HOME | DD
zurisu β Stamp - Note From God
Published: 2008-04-11 01:40:01 +0000 UTC; Views: 8368; Favourites: 855; Downloads: 91
Redirect to original
Description
Thank you for viewing my stamps, please check out the rest of my gallery!!
Note: I do not claim this as my own idea. I saw it on a billboard somewhere. There wasn't any other text on it, so I don't know who made it.
That being said,
This is in reference to "God!", or the more common and too-highly-used (in my opinion) "Oh my God!"
I do admit, I do say "Oh my gosh", which isn't entirely all that better. I blame popular culture ingraining it into my head.
Another note: If you don't believe in God, don't get offended. It's still funny, right?
Related content
Comments: 273
π: 0 β©: 0
Had you read it, you would see that it is. Sad thing, that you were told this by an atheist.
π: 0 β©: 1
I already do to keep me straight :3 but I still say "oh my god" as in SAVE ME GOD in some way shape or form
π: 0 β©: 1
Understandable XD
π: 0 β©: 1
How about "Godfuckingdammit!" ?
Or "Oh my fucking god!" ?
For that matter, does the whole taking-his-name-in-vain commandment even count when one does not believe such a being exists? ^^
Fun stuff, philosophy ... ^^
π: 0 β©: 1
>Does a commandment from God "even count" for a nonbeliever?
If He exists, of course. Your disbelief has no effect on the validity of His will or what He considers right behavior.
If He does not exist, then the question is nonsensical--if there is no God, then there are no commandments that come from Him to evaluate.
So, the real question is whether He exists or not.
π: 0 β©: 2
To be honest, I'll believe in God when I see him
π: 0 β©: 1
I hope you keep your eyes peeled, then! ^^
π: 0 β©: 1
Never seen him, but I hope I do! I want to believe in him, but O just don't know.
π: 0 β©: 1
Keep that hope alive, Smoki8 , in this cynical world, and you will find a light in the darkness.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ah, it all comes down to this, doesn't it?
But there is a third possibility you haven't mentioned.
What if there is a higher power that one might consider a "god", but it's nothing like the christian version?
All things considered, even if I personally see the existence of any god at all as very unlikely, this particular possibility seems much more likely to me than that the christian god in particular is real (and all the other deities man has made up over time are false). Methinks, if there was a god at all (one that manifests itself in and interacts with reality in any way, otherwise it's a moot point regardless), the characteristics of said god would likely be some sort of combination of alleged divine traits found in many different religions, as opposed to those found in only one to the exclusion of all others.
But yeah, the first question would obviously concern the mere existence of such a being. Sadly, we never will find out, because usually christians (and most believers of other theistic religions) seem strangely reluctant to even define the term "god" directly - without alluding to cop-outs like the supernatural, that is (which cannot count as an argument because it's by definition infalsifiable and unknowable) - and without common definitions, the whole exercise is pointless, isn't it?
Heh ... it's a strange world.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, you are wise to point out that we need a common definition for the central word of a civil conversation: in this case, "God."
Most dictionary definitions have these defining traits mentioned:
-Created the universe
-Rules the universe
-Is a superhuman, supernatural, or a "supreme" being
I think we can probably agree on those three traits as a good definition for the word? Although you said that defining God as "supernatural" is a cop-out (correct me if I'm misunderstanding), so maybe we can't agree on that. (But that really puzzles me, because it's hard to imagine a God that exists in our natural world--under biological life's limitations within a finite frame of power, space, and time--as a being that somehow created existence in the first place [which is under the first bullet point].)
Sure, defining a concept with a word like "supernatural" does indeed mean that it's existence is ultimately unfalsifiable (although, I wonder what you think about the Cosmological argument), but what does that matter? If something is unfalsifiable, by definition, it COULD be true and is worth discussing, as long as the two parties desire to. But if you have no time for that kind of "nonsense," then I'm not sure why you commented here to begin with 
Back to the word "God."
Sometimes definitions also mention:
-A perfect being
-Source of all moral authority
-Omnipotent
-Omniscient
I would use those above traits also in my definition of "God," but I cannot speak for you if the only type of God you will consider is one "nothing like the Christian version."
I think, under the definitions mentioned in this post, my previous reply still stands. If such a being exists, then yes His commandments matter. Whether or not "taking His name in vain" is one of them, indeed, depends on whether or not the God that exists is the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. I think He is, and you think that He is probably not, and that's as far as this conversation can go if we are left with already made-up minds.
If you have further questions or inquires, though, I will be happy to answer.
π: 0 β©: 1
To clear that up, I didn't say that the only type of god that I would even consider (hypothetically, of course - I remain convinced that the likelihood of such a being's existence is infinitesimally small, and that conviction stands until I see compelling and scientifically conclusive evidence to the contrary, but I have no problem of setting that aside for the sake of argument ^^) would be a non-christian one. I merely said that I consider such a being vastly more likely than one that exactly fits the (often contradictory) descriptions the bible offers. This stems mostly from the simple consideration that we have and had countless religions on this planet, many of which are considerably older than christianity or judaism. There are three possibilities: Either all of them are correct, which is impossible because they often directly contradict each other. Or only one out of all those countless religions is correct, which is unlikely because many of them are interpretations of other religions, inspired by other religions and/or cultures/mythology/etc, and often have similar "mechanisms" of coming into existence - to say nothing of the mere statistical odds. Or, they could all be wrong, which to me is the most likely option.
Now, if we were to assume for the sake of argument that some higher power that created the universe and somehow interacts with (or has interacted with) human civilizations does exist, inspiring them to write up scripture to work out those experiences, I think it is vastly more likely that such a being interacted with all of humanity at one point or another, instead of merely a small, "chosen" people in one isolated area of the earth to the exclusion of all other areas, cultures and nations. Therefore, any interpretation of such a being written and conceived by any single one of those cultures is bound to be only partially correct at best, and that would likely go for most if not all of them.
So ... that's basically what I meant by that.
Now, I can work with the definition you provide. It's fine by me. I must honestly say that I personally don't have a set definition of the term for the very reason that everybody seems to understand something different by it and I don't happen to believe in one in any case, so I like it when a believer can actually define it the way they see it ^^
First, on the whole "supernatural" thing:
The problem I have with this characteristic is this. We do not know if something that is supernatural - above or beyond nature - can even exist at all. The only thing we can possibly perceive and observe is the natural world, absolutely everything we can know is confined within this. So, in essence, we have absolutely no way to even know if there is, has ever been or ever will be such a thing as the supernatural, nor will we ever find such a way, because the very definition of the word inherently prohibits it. So for all intents and purposes, the supernatural may as well not exist at all - it would make absolutely no difference in our frame of reference, we could completely disregard it and would be no worse for it.
Now, your god supposedly interacts with the natural world. To do that, he would himself at least partly have to become part of it, and as such would - again by definition - be detectable. We can allow a small bit of uncertainty here because we could possibly not have invented a detector advanced enough yet, but that principle of uncertainty will always exist, so we can disregard it for the moment - there is no absolute certainty, but there is acceptable certainty.
You say it's hard to imagine a god that's part of the natural world. I find it much harder to imagine a supernatural got, because the supernatural is something that boggles the mind by definition, if you think about it for a moment. It seems an easy way out, but in the end it raises far more questions than it can ever hope to answer. By the way, the natural world does not necessarily mean a finite world. As far as we know the universe is infinite, and while that may be a nearly incomprehensible concept to us, it would fit well within the natural order of things - it's not impossible.
On the cosmological argument, then. I find it unconvinging, to be honest. I don't really know which specific interpretation of it you favor, so I'll keep things general. I see no reason to believe that everything must always have had a cause. Anyone who proposes the cosmological argument doesn't, either, even though that's the prime premise the argument builds upon. If the universe - like everything else - must have had a cause, so must the cause that caused the universe. In other words ... who created your god? The argument of course refers to that god as an "uncaused cause", but if it is conceivable that a god does not need to be caused and can be eternal, why does the universe need a cause? You could just cut out the middle-man and posit that the universe itself is uncaused. Of course, we know that the universe had a beginning. But that's the universe that we know and inhabit now. We do not know what was before, or if the term "before" can even apply, or what form said "before" may have had. And as it is, there are numerous models that seek to explain that - multiverse theory, contraction/expansion model, I'm sure you've heard of some - that are rooted in what we do know instead of what we'd like to believe, and therefore have to assume much less about the whole thing - Occam's razor applies.
"If something is unfalsifiable, by definition, it COULD be true and is worth discussing, as long as the two parties desire to."
Sure. That's what we're doing, isn't it? But by the same token, we could discuss anything else that is unfalsifiable. Like Harry Potter. If I claimed all of it to be true, you'd have no way of proving me wrong. Or, to use an analogy my physics professor once used ... he told us a little story about a british man who visited his friend in New York. When the man went to bed in his friend's apartment, he noticed his friend laying out salt everywhere in front of the windows and doors. Upon being asked why he did that, his friend said "It's to keep the tigers out." The man of course pointed out how ridiculous that notion was - after all, there were no tigers anywhere in New York except for the zoo. His friend replied, "Well, that tells you two things. For one, it tells you how very adept at hiding those animals are. And, secondly, how well the salt works."
