A Christian question, but applies to all thinking Christian too!

by free2beme 100 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  And your beliefs are based on faith/assumptions as much as any other set of religious beliefs.

  neon,

  i don't think this is a fair analysis. surely a non-belief in god(s) contain fewer assumtions about nature and the universe, than a faith system that holds a belief in deity for which they have no proof?

  remember that non-belief is most often characterized as a lack of belief in god(s) or the supernatural. to say that someone with a lack of a belief holds as many assumtions as one with a belief or positive assertion, is simply not logical.
• 

  LittleToe

  hmike:

  FAR older, but being British we probably get different TV programs. Was I right? Is it TV?

  Tetra:

  i also am perplexed as to why he would behave in such a way.

  I haven't the faintest idea, but given that I experienced a "power encounter" myself just four years ago, surely you see that I was using hyperbole?

  i can think of dozens of ways that he could have done things so much better regarding letting the world know about him, if he is indeed omnimax.

  And so now you claim to more know than "God", in that you'd set about things in a better way? Man, that's so conceited

  if he isn't omnimax, why would he deserve to be worshiped, or even revered?

  Have you ever walked into a room and met someone that you knew nothing about but who was so charismatic and approachable that you just couldn't help having an immediate bond with them? Subconsciously maybe you respected and enjoyed the company of the person and perhaps retained a real desire to get to know them better?

  If you were to later find out that they were heir-apparent, and that many other people held the same impression that you did, and this person wanted YOU to have a role in government...

  ...I could keep on expanding on this analogy, but that would frankly be insulting to your intelligence and imagination, and that's not my aim. Needless to say, some of what I'm describing are personal events. When people say that they'd "give God a piece of their mind" I just smile, nod, and think "just you wait till ya meet Him, and see if yer so smart"
• 

  NeonMadman

  I respect the Witness resolve in life now and do not see standing up for what you believe in as negative. We all should, right or wrong. It's your belief system and if you do not belief in it enough to push your thoughts, then your weak and I am not weak.

  I agree with that statement as written. What I do not agree with is that 'standing up for what you believe' includes shutting out all viewpoints that disagree with what you already believe. I'm not sure what you mean by "the Witness resolve in life," but if by that you mean their refusal to consider opposing viewpoints, then I would disagree on that point, for I do not respect such a position.

  How can you not be concerned from a belief and faith standpoint that your might be in a religion that is nothing more then another myth based religion? Sorry if that is insulting, but that is the possible out come of knowing that the two religions are coming from the same origin.

  I don't find it insulting, and please don't be insulted when I ask you if you think that you are the first person who ever brought up the possibility? This idea has gotten wide circulation in recent years. I recognize that there are similarities, and I also recognize that many times the similarities are presented in such a way as to minimize the very great differences that also exist. It's like the Watchtower's contention that because the pagans had triads of gods, that proves that the Trinity is pagan. It does not follow that because there are false triads there can be no true Trinity. When examined in more detail, the triads of gods in pagan religions are found to be very unlike the Christian conception of the Trinity.

  I bolded the word the in your above comment, because I believe it is incorrect. That is A possible outcome of that knowledge, not the only one, if such knowledge were indeed proven. However, your statement contains even another unproven assumption. You assume that, because similarities can be shown between pagan and Christian teachings, the two must have a common origin. That does not necessarily follow. Similar stories can and do arise in different cultures independently. When all of what you assume is removed from the discussion, we are left with no problem at all for the Christian.

  I have to disagree with you though on saying that my view on Christianity is to hard line with the idea of reward and punishment. Everytime I meet someone who says that and I let them discuss further and build up a trust with them, it ends up that I find out that they do indeed feel the way I mentioned. They just did not want to come across to hard line or harsh in the begining and scare me away.

  I didn't say that your view on Christianity was too hard line; I said it was prejudicial, and I stand by my statement. You are pigeonholing all Christians on the basis of one teaching, as gathered from your own limited and anecdotal experience. Somehow, that does not appeal to me as a fair way to evaluate one third of the world's population. If you evaluated a racial group in a similar fashion, no one here would hesitate to call you a bigot.

