies and moral systems developed in other societies of the world which have equally comparable time chronologies?

I mean, inevitably this discussion must focus on faith, and this is undoubtedly the biggest draw of organized religion. Atheism, is depressing as fuck, despite how positive the Richard Dawkins' of the world proclaim it to be. But for me, at least, I find emptiness in both groups. Atheists are great at engaging the mind and employing logic to understand the world, but you are quite correct that they are bankrupt in offering any sort of constructive alternatives to a lot of the positivity that religion offers.(spiritual fulfillment, a universal morality) But likewise, where I feel like the biggest influential philosophers and intellectual engagers in Western society, and particularly in the establishment of the U.S. were in fact Christians, like Aquinas and Augustus, and the founders/followers of the original colonies, a lot of the leading voices today in philosophy and science fields are atheist or agnostic. For example, no one is expecting anything other than feel good nonsense from the Pope these days. Liberals applaud him when he appeases their agenda (gay marriage, atheism, advocating redistribution of wealth) and ignore him completely when he upholds more traditional Church dogma (no women priests, anti-abortion, anti-contraception)

[Ronald Reagan]

Not religious personally but I don't mind going to church with people or celebrating religious events with them. I don't believe in any god.

[Truth Teller]

(01-08-2015 10:41 PM)Apollo Wrote:  

Going back to your house example, the question was whether or not we could find the answers to who and for what purpose the house (or universe if you will) was built. From your comments, I am curious as to how your answer is God when the default answer, by your own logic, should be that there is no way to know.

We could study the architectural structure of the house, the materials used to build the house, the history of the area in which the house was built, compare the house to existing infrastructure, etc. etc. The point being that the house contains a body of evidence for us to learn more about so that we can at the least attempt to employ some sort of reasoning our answer.

Ah, a brave man. You are entering the world of metaphysics and theology! All is not as it seems. Okay, enough of the Twilight Zone stuff.

I think there's a very strong argument to be made for Deism, at least. God is logically a necessary being, and the universe is contingent. Every contingent being begins to exist, and therefore, the potentiality of having a universe at all must have been actualized by a necessary being. See Aquinas' Second Way for a far better job explaining and defending this than I can do.

Quote:

Ultimately, I realize this all leads to a perpetual "who-dun-it" mystery of cosmic proportions dealing with Big Bang's, Black holes, natural selection and what not, but is that not the best that human reason has to offer at this point in time? How is God, by any standard of human reason, a more compelling argument for the existence of man? And why are the folk tales, written experiences, and the ideas derived from a select group of slaves in the Talmud any more credible and superior than the spiritual ideologies and moral systems developed in other societies of the world which have equally
comparable time chronologies?

One of the issues I'm detecting here is that you think all the gods are the same. Please correct me if I'm wrong. The issue is, however, that they're not all the same. Zeus/Thor/Apollo are all crude anthropomorphic entities. They're essentially humans with a lot more power. They also exist inside space and time and are utterly powerless outside of their particular realm.

The God of monotheism (Judeo-Christian/Islamic/whatever) is not some sort of crude anthropomorphic entity. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and immensely powerful. Genesis 1 is designed to show how God is sovereign over all nature, including the ones that the pagans thought were gods. God does not exist within space and time, nor does He have a body. God is immensely simple, which is why the "what made God?" question is stupid. It's like asking "what assembled the item that consists of one part?"

Quote:

I mean, inevitably this discussion must focus on faith, and this is undoubtedly the biggest draw of organized religion. Atheism, is depressing as fuck, despite how positive the Richard Dawkins' of the world proclaim it to be. But for me, at least, I find emptiness in both groups. Atheists are great at engaging the mind and employing logic to understand the world, but you are quite correct that they are bankrupt in offering any sort of constructive alternatives to a lot of the positivity that religion offers.(spiritual fulfillment, a universal morality) But likewise, where I feel like the biggest influential philosophers and intellectual engagers in Western society, and particularly in the establishment of the U.S. were in fact Christians, like Aquinas and Augustus, and the founders/followers of the original colonies, a lot of the leading voices today in philosophy and science fields are atheist or agnostic. For example, no one is expecting anything other than feel good nonsense from the Pope these days. Liberals applaud him when he appeases their agenda (gay marriage, atheism, advocating redistribution of wealth) and ignore him completely when he upholds more traditional Church dogma (no women priests, anti-abortion, anti-contraception)

