Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Dec 2000 06:41:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
966 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> I made a print-out of your post to read over - Do you
> realize we're up to six pages even before I reply? :-)
I think I tend to do that-- but don't we all in these sorts of debates? :)
> I'm trying to show the difference between these court "proofs".
Ok, back to the issue at hand then, how exactly would one prove God's
existence in a court?
> We're back where we started. I thought we agreed that by definition,
> God can't be scientifically/objectively proved or disproved.
Precicely true. However, you did bring up that you held that God's existence
could be proven in a court as opposed to a lab, somehow implying to me that
a court is somehow not objective, but instead subjective. See above.
> > > > The 1st dimention is infinite. It is also infintesimal.
> > >
> > > You've _completely_ lost me here.
> >
> > The 1st dimention is an infinite collection of points.
>
> Ah - The 1st _dimension_ - You probably mean infinitesimal too, right? :-)
Yep. "The 1st dimention is infinite. It is also infintesimal."
> I've never said God is perfectly fair or treats everyone the same.
> I will say He is perfectly just - there's a difference.
Ah yes. Your real counter-point to my point is either:
A. God is being fair in some way that we can't see (I.E. our definition of
fair is incorrect)
B. God need not be fair for reasons beyond our comprehension
A simple difference of opinion. My argument is based on:
1. Under Christian assumption, morality/fairness/truth is universal. I.E.
what's good for me is good for you is good for anyone, etc. Reason: given.
2. Under my morality (which I hold to be unflawed, obviously for
un-back-upuable reasons, again obviously), all humans should have equal
ability to learn morality/truth. Reason: given.
3. If morality is universal, and my morality is unflawed, my assumption
should hold true to every being in the universe. Reason: based on 1 & 2.
4. Christians also assume that God exists. Reason: given.
5. God is therefore 'bound' to universal morality (lest He change it, I
suppose, but assuming He doesn't, he's bound to it) Reason: based on 1 & 4.
6. For God not to allow people the same access to truth/morality, God would
not be following the universal moral system. Reason: based on 5 & 3 & 2
7a. Christians assume that truth/morality (& salvation) can only be found
through the Bible and/or Christ. Reason: potential given.
8a. Because some people clearly do not have access to knowledge of the Bible
or Christ (by temporal or locational distances), God has obviously not
provided it to them, and is in violation of morality. Reason: based on 6 & 7a
7b. Christains alternatively hold that truth/morality (& salvation) MAY be
found without the use of the Bible and/or knowledge Christ, but are helpful
towards those goals. Reason: potential given.
8b. Because all humans must have EQUAL access to truth/morality (&
salvation), those who are without knowledge of the Bible and/or Christ are
at a disadvantage created by God. Again, God has violated morality. Reason:
based on 6 & 7b.
7c. Another option is that Christians MIGHT hold (I wouldn't call them
Christians, really) is that the Bible and/or knowledge of Jesus are NOT
necessary to truth/morality, and they were not of divine origin. Both the
Bible and Jesus were mortal creations and are therefore not the direct works
of God excusing God from responsibility (depending on free will definitions
and all that) Reason: potential given.
8c. Ok, I'd buy that. But it does sacrifice Jesus' significance as well as
the Bible's. Reason: based on 7c.
Obviously, you'll disagree with some of the basic premises (or I suppose you
could just disagree with one... doesn't really matter). But I shall hold
that my logic as presented is without obvious flaw (unless I messed up
somewhere), and that we can only agree to disagree wherever it is you find
fault with my basic premises-- neither one of us can 'prove' the other to be
incorrect, and neither opinion is more right than the other, unless you have
some new information in contrast to that effect.
> OK - IMO it _should_ be a separate subject. The Bible doesn't have much
> to say on this subject, and I'm certainly not the most knowledgeable person
> on what little there is.
Probably. However, it is a problem I personally have with Christianity.
Which is where this part of the debate sprung from.
> Besides, isn't this rather like Dave Schuler said:
> > You make a good point though--it's not fair to ask "according to The Bible,
> > what happens to my soul?" and then say "but don't use The Bible to answer >>me."
I don't really see the comparison with what Dave! was saying, other than
possibly that you base your morality, etc DIRECTLY and ONLY from the Bible,
and therefore (because of the Bible's limited description of the issue)
cannot defend my against my argument other than to say that because of the
Bible's light treatment of the issue, it is obviously not an issue for
reasons potentially unknown to us.
> OK - Maybe I shouldn't have included lying. I think a reasonable case could
> be made regarding adultery though, but again - we'd be getting off topic.
Yes indeed :) These threads love to do that...
> > Not quite. I say that man CAN be essentially good OR essentially bad.
> > However, through the process of evolution, those who have had better
> > senses of morality have thrived through the use of... ...society.
>
> Now we're getting somewhere. :-) You originally said you wanted to
> discuss your ideas on morality, yet I've been defending Biblical morality
> (or my take on it at least) which you've said you have tried and rejected
> anyway. If you're not now doubting that rejection, isn't most of this
> thread pointless?
Most definitely. From the start I think I tried to address all my concerns
and counter them as Christianity might, and I don't think we've really made
any further progress from what I originally stated, other than to go more in
detail. I am most certainly more interested in my description of morality
because it is not something I've been able to discuss for the most part.
> Why attack Biblical morality when your stated aim is
> to defend "David's morality"?
Well, supposing that one is proposing Biblical morality as superior to my
own theorizations on the issue, it may be necessary to attempt to refute
those propositions.
