Faith or Proof
Rosemary the Queen
A commenter in Aziz's thread on God made this statement:
It's not so much that God cannot logically exist, it's that there is no proof. I require proof. That's the sort of thinker I am. Not much I can do about that.
I don't believe it is possible to live without any faith at all. All of these people that think they are on a higher intellectual plain, because they cannot simply believe in God without proof are fooling themselves.
A person simply can't live a fulfilled life without any faith at all. If you spend your life requiring proof without ever just having some faith, your life will suck.
FAITH — noun
- Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
- Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
- Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
- often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
- The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
- A set of principles or beliefs.
You have to have faith or trust in things or people. You won't always have proof and even when you do, the proof can be wrong. Mistakes are made. Then what happens? Does your life collapse?
You don't want to believe in a higher being? Fine don't. But don't fool yourself into thinking that you don't because you require proof. You don't require proof, you don't want proof. You choose not to believe out of fear. It's easier to live your life however you please, if you don't have to answer for it in the end. Cowardice is what that is, not higher critical thinking.
Related Posts (on one page):
There are atheists of quite high intellectual honesty who genuinely see no reason to believe that God exists. I've talked with and debated more than a few of them.
(The thing that I do agree with you is that they do typically believe in all sorts of things without any better proof than what they have for the existence of God.)
That was my point.
For many atheists and agnostics (myself included) it's not that we don't have "faith" in something, it's that we try to keep "faith" to a minimum. Basically in my case when I try to explain something I will usually (I would like to say "always" but "always" is a big word) choose the option that requires less "faith".
For example, look at the origin of the universe. Of course there are an infinite number of options for how the universe began, but most debates tend to focus on two options. God created it, or it "just happened."
When I consider these two options, the "just happened" option requires less faith. Why? Because the "God created it" option requires BOTH the "faith" that God himself "just happened" and that God then created this universe. To me that's a higher threshold to reach than that the universe itself "just happened."
Perhaps the most striking example of "faith" in those who claim to avoid faith is the simple faith that "logic works." That's really quite a statement of faith in itself, because I can't come up with any logical reason that logic should work.
So yes, I do recognize that I can't function without faith in something.
But as I said, it's much easier to put faith in "logic works" than in "God is infinite, omnipotent, omniscient and is passing judgment on every soul in the universe."
That's a far, far higher level of faith to reach than "logic works."
As to the latter, while there are those who put forth purported proofs, ultimately some degree of faith is required -- which, as Rosemary points out, is true of most things in life, including aspects of non-supernatural history that we have no direct proof for.
As to the former, it is an entirely different intellectual issue.
The main reason I say I am agnostic is not that I believe that the commonly held notion of a Christian God is possible, because I find that theology profoundly absurd and disturbing. I may or may not believe in "God" but I absolutely do NOT believe in THAT "God." But I can conceive of any number of incarnations of a deity that could exist in or outside of our universe. That's why I'm not an atheist. I am perfectly willing to accept the notion of a God who formulated the basic structure of the universe, massaged it so that it provided the best opportunity for life and intelligence (and therefore free will) to develop and who mostly either leaves it alone or tweaks it here or there.
But the concept of a "God" who demands that I believe things that are logically indistinguishable from fairy tales or else he will punish me eternally... that is a God I find abhorrent, immoral and if not pure evil, then it's hard to find something more evil than that.
And as Rose points out, these people live in faith everyday of their life and have no problem doing so.
I find it flabergasting that they demand that God reveal Himself fully to them on their own terms but don't do the same with their next door neighbor. I mean, the person living next to you could be a raving phychopath a hair from taking out everyone on the block. Yet you don't demand proof that they are not. You don't ask them to allow you to rummage through their home and tell you everything there is to know about them on the chance that they might kill you one day.
But you demand this of God. You want God to reveal Himself to you on your terms. You want Him to jump through your hoops and sit up and bark when you say so.
How disgustingly arrogant.
You seem to forget that you're talking about the Creator of existance and yet you talk about Him like He's some kind of curious pet. You thumb your nose at Him and treat Him with less respect than you would even a stranger.
You want to know God? Try removing yourself from His throne for a moment and let Him assume the position that is His and His alone.
Get your heart in the right place. Why would the King deal with a person that doesn't want to honestly deal with Him in return? Why waste the time?
To see God one must have a heart of humility and longing.
I see neither from most people claiming that there is "no proof" of God.
And with anyone who searches for anything, you'll not find it if your heart isn't in it.
But hey, diversity makes life more fun.
1. Proselytize. Try to sell your version to other people. This can only work for people who haven't already thought it through for themselves. Among thoughtful people, it's a waste of time.
2. Discuss. Every thoughtful person of conscience retains some doubts, and would like to bounce those doubts off of others. Such discussions are useful, so long as they remain genuine discussions and steer clear of options #1 and #3.
3. Disparage. We have already seen two examples of this: Rosemary accusing non-believers of cowardice, and Kevin calling them arrogant. Do I really need to point out that calling people names doesn't serve any useful purpose other than self-indulgence of anger?
Wouldn't this be more useful and rewarding to everybody if we hewed to Option #2?
I absolutely did not call non-believers cowards. I called the "critical thinkers" that require proof that God exists deluded cowards. Not all non-believers, just the ones that are too smart to believe in God but not too smart to see that Al Gore's Nobel Prize was a joke. Just them.