Two responses here: first, 80% of the people in the relevant field (philosophy of religion) are theists. Logic and reason actually are sufficient to show us the existence of God, as can be demonstrated through St. Thomas Aquinas' arguments, as well as Leibniz's argument from contingency. Scientists (in the US at least) are split about evenly with regard to whether or not God exists. According to a recent Pew Poll, 33% acknowledge God, 18% acknowledge some higher power, 40% acknowledge neither, and 7% refused to answer or don't know. According to a sociological study by Elaine Ecklund, there are often personal reasons why people disbelieve, and the less religious are more likely to go into science for a variety of reasons.

More interestingly, you see that younger scientists generally believe in God, and older ones don't. This may very well be a function of the "science and religion warfare" myth that continues to pervade popular discourse.

[Frost]

I’m an atheist, because screw you Dad.

(Just kidding)

You could call me an Agnostic Christian.

I was raised in a completely irreligious household, which I think frees me from the biases and emotional objections to faith that I see in a lot of contemporary atheists. I took my default atheism for granted until my mid-twenties. Around that time, I started to look behind the veil of political correctness and see the world through the Blue Pill/Red Pill lens. I realized that 1) Christianity is dismissed with in the same tone, language, and style of argument as other politically incorrect ideas, and 2) Christianity is hated by all the right people.

Since then, I have looked deeply into Christianity, prayed, read through piles and piles of apologetics, and pressed many intelligent Christians for their best arguments in support of their faith. I hiked the Camino De Santiago, an 800km Christian Pilgrimage, reading from the Bible and praying daily. On the final day of the pilgrimage I met a priest; he baptized me in the Atlantic Ocean.

I’ll probably spend the rest of my life trying to decide if I believe in God or not. However, I strongly believe in the value of Christianity as an institution. I will raise my children as Christians. In the fight between Christianity and its enemies, I know whose side I’m on. On the actual question of the existence and nature of God however, I believe agnosticism is the only logical position.

I find the logical case for Deism to be convincing. The Universe appears designed. No serious person can dispute that. One possible explanation is God. Another is the anthropic principle, i.e. that many Universes exist (or have existed) but only those with conditions favourable to intelligent life will be observed. I can’t completely rule out the possibility of a multiverse in which humanity is the highest level of intelligence and consciousness, but it strikes me as very, very unlikely.

Synchronicitiously, Roosh’s recent post on the likelihood of our Universe being some sort of simulation is a strong argument in favour of Deism. Think about it. Humanity seems close to the ability to create artificial intelligence. If we can create one AI, we could create billions, and a simulated universe for them to inhabit. How many AI universes could humanity create, with the physical material in our known universe?

Could those AI universes then go on to create their own simulations? Absolutely. We haven’t even begun to tap the computational capacity of the physical materials we have to work with, and we don’t even have a clear sense of how deep we can go.

If we can create simulations, it stands to reason that we might also be a simulation. It also stands to reason that in a universe consisting of simulations upon simulations upon simulations, the odds of us being the sole “real” intelligence is infinitesimally small.

From our perspective, God is all-knowing and all-powerful, but that doesn’t mean he is omnipotent in his world (whatever that might mean). Nothing in the Bible implies that God is alone, or that He Himself does not answer to a higher God.

This line of reasoning leads to another important point: Maybe humanity has fundamentally misunderstood the nature of existence, God, and the Universe, in ways that we can never understand. Maybe the question of God is an unknown unknown, rather than a known unknown. This is a separate chain of reasoning that I consider sufficient to lead to Agnosticism on its own: the recognition that human reason is finite, and we might not be intelligent enough to even formulate the question.

So: I lean strongly toward the existence of a God. But why Christianity?