So, yeah, you could discuss unfalsifiable things as much as you want, but you won't ever reach a conclusion, because they're unfalsifiable. I do so anyway, because I feel it keeps my wits sharp. It's basically a little exercise in philosophy, I happen to enjoy that. After all, thinking is what led me to atheism in the first place, and I already contemplated many of the questions surrounding it - including the cosmological argument - when I was younger and didn't even have a name for them yet, let alone having read anything about them. So ... yeah, I think thinking about these things - and by extension, discussing them - is a healthy thing to do.
So ... what's next? Right, "perfect being".
First of all that would require us to define what we mean by "perfect". The most common definition should be among the lines of "having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be." By that definition, you'd have to specify which elements, qualities or characteristics are required for something to be considered a "god". I take it you would probably say that that would include every conceivable element, quality or characteristic that can possibly exist (feel free to correct me though). But that, in turn, would mean that your god would have to be a being of paradoxes, because he would have to have, for example, ultimate love, as well as ultimate hate, and of course for everyone and everything - any exclusion would automatically mean that he would not be perfect, because a hypothetical being that would include those exclusions would be more complete or perfect - so either he does include them, or he's not perfect. By the same token, such a being would have to be everything and nothing, simultaneously. Or, in other words, a paradox in and of itself. Which, again, seems unlikely to me.
Now, omnipotence and omniscience (they're actually included already in the "perfect" argument, as well as their counterparts, but for the sake of argument, let's disregard the previous paragraph in its entirety.)
Those two are really fun. I could of course allude to the paradox of Epicurus - I'm sure you've heard of it. But besides that ... how can a being possibly be omnipotent and omniscient at the same time? If he already knows everything there is to know, past, present, future and anything beyond, including by necessity everyone's actions and thoughts, he would also know his own actions and thoughts beforehand. That would mean he is bound by that knowledge and cannot change his mind about anything, so he cannot be omnipotent - he cannot do everything. If you now say that he can change his mind, that would mean that he cannot be omniscient because that would require him acting against what he already "knows" will happen. And if he knows that he will change his mind, again, he would not be omnipotent because he would remain bound by his omniscience. So again, he can't be both.
What of only one? Could he be only omnipotent? Ask yourself this, could he create a rock that he cannot lift? If he can, he cannot lift it, so he is not omnipotent. If he cannot, he obviously isn't omnipotent, either.
Omniscience, then? I believe that would in theory be possible. However, that would mean that he is a mere observer, unable to change anything, unable to even think a thought he does not know of beforehand, so he would not have a will of his own. For all intents and purposes, that would mean he might as well not exist at all for all the impact he has on the world (which is actually, in a way, a view that is favored by pantheists and deists, I think).
So again, we're left with paradoxes. Now, if you have no trouble believing in paradoxes despite their logical impossibility, that is fine by me. I, however, am incapable of that. If something doesn't make sense, I cannot possibly believe it's true.
Besides, to come back to Occam's razor, assuming that a paradox is true in spite of its logical impossibility is likely the biggest assumption you can possibly make. Therefore I see a god as the explanation for anything as vastly less likely than any other explanation imaginable, especially the more rational ones.
"Whether or not "taking His name in vain" is one of them, indeed, depends on whether or not the God that exists is the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. I think He is, and you think that He is probably not, and that's as far as this conversation can go if we are left with already made-up minds."
True. And I do want to make clear that my mind is not made up beyond rational argument - the "probably" in that sentence of yours is vital in that regard. Do I think that any possible god would be the judeo-christian one? No. DO I even think that there is a god at all? No. Can I be absolutely sure of it beyond a shadow of a doubt? No, I cannot. Nor can anyone, ever, anywhere, regardless of what they may tell themselves. There is no absolute certainty, only acceptable certainty, sufficient certainty. And as far as I go, I'm sufficiently certain that I'm right, but if you were to show me with sufficient certainty how I'm wrong and where, I'm certainly not beyond changing my convictions - that would be highly irrational, after all.
Heh ... and I apologize, this got a little more lengthy than I intended. I'm prone to rambling, I fear.
π: 0 β©: 1
Re: Cosmological Argument & The Supernatural
"You could just cut out the middle-man and posit that the universe itself is uncaused. Of course, we know that the universe had a beginning. But that's the universe that we know and inhabit now. We do not know what was before, or if the term "before" can even apply, or what form said "before" may have had."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it said that the Big Bang was the origin of time itself? I assume that's what you were alluding to by questioning the term "before." If, then, our universe's birth coincided with the origin of time and all matter that we know empirically to exist, then if there is ultimately an expanded, "uncaused" universe itself behind ours, then said universe (or multiverse or phenomenon or whatever it may be) is supertemporal and probably also supermaterial (ie, outside of the definitions of matter/energy as we know it). Such a supertemporal, supermaterial universe... shouldn't that in itself be classified as supernatural (defined: "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature")? I would assert that it should be.
Therefore, one can either except the first premise of the Cosmological Argument and come to the conclusion that there is a Supernatural Cause for the universe's creation--or, as in the above paragraph--reject the premise completely and accept that existence itself on its broadest scale is uncaused and supernatural. Maybe I'm not seeing a third view, though.
But let me backtrack for a second. I am a little cloudy on what you said here:
"And as it is, there are numerous models that seek to explain that - multiverse theory, contraction/expansion model, I'm sure you've heard of some - that are rooted in what we do know instead of what we'd like to believe"
I did not know that these models were based on facts and evidence; I was under the impression that they were hypothetical, math-and-physics-based guesses. Am I mistaken? (I very well could be.) But if I'm not...
Accepting those models and explanations requires as much assumption and faith as belief in God does. I don't see how there's any difference. Neither view has been--or ever could be--scientifically proven.
Also, "what we'd like to believe" is an interesting statement. I'm sure there are just as many people who would like to believe that there ISN'T a God as those who wish to believe there IS one. The bias swings both ways, does it not?
I don't think Occam's razor applies here at all. That being said, I have no extensive education in physics nor do I keep up-to-date with these "numerous models," so please be kind if I'm saying ignorant things here.
Re: Perfection in God
"I take it you would probably say that that would include every conceivable element, quality or characteristic that can possibly exist (feel free to correct me though). But that, in turn, would mean that your god would have to be a being of paradoxes, because he would have to have, for example, ultimate love, as well as ultimate hate"
I will correct you, hehe.
Love and hate are not equal attributes. Only love is "positive" in the same way that only heat is "positive"--cold is the absence of heat, just as hate is the absence of love. Therefore, it is not possible to have "ultimate hate" in the context of perfection, as you can't HAVE hate, you can only LACK love--and God lacks no "positive" quality.
Every quality of personality is something like this:
Foolishness is the absence of wisdom
Gloom is the absence of joy
Despondency is the absence of hope
Pride is the absence of humility (and knowledge, I would say)
Stupidity is the absence of intelligence
Deceit is the absence of honesty
Vulgarity is the absence of modesty
Of course, you might bring up a pair of traits like "playful" and "serious." Neither trait is immediately apparent as the "positive" one, and both are desired in different circumstances. However, I think that these are not a true pair like the ones above. Playfulness is actually a state of activity (not a quality) that falls under something like "joy" and seriousness (a state of behavioral operation) falls under something like "wisdom," and those two are not in conflict at all.
Ultimately, this is the philosophy that "good and evil are not equals; evil is the absence of good" which of course cannot be proven, since it's a philosophy, but that is how I and other Christians see it, so maybe you can understand how we can accept God as perfect and yet not paradoxical at all. C.S. Lewis has written on this subject, and I highly recommend you read his works if you have not already.
I think there is good reason to accept this philosophy based on the simple fact that humans have consciences and values which transcend ages and culture that decidedly favor one trait over another (there are, for example, no civilizations which have lauded deception as moral or correct), EVEN DESPITE the fact that they frequently dabble in the opposite trait as per a mode of daily living. THAT is mind-boggling.
You might bring up something like the proposition that moral code developed in a sort of "natural selection" process for civilizations--the tribes that cooperated and adhered to (or at least valued) these good traits survived, and the ones that didn't destroyed themselves. I accept that as a valid hypothesis, although I don't think it quite captures the twistedness that is human morality: we know we ought to be good, but we rarely ever want to be good. I think that points to a moral power outside of ourselves and our origins. That doesn't necessarily prove anything one way or another, but it's something to consider, regardless.
Re: Epicurean paradox
It does not take into consideration the existence of a human's free will.
Have you ever heard of the analogy about a mother's wish for her child to keep his room clean? The mother's will is that the room stay orderly, and she is also able to have it cleaned whenever she wants. She could clean it herself, or she could even hire someone to clean it for her. She could even force her child to clean it by intervening every time he tried to do something else.