  The essence of "hell" in Christianity is separation from God. Whether it involves flames of any sort is widely disputed. Some Christians believe, as do JW's, that hell is eternal annihilation. Others believe it is simply an eternal life apart from any contact with God or His provisions. Some do believe in hellfire. And others, as I have pointed out, believe that everyone will ultimately redeemed. Whatever the teaching about hell, the point is not that Christians want to send you there for disagreeing with them, but that we would like to see you avoid it. Even the JW's will counsel you to find out what a person believes before judging him based on his religious affiliation. Have you really not even learned that lesson?
• 

  NeonMadman

  tetrapod:

  surely a non-belief in god(s) contain fewer assumtions about nature and the universe, than a faith system that holds a belief in deity for which they have no proof?

  I'm not so sure about that. If there is no intelligent designer of any sort, no purposeful guiding force, then we are left with two possibilities, as I see it. One is that everything popped into existence from nothing and started doing stuff for absolutely no reason, which seems absurd to me. The other possibility is that matter and energy are themselves eternal, which seems only slightly less absurd. But even given that possibility, what reason could there possibly be for matter and energy to start interacting in such a way as to create a universe such as we see around us? I see none, and any that you could propose would be easily as speculative as the possibility of an intelligent Creator.

  Granted, there are all sorts of scenarios we could imagine, but there would be as little physical evidence for any of them as there is for the existence of God. If, however, we presuppose the existence of an all-powerful, intelligent Designer, it becomes immediately obvious that we could not know such a being unless he revealed himself to us. And that is precisely what Christians believe has happened - God has revealed Himself in the Person of His Son. You may think that's absurd, but I submit that it is no more based upon faith and assumption than any of the other scenarios I proposed.
• 

  hmike

  LittleToe,

  Oh God! is a movie made back in the 70s. God (played by George Burns) reveals himself to a store clerk (played by John Denver) and directs him to tell the world that he is alive and well and cares about man. It takes a sometimes-humorous, sometimes-serious look at what would happen if God appeared to someone, and how that person would be perceived by others. Most are skeptical, and the religious leaders are upset that they weren't chosen for the manifestation. In the end, God clearly demonstrates some of his powers in a courtroom full of people, yet the judge refuses to accept that God had really appeared. I think there were two sequels to this movie.

  i can think of dozens of ways that he could have done things so much better regarding letting the world know about him, if he is indeed omnimax. if he isn't omnimax, why would he deserve to be worshiped, or even revered?

  I'd like to comment on this also. One of the objections I commonly hear and read is along the lines of, "If God wanted the world to believe he exists, why doesn't he just open up the skies and clearly reveal himself?"

  If the God of the Bible really exists as He is described, then He is certainly capable of such an act. I would submit, however, that God is not after quantity when it comes to those who will accept him. I know that 1 Tim. 2:4 states that God "wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth," but I see problems with this universal revelation.

  First, to require God to perform this in order to believe Him is putting acceptance of Him on OUR terms. From what the Bible teaches, we are clearly in no position to dictate terms. He has the power, not us. To me, this seems like a situation where a person finds someone drowning and wants to save him, and the person drowning says, "I will accept your offer IF..."

  Second, it is not as if God were some ancient military commander going out to recruit troops because he needs them to win the battle. This God is self-sufficient--He doesn't NEED us to sustain Him. We are not doing Him a favor by accepting Him--He is the one doing us a favor. So, again, how can we dictate terms?

  Finally, and most critically, God has determined, for whatever reason, that people who come to Him must do it by faith--that is, by believing that He has said something and will bring that to pass. That's how it's always been, even in the OT. Sometimes people got direct communication from God, but mostly the communication was relayed by annointed messengers--prophets and apostles. People were expected to believe the messages of these representatives just as if it came from God Himself directly. Our Bible is a collection of these communications in written form, and that is what we have, and, perhaps with few exceptions, that is all we have. This is the way He has given us. If God were to appear before all of us, it would no longer require faith--we would know. Faith is a risk, sure, but it's not blind faith--the claims of the Bible can be supported. Of course, even if God did reveal Himself openly and unmistakeably, wouldn't there still be people who would not accept it--claiming it was an illusion, a trick, or some kind of natural phenomenon?