Do I really need to point out that calling people names doesn't serve any useful purpose other than self-indulgence of anger?
Actually, I find that it makes my people laugh. My audience is chuckling and I'm nothing but an indulgent entertainer in my heart. ;-)
Helloooo! E-V-I-L
Evil can do whatever she pleases, duh!
Oops. Sorry. You still, however, engaged in disparagement of those with whom you disagree.
I find that it [calling people names] makes my people laugh.
Then I suggest you confine your name-calling to venues that include ONLY "your people" (presumably, those who already agree with you). If you wish to productively discuss issues with people who disagree with you, then you would do better to remain civil.
Let me also remind you that name-calling, even when confined to your ideological comrades, is unhealthy, because it appeals to group solidarity rather than reason, which in turn renders your ideological comrades vulnerable to the siren-call of reason.
Oops. Sorry. You still, however, engaged in disparagement of those with whom you disagree.
I find that it [calling people names] makes my people laugh.
Then I suggest you confine your name-calling to venues that include ONLY "your people" (presumably, those who already agree with you). If you wish to productively discuss issues with people who disagree with you, then you would do better to remain civil.
Let me also remind you that name-calling, even when confined to your ideological comrades, is unhealthy, because it appeals to group solidarity rather than reason, which in turn renders your ideological comrades vulnerable to the siren-call of reason.
More humility and less self-righteousness would make these discussions a little more useful...
I have faith in people. I have faith in things. I even have faith in Society, though that faith does waver from time to time. The reason that the definition you quoted is broken down into 6 entries, is that Faith has different meanings. Lack of faith in one, doesn’t mean lack of faith in all.
The rest of the post is just an attack on people who dare to believe in something contrary to Rosemary’s Beliefs.
My people do not agree with me on hardly any issues. They just like arguing with me. Suggesting some are cowards is not being uncivil. I've read many threads here where civility and disagreement do not go hand and hand.
It is here on this blog where someone repeatedly called Christians - xians. That's not civil. Here on this blogs people have been called traitors and cowards for any little disagreement.
I was stating an opinion, not attacking. If some of you are so sensitive when having your beliefs questioned maybe you should examine your beliefs.
In one (meaningless) sense of the term - one that theists like to throw around - faith is any belief about which you cannot have absolute certainty, and, therefore, your belief in the existence of the table that you just barked your shin on is just as faithy as another person's belief in God (or the Tooth Fairy, or whatever).
What faith really should mean, imHo is a belief in something for which there is simply a dearth (if not total lack) of rationally compelling evidence. i.e., a belief that is clearly based, more than any other single factor, on DESIRE.
Some smart guy could argue the Sun doesn't exist. Who cares? Every one I've ever known knows the sun exists, and if they act like they don't, then very predictable things happen, that usually involve very red skin, moderate to severe discomfort, and maybe some peeling.
On many many levels (none of them offering absolute certainty), the existence of the sun can be proven to the satisfaction, of, basically, everyone.
Not only that, everyone agrees on the KIND OF THING THE SUN IS.
And not one of those people is absolutely certain - just certain enough.
You can call that, "faith," if you would like, but if it is, then the word doesn't distinguish one form of thought from any other.
Also, let's just say, for the sake of argument, that real, genuine proof that the sun does not exist (It's a galaxy, or a mirage...) came out tomorrow, I would accept that, because, one of the characteristics of non-faithy beliefs is that they are PROVISIONAL.
Hobbits/elves/brownies/little people could be based on this recently discovered species.
So, there could be a 'God' as defined by Christianity, or Islam or Judaism. There could be a Vishnu, a Great Spirit and a Sky Woman. Stories of dragons are told by many cultures - like fairies, aliens and monotheism, there is probably a factual basis for a belief in their existence.
Since I don't really have a dog in this fight, I'm just wondering - people who believe in God (usually a God defined by religion) usually like to accuse the other side (atheists) of being 'cowards'. Atheists usually accuse the religiously faithful of not being logical or reasonable. Why are these slurs used, and why are both sides so offended by them? Anyone who has ever met atheists or believers in real life knows that these generalizations don't apply.
Obviously you and I have completely different concepts of what constitutes civility.
It is here on this blog where someone repeatedly called Christians - xians. That's not civil.
Rosemary, do two wrongs make a right?
I was stating an opinion, not attacking.
Now THERE'S are rationalization! ;-)
If some of you are so sensitive when having your beliefs questioned maybe you should examine your beliefs.
I myself have no problem having my beliefs questioned. And I am no longer surprised when I encounter rude behavior on blogs. I just prefer to discuss interesting questions with polite people. (And yes, I am saying that your statements have been impolite.)
Which is more or less why I turned to the Church of Apatheism, when I discovered it on a website.
In my judgement, which is what I always turn to in any case, there could very well be a god. Or, based on my experiences with life, it seems more likely to have been a quarreling committee.
As for "universe", I'm finding serious discussions that there are likely to be multiple universes. Maybe each one would have its own little god. Sort of a caporegime or sub-boss, the way the Five Families of New York had things organized.
But nobody's ever been able to answer my fundamantal question. If there are in fact any gods, then who or what created them?