However, she wants the child to keep it clean on his own, so she gives him the responsibility, and it is entirely in his hands. What if the room stays messy because the child doesn't really care? Does this mean the mother is disabled or a slob? No, she could clean it whenever she wants, and she DOES want it to be clean. But she wants her son to clean it himself.
I think that's how free will complicates this paradox. Yes, God is willing and able, but because He decided to allow His creations to have free will, the responsibility ultimately rests on our shoulders and is the fault of us (or fallen angels, likewise a creation with free will).
Of course, if you don't believe that we have true free will, then the paradox stands as something to be puzzled over. But does our puzzing over it mean anything, if we have no freedom of choice? Hahahaha.
Re: Omniscience and Omnipotence
This is fun indeed. Of course, trying to understand the exact nature of God is no doubt beyond ourselves, but I think I can come up with good responses to each one of your objections. And, after all, all it takes is one counterexample.
"If he already knows everything there is to know, past, present, future and anything beyond, including by necessity everyone's actions and thoughts, he would also know his own actions and thoughts beforehand. That would mean he is bound by that knowledge and cannot change his mind about anything, so he cannot be omnipotent - he cannot do everything. If you now say that he can change his mind, that would mean that he cannot be omniscient because that would require him acting against what he already "knows" will happen. And if he knows that he will change his mind, again, he would not be omnipotent because he would remain bound by his omniscience."
Are these statements made under the assumption that omniscience is one-dimensional? Consider, though, that omniscience is multifaceted (which makes more sense, of course, since it is OMNI) and not only knows what WILL occur but also what COULD occur given every possible combination of differing thought and action for every being, including God Himself. That gives God no reason at all to change His mind, since He would be playing with all the cards face up on the table, so to speak. Nevertheless.
Back to your objection, which is a paradox, as you obviously realize.
Say, for example, I know that if I drop this glass of water on the ground, it will shatter. Suppose I also know that if I leave it on the table, it will be knocked over by a cat and spill but not shatter. (And suppose I know every other possible action and outcome). Suppose, too, that I know the future and I know that I will leave it on the table for the cat to knock over. However, what if I wanted to change my mind and shatter it on the ground instead? Am I trapped between omniscience and inability to change what I already know?
I don't think so. Back to the phrase, "what if I wanted to change my mind and shatter it on the ground instead." That's where the paradox lies.
If I wanted to do that, but didn't choose to act on it, then there is no problem. Crisis averted.
But if I wanted to do that AND had the omnipotence to act on it AND did it (which is the problem, according to you), then I never would have perceived that "the future [is] I will leave it on the table for the cat to knock over"; the hypothetical situation unravels because that assertion is therefore untrue and should never have been proposed as a fact to consider in the first place, forcing us to start over completely with accurate facts.
If we refuse to do that, then we must admit that the situation is nonsensical and paradoxical because it could never occur. I could never perceive something that I didn't already choose to happen. And since I'm omniscient in multiple-facets, a situation could never arise which is unexpected and requires me to rethink my intended actions. Since I'm omniscient and omnipotent, my will IS my reality. Knowledge of (future) reality binding my own will and power--that is impossible. I define the reality, the reality doesn't define me.
All a huge paradox, indeed.
You also mention the rock that cannot be lifted--again, a paradox. Such a rock is about as able to exist as a square circle or a set of parallel lines that intersect.
"Rock so heavy that an omnipotent being could not lift it" = "square circle" = "intersecting parallel lines" = "God changing his mind" = nonreal objects or events. They are so nonreal, in fact, that their potential of existing is inherently zero because we're speaking nonsense now. Might as well mash our keyboard keys and make counter-arguments that way.
You assert that since God cannot perpetuate paradoxes, He therefore is not omnipotent, but that's completely ludicrous. You're basically saying, "since God can't do something that inherently by definition can never be done, he cannot do everything" but even then defining it as "something" is too generous: a paradox isn't even a THING or an action--it's an abstract puzzle.
"So again, we're left with paradoxes. Now, if you have no trouble believing in paradoxes despite their logical impossibility, that is fine by me."
No, we're not left with paradoxes. We should only leave truth on the table, and paradoxes, which are untrue and nonreal, are discarded as nonsense, just like you would discard this statement: God is real because papaya jongclonglashay. I'm not saying anything with that. It adds no constructive qualities to our reasonable conversation. So too are paradoxes.
Re: Changing Convictions
There is no way for me to prove that your current perspective on God and religion is wrong by continuing to type here. All I can maybe do is sway your convictions a little bit by rebutting your objections, but that only goes so far. It will never satisfy you to the point that you say, "You're right! There is a God!"
The fact is, we don't have scientific, empirical evidence to prove either viewpoint, and of course we've both acknowledged this. What does that leave us with?
Faith--that's all there is, that's the only way we can make up our minds, either by having faith in God's existence or nonexistence, and although we can educate ourselves on these arguments in hard-nosed apologetics and counter-apologetics, there can never be a proper conclusion that trumps the other side, and we're left deciding for ourselves.
That's what faith is. A choice to believe, even if we don't have the whole picture. Trust and hope mixed together.
People choose faith in God for a multitude of reasons. Some people want the salvation and promises the Christian God gives--some people do it because it's their family's tradition--some people because it resonates with the truth they see in their soul--some people because it gives them hope in times of despair. I'm no judge to say whether any of these reasons are more valid than each other, or even if the reason matters at all as long as the heart is sincere. I don't know.
But faith or disbelief in God is an incredibly important decision to make, and so I'm glad to know that you're giving it so much thought, even if your decision is the opposite one to mine. At least you've given yourself a chance to make up your mind, which is better than I can say for some of my friends who would rather ignore the subject completely than risk getting involved in such a tumultuous topic. I really do respect atheists and agnostics, especially the ones who are willing to give believers/Christians a chance for dialogue.
I don't believe I can convince you here, though.
The truth is, I greatly dislike apologetics discussions. I've gotten into a few before, and they are exhausting. I don't like stripping down my belief into premises and statements and burdens of proof and wording and everything else that inevitably comes within the setting of these kinds of arguments. Christianity isn't something to be argued, it's something to be lived, and right now, I think the only thing that has a chance of convincing you to change your mind about it all is if you interact with Christians who are truly filled with God's Spirit in such a way that you finally see that they have something special--something that cannot be captured in logical theorizing or clever arguments. If you see that we truly do serve a Master greater than ourselves who strengthens us and gives us a new life in our rebirth.
I'm sure you've already been in contact with Christians plenty of times--perhaps even someone in your family or friend circle is one--and so far, nothing has made such an impact. Even worse, perhaps you've had the contrary experience where Christians drive you away from Christianity. I hope not, but if that's the case, then I pray that you come to realize that Christians are sinners at their core and do not always reflect the will of God. We are imperfect, unlike our Master, but hope one day to be made perfect, too--and that starts with trying to set our lives and habits straight in this life.
True Christians will mature and grow in their faith and eventually produce the "good fruit" the Bible talks about--giving you a glimpse of God in flashes throughout their life, in their noble moments--and I hope you come into contact with these people and that God blesses you through them--or I hope you see them bless others.
That is all I really have to say. I have no formal training in apologetics--or debate, for that matter--and so no doubt there is something I said that someone could pick a hole through.
Oh, please don't take that last statement as a subtle jab at you! I asked for your questions, after all, and that's fine ^^ Actually, I rather like you; you have been much kinder to me in your words than other experiences I've had. Please keep that up! It saddens me so much to see Christians and non-Christians bickering like children; it just makes everybody look bad.
Anyway, we seem to have a lot in common.
Have you heard of the new game coming out on Wednesday called Starbound? It's sort of like Terarria but with space exploration! It's gonna be so cool; I'm excited. 
π: 0 β©: 2
For anyone else reading along: "Therefore, one can either except the first premise of the Cosmological Argument and come to the conclusion that there is a Supernatural Cause for the universe's creation"
"Except" should be "accept," sorry.
π: 0 β©: 0
Heh .... very well, I'll not disect your reply in every detail, then ^^
I'll quickly clear up a few things and be done with it.
"I did not know that these models were based on facts and evidence; I was under the impression that they were hypothetical, math-and-physics-based guesses. Am I mistaken? (I very well could be.) But if I'm not..."
They are hypothetical, of course, else they wouldn't be hypotheses. You are indeed correct in assuming that they are little more than guesses, based on what we know in terms of math and physics (especially quantum physics and special relativity), but in that, they are based on fact, even if they themselves cannot be considered facts by any means, they're educated guesses, estimates and models.
