Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Jan 2001 23:39:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1067 times
|
| |
|
|
Ok, I've been rather busy as of late, so back to the debate... :)
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> > > 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?
>
> As I said - presenting evidence - most of it being testimony.
> Unscientific, non-repeatable in a lab, not-by-your-definition-objective.
Ok. So we agree now? That our definitions of 'prove' differ? Right?
> > [Precisely] 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.
>
> That's because I don't concur with your "definition" of objective as
> scientific-observable-and-repeatable-in-a-lab. I concur with the
> definition given in my dictionary - Objective: treating or dealing
> with facts without distortion by personal feelings or prejudices.
Aha!, would say I, are not testimonials subject to personal feelings or
prejudices? Can you fully trust someone else's statement of their
experiences? Or, to put it differently, what if I were a member of the
testifying and I said that I had experienced a DIFFERENT SET of gods? Could
you trust that testimonial? Even if it's repeated by lots of people, it
doesn't change the issue... there might be LOTS of people that all would say
they experienced what I experienced. Does that make them 'right'? Basically,
my argument would be that personal testimonial of experiences are to be
thoroughly questioned, and can never be 100% trusted. Actually, NOTHING can
be *100%* trusted. And personally, I will usually take physical evidence or
highly plausible and likely logic over personal testimonial.
> > > 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
>
> Neither A nor B. Again - I've never said God is fair.
> Many aspects of Christianity are actually quite UNfair.
Uh... isn't that just B? Or are you just arguing that we're capable of
understanding why God need not be fair?
Anyway, my issue (As I think I've said elsewhere) is that with things like
salvation/going to heaven/whatever you call it, God must be fair. For me.
Because *I* couldn't have faith in a system that said that even if I
followed God's will PERFECTLY and was the PERFECT person, God could still
sentence me to eternal damnation. I.E. God need not be fair in SOME things,
but DOES need to be fair for me to even begin to want to have faith in Him.
> > A simple difference of opinion. My argument is based on:
> > 1. Under Christian assumption, morality/fairness/truth is universal.
> > ie. what's good for me is good for you is good for anyone, etc...
>
> <snipped long series of number statements>
>
> However the Christ you are describing
> is not the Saviour that I know. What you, Tom, etc. are saying about God
> doesn't line up with the Bible. (Yes - I'm generalizing here.)
Here's another phenomenal problem with Christianity, but not one of my real
issues for not believing in it. It's FAR too inconsistant. What you say vs.
what other Christians say can be WAY different from one another. I agree
that I'm making assumptions about Christianity and basing my arguments on
them, but if my assumptions are wrong, then DON'T go correcting the
arguments. Correct the assumptions. Otherwise we'll get nowhere.
> You see my point about the importance of your premise though, right?
Oh, entirely! But again, if you could correct the premises, we'd be all set
to debate the real issues at hand... getting those premises RIGHT on the
other hand, may take some doing. :)
> > > 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...
>
> Again - premise - Not only do you assume that morals develop over time,
> but more importantly, you base everything on evolution - the foundation
> of sand I was referring to. The theory of evolution is absurd, so
> consequently any hypothesis you base upon it will also be untrue.
Really? I don't find evolutionary theory to be absurd in the least bit.
Actually, I find that it makes sense entirely. And for all intents and
purposes, complex system analysis has proven evolution in other areas of
study-- not in life development, though. Certainly evolution DOES happen.
Whether it happens in the development of living beings is questionable still
(though I would argue very probable). But the basic PREMISE of evolution--
that things change over time due to different system developments-- has
shown itself to be true in some areas of nature and even more profoundly in
societal developments.
But back to your criticism, I would argue that Creationism is far more
absurd a theory than evolution. And it's even less backed by physical
evidence (if at all) than evolution.
> Your premise is fundamentally flawed.
Ah. So your ONLY disagreement (which is, I grant, a big one) is that the
idea of evolution is not a logical conclusion to make. What that means,
though, is that IF that's your only disagreement (feel free to add more-- I
just haven't seen any others, and you don't really need them if you continue
to disagree), then IF you were suddenly convinced that evolution WAS logical
and probable, that you WOULD agree with my theory.
Now. As to convincing you of evolution being plausible. To do such a thing,
I'd need to convince you of physical evidence being more highly valued than
testimonial of people. Basically convince you of my definition of
objectivism. I'll try something on for size in a bit. We'll see what comes
out of it.