I believe – and I recognize that this is a subjective argument – that Christendom produced the most beautiful art, music, literature, and architecture in human history. Christian morality strikes me as the most consistent with my internal sense of right and wrong. The Western world became great under Christianity, and has become uglier and uglier as it moved away from God. This is not conclusive, but I do find it makes it harder to dismiss Christianity.

I don’t find the historical case for the divinity of Christ to be convincing, on it’s own. Yes, historical records are consistent with the resurrection, but that is not proof. The record of biblical prophesies strikes me as sufficiently vague, ambiguous, and coincidental, that I don't give it much significance.

Ultimately I find the evidence to be inconclusive. Most Christians - and, in my reading, the Bible itself – concede the necessity of a Leap Of Faith. After all, it would be pretty boring if God made his existence ascertainable through pure reason. My pet theory is that God - if he exists - created a world with evidence that is equally ambiguous to humans of all levels of intelligence. Nerds like us can dig ever deeper into a rabbit whole of philosophy, historiography, symbolism, and mathematics, while the slower minds can grok the principles of faith + love, or not. Everyone still has to make a moral choice to believe or not, no matter how much research they do.

Maybe one day, some experience or revelation will bring me to genuine faith. In the meantime, reason and personal experience is enough for me to recognize the value of Christianity in my personal life.

So that’s where I stand. I’m not certain that Christianity is true, but I think I'll be a better person if I live a life guided (imperfectly) by scripture, and I intend to eventually raise my children in the Christian tradition. I think the western world could do a lot worse for itself than returning to true Christianity. If modern persecution of Christians advances from the current sneering to something worse, I know which side I'll be fighting on.

Scorpion et al, I'm interested to hear your responses. Would you agree that Faith requires a Leap? If so, what led to yours?

[alexdagr81]

(01-08-2015 11:58 AM)Plato Wrote:  

@alexdagr81 - I don't think you can dismiss the idea of an evil creator that easily.

Everything that leads you to believe the idea of an evil creator is irrational and illogical could just be part of His diabolical plan.

It would be one huge non-sequitor. To do these things like I said would be a huge waste of his own time. This diabolical plan would only hurt him if he's evil

[Al Sahab]

(01-11-2015 05:30 PM)Frost Wrote:  

This line of reasoning leads to another important point: Maybe humanity has fundamentally misunderstood the nature of existence, God, and the Universe, in ways that we can never understand. Maybe the question of God is an unknown unknown, rather than a known unknown. This is a separate chain of reasoning that I consider sufficient to lead to Agnosticism on its own: the recognition that human reason is finite, and we might not be intelligent enough to even formulate the question.

If I may offer a philosophical comment...

An unknown unknown is in different terms a known unknown unknown, which in itself implies a completeness of knowledge that is equivalent to any known or any unknown.

Now, the point I will make is almost impossible to communicate because it can only be done in paradoxes, but...

Strictly speaking, you might say there is no way to describe metaphysical realities, to the extent that I can't even say that there is no way to describe them (because that is a form of description), and I can't even say that etc. for infinity

So you might say, given the sentence above, that there is a possibility that I could describe metaphysical realities.

In other words, regardless of one's opinion on the existence of God, that opinion can never be verified outside of your own perspective, so as to be objectively true.

However, it cannot be verified to the extent that it might actually be true,

i.e. it cannot be verified to the extent that you cannot verify that you cannot verify it...so maybe you can verify it.

So you might notice that the infinite contingency of certain knowledge (you have to know that you know etc. for infinity) means that any version of that knowledge is equally likely to be correct or incorrect.

All this means philosophically, is that reason alone would place all perspectives on God's existence at the same degree of knowing and not-knowing, which is infinitely contingent so as to contain its own negation.

I believe this is a form of Godel's incompleteness theorem represented in philosophy but I haven't verified it, it came up because I was a hard agnostic talking to a muslim, and we spoke for hours until we got to this conclusion. It is even harder to communicate in person.

[scorpion]

(01-11-2015 05:30 PM)Frost Wrote:  

...