You say that I'd need faith to believe them just as much as you do, and in a way, you can see it that way, but there are two slightly different definitions of the word "faith" at work here. Colloquially, you might use the same word with the same general meaning for both, but the one specific meaning of the word "faith" refers to religious faith: "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.". Or, as AronRa likes to put it, "Belief despite lack of evidence". And note that I don't mean to say this with a negative connotation here (Aron might, but then, he's known for that ^^). The other definition of faith - more worldly faith you could call it, I guess - "complete trust or confidence in someone or something." does not necessarily imply that there is lacking evidence. When it comes to the work of other scientists (I should maybe have mentioned this already, but I am a Molecular Biology major, about to complete his Bachelor of Science degree - might make it easier to understand where I'm coming from, y'know ^^), I do trust the scientific consensus and the scientific method up to a reasonable degree, without knowing all the facts myself - it is enough for me to know that there is someone who does know those facts and is generally accepted as one who knows what he is talking about. With my own limited understanding of physics and mathematics, I can attempt to understand the basics myself and more often than not that works reasonably well, but I am of course incapable of understanding the fine details of everything (after all, that's why you usually specialize in a single field of study ^^) and therefore do have faith of sorts that others do understand it. But generally, that's still a different kind of faith than religious faith - it doesn't rely on revelations or similar things but still on facts and evidence only, and if I were to set my mind to taking a very close look at said evidence, I could do it, in theory. Some hypotheses are more speculation than fact-based, that's true, but everything that is speculation is clearly labeled as such, and ultimately speculation is what every field of study once started with. We don't know everything there is to know, and we likely never will, but we try.
I'm not going to say that you do not, even if many christians seem indeed to be content with what they have and know and see it as the answer to every possible question, but quite a few do not, and I have indeed met some of them (like my genetics/evolution professor, who is also christian - though not a literalist of course ^^) - and you do seem quite bright and thoughtful to me as well.
And just another thing I'll have to dive into very quickly, because I think it's important: Free will.
I do think we have complete and utter free will - I don't believe in a higher power, after all, so thre is absolutely no reason why I should believe otherwise (I know some people do, but they're nuts mostly, trust me ^^) - but if you believe in an omniscient (and while I did not exactly make that clear - my bad - I did not mean to imply that I thought about a linear future, I realize that it must be a branching, multi-faceted thing) and omnipotent god, I have trouble seeing where free will factors in. Different from your mother-child analogy, such a being would know from the beginning of time that it would create you, and would also know exactly how your life would ultimately play out in all its possible variations, including your most private thoughts, reasonings and decisions - and would create you in that knowledge. So if you do believe this, that would mean that no matter what you decide, it has been preordained like that and no matter what you do, that fact will not change. So if anything, you only have a semblance of free will because you yourself, of course, are not omniscient, but ultimately your path would have been crystal-clear millions of years before you had been born.
Or, to put it differently, can you choose not to have free will? And if you cannot, do you actually have free will?
Heh ... I guess this ties in with the age-old question of whether or not I'm right in my decision. And if that decision even matters, or if it ever was a decision in the first place. This reminds me of a great and very well-worded and sensible answer to Pascale's wager I have found on youtube recently, that expresses my own thoughts on the matter so much better than I ever could ... (Here it is, if you're interested: www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqz0pl⦠)
Allright ... that got longer than I wanted it to be again. *sigh* ... hope you don't mind too much ^^
"Even worse, perhaps you've had the contrary experience where Christians drive you away from Christianity."
Mhm, actually, that's part of what made me who I am. Not in any extreme cases, mind you. The pastor of my childhood was indeed later found out to be a pedophile, but he never did anything to me personally, and as long as I did know him, I rather liked him (although thinking back on that now, that does strike me as slightly worrisome ... xD).
But here's the thing: My parents never were that religious, but my father's side of the family was, and my grandmother insisted on my being baptized a catholic, as was tradition in my family (a tradition I intend to break with, should I ever have children of my own - that is solely their choice, not mine and certainly not my grandma's. If there is one thing I really despise about most religions, it's how it's often used on children to brainwash them this way or that. As you say, it's an important decision, and I believe nobody has the right to make that decision for somebody else). I was less than a year old then, so I didn't have any say in the matter. What irks me most about this now is that the catholic church regards baptism as being irreversible, so they count me as among their ranks regardless of whether or not I actually am. So anyway, I was brought up in a mostly non-religious household, but always in relatively close contact to religious education (in school as well as stuff like first communion and the like), so on the one hand I wasn't exactly indoctrinated, but it wasn't too far off either. I always did think a lot (much more than I said or acted, actually - I guess that makes me pretty introverted), about many things, especially death since the passing of my grandfathers introduced me to that concept from quite a young age. I did read the bible, the first time when I was twelve, and I didn't understand the finer points and nuances then, but I always did find it strange that there seemed to be no presence of god evident in our world today - there was just so much suffering and misery going on without anybody seeming to give a damn, supernatural or mere mortal. That, among other things, ultimately lead to myself not really being able to believe, and once I grew older, I found a name for that concept - atheism. I liked some of the biblical stories for their moral value (still do, actually), and was always utterly abhorred by others - especially in the old testament. Leviticus, in particular.
But yeah, I guess the point I was trying to make (if I was in fact trying to make one ... it's easy to me to go off on a tangent ... bad habit, I know) is that a lot of thought from a young age onward went into that worldview.
I realize that that is likely true for you as well. I can definitely appreciate some of the sentiments you mention as reasons for people embracing religion, even if I myself can't find the conviction to do it. Maybe that will change one day, I don't know. And I will say that I do have quite a bit of respect for christians like yourself, who actually put a bit more thought into the whole matter and don't take everything at face value. I don't think, for example, that you'd be the kind of christian to try and outlaw homosexuality (no matter your personal views on the topic, of course) or force pseudoscience into public schools. I sometimes consider myself an antitheist, even, because I see the effect organized religion and religiously motivated politics have on the world as incredibly harmful, but I think if there were more christians like you, the world could definitely be a better place.
Of course, I don't believe that one requires religion to, as you say, produce the "good fruit", but that's another matter entirely, and if it works for you, I see no harm in it.
By the way, even though you most likely didn't manage to convince me (although we don't know that for sure yet, since being convinced takes contemplation, and that in turn takes time ^^), you did give me a few things to think about. I like that. Not very many people manage that these days, so you may have achieved more than you'd think.
"Actually, I rather like you; you have been much kinder to me in your words than other experiences I've had. Please keep that up! It saddens me so much to see Christians and non-Christians bickering like children; it just makes everybody look bad.
"
Likewise. Too often, discussions like this sadly devolve into pettiness and namecalling - although I always make a point of it not to resort to any of that myself. Internet or not, there's no reason to behave like a pre-schooler. But I do say it is refreshing to talk to somebody who actually sees things this way as well.
Oh. Finally someone else who actually really enjoys Voyager, huh? I've recently been trying out Star Trek Online, actually, and am dead-set on getting my grubby little hands on my own Intrepid class ... *rubs grubby little hands*
Heh ... yeah, GW2 ... haven't played in a while myself. The guild I lead is rather inactive these days (mostly because they're all utter content-whores and already finished exploring the map not two weeks after release and thus find nothing to do any more - I take things more slowly and there are definitely many things in the game I've yet to see), so I play other games mostly - besides studying the whole semester for those beastly exams, of course .... pests, all of them.
I still do trade, of course, since it always helps to have a ton of gold at the ready whenever I do decide to play again ^^
Starbound ... huh. I honestly have to say I haven't heard of it, but it looks pretty interesting. I might just check it out, I'm just about done with Path of Exile for a time anyway.
But to offer recommendation for recommendation ... have you heard of StarMade? It's basically ... well ... Minecraft in space. Only with much better and more flexible building options (three-plane symmetry mode!). It's awesome building the most gigantic ships you can dream up (I've always been a creative megalomaniac in games like this anyway, tickles exactly the right spots for me ... all it needs now is a creative mode xD) or converting entire (flat) planets into bases ... and the best thing about it ... it's still in alpha and thus currently still completely free. That will change in time, and you can buy it already to support the developer, but as of yet, you don't have to.
Ugh ... and again, my tendency to ramble on has turned this into a complete and utter wall of text ... I do apologize sincerely. By all means, don't make yourself type up a lengthy reply or anything if you don't want to. I know all too well how that kind of thing can eat away hours in a flash ... ^^
π: 0 β©: 1
Re: Faith
I have two things to say here.
First, is that you keep saying that the hypothetical models for describing an uncaused universe are "based on facts." Is not the Cosmological Argument based on facts too? ^^ The fact that things exist and the fact that everything we've come to observe--even time--started with the Big Bang. (A third fact would be, "everything that has an origin has a cause"; some people would reject it as a fact, but it has never been disproven as far as I know, even though people are trying.) I would say those are two/three important facts, and therefore the argument would qualify as being "based on facts."
If you mean something different, then oh no I just opened up the can of worms myself, didn't I, for continuing more fine-grain apologetics, I'm sorry. That's not exactly my intention. However, I don't really think I'm splitting hairs here at all. I honestly do believe that any person (such as myself) who follows the Cosmological Argument to its own conclusion is just as reason-minded as someone who rejects the first premise--and it bothers me when it's implied that the latter person is somehow more "based in fact," when, like you said, every other theory is just a guess with no hard evidence.
