| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> Okay, that's interesting to me that you would acknowledge a resistance the • idea
> of the existence of a Creator. Taken all the way to the beginning, one needs
> to agree on *some* starting point. Either you believe it all just started • from
> nothing, or a Creator (whose origin is inexplicable) started it all. Seems to
> me that both require the same leap of faith, and are equal. You just choose;
> neither one is any more plausible than the other. Both by definition are the
> starting point to me.
The existence of a creator, to me, implies that he's still hanging around.
Since there is no evidence to support that, and it seems like there would have
to be if He were really there, I choose to go with spontaneous order.
> > A serious start would be to demonstrate _any_ kind of paranormal experience
> > that didn't have a simpler (by my reckoning) alternative explanation. I
> > currently see no evidence of ghosts, spirits, witchcraft, magic, dieties,
> > ESP, etc. If any of these things were demonstrated to me, it would (I think)
> > open a chink in my reasoning for any of the others.
>
> I don't know about the other things you listed, but aren't some
> examples of ESP actually documented?
Only fraudulently.
> But again I caution-- maybe the ability to demostrate such things would be
> possible, but they wouldn't necessarily point to the existence of a God. • Being
> a good skeptic, you would want more proof, and all of the sudden you are down
> the road to trying to *prove* the existence of God, which is completely a
> faith-based issue.
Well, maybe. But if there were _some_ evidence we would at least have a
discussion. Since there isn't _any_ credible evidence to which I have been
exposed, it's hard to discuss it.
Truthfully, I try not to get into this discussion any more because to me it
seems clear that your beliefs are the result of deep programming and childhood
trauma. Only the right combination of luck, education, and intelligence (it
seems) helps people to break their indoctrination. Since I believ that a
fairly significant wrong was done to you, I feel sorry for you (much as I
expect -- as a good Christian, you feel sorry for me :-). But for me to
express feeling sorry for you is condescending. So where do we go with this?
> > As to what would prove the existence of specifically the Christian God, I
> > guess I'd want Him to show up, explain some stuff, show me some miracles, and
> > most specifically explain ethics and His grand purpose. It would probably be
> > easier for Him to just change my mind and give me faith.
>
> lol God would never rob you of the greatest gift He ever gave you-- the • ability
> to exercise free will.
I know that you're required to say that, but it falls flat. If He knows what's
going to happen, then free will doesn't exist. It's just like 1+1=2.
> But even if He did show up as you would wish, would
> that *really* convince you? Wouldn't you maybe wonder if it were some
> elaborate deception-- what would be the odds of the Creator of the Universe
> doing such a thing?
Well, a miracle, to me, is defined as something that I can't explain more
plausibly through some natural physical phenomena. So if I couldn't, then I
couldn't. And sure, I'd spend time trying to explain what I saw, that's what
humans do -- even Christians. If I tell you that I'm the messiah returned and
then I skip across the surface of a stream, do you throw your life away and
follow me as a disciple, or do you check the stream for rocks just under the
surface?
> Personally, I think miracles are overrated as
> believer-getters. Even *I* would be skeptical;-)
Good!
> > Honestly John, I live for the kind of cause of goodness that such a
> > revelation would give me. I would probably make an obnoxious Christian.
>
> :-)
>
> > But I'm not willing to simply believe in something because it would be nice.
> > And Larry has represented my current understanding in describing his
> > preference to burn in hell before bowing to such a bastard.
>
> I believe that was Tom's characterization of God:-)
>
> Personally, I believe that the correct understanding of God's nature came from
> Jesus. He taught of a loving and forgiving God (through word and deed), One
> who desired to be in direct relationship with us. God is not a vindictive
> bastard-- I believe God knows each and every one of us *intimately*-- we may
> think we have secrets and we may think we know ourselves (and maybe we do if • we
> are honest), but God knows us *better* than we know ourselves, and God loves • us
> *more* than we love ourselves.
I can see how believing that would be comfy.
> > Of course, if He could explain to me why He's good even though He seems bad,
> > I might reconsider.
>
> Perhaps you are referring to His followers who seem bad. Fair enough. I will
> be the first to admit that Christians specifically aren't perfect-- they are
> still human and prone to making stupid mistakes like anyone. In that respect
> they are no different than anyone else.
No, I mean the God who lets -- or makes, bad things happen to good people.
_If_ there's some whole other spiritual world in which our meat is connected to
some other kind of entity, and if this fleshy existence is like our spirit-self
telling a story, then I could see how it hardly matters that the fleshy self
suffers. But that's just a fairy tale, and not how it feels to _this_ fleshy
self. But that's the kind of thing that I mean about explaining His ethics,
etc.
> And why God chooses to act through the deeds of His believers is a mystery, • but
> that's the way it is AFAIK.
>
> We are all on a journey called life and are searching to live it as
> meaningfully as we can. I believe that Christians have a map that shows the
> way. Is my map the only map? I can't say, except that it is for me and • anyone
> else who cares to use it. I know I've got a good map.
I think I was born with a tattered and dirt-covered map and I'm slowly cleaning
new parts and learning more and more.
But my map certainly takes me somewhere other than yours. My map is about
loving on this earth for the sole purpose of being loved in return. It shows
the way to feel good physically because that's probably all there is and if
there's an after life then you can worry about feeling good there when you get
there. My map shows me to keep thinking about what seems like "right and
wrong" and to figure it all out myself because no one else can tell me.
> Since I'm now pretty much witnessing and not debating, I'll offer to quit and
> take this to email if you wish.
Well, I guess I prefer to do this in public where everyone can see if you touch
me inappropriately. Oh wait, you're not a priest.
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) I have to admit I almost snorted milk out my nose reading this "deep programming" and "childhood trauma" bit. Too much! =) But, if I may say so, it is no more obnoxious to express derision or condescension for John's views than it is for him (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: slight
|
| (...) No evidence to support the existance of God? THe sustaining of all physical properties is not enough? Sure science can say, 'Oh, these pieces over here are made of these molecules, and these molecules are made of these atoms, and these atoms (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| (...) Okay, that's interesting to me that you would acknowledge a resistance the idea of the existence of a Creator. Taken all the way to the beginning, one needs to agree on *some* starting point. Either you believe it all just started from (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