  I realize this opens up the issue of false prophets and interpretations, but there are guidelines for exercising discernment. I just want to make the point that it is faith--and faith properly directed--that this God of the Bible is asking for. When He finally does reveal Himself openly, it will be too late to choose because it will no longer be a matter of faith.

  Maybe it's because having faith requires a condition of the heart and mind that He looks for. To be convinced through sensory input doesn't necessarily inspire devotion: "I guess I have to accept it--I have no choice, but I don't like it." I'm not saying it's this way for every skeptic; some would really like to believe, and just need a little confirmation. Sometimes, God does accomodate these desires, but one has to be able to recognize it when it comes.
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  LT,

  surely you see that I was using hyperbole?

  hyperbole in a discussion about a power encounter with a spirit creature??! no!

  he he, sorry, i just had to. but yes, i see the point. i should try refraining from jumping on every piece of hyperbole.

  And so now you claim to more know than "God", in that you'd set about things in a better way? ; Man, that's so conceited

  HA HA! LOL! well, surely we see very differently on this. but yes. i do not just claim to know better than God, i do know better than God, because i am a God. i know i know, very conceited, to you. but until i come across compelling evidence for his existence, my statement is a non-starter, let alone conceited.

  When people say that they'd "give God a piece of their mind" I just smile, nod, and think "just you wait till ya meet Him, and see if yer so smart"

  he he, yes. and something tells me that if i met Him, i would be able to run circles around him until he smote me dead. i guess time will tell.

  neon,

  One is that everything popped into existence from nothing and started doing stuff for absolutely no reason, which seems absurd to me.

  still, it contains fewer assumptions, and is therefore less absurd (by degree) than trying to explain how an amazing intelligent designer came into existence from nothing.

  what reason could there possibly be for matter and energy to start interacting in such a way as to create a universe such as we see around us? I see none,

  of course, there need not be a reason, per se. why should there be? nature is not good or evil, only indifferent. and personal incredulity does not really help anyone in trying to determine the "how" question & answer. just because you, or I cannot see a "reason" for something, or "intelligence" in something, or "purpose" in something, does not mean that the something did not occur.

  and any that you could propose would be easily as speculative as the possibility of an intelligent Creator.

  again, it is one degree less speculative since it does not include a magic weilding deity.

  but there would be as little physical evidence for any of them as there is for the existence of God.

  but, indeed there is much physical evidence for the physical universe, is there not?

  And that is precisely what Christians believe has happened - God has revealed Himself in the Person of His Son. You may think that's absurd, but I submit that it is no more based upon faith and assumption than any of the other scenarios I proposed.

  yes, i know what christians, and other faiths as well, propose on the subject.

  however, it is simply not true that:

  • a lack of belief requires as many assumptions or ANY faith at all.
  • that positive scientific evidence and data as described by the theory of evolution by natural cumulative selection, inherently contains as many assumptions as intelligent design. again, the designer (and her origin) must be shown to exist before she is no longer considered an assumption of faith.
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  hmike,

  i find it hard to believe that an intelligent God would require anything even remotely like faith after:

  • the way he "created" us, with our ability for critical thought.
  • and all the shite we have been through as a species.
  • ...and that my uretha runs right through the middle of my bloody prostate gland.

  Faith is a risk, sure, but it's not blind faith--the claims of the Bible can be supported.

  really? i have looked for secular support in archaeology, anthropology, history, and found none. perhaps i have not looked in the right places, or i dare say, looked hard enough?

  P.S. - i love that movie.
• 

  NeonMadman

  still, it contains fewer assumptions, and is therefore less absurd (by degree) than trying to explain how an amazing intelligent designer came into existence from nothing.

