| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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.
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 are made from... etc.. (tho we really are just delving into
things smaller than the atom and are just beginning to understand that...).
and this works 'cause these parts mesh like that...'
Axiom, faith based, whatever--fundamental tenants that we just accept 'cause
we don't want to see anything else.
But cut to the end of the page. Spontaneous order is a euphemism for 'Well,
we really don't know how it happened 'cause we can't explain it rationally,
and it goes against our own theories of entropy and chaos, but there's order
and we'll just say it's spontaneous 'cause we don't want to acknowledge that
there *could* be *any* intelligent* thought behind any kind of consistant
ordering...' When you cut to the end of the page and get before, 'Well,
this preceeded that, and that preceeded this...' you are left with what?
Something that can't be rationally explained yet? 'Well, we'll get there
sooner or later--science is big enough to find the answers.' A human made
institution, made by finite human minds, grappling with a finite universe is
fine and dandy, but for goodness sake, understand that human understanding
is *limited* to the finite and, as such, cannot comprehend the infinite.
Sure, we can draw a line out from a point and put an arrowhead at the end
and say, 'Well, that's a ray and it goes off into infinity', and sure we can
say, 'Well, we can divvy this line in half continuously and go off into
infinity' and we can even say, 'Hey, got a barrel of infinite monkeys with
keyboards and we'll get 'Alas poor Yorrick, I knew him well...'
And then the scientists would come back and say, 'Well, if we can't
understand the infinite due to our finite limitations, then why bother--for
all intents and purposes, for our daily lives and figuring out how the watch
works, the infinite is a moot point, so it factors out of the equation.'
Again, you could say that, but *if* God made us in His image, and *if* God
wants us to have some sort of relationship with Him, *then* He gives us the
ability to appreciate Him and know He's there.
To reduce *everything* to the realm of science is... wait for it...
reductionistic. Taking a concept and reducing it to the sum of its parts is
not only reductionistic but is irresponsible for you lose the purpose, the
humanity. To take a chair apoart and separate it into piles of wood, nails,
glue and padding and say, 'That's a chair'--well, no, it isn't. Sure it
helps you understand what makes a chair a chair, but reducing something
cannot make it the same, or greater than it was. Our lives, our world, our
universe can be reduced to their compnent parts, but the sum of all these
parts is so far greater than the individual pieces. Science reducing things
is Entropy--something gets lost.
>
> > > 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.
I dislike charlatans, and these folks that prey on the downtrodden are
disgusting people.
>
> > 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.
Credible rational scientific evidence to believe. Proof denies faith. Two
incompatible ideas. "And since the babel fish is so extraordinarily helpful
that it could have not come by naturally, it proves you exist and therefore
you don't. QED"
"Oh," says God, and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
"Well, that's that," says man, and goes on to prove that black is white and
gets run over at the next zebra crossing...
See, I finally got to quote Hitch Hikers Guide :)
Credible evidence? Prove to the fish that water exists. It can't see it,
it can't feel it, it can't taste it, and yet, without it, the fish cannot
exist. K, that's a small and incomplete example. Something sustains the
order of the universe. The bottom of the page is that something intelligent
is at work, going against the scientifically founded principles of entropy
and chaos.
> 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?
A fairly large injustice is done to anybody who reduces their worldview to
that which they can prove, for science 'knows' that the universe is finite,
therefore science should be able to 'prove' everything. What's after that?
Well, nothing for those who cannot comprehend the idea of anything outside
science.
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.
Again, I can read the last chapter in a book and know whats going to happen.
The characters in the book don't have a clue. Does that deny their free
will to do as they please in the book? God is *timeless*. He is outside
our timeline. He knows where we're going to end up 'cause He's been there.
Further, He doesn't want mindless automatons that will cave into His will
and just bow down and worship Him. I'm not a mindless follower of some
vengeful vindictive god. I weigh the issues all the time and consider a
whole bunch of things. I love reading the scientific news and enjoy the
fruits of the labours of figuring out how the natural world works. But I
don't reduce my view to just the stuff that I can prove, or that which can
be proven to me. I know there's a Madagascar because of empiracle evidence
demonstrated to me thru my life. Never been there and probably never will
get there, but I'm pretty certain it's there. I have not seen it, am I
taking it on faith that it's there? Or has my judgement, my intellect, my
rationality weighed all possible ideas and scenarios and said, 'Madagascar
exists whether I've seen it or not.'