> Salvation is "based on" Christ's death on the cross.
>
> There's nothing you can DO or BE to get or earn or merit salvation. [2]
> This is now the third time I'm quoting this passage from Ephesians - you
> don't seem to be reading it. Salvation "is the GIFT of God; NOT as a
> result of" 'X'. All you have to "do" is accept it.
Ok, maybe it's the lingo. Or maybe you're just not getting what I'm asking.
Or something. Communication error has happened. I'll attempt to ask again,
hopefully more clearly.
I see a man on the street. He's dying of thirst. I just happen to have:
A. A truck full of Poland Springs(R) water (it's all owned by me) and
B. Information on where he can go in the future to GET water if I'm not there
I presume (correct me if I'm wrong) that I "should", according to Christian
morality, give him either some of A or B or both. I.E. I should "be" good.
True? I should hope so, or else I don't know what to say about Christian
morality, and you've got a lot of explaining to do to me so I can
understand, cause otherwise I'll be completely confused.
Let's call the act of giving the man A and/or B 'good'. If it's not, then go
back and correct me. But, assuming I'm right, WHY should I do that? WHY
should I give him A or B or both? What happens if I don't? What happens if I
do? WHY should I BE a good person? And keep in mind this is HYPOTHETICAL.
You might say 'being' good is not based upon works, but it IS based on
something (I certainly hope!). I would think (again, correct me if I'm
wrong!) that BEING good is something not determined by your ACTIONS, but by
your HYPOTHETICAL actions. IF you DID see someone in this situation, what
WOULD you do, not what DID you do?
Anyway, again, assuming you agree with the above, you have two recourses:
1. There is no reason. Good is an end in and of itself. One should be good
because one should be good.
2. One should be good because ____________.
And to remind you of my original intent here, it was for me to attempt to
show that Christianity promotes self-benefit, and as such, may be deemable
as 'selfish'. And on that note, let me just say that if one of your basic
premises is that people are selfish, then you should probably choose #2,
because humans require motivation if they're selfish. However, it doesn't
rule out a human capacity for unselfish behavior if you opt for #1. However,
I won't let you off the hook either way, unless you think of something
totally unexpected for #2 that I can't refute...
Now... back to the whole concrete evidence vs. testimony issue. I'm going to
draw an absurd example. 'Cause that's usually the best way to test
theories-- to take them to the level of absurdity.
------------
Let's say, that according to the Bibo (the all-holy text, essentially the
same as the Bible in nature for hypothetical purposes), feathers are created
miraculously by God, and are ancient creations, dating back to the beginning
of time. The Bibo describes the creation of feathers as being created in a
flash of light and brilliance in mid-air, for all the angels to gaze in
wonder at. And I'll mention at this point that nobody's ever seen a bird (at
least not up close). But they have seen feathers, cuz they show up from time
to time, blowing around or on the ground or something.
Phase 1.
Now, one day, I see a bird. Up close. And I notice what LOOKS like feathers
on it. And I say huh! Neat. Maybe feathers come from birds.
So now my friend and I find a feather on the ground. Where did it come from?
Am I right because I saw feathers on a bird? (sketchy evidence) Or is my
friend right, who says they come from God, because it says so in the Bibo?
That night we go home and argue about it. And I concede that really, maybe
the things on the bird WEREN'T feathers, maybe they just looked like them.
Phase 2.
So I go back and find a bird. And I actually take a feather from it. And,
man, it REALLY IS a feather. From a bird.
And I bring it back and show my friend. Assuming he believes me that I got
it from a bird (I could have always brought him with me for the sake of
argument), and that he agrees that it IS indeed a feather, where did it come
from? Now, I say that shows that feathers come from birds. But my friend
still disagrees. MAYBE birds go around and collect feathers, and stick them
into themselves to keep warm or something. Just cause we see it in the bird
says nothing about when the feather was created.
Phase 3.
I decide to start studying birds, because I'm really hung up on the idea
that feathers come from birds and not from God. And in my study, I find out
that birds come from eggs. So I go grab some bird eggs that are about to
hatch, and watch them when they do. And presto, they come out with feathers
already!