Seriously, folks. Religion mainly seems represented by this weird fixation on "there's only one god, he (why always "he") is omnipotent; sees everything; does everything; forgets no slight to his dignity; pitches you headlong into a burning pit of fire if you piss him off; can only be bought off by great beating of chests, weeping and wailing at prayer time; etc, etc.
If there really is a god, or even of bunch of them, what makes any of you think he or they would be so fucking petty as to act like US congressmen or state legislators at budget committee time?
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Thank you. That's very generous.
>> But don't fool yourself into thinking that you don't because you require proof. You don't require proof, you don't want proof.
I was hoping you'd never find out. I feel so naked. How did you find out? Who told you?
>> You choose not to believe out of fear.
Yeah, because the idea that the highest power on Earth is encapsulated inside the skulls of human beings is, SOOOOOOOOO comforting, and the thought of a benevolent, loving God that will take me in his Arms and re-introduce me to all my dead relatives and I die is, like, SOOOOO unpleasant.
I wish I had that courage, but God didn't give it to me.
>> It's easier to live your life however you please, if you don't have to answer for it in the end.
Yes, yes. Of course, answering for mistakes NOW and dealing with the consequences NOW is so easy.
>> Cowardice is what that is, not higher critical thinking.
Yes, of course. What else could it be? But I just can't summon up enough courage to believe that an eternity of Bliss awaits me if I just accept the right evidence-challenged belief system.
That takes guts.
To answer "How did the universe begin" with "God Created it" is simply pushing the question back another level to "How did God begin?" And if you can't answer that, you haven't answered the first question of how the universe began.
At least those atheists who say it "just happened" don't have this logical inconsistency in their argument.
And it is fine to say God "just happened" too. But just be aware when you say that that you have essentially just agreed with the atheist that the universe "just happened" in the ultimate sense.
So if you can't explain where God came from, quit wasting our time in these arguments. It's. all. the. same. damn. thing. Something happened and we exist. Anyone who claims to know what that something is had better be able to explain it, or accept the criticism that they are not basing their "knowledge" on rational thought, but on something else. So if you can't explain where God came from, you haven't explained anything.
I bow humbly before your knife-edged sarcasm. Exquisitely done.
Fundamentally it is an ideology completely founded on the most common wish-fulfillment of human beings.
"Daddy will make it all better."
Sarcasm?
What are you suggesting?
"As for "universe", I'm finding serious discussions that there are likely to be multiple universes. Maybe each one would have its own little god."
Imagine that the laws of physics are different in each of these universes. Imagine a near infinite number of universes, but not too many that support life. Then the anthropic principle (did i get that right?) explains why we are in this particular universe. For me, that explains why light travels at a certain speed, etc, which is a much better explanation than "god made it that way".
I can't wait for humanity to meet intelligent life on other worlds. I wonder if we'll nuke 'em because of their religious beliefs.
Like you were SOOOOOOO snarky and all that and SOOOOOO clever...
Seriously, it was a compliment. I haven't seen a take down like that in a long time.
The idea that atheists are cowards when they are the ones facing a cold and uncaring universe square on with nobody holding their hands is sort of hilarious.
I love how you immediately question if WE will nuke THEM.
The casual assumption that they will no doubt be wise, peaceful creatures who spend their time contemplating how to spread joy in the universe seems to suffuse your comment. But maybe I'm reading it wrong.
I'll tell you this, my initial assumption upon meeting another intelligent species in the universe will NOT be that human beings are the "bad guys."
There are wolves in the wild, and I'm sure there are wolves roaming the universe too.
Romans 8: 15-16
For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." The Spirit himself testifies with our
spirit that we are God's children.
Mark 14:36
And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.
Galatians 4:6
Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father."
"Abba Father" is the Biblical equivilant of "Daddy." It is a term or familiarity and endearment. We are to come to God like a child unto their father.
So, yes, the Bible does teach that Daddy will make it all better.
Argh, why didn't I type that! You stole my thoughts before I thought them. I guess it was God's will.
Judges 21:10-24
Numbers 31:7-18
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
2 Samuel 12:11-14
Daddy sure made it all 'better' for those women, eh?
Anybody wishing to read what I did, go here.
According to some theories, our known universe could be less than 4% of what's out there. If we can't define the universe or the exact nature of time, particles, etc., it doesn't make sense to try to define God. It makes more sense to spend that intellectual energy learning more about what's out there.
I KNOW that the Bible teaches that "Daddy will make it all better." And it's fine with me if you want to live your life with a surrogate spiritual father who will hold your hand and tuck you in at nights.
I just don't believe it. It doesn't pass the sniff test.
I was taught a long time ago that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is. And there is nothing better than the promise of eternal bliss.
So hey Kevin, tell me this. What do you think you will be doing in heaven for eternity?
And do you think you will ever think about your friends and family members back on earth who were decent, caring, moral people who just didn't buy into the whole "God" thing, and are spending their eternity in hellfire while you nibble on mana from heaven and sing praises to the "God" who put them all in hell?
How long do you think you'll last before you decide to ask God if your father, mother, wife, son, daughter, or best friend has suffered enough?
A year?
A millenium?
An eternity?
Your logic is inconsistent. If there were such a God he would by your own definition transcend your definition, or ability to define, good and evil. And old argument, of course.