As long as we can agree on that--that both parties' choices should be respected equally as valid assumptions, then I have no problem at all ^^
Although... now that I look closer... you did say, "it doesn't rely on revelations or similar things but still on facts and evidence only, and if I were to set my mind to taking a very close look at said evidence, I could do it, in theory." Were you referring to the uncaused universe models or scientific theory in general? Because if you were referring to the models, then I would like to see the evidence, or at least hear about it, even if I can't exactly understand it--since I'm not that smart XD
Anyway, my second thing was this. I don't know if you meant it this way or not, but reading what you wrote concerning faith comes across in a certain way (maybe it's just me being defensive, but this is how I interpreted the broad meaning): that the type of faith you rely on is much more reasonable than the type of faith I or other Christians operate on. However, I hope you realize that--unless you're a fully-independent Amish hermit who raises his own food and finds his own water--every single day you're operating on "Belief despite lack of evidence." Sure, you can be generally at ease that your bottled/filtered water is safe and that the food you buy at the grocery has been properly handled, and you are completely reasonable for thinking so, based of course on your previous experiences and those of your community--but the actual food and water you consume--the actual stuff that really matters since it's going to be the thing that's now going to hold sway over your health--you don't have any evidence to be sure that everything is hygienic and follows food protocol standards. How could you be, unless you oversaw the food's birth--if it's an animal, making sure it didn't grow up eating toxic waste or something, haha-- and handling and delivery to the store. This is especially true at restaurants, where the food is even prepared without your direct observation (in most cases).
This isn't an extreme analogy; people get food poisoning all the time. But I'm pretty sure that every time you eat a meal, you aren't constantly worrying over whether it is going to get you sick or not. Probably, most of the time, you're peaceful and happy to be eating the delicious food and aren't even thinking about health dangers, why? Because you have faith that your food is alright to eat--despite lack of evidence. (Maybe you'll say, "Oh, my food looks alright. I say to that: Oh, the Universe looks like it's been created. Both still operate on faith, since there is no evidence.)
The question isn't, "Generally, is the food in my country safe to eat?" which you might already have evidence or proof for (if you have, for example, visited livestock farms and seen food processing facilities and studied the law and its prohibitions and restrictions on this subject). The question is, "Is this specific food that I'm about to eat right now safe to eat?" And that you have no proof for, yet faith leads you to eating without any qualms.
This faith-based acceptance isn't limited to food. Think about medicine--think about the doctors who are very human and prone to making errors. In these cases, such as before a surgery, we might even be anxious and consciously aware that we have no proof that the doctor is competent and the surgery will go by without complications. Maybe he bribed his way through a failing grade in medical school--who knows! There are all kinds of corrupt institutions in the world. Yet, still, most people have faith and go through with their recommended surgeries based on the faith they choose to put in their doctors. Medicine. How can you be sure that the pills you're taking are really the ones you're supposed to take and that there hasn't been a mix-up somewhere? Have you ever heard of the Chicago Tylenol Murders?
This even applies to friendships and personal relationships. They are built on faith, and I can personally attest to how important faith is to such a relationship's very survival. Once you lose faith in the person's willingness to tell the truth to you, it quickly dies, because that is essential. You have to be willing to have faith that their words are true and reliable, or else there will be no relationship at all--or a very badly mangled one. And I'm sure you have plenty of healthy relationships that rely on this type of faith ^^ Even friends who have "proven" themselves to be reliable in the past are prone to changing. That's what backstabbing is, and it exists. Yet we still make friends and grow close to them not just for advantage but for the relationship itself.
I'm sure you get the point by now, and I'm sorry for once again turning this into a long post (hey, you started it! XD). But as I said before, it does bother me when people play up believers as illogical morons who believe everything they're told. (Not that you're saying that, of course, but you're only a few steps away from it.) The truth is, unless we're paranoid hermits exercising complete control over every opportunity of power we have over our own lives, we are all illogical morons who rely on faith daily (continuing to use that "Belief despite lack of evidence" definition). I was kind of joking, though. It doesn't make us morons. We're smart to do it, because usually the benefit outweighs the risk. Cannot the same principle apply to religious faith? Why are Christians so often seen as stupid sheep?
Maybe we're the smartest of all, considering the stakes 
Re: Free Will
"such a being would know from the beginning of time that it would create you, and would also know exactly how your life would ultimately play out in all its possible variations, including your most private thoughts, reasonings and decisions - and would create you in that knowledge. So if you do believe this, that would mean that no matter what you decide, it has been preordained like that and no matter what you do, that fact will not change. So if anything, you only have a semblance of free will because you yourself, of course, are not omniscient, but ultimately your path would have been crystal-clear millions of years before you had been born."
Think about it this way. I go to the park, and I see a child playing with a ball. I grab my video camera and start recording him. Note that I am not impacting his free will at all; I'm just observing.
Anyway, he kicks the ball around for a while, and then suddenly he sees an old lady walking by and suddenly has a fit of mischief and kicks the ball at her, knocking her over. I film the entire thing.
Later, when I go home, I can watch the video if I want to--but if I play the video, I know the lady is going to get knocked over by that kid's ball. As long as the video file remains in tact, that is not going to change. So, I put it in on my computer and play the video. The kid indeed does kick the ball over to the lady and makes her fall. Am I taking away his free will by watching the video? Am I somehow being unfair and not giving him a chance to change his mind? No, because our time is linear, and he already make the choices and decisions on his own. The outcome was his own doing, and since I did not choose to intervene, I have had no impact on his free will.
But God, since he's omniscient, gets to watch the video before it's recorded--well, actually, I would rather say that he gets to watch the video outside of time. That's the only difference--God can observe and knows the future and the past. Observation does not take away our free will, even if it's observation beforehand. Creation, neither, takes it away--instead, it gives us the opportunity to even exercise it.
"Or, to put it differently, can you choose not to have free will? And if you cannot, do you actually have free will?"
Free will does not mean omnipotence. Free will means you have choices. I have free will, but I can't choose to became a bird and fly away right now. In the same vein, I can't choose 'not to have free will'. But I can--actually--follow the will of others or follow the will of God. In a sense, that's both exercising and denying my own free will. Which is not paradoxical. A king can exercise his kingly authority to give his kingly authority away by declaring one of his advisers the ruler of a certain province. I'm just doing it in reverse--or, trying to, it's not very clear cut at all--by giving the kingship back to the King.
Re: Pascal's Wager Response Video
Now we come to the real reason I have been so eager to reply... Because I watch Scott Clifton on TV almost every single day--he's on a soap opera here, as a main character--for probably over 3 years now, to the point where I can imagine his face, voice, and intonation with crystal clarity in my mind whenever I wish. I had no idea that he makes videos like these.
So imagine my surprise when I clicked on your link to see Mr. Clifton pop up. Adding to the coincidence, I first read your reply yesterday not even 15 minutes after I had watched him act on TV. It was sort of surreal for me. I'm sure there are plenty of atheist vloggers out there, and yet you linked me to the one person who I would have the strongest emotional connection with. It's true, I almost feel like I know this guy. Of course, I've only seen the character he plays on a soap opera, but still, I think that's something, especially considering the rapid-episodic nature of daytime dramas. They perform on TV for you almost every single day.
So--yeah--I hope this doesn't seem cheesy or stupid, but hopefully you'll be able to at least partially understand, but I cried after watching the video. It just really had an impact on me, much more that any other atheist video could have.
But on to the video content itself...
I'm really puzzled that you called people who deny free will as "nuts mostly" and then linked me to this video as something you agree with. Because that's exactly what Mr. Clifton is saying.
Here, read carefully: "This God would be acutely aware of my history, of the causal chain of events and experiences that cumulatively contributed to the development of my entire personality and psyche and outlook on life. This being would understand impeccably that I am nothing more and nothing less than a product of that which Iβve experienced. Every interaction that Iβve ever had that changed me or forced me to think differently, down to the exact moment in my life that caused me to care about philosophy, and religion, and theology, and the afterlife."
He later goes on to assert he's made "choices," but following the reasoning of that above paragraph, he's basically saying that God shouldn't blame him because everything he ever chose was forcibly determined by things he had no control over--the "casual chain of events" in his life.
That's essentially the point of the entire video! Is it not?? How is that "choice" at all? He's totally absolving himself of responsibility for everything he's done and every attribute of his personality! Does he believe in free will or doesn't he?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding and he's not talking about "choices" at all, just his psychological makeup, but nevertheless I think the line is getting blurred with this next quote.
Look: "It would be know that my cognitive faculties do not allow me to choose what I am and am not convinced is true about reality. That my disbelief is an involuntarily reaction to what I perceived as a deficit of evidence for Godβs existence."
He's saying he's not even able to choose his own beliefs, which as I've hopefully illustrated over and over again is either a statement which denies free will completely or a statement which is glossing over the fact that faith is a choice. Faith is a choice, especially when the question itself--God's existence--cannot be proven nor disproven and is unfalsifiable. We draw our own conclusions and if we are ever to assert it one way or another, we choose our view and response. It's not involuntary at all! That is... one of the biggest cop-outs I've ever heard!