  
  

  
  Except that, as you know, that is not what we propose. The designer did not come into existence, but is eternal by nature. Which reason would tell us that something must be. At least presupposing an eternal entity that is intelligent provides a reason for the universe to exist and change. Presupposing the eternity of inert matter still leaves us with the question of why that matter started to do anything at all.

  just because you, or I cannot see a "reason" for something, or "intelligence" in something, or "purpose" in something, does not mean that the something did not occur.

  Agreed; but it seems to me that the burden then is yours to explain reasonably what did happen before you reject out of hand my explanation. And if I can't make faith based assumptions, neither can you.

  again, it is one degree less speculative since it does not include a magic weilding deity.

  but, indeed there is much physical evidence for the physical universe, is there not?

  I'm not exactly sure how degrees of speculation are calculated. Each of us would postulate an origin to the universe that cannot be substantiated by physical evidence (except, of course, that the universe is here and therefore must have had an origin). The physical evidence of the universe itself proves only that it had an origin (some would argue that it doesn't even prove that). Any theory we advance to fill in the blanks about what that origin was is speculation, no matter how reasonable it may seem to us.

  however, it is simply not true that:

  • a lack of belief requires as many assumptions or ANY faith at all.

  No, I suppose it would require no assumptions whatsoever to simply throw up your hands and say, "I don't know where everything came from." But if you propose that the universe must have had a naturalistic origin and could not have had a supernatural origin, it seems to me that you are dipping into the speculative well.

  that positive scientific evidence and data as described by the theory of evolution by natural cumulative selection, inherently contains as many assumptions as intelligent design.

  I should point out that what I'm talking about here is the origin of the universe, not biological evolution. I came to the conclusion some time ago that I had better subjects to explore than that of the usual creation/evolution debates, and that Genesis works every bit as well as allegory as it does if taken literally, without significant impact on the faith of Christianity. Someday, I may get around to a serious consideration of the subject, but, frankly, biology has never been my strong suit among the sciences.

  the designer (and her origin) must be shown to exist before she is no longer considered an assumption of faith.

  I don't think I ever said that the designer was anything other than an assumption of faith. I merely posited that a naturalistic view of the origin of the universe is also based on faith (i.e., speculation). You have characterized such a view as 'non-belief,' but in presupposing such a view, you are actually making a positive statement about the origin of the universe, which you presumably believe and think that others should, too. So 'non-belief' is not really an accurate description of your position, except to the extent that believing in position A on any subject requires non-belief in contradictory position B. Belief in A is still belief.
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  okay neon,

  i think i see what you are saying. it boils down, incidentally, to what you first started with (my fault):

  I merely posited that a naturalistic view of the origin of the universe is also based on faith (i.e., speculation).

  and i agree, that i cannot know any better than anyone else how the universe came into existence, therefore speculation is my game, as is yours. of course, to me, faith is the "F" word, so pardon my not wanting to be associated with it. YES, we cannot not know with 100% certainty origins.

  my point, however, is really of the ability to determine probabilities. in nature and the universe, we can show with science that the large majority of processes and systems are running naturally. if they are running naturally, and we don't see god meddling in the processes and systems (ie: evolution), then is it not safe to say that the origins of those processes were also natural? of COURSE we cannot not know 100% for sure, but does the probability not seem to fall on the side of naturalism when viewed in this context? i mean, as we learn more and more about nature and universe, we find less and less of a space for god. so the logical extrapolation (and speculation, as you would note) is that the origin itself is also natural.

  also, i could not conclusively rule out the possibility that we are the science experiment of a quantum conscious alien race. in which case, they would be God, AND natural catalysts. but there is not much evidence for them either, so the probability seems to fall again on the side of observable naturalism. this basically means: don't extrapolate more than you absolutely have to in order to determine the highest probability of reality.

  some other thoughts:

  The designer did not come into existence, but is eternal by nature.

  it would seem to me that the number of assumptions required to explain the origin of a creator would be a set amount. however, the number required to explain how he could be infinite, would also be infinite. parsimony doesn't like that very much, and as a result, really does not help your argument.

  but it seems to me that the burden then is yours to explain reasonably what did happen before you reject out of hand my explanation. And if I can't make faith based assumptions, neither can you.

  of course. again however, this is really about probabilities of reality, or truth. you are right with what you say about speculation, and us being on equal footing there. do you not agree, then, that probabilities based on parsimony should really be used in a discussion like this? and if so, would not the argument that contains the fewest assumptions be the one that is most likely to have occurred?

