John_Mann

Joined

• started 11 topics
• posted 1,225 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by John_Mann

• 
  74

  Was/Is Religion Useful Even if it isn't True?

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in his book "the righteous mind" jonathan haidt proposes that religion served - and continues to serve an important role in bringing about cohesion within non-kin groups.. to put it very briefly haidt advocates a form of group selection but only insofar as it applies to humans.

  our unique brains have made it possible for us to cooperate in groups in ways that are impossible for all non-human species.

  despite their intelligence you will never see two chimps helping each other to carry the same log or one chimp pulling down a branch while the other removes the fruit.. his description is that humans are 90% chimp and 10% bee.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Our unique brains have made it possible for us to cooperate in groups in ways that are impossible for all non-human species.

  Our consciousness is unique but not our brains. Dolphins and whales have much more massive and sophisticated brains than humans.

  If consciousness is a by-product of brain, dolphins would have super consciousness.

  Why dolphins don't have at least a similar human intelligence?

  They are totally isolated from humans too. They could developed intelligence without human competition.

  How do you explain that?
  
  
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  that means we are back to a God that isn't all-knowing and all-powerful. Because if he were those things then he would have been capable of "introducing consciousness" to humankind without screwing it up.

  This full process was meant to be a two way deal. The first souled humans screwed up. Protestants affirm the human nature was totally broken (total depravity) and Catholics say the human nature was not totally broken.

  This is not what I envisioned but this is the mainstream Christian view. The fundamentalist view of Genesis is a very recent approach in history.

  Atheists here seems only to know the JW version of Christianity.
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  If eternal heaven is the greater good then is human existence on a hostile earth some kind of experiment? game? entertainment for God?

  Humans came to existence by natural laws (evolution).

  They developed a very sophisticated mind but they were not conscious (That's why Adam and Eve didn't knew about good and bad). They were just like the bicameral men proposed by Julian Jaynes.

  In a very recent point in history (in Mesopotamia) God elevated human nature by giving an immortal soul to a couple of "bicameral" humans (Adam and Eve). This soul enables humans to have consciousness.

  This process of unification between physical and spiritual nature in humans was interrupted by this couple someway somehow.

  So the full double (physical + spiritual) human nature was broken.

  This broken human nature are being repaired in a masterplan since then and will be complete in the Last Judgment.
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  But if natural evil is someway somehow necessary to accomplish a greater good like eternal heaven?

  We see a lot of examples of necessary evil is needed to get a greater good. Like medical procedures.

  We also must consider the very nature of God is the source of necessary laws that must be applied to all possible worlds.
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Why?
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  But if he is exists then by his own definition of love he is unloving.

  Cofty, try to suspend the property of existence in our conversation about God.

  Pretend we are making a fictional character. But we want a logically consistent character with our known universe.

  In this scenario do you think is impossible to build an all-loving and all-powerful being with the existence of natural evil?
  
  
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Or maybe God is constrained by certain things.

  He is. He is only constrained by His nature. That's why the God's nature (Godhead) is a complete mystery.
  

  He can't lie and He can't be evil.
  
  
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Do materialists really believe in "natural evil", or what do you mean by it? If there is no God or purpose behind things, isn't it a case of "natural indifference" rather than evil? If there is no God, what is the use of a concept such as "natural evil"?

  In an atheist perspective why humans perceive evil at all? No other species perceive evil.

  There's no evolutionary traces in other species leading to the development of human perception of moral and natural evil.
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  He's bound by His nature. From His nature comes natural or necessary truths. God cannot lie for instance.

  The link makes a distinction between a world ruled by natural laws or a world ruled by miracle.

  Possibly natural evil must be necessary and unavoidable to the existence of free-will. But the ultimate goal is a greater good.
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/probevil.html