Am I wrong?? This is really distressing to me, actually.
But that's not even the biggest thing. The biggest thing is that Mr. Clifton is radically misrepresenting the Christian God of the Bible--even though he says he read the entire Bible! Now that means he either didn't understand it or had too much bias to even try to understand it, because his mistake is simple!
God does not judge people based on their belief in his existence. That is NOT why God sends people to Hell. God judges people based on their sin. That might be a loaded word, but please just take it at face-value. Their wrongdoings. The evil in their hearts. That means everyone judged goes to Hell, because everyone who has ever lived their life long enough to the point where they're able to make an array of decisions for themselves (and thus be judged) ultimately chooses immoral things, wrong things, things God in his perfect sense of Justice finds offensive in every possible way--offensive to the people wronged, offensive to the Creator Himself, wronged and ignored. Sin is not something that can any benevolent being can brush away as "no big deal" especially when sin DISHONORS and HURTS people. Even worse is the very condition each human heart chooses to coddle--a sinful heart. We not only choose to sin, but we sometimes even choose to live happily with sin as our secret friend. I know I have!
I'm not trying to turn this into a sermon, and I'm not spouting out doctrine on sin and sinners just to go on a Christian spiel. No! This is relevant to the video, is it not? Mr. Clifton is ignoring his sin completely. His sinful CHOICES. Even though the both of us admire the guy in different ways--neither of us are willing to say that Scott Clifton is a perfect human, right? No doubt he has done some pretty awful things. That's the plain truth. EVERYONE has. You, me, Scott Clifton, saints, martyrs, the Pope, every single Christian--everyone who has ever lived long enough for the opportunity, except Jesus Christ Himself.
Why is he ignoring that??? Does he actually claim to be perfect--someone worthy to stand before God and be "accepted" simply because he was created and just did whatever his circumstances gave him the natural inclination to do--even if it was consciously choosing to be selfish and hurtful (or whatever else he's done wrong)? I don't get it.
That's the thing. Nobody--not a single Christian, not a single atheist--will ever be accepted based on the life they live and its deeds. Because, ultimately, each one of us rightly deserves to be called despicable.
At the risk of turning this reply into a book, let me ask you--Marwin Rott--a question. If you were God--or even if you were designing a perfect religion--how would you determine who gets into the happy afterlife, Heaven? Obviously, you and Mr. Clifton agree that judgement shouldn't be based on a person's belief in God (which, to reiterate, is not the case anyway). So what would it be? I'm inclined to think that you (and most other people--but please correct me if I'm wrong since I'm asking YOU the question) would say something like, "Only good people should get into Heaven, judged by their actions and not their religion."
That's fine, except we have 2 problems.
1) Where would you draw the line? Where, exactly, would you judge a person as being "too bad" to get into Heaven? Obviously, there's a clear standard we all want to adhere to, as Mr. Clifton put it, "extreme rapists, and murders, and child molesters"; those disgusting and evil people should not get into Heaven, right? But there has to be a divide. Even if you make tiers of Hell--or something like Purgatory for people who are neither especially good nor especially bad--there HAS to be a cutoff for the Ultimate Paradise. Where is it and why? And--are there any conditions for getting inside? Solemnly swear not to suddenly change your mind and go darkside? Promise not to cause trouble for fun? Of course--either the people getting into Heaven must be perfectly reliable never to break those conditions in all of ETERNITY, or else they must give up their Personhood and have their free will stripped away completely. Right? Or something like that.
2) What would Heaven be like with sinners inside it? Unless you disagree with the fact that EVERY sane adult has done some Pretty Bad Stuff in their life, then if any of them are to be allowed into Heaven, sinners must be allowed. Imperfect people. So what would a Perfect Paradise be like filled with imperfect people? Wouldn't it be ruined? Well--maybe God could teach everyone to live in harmony. That would be nice and probably solve any problems. Maybe? But... as the old saying goes, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." God cannot force anyone to accept His teachings, and if they accept them willingly, aren't we now starting to creep closer to what Christianity actually is???
That IS what Christianity is. God asking people to accept Him willingly and acknowledge His lordship and ultimate authority. But there's another part, too. God cannot judge people without perfect Justice, and therefore we are all condemned to Hell--there is no "line" like in #1. That's why He--in His perfect Love--sent Jesus to us so that we can have our sins washed away, no longer being condemned for them in Jesus's great power and victory over sin and death.
Please resist the urge to roll your eyes at the above paragraph like just another Sunday school story. Doesn't it, on close inspection, actually make sense???
Oh, sorry, I'm getting a little bit excited now. This is what I love to talk about. Not apologetics but the actual gospel. Jesus came and freed us from the condemnation of a Perfectly Just God, and gives us the choice to follow Him, become perfect too, and get into a perfect Heaven with a loving God and creator.
That's why I think it's appropriate to say that God doesn't send nonbelievers to Hell. Ultimately, when you step back and look at the entire people, God sends everyone to Hell--but we have the choice to believe in the gospel and change that fate through the power of Jesus. The ones who go to Hell are the ones choosing NOT to go to Heaven--the way is right there, in front of them, but they DON'T take the gift and ticket that is Jesus's sacrifice.
I don't think saying that is ridiculous at all. Pretend for a minute that I'm driving down a highway, and the only way to the Amusement Park is to take a certain exit. I really want to go to this Amusement Park--it sounds wonderful and nice. But when the exit comes along, I see the sign, "Amusement Park--Turn Here!" and I don't especially like the color of the road, so I just keep on driving, and I never get to the Amusement Park. Isn't that my own fault? Isn't that a choice I made--the choice not to turn onto the exit?
I know the inevitable question left on the table is an objection along the lines of what Mr. Clifton said here: "Offended enough to allow for me to endure unbearable torment for all of eternity, and not as a form of discipline or correction or redemption, since it never ends, thereβs nothing constructive about hell. You donβt come out of hell a better person, you donβt come out at all. And so the only reason for the existence of such a thing, would be vengeance."
While I agree that Hell is not constructive or disciplinary, I don't think it's vengeful punishment either. The suffering that is Hell, it's... inevitable. It's the choice to be away from God--God the creator, God who gives life. How can any place outside of God's direct rule be nice? Just look at our world today, look at all the suffering. This is a place without God's direct rule, a place where many people all the time--and all people some of the time--shrug off His expectations, the moral authority that He's imprinted on us, and His will as something that doesn't inherently need to be obeyed. That's where sin comes from. Sin breeds like a sickness in the realm outside of Heaven. Sin brings suffering and death.
That's why some Christians have imagined that the "fire and brimstone" imagery of Hell is a metaphor for the suffering that is INEVITABLE outside of God's ultimate authority. Some would imagine that it's just a shoddy, run-down grid of endless city streets, and everybody is okay with that, because even though it sort of sucks and everybody quarrels with each other in the rainy darkness, at least they don't have to be near God, because they never wanted to accept Him all along.
I don't know. What do you think?
But anyway... that's what I think about that video. It's ignoring sin--human's propensity to do evil, the REAL reason people are judged--and that belief or disbelief in an unfalsifiable concept is absolutely a choice.
Re: Bad Christians
This is what I think about the priests and church leaders who turn out to be pedophiles or molesters...
I don't know if there have been actual studies done about this, but I heard it said on TV once that people who are out of control--mentally, sexually, or with violent tendencies--are highly likely to seek and embrace a religion because it gives them boundaries that they know they need but cannot manage on their own. It makes sense to me.
That's why I think the church has a good number of those disgusting people. Christianity makes it a point to try and attract as many people as possible to their ranks, and those types of people are easily attracted and reeled in, embracing the church and its doctrines with incredible zeal--to the point where they become pastors themselves--until they slip up, finally.
Now, does that mean those pastors are Christians or not? I cannot see their hearts, so I cannot say. As long as they have accepted the lordship of Jesus as the truth and, by extension, Him as the primary example they intend to follow, then they are Christians. It's hard to believe, though, that someone could sincerely accept Jesus's teachings and then do those things, but if they're already predispositioned to do those things, then maybe it happens sometimes to a true Christian. I can only speculate that it is possible, and then say that it's just as possible that they never truly repented and accepted Jesus in their hearts at all, and they are thus not a Christian at all.
Maybe what I wrote is a little bit appalling, that I could even consider these types of people to be Christians who will go to Heaven, but even though we would judge their sin greater than the majority of decent people, we're still all sinners alike with evil hearts. And becoming a Christian doesn't make you immediately "better" or more moral; it is simply a gradual process from sinning without repenting to praying for the mind and spirit of Christ and sinning less than before and with more regret when it happens. So, yeah, maybe that's a little controversial, but that's how I see it. Christians aren't any more morally good than others, but they have help from God and are generally going in the right direction, even if they lag behind others.
Of course, I agree that any such pastor or church leader--regardless of being a "true Christian" or not, something which is impossible to figure out--should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and removed from their position. Just to be clear.