My pet theory is that God - if he exists - created a world with evidence that is equally ambiguous to humans of all levels of intelligence. Nerds like us can dig ever deeper into a rabbit whole of philosophy, historiography, symbolism, and mathematics, while the slower minds can grok the principles of faith + love, or not. Everyone still has to make a moral choice to believe or not, no matter how much research they do.

...

Scorpion et al, I'm interested to hear your responses. Would you agree that Faith requires a Leap? If so, what led to yours?

I've had thoughts similar to this as well. Christianity is strange in that it as at once the most simple and the most complex of all religions. "Believe in Jesus Christ and you will be saved" is something that even the most simple-minded among us can wrap their head around. On the other hand, if you really want to dive into the deep end, there are more books written about Christian theology than a man could read in his lifetime. There's an incredible amount of depth to the Bible, and I don't think any one person or sect has fully ascertained the mysteries of God contained therein. So not only is Christianity a universal religion in the sense that it is aimed at all mankind, it is universal in the sense that it is able to provide a satisfying level of spiritual/metaphysical depth for every individual, regardless of their level of intelligence or learning.

The key to this, as you point out, is faith. Faith is very interesting. It's another universal concept, something that is at once the easiest and the most difficult thing to ask of a man. Faith is something that anyone in the world is capable of having, yet which so few people these days do. You can't buy it. You can't work for it. In fact, like water, it's often the case that the harder you try to grasp at it, the more it slips through your fingers. In large part, faith comes simply from letting go of our own ego, of trying to accomplish the goal of "having faith" to begin with. Because faith is not really about us, it's about something greater than us. It's not about somehow "impressing God" by having great faith, rather, having faith is the realization that you don't need to impress God, because you couldn't even if you tried. (Eph. 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."). Faith is the comfort stemming from the realization that God has freely offered his love to all who simply accept it.

One could scarcely imagine a lower barrier to entry - belief is all that is required. Trust in God's promises. What's interesting is that if you consider everything the Bible says about the importance of humility and the dangers of arrogance, the emphasis on faith becomes apparent, because our own pride and arrogance is really the only thing that can stand in the way of faith. Nothing outside of ourselves can prevent us from having faith. No man or earthly circumstances can rob us of that, only we can do that. And so faith comes through humility, through the recognition of our ultimate lack of power and understanding. I believe that it's very difficult to have faith without first humbling yourself in this manner.

And so the enemy of faith is pride. We simply must overcome the arrogance within us that tells us that we don't need God, that we've figured everything out on our own, and that even if we personally haven't, some other smart guys have and have proven that God is just a silly, outdated idea. And so the paradox that God asks at once from us nothing - our faith is free to give - and yet everything - because true faith is difficult for many to achieve. We are our own worst enemies in this regard. Mankind's original sin - rebellion from God - lives deep within our flesh, and can never be entirely expunged in this lifetime. Faith is learning to live within this dead and corrupted flesh, trusting in the promise that Jesus Christ can save us from it, because he already overcame it himself. (John 16:33 "I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.").

In closing, some verses on the danger of pride/arrogance.

1 Peter 5:5b
Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

Proverbs 16:18
Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

Isaiah 2:11
The haughty looks of man shall be brought low, and the lofty pride of men shall be humbled, and the Lord alone will be exalted in that day

1 Sameul 2:3
Talk no more so very proudly, let not arrogance come from your mouth; for the Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.

[Plato]

(01-11-2015 05:44 PM)alexdagr81 Wrote:  

(01-08-2015 11:58 AM)Plato Wrote:  

@alexdagr81 - I don't think you can dismiss the idea of an evil creator that easily.

Everything that leads you to believe the idea of an evil creator is irrational and illogical could just be part of His diabolical plan.

It would be one huge non-sequitor. To do these things like I said would be a huge waste of his own time. This diabolical plan would only hurt him if he's evil

Why would God worry about wasting his own time?

Why would an evil God worry about being rational?

How can we be so sure what God may or may not be like?

I am only putting forward a possibility.

It is the religious people who assume they can rule out metaphysical possibilities purely on the basis of what they deem comfortable or rational.