But I think more significant is that it really is a very egotistical formulation. Listen:
You are judging good and evil, and indeed divinity, based on your personal analysis of what is "logically indistinguishable from fairy tales"? Do you realize how many people, as smart as you, have so characterized assertions that have turned out to actually be true, in the worlds of science and history?
This is what people mean when they say that a certain kind of purported non-believer worships only himself. That's what this formulation amounts to: If I -- the height of cognitive evolution, and utterly devoid of bias -- can't figure it out, it's not only impossible. It's -- what was the formulation again?
Du-hude!
Not so much; though I also don't disbelieve because I demand Proof.
I just don't see any reason to believe in God; it's not fear.
Since, after all, while I don't believe I'll have to "answer for it in the end", I still believe I'm obligated to do what's right - just not because of God. (Not to sidetrack into that, but rightness and moral obligation without divine sanction or enforcement go back to at least Aristotle, so that's nothing new.)
(Seriously; if it was that, having an all-powerful being that loved me personally and directly and listened to my pleas and provided unending support? That's great, sign me up. But, evidently, I lack the necessary grace to be saved. Ironic, huh?)
Even if I believed in God, fear of "answering for it" wouldn't be my motivation. I'm with Lewis' theology, in that I think that if there was a God (of the Christian variety), the only punishment for being bad is turning away from God, not fiery pits with devils and pitchforks.
(For that matter, an everlasting, omnibenevolent God seems incompatible with eternal punishment; I'd make a lousy Catholic since I find the Origenist heresy of eventual universal redemption too appealing, eg "The Master says that Satan too shall be forgiven." - or even without that, an omnibenevolent God should, one thinks, end the soul's existence when it's become a hopeless trap. I can't recall if Lewis suggested the eventual extinction, from within or without, of doomed souls; I vaguely think he did.)
--|PW|--
>> The idea that atheists are cowards when they are the ones facing a cold and uncaring universe square on with nobody holding their hands is sort of hilarious.
Hard to improve on that.
Hilarious, and, if I were a pretend psychologist, I call it "projection." (I think.)
But I'm not.
So I won't.
That would be impolite.
Dunno. Should be sweet though! I'm hoping I can trade in the house Yeshua is building for me for a starship of some sort. Oh! Maybe he's building me a starship!
Ahhh... here's the real crux of the matter. You weren't really worried about me being eternally bored, were you?
Your first mistake is that you call these people, "decent, caring, moral." Who says they are? You? So, are you saying we live by your, the immutable Sean Golden, standard? If so then you have every right to call whomever you wish "decent, caring, moral." It's your standard.
But we're talking about God's standard, aren't we? So, why don't you let Him decide who is "decent, caring, moral," okay?
The bottom line is this: Do you believe that God is all-loving, all-good, and all-just? If your answer is yes, and dispite how hard hell might seem to you now, you will have faith that the punishment fits the crime and is done in a heart of love. You may not understand it, you may not like it, but if you believe the three things I listed about God, then you will have faith that it is what must be done and that on the other side of existance you will respect God's judgement.
If you don't believe those three things about God, well, I'm just wasting my time with you. You're asking me to explain God's calculus to you when you don't even understand God's arithmetic.
If as a pretend psychologist you come up with a diagnosis of "projection" I have to wonder what a real psychologist might have to say to you about your diagnosis.
If I were a betting man I'd think they'd ask where you got your degree.
Good luck with that. If I thought that there was the tiniest chance that your theology was remotely close to being correct I'd say I wish you the best as you contemplate eternity in bliss knowing that good people are suffering eternally for the crime of not believing in fairy tales, or worse, for choosing the wrong ones to believe.
My personal opinion is that religion is some sort of mutant aberration in our neural pathways that was selected because it allowed a small number of people to control a vastly larger number of people and that gave some societies a huge survival advantage over others, and so the gene was passed on to their descendents, and now we're more or less stuck with it long after it has outlived its usefulness.
But that's just my opinion.
If you can convince me I'll get a starship too, then maybe I'll be willing to convert!
"You're asking me to explain God's calculus to you when you don't even understand God's arithmetic."
Reluctantly, I gotta give you points for that one (if it's original).
Sean Golden:
"I'll tell you this, my initial assumption upon meeting another intelligent species in the universe will NOT be that human beings are the "bad guys." "
What if their religious beliefs are that they are to conquer and enslave or annihilate the other intelligent species, because they are God's only chosen people? I'd say nuke 'em!
But in all seriousness, I'd be really worried about us giving out the coordinates of our home world, or even approaching another planet with a direct course. The thought of liberals being in charge of those decisions is another reason why I won't vote for democrats: Alien first contact policy!
It’s not that we don’t understand the arithmetic, it’s that we question the mathematical proof, as it were. I understand the argument for God’s existence. You say if God is those three things (all loving, all good, and all just) THEN his judgment should be respected.
And I’ll agree with you. IF god exists, AND he’s all three of those things, THEN I would trust his judgment. But, I’m not convinced God, at least not the Christian biblical God, is all those things.
That seems to be a common misconception that religious people have of non-religious people. That we "don't want to believe".
This is not an accurate statement. I am quite sure that I "want" to believe in a kind and loving God who is looking out for me as much as anyone "wants" to believe it. The problem for me is that "wanting" doesn't lead me to "doing." Sure it would be wonderfully comforting to believe in God, believe in Heaven and believe in eternal bliss. I don't disbelieve it because I "don't want to believe in a higher being" I disbelieve it because "wanting does not make it so."