Re: Catholic Baptism
XD This reply is way too long so here, have a 1 sentence response for this section: I agree with you that people should be baptized when they are older and able to make the decision, and any other baptism--while nice, sure--is essentially meaningless.
Re: Gay Rights
Oh my gosh, yeah, I just got done reading a book about this subject in the context of Christianity. It's called Torn by Justin Lee, and he is a gay man who is also a Christian. I found his story fascinating. But yeah, you're right, I don't oppose gay marriage or anything like that. I might not AGREE with it (actually, the fact is I just don't know, only God knows and He hasn't exactly been clear on the matter in the Bible), but I am also an American and strongly believe in freedom of religion ^^
Re: Good Fruit
"Of course, I don't believe that one requires religion to, as you say, produce the "good fruit""
Please don't misunderstand. I don't think that good deeds only come from Christians. I know that plenty of non-Christians have done amazing works for the good of the world and there's no doubt in my mind that many atheists live lives more morally good than some Christians--even true ones. For example, my best friend is an atheist-leaning agnostic (and she has actually thought about it, unlike the friends I alluded to), and she is a wonderful friend indeed to me!
So, no, I don't think people need religion to produce good works or fruit. I do think they need Christianity, though, to eventually become perfect--only God can make a transformation like that, and even if we all lived forever, I don't think we could ever become perfectly good on our own.
Re: Changing Convictions
"By the way, even though you most likely didn't manage to convince me (although we don't know that for sure yet, since being convinced takes contemplation, and that in turn takes time ^^), you did give me a few things to think about. I like that. Not very many people manage that these days, so you may have achieved more than you'd think."
Oh man, it made me so happy to read this, so it's your own fault for encouraging me to write such a long reply, hahahaha. I honestly had no expectation to have any kind of an impact (but I prayed to God before typing that I would). Honestly, mostly I decide to reply to these sorts of comments so that other people reading along with more neutral bias will see that Christians CAN defend themselves. But anyway... I'm glad to know that! Even if you don't change your mind anytime soon--or ever, but I hope not--then I'm just glad you've at least had an open mind about it ^_^ um.......... *INTERNET HUG*
Re: Star Trek
My favorite part of Voyager is the fact that the crew is so dependent on each other that they really do feel like a family, even more than any of the other series, though they are close-knit in each one. And Captain Janeway... she's just... so amazingly IN CHARGE and feminine, which makes her such a great role model ^_^ Plus, the Holographic Doctor REALLY is able to carry the torch of Spock and Data as the loveable way-too-alien crew member. Odo did a good job, too, I think, but Spock, Data, and the Doctor FTW.
Oh, wait, how many of the series have you watched? ^_^
I really liked STO, even though I didn't play it too much, but if I had 50 more hours in the day I would definitely play it every day because it IS really fun XD
Re: StarMade
Oh, hahaha, I watched this on the Yogscast once ^_^ I think me and a friend were going to try playing it, but we never did. My friends and I like to play Minecraft together, but I think this month we're going to immerse ourselves in Starbound this time
Re: Rambling
I actually intended to keep this reply short <_< But... you should know something about me. 2.5 years ago, I set out to write a little 20k words-long story, and right now it's at over 270k words long and not nearly done >_> Ooooooops.
π: 0 β©: 1
Heh .... you know, there are days when I really hate DA for artificially elongating any comment replies in your inbox, cramming them in a 10th of your screen width instead of using the whole thing ... xD
Alright, first things first ...
As far as the cosmological argument (and all of the other apologetic stuff, teleological argument, anthropic principle, you name it) goes, it's based on fact roughly to the same degree as any other theories that move in that timeframe and field of study, I think. Sure, they're both only assumptions right now. The one problem I have with the cosmological argument, though, is the assertion that everything has to have a cause. I have a problem with it in the way that there is one thing where we do not know this to be true, and that is the universe itself. We do know that time and space as we know it have a beginning, but we don't know in what form matter, time and space may have existed before that - if at all - so we have no way of knowing for sure that the premise "everything needs a cause" is factually true in every case. And since the cosmological argument itself actually disregards this very premise in its conclusion - because an entity that could be regarded as an "uncaused cause" would violate that very premise - I don't find it all that convincing, personally.
It reminds me a little of the argument William Lane Craig likes to use that states that "Information always requires a mind". We only recognize this statement as true with regards to information created by living organisms, specifically manmade information. Craig himself would dispute this and give the example of DNA as information, but that only works if you start with the presupposition that everything must have been created by a higher power, which makes the whole argument circular reasoning, because if we do not hold that presupposition (that's ultimately also the conclusion of the argument, of course), then DNA would actually be an example of information that in fact does not require a mind.
Besides, if he bases his argument on anthropological observations like the first statement heavily implies, he would also have to take into account that as far as we know, a mind always requires a brain - which he conveniently ignores, of course.
Anyway, I actually didn't even mean to dissect his whole argument, what I meant was that the cosmological argument is somewhat similar even though not as extreme.
And yes, I was referring to the scientific method in general with the whole "I can go look at the evidence"-paragraph, not those models in particular.
Concerning faith ...
I did not mean to imply that religious faith per sΓ© is any more or less reasonable than (let's call it) "worldly" faith. At least in terms of whether or not the person holding either kind of faith is more or less reasonable, intelligent or any other, similar adjective you may add to that list. What I mean to say by that is, I in no way intend to call you stupid or anything like that
As far as those two types of faith go, the "worldly" one is, however, demonstrably more rational than the religious one. And hear me out on this first ^^
Basically what I mean is that anything you take on "faith" in your daily life - you mentioned many good examples I won't need to repeat individually - can, at least theoretically, be verified by you, by worldly means. Sure, if you're sitting in a restaurant and are eating a steak you won't be able to see for yourself how the animal it comes from grew up, what it ate, how it was killed and how its meat was treated, you reasonably have to take those things on faith at this point. But what I'm saying is, every step of this way there was someone directly involved in it, and in theory you could hunt down every last one of them and get the story exactly how it played out (disregarding for a moment that people like to lie to make themselves appear better than they are, for the sake of argument let's assume they all speak the whole truth), possibly with witnesses, analyses and whatever else you need to verify the data. Of course nobody does that, it would be a ridiculous idea unless something like that is your job, but it would be theoretically possible. The faith you have in the fact that the steak you eat is probably safe to eat is, therefore, ultimately a relatively rational one. You'll always have a certain degree of uncertainty, but as I already said earlier, you may not be able to eliminate it but you can minimize it to an acceptable level.
Now, religious faith on the other hand by definition means faith in something you can impossibly verify with worldly means by yourself. Take any sort of afterlife, for example (and I'm speaking very generally here, not about christianity specifically). Religion (nearly) always involves the supernatural, something that is unverifiable and unfalsifiable, therefore faith in it is, strictly speaking, not rational (or irrational, but I don't like to use that word in this context because its connotations are too negative, and I don't mean it in that way ^^).
Now, as I said, that does not necessarily imply that religious faith is stupid. You could be perfectly right in your faith, of course. So could I, in my lack thereof. I think in this situation it's best to lay aside any value judgement in either direction.
Concerning free will ...
I'm still not too convinced. What you say makes sense in a way, yes, and as I said previously, I do believe we have free will, but still, it seems irreconcilable with the concept of an omnipotent and omniscient creator.
Mere observation may not take away free will, but I can't agree that the act of creation would still guarantee free will. Think about it, he would have known every possible outcome as well as the path that someone actually takes, before creating that someone. So when he would have created, say, Hitler (yes, yes, I know ... Godwin's law and all that ... 
Damn, this topic is convoluted ...
Concerning the video ...
Heh ... I honestly didn't know that he was also an actor (even though it should have been apparent by the way he expresses himself). Strange coincidences, eh?
And no, it doesn't seem cheesy or stupid to me, don't worry. Contrary to popular opinion some men are indeed capable of understanding emotions and are even known to have them themselves on occasion ^_-
Now, as to his line of thought about free will or the lack thereof ... I think one thing you have overlooked a little in his wording is that he is, in fact, speaking hypothetically. I guess he ultimately holds much the same views about free will as I do, that is to say I reckon he does think we actually have it, but believes that - were he to assume (here obviously for the sake of argument) that the christian god with all his characteristics, including omniscience, did indeed exist - we would not really have true free will.
Besides that he's delving into it a little deeper and alludes to development of personality. Think about it, we really are a product of the causal chain of events in our lives in a way, a product of countless influences we may not even be aware of, that shape us over the course of our lives. So, on the one hand, you do make choices, conscious choices and in that, you do have free will because ultimately they are your choices. But those choices by themselves do not define who you are, it's a lot more complex than that. You'd have to factor in all the influences that had an impact on you, however small, over the course of your life, to really understand perfectly why you are who and how you are. And I happen to agree with him in that doing that would indeed take omniscience, or very nearly.