Naturally, I tell my friend, and show him. Surely this proves that feathers
come from birds, right? But my friend (ever the stickler) argues that what
must happen instead is that the pre-existing feathers of the parent bird are
passed into the baby bird before the egg is formed, and that the feathers
didn't come FROM the egg, but were still created miraculously JUST as it
says in the Bibo, and simply passed down through the birds, whose natural
instinct it is to go collecting feathers, and attaching them to their bodies
or ingesting them for use by their young or something. Now, I concede that
such a thing IS still plausible, so I'm forced to still agree to disagree
with my friend.
Phase 4.
I'm getting desperate. I go out and buy a glass box with air tubes far too
small to fit feathers into. I have a special way of delivering food and
water into the box which wouldn't allow for feathers to get in (very fine
grain for food and a fine filter for water) Now I go pluck a still living
bird (Cuz, remember, I'm pretty heartless, but determined), and I put it in
the box. I (somehow) watch it SOLID for 2 months to make sure no feathers
are divinely created inside the box, and at the end of two months, the
bird's got feathers again, and no divine light of feather-creation was
witnessed.
I go back and show my friend, but of course, he has his doubts. The bird
obviously had feathers inside itself when it was caged, and it simply took
two months for them to fully extend out of the skin of the bird, right?
Sigh. Back to the lab.
Phase 5.
I'm really determined, cuz I'm a stickler too, so I go out and get 5,000
bird eggs, and catalog them according to exactly the day they were lain. And
being the heartless soul that I am, I crack open 100 eggs that were lain
THAT day, 100 eggs that were lain 1 day ago, 100 eggs that were lain 2 days
ago, etc, until feathers start to show up in the eggs on the young chicks.
I now go and show all this to my friend, because OBVIOUSLY I'm right--
feathers CAN come from birds, right? But of course, my friend says no. MAYBE
birds are really smart. MAYBE (because of their mystical connection to the
divinely created feathers) they KNOW which eggs are destined to develop
beyond a certain stage, and they only put their feathers into those eggs! Or
maybe it was just coincidence that the ones I opened early didn't get
feathers! Or heck, maybe God decided to go against the grain and create
feathers in the eggs after a certain point. And again, I concede that MAYBE
that's right, but I'm pretty gosh darn sure that I'm right instead.
-------
Anyway, you get the idea. So let me ask. Let's assume that feathers really
DO come from birds. What could be done to PROVE it? How would my friend EVER
know or even suspect the 'truth'?
Now let's apply that reversely. Let's suppose that feathers really DO come
from God. What could ever be done to PROVE it? How would I ever know the
truth, when all I've ever seen (assuming I haven't seen the Bibo before) has
shown me differently? For what reasons other than "the Bibo says so" (which
is a pretty dumb reason, when you think about it) can the truth ever be shown?
For evolution, the argument often is "there's no REAL evidence to prove it".
Maybe you don't concur. Maybe you think there's some other problem with it.
If you can express such logically, I'd love to see it, and I assume you do,
so please do tell. But as for the lack of evidence issue, what if we're only
at Phase 1? Is evolution still wrong just because we lack the evidence? And
for that matter, could we not apply the converse and say just because we
lack the evidence for God, does that prove He doesn't exist? The problem is,
though, that SOME evidence IS found for things like evolution, and NONE are
found to support theories like creationism, other than that existing
evidence can always be somehow 'worked into' the creationist theory. It
certainly doesn't seem to SUPPORT or SUGGEST the creationist theory to me in
any way, shape, or form.
So there we go. And I challenge you to actually say that evolution CAN'T be
right no matter WHAT. I hold that you MUST concede that evolution MAY be
right, but that you simply don't think so, and do so profusely, just as I
shall believe the reverse. And as a result thereof, I hold that you MUST
concede that my opinion of morality MAY be correct similarly, since you
didn't (yet-- I fully encourage you to do so) find some logical
contradiction in my theory, and have presented no other fundamental problems
with it (in any additional assumptions made) other than your percieved
absurdity of the evolutionary threory.
Whew... it's been a while :)
I guess I have some catching up to do...
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) Would you mind if I clarified something here, as much for myself as anyone else? There frequently seems to be confusion between Evolution and the Theory of Evolution. Evolution, that is, the apparently directed or emergent change of species (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) No - God always keeps his promises. According to your example, both Bob and Joe repented of their sins and accepted Christ as their Savior. (...) Interesting - It seems to ME every time I try and correct one of your false assumptions, you (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