I don't fool myself in any way about what I think about theology. I spend a lot of time contemplating the universe, theology, morality and a host of metaphysical subjects.
But I don't believe in things just because it would be nice if they were true. That's the bottom line.
Anybody remember the X files? The TV show that is?
Mulder 'wanted' to believe in aliens, but he still followed the scientific method and gathered evidence and was somewhat of a skeptic. He didn't just blindly accept things.
I want to believe in a God, because it would feel nice. It would give me comfort. But the logical part of my mind wont allow it. And I respect that part of my mind more than the other parts.
I agree with what Sean just said 100%.
I will be a little bummed if I can't get one. Heck, even if we're still spirit beings that have no need for such things to move about the cosmos I want to push buttons!
It's original. 100% pure K.D.
Sean,
And here's your fundamental problem: You refuse to even allow the possibility that there might be a God and you've setup a situation where God punishes people not for believing a lie, but believeing the wrong lie.
You've created a senerio where the right answer couldn't possibly be chosen. And, I think you've done this protect yourself.
Either it's all a fairy tale, and shouldn't be believed in, or it's simply a matter of choosing the right fairy tale.
You don't allow for the possibility that it's not a fairy tale at all.
C.S. Lewis said, "The doors of hell are locked from the inside." You've proven his point. You've chosen to not allow for the possibility that there is a God. How then could anyone show you anything that would convince you otherwise? You've already closed yourself off to that possibility.
You, sir, are locking the doors from the inside.
See, my issue is that IF God were the three things that Kevin claims he is, then this theology Kevin believes in would not exist. Just one example, the concept of eternal punishment is completely inconsistent with such a God. That's not to say that there IS no God, there surely could be a God, but if he is all-loving, all-good and all-just then people don't suffer in damnation for eternity for believing the wrong fairy tales.
Don't get me started on how such a God could create things like Ebola, or allow children to suffer from autism.
I look at this whole thing as an attempt to discuss this on the basis of scientific method. For proof, I assert that only one thing is proveable, "cogito ergo es". Beyond that, even the past tense form is unreliable (implanted memories). There's also "Do you believe that's air you're breathing?" Everything is suspect. Pushed hard enough, people can rationalize "proof" of pretty much whatever they want.
For myself, I prefer engineering method. To me, the question is whether or not my belief system is useful to me.
One example is that we now have proof that Kosher worked at the time. That is, it provided clear benefit within the broader belief that living and being healthy was a good thing.
Proving the usefulness of a particular set of beliefs would actually be possible if we agreed on metrics. We don't. For example, I strongly disagree with the "Voluntary Human Extinction Movement" on metrics. Still others believe that genocide and democide are irrelevant or even good things.
Do your beliefs work for you? If the answer is yes, there's your proof. If the answer is no, you might want to consider your definition of "works for me" and proceed in another direction.
And it's not my, nor anyone else's, job to convince you otherwise. To do so would put the burden of your soul on our shoulders and I'm not willing to carry the weight.
You've made up your mind, and for good or ill, you will be brought to account for that.
But, I will say, if God is NOT those three things, and He exists, then there's nothing anyone can do about it and we're all fraked anyway so this whole debate is pointless.
I agree completely. The ‘arithmetic’ doesn’t add up.
We're supposed to just accept the proof when part of the calculation says 1+1 = 0. When we point out the error, we're told God can do what he wants, and if he wants 1+1 to equal 0, then by God it will.
Ha! That's one's new to me. The empathetic version of Descartes?
Who says we can't agree. :)
God didn't.
See, calculus before arithmetic. You're doing it again.
No wonder you think the God of the Bible is evil. You don't understand a thing about Him or how He works.
The question is: Are you teachable? Do you want to be corrected?
Sure, it's easy to say "yes" but a teachable heart means it. I don't know if you have that heart. God only knows, and I hope you do, but I don't see it. You've already become master of the topic it seems. Nothing left to learn.
God didn't tap Moses until he was 80. I wonder how many people think they've mastered the things of God at 20?
I know I haven't!
You have exactly described "God's arithmetic" and "God's calculus" as Kevin D. used it. Basically it boils down to "it is whatever God says it is, and you are too stupid to understand it, so don't bother to try."
Frankly I want my God to have more respect for his creations.
Between the two of us, I think it is ABUNDANTLY clear who is "teachable" and who is not.
My arguments do not begin and end in the pages of a poorly translated 2,000 year old fairy tale. My arguments are not of the "God said it so it must be so" variety.
So let me ask you Kevin, how willing are you to say that your faith is completely misguided and that you are completely willing to discard it?
C'mon, lay off him. De spiritualis non est disputandem, if you'll forgive my adaptation.
I'll "lay off" him when he stops using circular reasoning to support his own ideology.
Respect is earned. Would you respect your children if they spit in your face whenever you instructed them to do something?
Why are you asking God to?
I never once used that defense. Why are you saying I did? Why are you lying?
because you say so? Not so much. But do not for a moment think I do not constantly ask questions about my faith and why it is I believe what I believe. I, no more than anyone else, want to beleive a thing simply because it was taught or handed down to me.
You seem to think that believers don't question and don't struggle. Nothing could be further from the truth. Talk to Ron Coleman and Dean Esmay for a moment. I'm constantly having conversations with them about faith and asking questions.