> I find "David morality" fundamentally flawed - it is based upon an
> evolutionary foundation of sand.
I agree-- it is a theory only. And it is most difficult to 'prove' because:
A. we cannot look back in time and observe moral development.
B. even if we could, moral ideals are non-tangible. Just like in psychology,
one cannot go and ask a child something like: "How concretely developed is
your sense that other people have consciousnesses of their own akin to
yours?" or something similar. One can only guess and inferr based on
physical observation.
> I doubt you would be surprised that I
> reject evolution as a baseless theory for which there is no scientific
> evidence.
Nope. Doesn't suprise me in the least :)
As for my theory, it is based on what I have inferred from watching other
children develop, my study of system evolution (mainly mathematical system
dynamic models, etc), my own rememberances of my concepts of morality and
social senses, my study of philosophical analysis of psychology, and simple
logic. Obviously all subjective, I might point out too-- to put even more
holes in my assumptions, since I have before stated my distaste for
subjectivism.
However, I find my ascertations to hold in many areas, which is why I tend
to believe them. I imagine that anyone else could reach my conclusions based
upon their experiences, based on what I have heard from them, and their
similarities to my own experiences, etc.
> A similar point to above - Are you now going to try to defend
> evolution while I scientifically dismantle it or will I be expected to
> defend attacks on creation? Past experience would suggest the latter, but
> I don't want to go down that "branch" - that's not the debate I joined.
I would prefer you attempt to scientifically or logically (logically,
really) dismantle my own theory of morality, as I am unable to find flaw
with it on either avenue. I find no evidence to the contrary of my theory. I
only find slight evidence (mainly subjective and thought to be objective) to
suggest its truth.
However, in truth, we are at an impasse. Unless you can find actual fault
with my logic. For just as my ideas are unsupported by actual evidence, so
are yours. Neither of our theories of morality are any more justified than
the other. (unless we go back to the justification question, which is back
to the objectivist/subjectivist debate)
Which probably brings me to my REAL point, I guess. Assuming that what I've
stated above is true, and we are only capable of agreeing to disagree, what
is that remaining disagreement founded upon? What fundamental bases of my
theory do you disagree with? Where can I pinpoint your problems with my
system? Which of my assumptions do you find faulty? And why? (if that reason
is one not already covered above)
> > > > Ah yes, but let's play for a second. What if I say "why should I?"
> > > > What's your response? That I should do it for my own salvation?
> > >
> > > No - Salvation is not based upon works. [2]
> >
> > Sorry, the question shouldn't have said "why should I DO good?" but
> > "why" should I BE good?" "Should I BE good for my own salvation?"
>
> No - Salvation is not based upon works. [2]
Um. Ok, I'm obviously not getting through.
Dave: What is human salvation based upon?
Steve: Salvation is based upon X.
Dave's re-phrased question: "Why should I X?" "Should I X for my own
salvation? or should I X because X is a end in and of itself?"
Steve: (Option 1) One should X for one's own salvation.
(jump to conclusion 1)
Steve: (Option 2) One should X because to X is good. It is an end in and of
itself.
Dave: (Option 2a) "X" brings self benefit in emotional form.
(jump to conclusion 1)
Dave: (Option 2b) "X" brings self benefit in physical form. (less likely)
(jump to conclusion 1)
Dave: (Option 2c) Hmm... I hadn't thought of "X". "X" appears not to benefit
the self... (least likely)
(jump to conclusion 2)
(conclusion 1)
Dave: "X" is therefore being selfish.
(conclusion 2)
Dave: Maybe I'm all turned around on the subject... hmm...
> I'm not suggesting there is benefit, either physical or mental or
> anything to doing good. Again - I don't "give" in order to "get",
> I help someone because I love them.
And why do you help those you love?
1. If I help someone I love, I get pleasure out of their being happy. It
makes ME happy to see THEM happy.
2. Personally, when I help those I love (anyone really), I feel good about
myself.
3. They often feel good about me in return. Which makes me feel even BETTER
about myself.
4. In the event that they in turn wish to help ME (because they love me for
helping them), I may even get some physical benefit (they'll feed me when
I'm starving or something).
> > Ok, but then just answer me this. Why should I be good? If man is
> > inherently evil (selfish) then doesn't man need motivation?
>
> Man doesn't need motivation - he needs salvation.
Yes, but if man is selfish, then why should he work towards salvation? Why
bother? What has the power to make men work towards salvation other than
some sort of motivation in emotional or phsyical benefit?
DaveE
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| David Eaton wrote: <...snip interesting set of propositions...> (...) This is closest to the general Unitarian Universalist Christian theology (I say "general" because UU theology doesn't require a single answer). However there are some possible (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| <kay, I'll throw my opinion in the pot. And before I even get started, I'll (...) Can morality/truth/fairness be universal, when it is demonstrable that there is not equality between those it is appying to? On a less-meta-arugment scale, there are (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) As I said - presenting evidence - most of it being testimony. Unscientific, non-repeatable in a lab, not-by-your-definiti...objective. (...) That's because I don't concur with your "definition" of objective as scientific-observabl...-in-a-lab. (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| I made a print-out of your post to read over - Do you realize we're up to six pages even before I reply? :-) (...) I'm trying to show the difference between these court "proofs". No I wouldn't say that case proved O.J. guilty or innocent, but let's (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 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
|
|
|
|