  But if you propose that the universe must have had a naturalistic origin and could not have had a supernatural origin, it seems to me that you are dipping into the speculative well.

  oh yes, indeed. it's just that my speculative hypothesis has fewer assumptions than yours, since i have a lack of a god to explain, which would equal fewer assumptions no matter what post "creation" sequence we did agree upon.

  You have characterized such a view as 'non-belief,' but in presupposing such a view, you are actually making a positive statement about the origin of the universe, which you presumably believe and think that others should, too. So 'non-belief' is not really an accurate description of your position, except to the extent that believing in position A on any subject requires non-belief in contradictory position B. Belief in A is still belief.

  this is where your argument becomes false, i'm afraid. presupposition is distinguished from implication and entailment. your description of my argument here, is actually entailment. in order for this to be true:

  except to the extent that believing in position A on any subject requires non-belief in contradictory position B

  this has to be true:

  Belief in A is still belief.

  and yet it is not. a lack of belief is NOT belief. it is exactly what it describes itself as: a lack of belief. you assume that a lack of belief is a type of belief, or a positive position. it is like trying to explain the number zero by comparing it to another number, when zero does not exist in the first place. it's just a place holder. and so is lack of belief.

  this is a lack of belief in god, of course. that is why any argument that comes after the word god, i reject until god can be proven to exist. ergo my reason for thinking, quite rationally, that the probability factor favours a natural origin over a super-natural one. so i am not really required to provide proof for natural origins, since it should be assumed that it was natural... until it can be shown to be otherwise.

  BTW, it's been enjoyable debating with you,

  TS
• 

  NeonMadman

  of COURSE we cannot not know 100% for sure, but does the probability not seem to fall on the side of naturalism when viewed in this context? i mean, as we learn more and more about nature and universe, we find less and less of a space for god. so the logical extrapolation (and speculation, as you would note) is that the origin itself is also natural.

  I certainly understand your thinking the way you do. There have even been times in my life when I might have agreed with that line of thought. But I keep coming back to the ultimate beginning of things and thinking that there must have been something, some catalyst, that got things rolling. As long as we assume the catalyst to be natural, we have only moved the marker back a bit further (i.e., what was the origin of the catalyst?). Further, when we reach the final beginning (a bit of an oxymoron there), there is no reason for things actually to begin. Presupposing an eternal creator resolves all those issues, and, in my mind at least, requires fewer assumptions than a purely naturalistic explanation.

  it would seem to me that the number of assumptions required to explain the origin of a creator would be a set amount. ; however, the number required to explain how he could be infinite, would also be infinite

  Would the same argument not also be true of an eternally existing universe, in which matter and energy interact without cause or reason?

  lack of belief is NOT belief. ; it is exactly what it describes itself as: a lack of belief. ; you assume that a lack of belief is a type of belief, or a positive position

  Granted; but you do not stop at a lack of belief. Lack of belief would simply involve saying, "I don't know." That's why I can understand a person being an agnostic, but not an atheist. One who is agnostic at least allows that there might be a God, but claims not to know whether that is so (harder line agnostics go a bit further and claim that it is impossible to know, which I can also understand). But an atheist is not simply embracing non-belief. He is making a positive statement that no God exists. It seems to me that, in order to know that in a positive way, the atheist would have to be aware of everything that exists within and without the universe, i.e., omniscient, omnipresent, etc...and you know what that would make him... It seems to me that in positively advocating a naturalistic origin to the universe, you are going beyone simple non-belief and making a statement of what you believe (note my use of the word) to be fact.

  BTW, it's been enjoyable debating with you,

  And mutually so. Maybe one day we'll continue this at an apostofest, though if your location is correct as shown, I doubt you'll be at the upcoming one in New Hampshire.