So, to answer your question, I am perfectly willing to abandon my faith if I find it doesn't add up. Only fool, once proven wrong, continues on their current path.
What about you, Sean? Can you do the same?
You asked how a loving God could create Ebola. I said He didn't.
A person wanting to learn, and not preach, would ask, "Where did it come from then?" But you didn't do that. You ranted.
You've shown where your heart is. You don't wish to understand the things of God, you want to stand over them in judgement.
Good luck with that.
I used Scripture once and that was toward you so unless you have a mouse in your pocket I don't know who these "people" are you're talking about.
And I used Scritpure to address your judgement of Christian theology. Kinda had to talk about Christian theology and not use Scripture.
But, please, go on and show me how you pull it off.
Ha! That's one's new to me. The empathetic version of Descartes?
Ugh. There's a lot of gibberish in my head right now. I'm finding the implications of that one to be amusing, though.
What I meant was "cogito ergo sum".
The rest of it appears to be what I meant to say.
Thank you, Arnold. I'd like to nominate this for Comment of the Year - God Category.
When you quote scripture to make or defend your argument, you are using Scripture to defend Scripture. That is, by definition, a circular argument. It should be clear to you, but I know that it is not, that if people don't believe in your fairy tales, then quoting them will not advance your argument.
Kevin, I can't begin to tell you how many times I've "abandoned my faith" because it "doesn't add up." I stopped believing in Christianity because I read the freaking Bible. It doesn't add up. Not by any "arithmetic" or "calculus" you want to condescendingly claim to know that others cannot follow.
If God did not create Ebola, then who did? And if God created the universe with full knowledge that Ebola would exist, then he is the de facto creator of it anyway. I had thought that most fundamentalists believed that only God could make living things, that Satan could only corrupt them. Are you suggesting that Ebola is not living, or are you suggesting that the creation of life is no longer the sole province of God?
As far as standing over judgment of God, you are correct. I will hold God to AT LEAST the standards that I would hold a human to, and frankly I will hold him to higher standards than that. No human being that I would respect could throw another human being into eternal damnation, so I expect God to act AT LEAST that good, and quite a bit better.
I guess I would wonder why my kids were spitting in my face if they did so Kevin, I might conclude that they have legitimate reasons for doing so.
As I said, I did not start this thread, and I only entered it because the arguments of atheists and agnostics were being sorely misrepresented, throwing up straw men to attack with abandon. I have done what I could to put a real argument up, and others have as well.
As I said before Kevin, believe what you like if it gives you comfort, but don't for a minute think that you have provided any argument or support for what you believe that has advanced your position one millimeter. Posting scripture to support scripture is a fool's errand.
Next to the death peantly the most severe form of punishment our government can place upon a person is a lifetime in solitary confinement.
Our government does that.
Gonna petition the government to change that? What about lifetime imprsionment? Surely something one did at 18 shouldn't condemn them to life in a cell, right? Gonna get them to change that?
You're perfectly fine with your own government inflicting the most severe punuishments it can on its own citizens.
God simply operates on a whole different level.
And if they didn't? If they simply didn't want to obey you because they just didn't want to? Still gonna respect them?
Asked and answered. You've already created a senerio where I couldn't give you an answer you might possibly accept.
Again, you don't want to learn. So, you'll forgive me if I don't take your "circular reasoning" criticism to heart. But if there is a speck in my eye... you might want to get that plank of yours looked at.
Discussion out of interest and a desire for information is one thing. Saying that we "choose not to believe" out of fear, and calling us cowards incapable of critical thinking is boorish.
Remember: principled discussion generates light, not heat.
Isn't heat a byproduct of light?
Most of the heat we feel is the direct result of light, and most of the light we see is the direct result of heat.
On a lighter note, please link; this is great stuff.
(100 Dean's world points to Willow and Aziz)
This is the most bizarre statement yet. First, you’re comparing apples and Oranges. Sean was commenting on God’s eternal damnation, not the penal system. They are not the same thing. Life in prison, and eternal damnation aren’t even in the same ballpark.
Also, we have a say in the penal system (at least in the US). We can petition to change laws, we can opt out by moving to Canada, we can elect different legislatures. There is no such control with God. God makes the rules, makes the determination, and makes the punishment.
Again, apples and oranges. Sure, rules I lay down for my 1 year old daughter might seem arbitrary (don’t eat the lint from the carpet). However, eventually, you can discuss the rules and reason with them. It’s not an arbitrary (in my view) set of rules set forth by some invisible authority that we’re not allowed to be question, or change.
Well, which is it? Asked and Answered (if so, I missed it), or not answerable. I think it’s a valid question. If God is those three things, then why, for example, does he allow earthquakes to kill people? Are they guilty people?
As internet discussion venues go, this site is pretty high on both diversity of opinion and politeness, which is a rarity. I've tried to increase the politeness, as you are now, but it may be gilding the lily.
Rosemary like to provoke discussion. Emphasis on the provoke. I've suspect that some people who like a certain amout of edginess in their internet writing find me to be a prudish nag when I go on about politeness.
Yours,
Wince
heat is not a byproduct of light. heat is a byproduct of energy absorption.
also,
are you not your brother's keeper?
Dishman,
they are not inextricably linked.