Just as God exists whether I have seen Him or not.
> > 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?
Again, from my scholastic endeavours, a miracle is 'divine intervention'
like when God stopped the world for (i think) Joshua. It doesn't have to be
big like stopping the world, but it is divine intervention, not 'something
we cannot explain'.
> > 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.
And I see how not believing in God would be comforting to those who want to
'live as they please'. You have pointed out that you yourself live a
upright life, and love your neighbours 'cause it's the right thing to do. I
do exactly the same thing--not because there's a god and I wanna make him
happy with me, but because it's the right thing to do. How do we know it's
right? Do we just wake up one morning and say, "I think it'll be good to be
nice to my neighbour..."
>
> > > 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.
God does not make bad things happen to people. Bad things happen because
that's part of life, as the athiests would say. A Christian would say,
'It's a fallen world and sin is everywhere and has fractured everything.'
Sin isn't 180 degrees from good. Sin is an old archery term which means
'just missed the mark'. You could be 'just off the mark' and you'd be
sinning. Bad things... Well it's gonna happen because we live in a
fractured universe--a universe which, by our own choice, turned its back on
God. There's no 'holier' place and no 'lowlier' place in the universe. The
church is not holier than my house, or the field behind my house. The Padre
at the local chapel is not 'closer to God' than either you or me. We, all
of us, are sinners. Deal.
> > 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.
And where does your love come from? Where does the concept of Justice and
Responsibility and right and wrong come from? The laws of God are 'written
on our hearts'. It might be all touchy feely but it's there. You know when
you're doing something wrong--you don't need the police to tell you
that--you feel it. And none of that has anything to do with science.
> > 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
Oh, very cheap shot (hhough I agree with it). We are all on the 'same
playing field' in relation to God but if we choose to make that decision to
become a witness of God, then we really should hold ourselves to a higher
standard. One of the reasons that I didn't get into ministry is I know I'm
a sinner and, as such, don't want folks looking to me as an example.
I don't write off all Germans bacause of what happened circa 1939-1945.
A quick story--my Opa (grandfather for you non-dutch speaking folks) came to
Canada with family in tow in 1948--right after the war.
Opa *hated* Germans fow what they did--many of his friends died in the war
and, well, it was war. So Opa settled in Canada in '48, and got himself a
little plot of land in Winona where he farmed and eeked out a living for his
family and him. When Opa retired, he had himself a little house along a
back road in Winona. It jsut so happened that Opa's neighbour was Mr. Stan.
Mr Stan, like Opa, loved gardening and tending the flower beds around the
house. There were many times when Opa and Mr Stan would talk across the
hedge about gardening, the weather, the grand kids, whatever... Opa liked
Mr Stan and Mr Stan liked Opa. Mr. Stan was German.
Opa hated Germans probably until the day he died but he hated Germans of
1939-1945. All his brothers and sisters and other family still living in
Holland put aside their hatred for Germany 'cause like, the country's right
next door. Opa didn't have the 1950-1990 experiences with Germany to chance
his POV. Do I fault him? Prob'ly not. His hatred did not interfere with
him raising 8 kids and being the grandfather to a whole bunch of us
grandkids, and tending his garden, and in this instance, specifically having
a good relationship with his German neighbour.
If you have a bad experience with someone, or you read in the paper the
atrocities done by certain memebers of whatever group and you hold that bad
experience against the entire group (nationality, religion, belief system,
whatever) then grow up--life is more complex and complicated than that.
(The Columbine kids supposedly went bowling a few hours before they went on
their shooting spree--Let's hate all bowlers.)
Don't be reductionistic. Don't be close minded. Understand that there are
shades of gray. I dislike guns, but my dad found an old musket when he was
diving and I think it's the neatest thing. Understand that we can't
understand *everything* even if we tried. Take things in context.
Understand that, my goodness man--there's a bigger picture!
Dave K
-who loved his Opa for being who he was, and still loves his memory of his
grandfather.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) have (...) Right. (...) Uh, no. Is it really your assertion that Jehova is personally seeing to it that every electron tunnels just so? Man, what a bore. He ought to code the universe so that scripts take care of such things. (...) Well, that (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| (...) idea (...) from (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