Your enforcement by persuasion of politeness, is a vital resource in the DW community.
I give you a 100 Dean's world points.(tounge in cheek)
More seriously, Thank you.
Naftali
Now, I have to take it back. Thanks for restoring my faith in Dean's comment section!
I don't need 'em anymore. Mrs. Wince says we have enough kids.
Yours,
Wince
Rosemary:
I take this topic very seriously.
Please believe me when I say that I would love nothing more than to believe in an all-knowing and loving God. It would be extremely comforting to know that when my loved ones die, they aren't being tossed into oblivion. It would be BEYOND a dream to have complete faith in the knowledge that when I die, my existence will not end.
Like Mulder, I WANT TO BELIEVE.
But I can't. That isn't cowardice, it's a simple fact. I'm not an evil person, and I don't act poorly because I don't believe God is looking. I was raised by good, moral people in a civilized society and act accordingly.
All my life (still a brief 24 years) I have searched for this evidence. I've investigated religion, reincarnation, paranormal events, ghosts, near-death experiences, even things as bizarre as "quantum immortality." I've tried to find the most scientifically reliable methods to test these beliefs.
Yet in all this time, there has been no concrete proof of anything beyond this physical reality. There have been some tantalizing tidbits, but usually they are easily questioned, if not completely disproven.
Rosemary, please know that this is not easy for me. In fact (and I'm not ashamed to admit this) it is intensely frightening. The knowledge that one day I will cease to exist (whether it be tomorrow or in 100 years) is horrific, in the true sense of the word. At times, I've found myself overcome with anxiety about it and have had to force my mind onto more mundane subjects.
Yet, with all this, I simply CANNOT force myself to believe in God or any sort of theism. For me, it is pure mumbo-jumbo! You're asking me to believe in unicorns, leprechauns, and the tooth fairy without any proof. How am I to do that? I can't shut down that part of my mind.
We don't know how or why the universe (or, perhaps, the multiverse) began. But if there is something beyond our physical reality, I require proof. Not from God, but from science. And if God has hidden it from us so that we can spend our lives worrying about what comes after death, then he's a complete asshole who shows no love for his sentient creations.
Hey, how'd I get dragged into all of this?
Boy, not me. I'm looking forward to it.
I don't feel a need to rush it, but I can hardly wait to do the things that now I can only sorta vaguely suspect and dream about.
I was talking about oblivion (and not the excellent video game).
In a world of free will beings have optional choices at the assent of their will, if you wish, one of the parties isn't obligated to show up, because one of the other parties demands proof.
On the other hand, science owes you nothing.
I'm not sure whether your science is the asshole here or not, but you seem to imply someone else is.
There is an eastern religious school that claims life is uncertain and death is certain and that one ought to deal with it as best one can while uncertain.
If that helps fine, if not simply ignore my comment.
To refuse to do so because you need to take his existence on "faith" is so ridiculously juvenile as to be laughable.
At least as I see it.
So can we assume, science isn't your problem ?
I appreciate the thoughtful response to post, uncivil as it was. %-)
Your comments reminded me of a joke I've heard hundreds of times but I always forget to use it. I will now.
God gives us proof of his existence everyday, you have to be willing to learn to read them. For example, a few weeks back I was feeling stressed out, miserable and alone. I prayed to God that I would find some small measure of peace. 10 minutes later, my friend Carol called me. I hadn't heard from her in many months. She said that she was thinking of me and wanted to see how I was. I unburdened myself to my friend and soon I was laughing. I hadn't laughed like that in months. I felt such relief. My problems didn't miraculously go away but I did get some clarity and some peace.
There have been no indicators, the gentleman is actually interested in genuine dialogue. Any questions/doubts/uncertainties are apparently purely rhetorical.
I'll believe the "I sent two boats and a helicopter" when God admits that the people piloting the boats and helicopter had their own free will overruled so that God's own will took over, otherwise I'll give credit to the human beings in those rescue ships, not God.
He can't have it both ways. He can't say the rescuers acted of their own free will AND that he sent them.
You make the call, which was it? Did he violate their free will, or do we give them credit instead of God?
I'm through with you and your insulting and condescending "arguments" which are about as effective and rational as a toddler trying to explain calculus.
Why you think you are some sort of Christian Apologist is a mystery to me. I've encountered far better debaters in Mall parking lots.
I am an atheist, or at least agnostic, but not by my own "choice," as you said.
Personally, I will continue respecting religion and envying those people who have faith. I am certainly not the sort of atheist religious people need worry about. I don't hold myself above anybody, I don't consider myself a "bright" or anything ludicrous like that. I'm just a man who -- like many others -- is forced to face the sad and cold facts of the universe as they are. I can only hope that future medical technology might give me the chance to live a very long life.
I know you were.
As for me I don't sweat oblivion, any more than I sweat the sweat death of the universe.
Look kid, you're 24 years old. That ain't nothing to be ashamed of, but it ain't exactly anything to make yourself assume you know anything either.
The universe is a big place. Time is long.
You've yet to encounter, or discover, or know many of the things you will know at 70, or 60, or 50, or 40, or even 30 for that matter, assuming you live another day. And assuming you don't you might still be in for a surprise or two.
You don't see neutrinos either, or walk down the street and look at buildings, or even the ladies, with x-ray eyes, now do ya?
There are things you just can't perceive, things no man can perceive, things that will be discovered tomorrow that nobody knows about right now. Things that might never be discovered by men (The universe is a helluvah big place after all, do ya really think there is no corner of it hidden from man?) Yet still they are real enough. Just not perceptible. It will always be that way because you are a man (in the general sense of the term - to ell you the truth, with names nowadays I'm never really sure if a fella is or is not a fella, or a gal is or is not a gal). If you could perceive everything, have your satisfactory evidence of everything, both of what is, was, and what is yet to be discovered and understood you'd be God, not a man.
As for worship, well I don't know what you think that means, but well, it's possible at 24 you know, to think a thing is one thing, and over time discover it might be not quite what you thought, or even completely different than what ya thought, or maybe a little bit like you thought, and yet not so much.
I guess what I'm saying is 24 is hardly the point from which to judge the inherent possibilities of the universe, (as a matter of fact there is no point from which man is able to judge the possibilities of it all, we just don't have those kinda physical, sensory, mental, or psychological capabilities, we're just not that big or that smart, and there is no vantage point by which we see everything), that doubt is no sin in itself (all the great religious figures have been full of it, from the Prophets to the Apostles to the Saints, and from everything about whether God exists to whether he gives a crap about anyone) but then again it is just a state of looking at the world, nothing necessarily true in and of itself and so you're not eternally condemned to it unless you really insist you want be. And if God really wants ya, he'll come looking anyway. And it'll be pretty hard to hide. You know sometimes we're sure we doubt the other fella and with a little time and distance we discover that what we were really doubting was how sure we were that we could be sure about the other fella doubting us.
So relax a little.
I can't tell ya what you're gonna be, what you're gonna be like, or how things are gonna go for ya in the future, but I can tell ya this.
You're young. Very young. And like most young people you're full of doubt, and fears, and certain that you know a lot more than you really do and certain that you're already sure of a lot more than it is actually possible to know about what is possible.
Then again maybe knowing ain't everything in comparison to some other things.
Love can sneak through a lot of obstacles, even when we aren't sure anything at all is happening, and things you never expected can occur when you're certain nobody is there.
You know, and I know you're too young to know this yet, but in time you will, the very best infiltrators are standing right beside you before you ever realize someone else even came into the room.
God has been at his job a long time kid.
A long, long, long time.
You haven't. And neither has anyone else either, really. By comparison.
We get a few years, and we see through a glass darkly.
But that's fine, we're not the only eyes in the hunt. And some eyes see all kindsa things that we can only dream of.
If he loves ya, and he does, he'll be there before you ever really see Him.
And then it'll all be okay.
It'll all be okay.
You weren't uncivil, I was accused of being uncivil. Read the early comments. I was referring to myself.
I guess we'll see what happens. :)
That was a wonderful comment you made. And I agree with the spirit of it.
However, consider this: You at 24 believe in God, somewhat, but have doubts. 10 years later you've grown, and your faith is stronger.
Now imaging me thinking the same that Jesse did at his age. Then 10 years later being even more certain in the non-existence of the major Gods. Not necessarily the non-existence of any god, but still in serious doubt of it.
I used to wish I could be hypnotized. I think it's called 'existential depression.'
Jesse:
What works for me is to acknowledge the survival instinct is the strongest of all instincts. That's what curses us. When those thoughts about 85 years of existence pop in your head, say to yourself 'so what', and imagine a solider going into battle knowing full well he may not live through it. It's not that he doesn't care, but instead he focuses on his mission and doesn't get distracted. Live life like that. You will only live so long, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. So say 'so fu*king what!' and move on.
From this you should have the motivation to live life to its fullest. Be sure to do so.
Religious folks can live their lives knowing heaven awaits them. I'm sure it feels good. No, WONDERFUL!
But knowing you're living your life to the fullest can also feel wonderful, especially if you accept that we're not in total control. Religious folks accept that, so why can't we?
I dream of a high resolution brain-scanner being operational before I die. And getting scanned by it, even if it kills me. The future generations can get a biological simulator up and running and 'restore my image' to it. Heck, I'll be the beta tester. Read the book "The first immortal". Not the best in the world, but worth the time. I enjoyed it.
BTW: I'm still working on the 'live my life to the fullest' part... :-)
And of course, your last paragraph is pretty much you being a jerk. Yes yes, we don't believe in your particular ideology because we're selfish and cowardly. Right. We're really supposed to take an amateur psychoanalysis borne out of hostility seriously?
I do have to answer for everything I say and do and don't say and don't do: everything has consequences, everything affects other people. The fact that I have no reason to believe that there is anything in "the end" means I have to get things right as best I can now, while I still can.
The idea that one cannot be moral without some sort of implied threat in an afterlife is simply ridiculous.
I think you are probably projecting here. If you can't provide sensible evidence, fine. No one said you had to convince me. But attacking the very notion of objective proof, evidence, reasons to believe something is a waste of time. It's knocking over the chessboard mid-game as soon as you realize things aren't going your way.
There aren't different standards of evidence for different people. If an argument is lousy, it's lousy. Complaining that others just don't want to admit that you are right is silly and pointless: anyone can make such accusations at anyone, and they have precisely no merit. They still don't demonstrate that anything you are saying is useful or true.
I did it! I guess.
Welcome Jack!
:^)
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.