This, in turn, is part of the reason why I must strongly object to your statement that faith is a choice. Faith is as much a choice as a like or dislike for a certain kind of food, or a certain type of man/woman, or a certain style of music is a choice. It might seem like it's a choice, but is it, really? Think about it, you do not just decide what you like and don't like, either, do you? The two options of "liking" and "not liking" (to stay with that example for a minute) are never equal, they're influenced my a myriad of factors in your surroundings, your history, your societal environment, your upbringing, your education, your culture, etc. etc. etc. - even your physiology at times (think allergies, or genetic dispositions, for example). You don't just one day get up out of bed and make a conscious choice about not liking broccoli.
It's very similar with faith. Joining a particular religion is (or at least should be) a conscious choice, but for that, you already need a predisposition, you already need to believe in the tenets of that religion in the first place. A convinced atheist will not one day just decide to become a christian, and only then start believing in the christian god. That belief, or lack thereof, is not a conscious choice, it develops, it's influenced by the events of your life and all the other things I mentioned above. That's what he's saying in this video.
What he's also saying is that his convictions do not allow him to pick and choose what he perceives as real however he wishes. I'm guessing he is similar to me in that he holds a somewhat sceptic worldview and requires some tangible evidence before believing something as true, so what he's saying is that he can't just believe something that contradicts what he holds to be true about reality without evidence, just because he might want to. In that way, as I pointed out, faith is not a choice, and neither is lack of faith - we don't reject the belief in gods because we consciously wanted to, we do so because the lack of evidence leaves us no other rational standpoint. The positive assertion that a god exists is unfalsifiable, yes, but that does not mean that this assertion and the rejection of it have equal weight and you can just choose one or the other. Even though I don't really want to get back to the more apologetic part of this whole issue, that would nevertheless constitute a shifting of the burden of proof, and that burden still lies with the one making the positive assertion.
In the end, I think with the whole issue about free will you involuntarily got snared in the same argument you directed at me: Free will is not omnipotence, and although we theoretically have the sole power over our conscious choices, there are some things that are not conscious choices but still part of our personalities and convictions, and we can't just decide to change them on a whim.
Um ... I hope that all made sense somehow ... ^^
Concerning sin ...
A loaded word indeed. Why he didn't mention it, I don't know. Possibly because it doesn't seem to be of importance when considering Pascale's wager, because that particular philosophical question does deal with the belief in a god or lack thereof primarily. The concept of sin is a very divisive one, so maybe that's why he left it out. I don't think he finds himself to be perfect, by the way, I simply think that he, as an atheist, does not place the same importance on this concept as christians do, because in all honesty, it's ... alien to most of us.
While I can certainly agree with you that everybody does bad things in their life, the concept of sin is one of the most important reasons that drove me away from religion. The idea that every human being is inherently despicable is sickening to me, to be honest. I cannot and will not hold such a belief.
I can understand the underlying sentiment, really - to lead the best and most moral life you can, that's noble, really - but the idea of always being measured to a standard of absolute perfection that one can impossibly hope to live up to is something I find completely absurd and, honestly, quite unhealthy for one's self-esteem.
I said previously that many atheists view the concept of sin as something quite alien and confounding. Here's why:
I can accept that everybody makes wrong choices at some point in their life. Maybe they even hurt others. That's a fact of life, it happens. We can and should do our best to minimize those occurrences. But I do not believe that being told that we are born with some kind of stigma that increases by doing something wrong in our lives (and mind you, that does not only include things that we as a species and society generally agree on as "wrong", but many completely nonsensical and arbitrary things - again, I'd very much like to point to Leviticus) and can never be lifted from us within the confines of our worldly lives, because that would take reaching a hypothetical standard we are completely incapable of possibly achieving, is something that doesn't do anything more to minimize those occurrences than simply deciding to try and live a decent life. And on the flip-side, I think it ultimately is highly detrimental to morale and psychological well-being.
Even more so is the concept of original sin. I know that you're very likely not a literalist and that therefore the whole "Adam & Eve" deal is to be taken with a grain of salt, but really ... in the end, this story is canonically what caused sin to exist in the first place, isn't it? So ultimately, it's god's fault. He created those two lovebirds with no understanding of right and wrong, correct? Knowing fully well ... you know what, let's even leave omniscience out of the picture for the moment. So, anyway, he also created that tree whose fruits held said knowledge of right and wrong, correct? So, when he did not want them to eat from it, why did he place it within walking distance of them? He had the whole earth available, hell, the whole universe even! So on the one hand he commands them not to eat from it, on the other hand they have no knowledge of right and wrong, so they wouldn't know that disobeying that command would be wrong. In other words, he demands mindless, thoughtless and unquestioned obedience from them, when they're actually incapable of doing do in the first place. When push then comes to shove and they eat from the tree, he then not only reprimands them, or punishes only them, but punishes them as well as all future generations, who have done nothing wrong whatsoever, for all eternity. For something that was ultimately his own doing and all but inevitable besides, and smoething he - by omniscience - actually knew would happen! I don't know how attributes like petty, spiteful and hypocritical fit into the resumΓ© of a supposedly perfect being, but that's exactly what I see here. And it's one of those many discontinuities that can be found throughout the bible alone that are partly responsible for my rejecting the christian faith altogether, it simply doesn't compute.
I don't know, maybe it has something to do with my lack of belief in any such thing as a perfect being - therefore I don't really care if what I do would be an affront to such a being; as long as it is not an affront to the people around me I spend my life on this planet with, that's more than enough for me. Of course, sometimes it can't be avoided that it is such an affront to some of them, but one should always aim to minimalize that as much as possible. If everybody were to do that, the world would be a much better place. I realize that is utopian, but measuring the whole of humankind to a perfect, divine standard that can impossibly be achieved is much more utopian. I much prefer to use attainable standards within reasonable limits that offer us the best possible compromise that can actually be achieved in this life.
Sorry, I'm rambling again, aren't I? I don't mean to be insulting with any of this by the way, should you have gotten that impression. I merely feel rather strongly about the issue as, the whole concept of sin in general and original sin in particular is utterly repulsive to me. As I said, I can very well understand and appreciate the desire to be the best person you can possibly be, but I think that's enough. Christians apparently do not. Maybe that means you have higher moral aspirations than I do, I don't know.
Now, let's leave that particular topic be for the moment, and turn to the question you asked me. How would I design a religion? Well, aside from the fact that I obviously wouldn't, I'd probably do it a little differently than your god.
One thing I notice is that the christian concept of heaven/hell, sin/perfection and all that is very binary and rigid, very black-and-white. A system I would design would be ... well ... a gradient.
A seamless gradient between the lowest of the low and the highest of the high, heaven and hell, call it however you wish. Once you die and land in the afterlife, you'd be placed on said gradient according to the life you led. Bad things would place you further downward, good things further upward, that sort of thing. Of course, I would have to develop some sort of ... well ... algorhythm, basically, that takes all of your deeds, good and bad, in chronologcial order and with all factors leading up to them or influencing them, and assigns each of them a score based on the deed itself, the deeds immediately surrounding that one (up to a certain falloff range, likely) and the circumstances and influences, and from those scores would determine an overall score (come to think of it, that's very similar to how DNA sequence alignment scoring works in bioinformatics ... might be because I'm reading heavily into that at the moment xD) that correspons to your placement on the "gradient". That, however, would only be a starting point. Everyone would have the chance to better themselves, redeem themselves, or screw up even more, and their position on the gradient would change accordingly. That would be based upon your interactions with your fellow inhabitants of eternity, because to be honest, an everlasting life would have to be even more focused on social interaction than this limited one is - unless you'll do the same things for all eternity, of course. I've never really heard anything about that particular facet of afterlife by christians. So, if you've truly changed, truly become a better person, as I think anyone should always have the opportunity to, you'll be rewarded accordingly. If you behave badly, you'll be punished accordingly. I think that would be a rather just system.
So, to answer your two points directly:
1) I would not draw a line. A line will always be a faulty implement that is unjust to one or the other. A smooth gradient would ensure that everybody gets exactly what they deserve. And because I like to believe in our basically limitless potential instead of some inherent evil, I would give anyone the opportunity to change, if they mean it.
2) On a gradient, there is no place where anybody would be required to be "perfect". So it wouldn't matter if most if not all people are imperfect. I don't get this obsession with perfection anyway, it would be rather boring to be perfect, methinks. Our little quirks and imperfections are what makes life interesting in the first place. Were we all perfect, life would be perfectly boring, and we're speaking about a finite life here. Think of how much more of a bore an eternity in a heaven full of perfect people would be. Personally, I don't see any need for a perfect paradise in the first place. That's why I actually favor the idea of the ancient norse culture in terms of afterlife: As long as you die with a sword in hand, you'll go to Valhalla to drink, eat and party until the end of time. Sounds good enough to me, especially since there's bound to be a whole lot of mead involved, and I love mead. Why would I need or want a "perfect paradise"?
(And I hope you realize that I'm being only slightly tongue-in-cheek here ... aside from the fact that I really do love mead, that is ^^)
"Please resist the urge to roll your eyes at the above paragraph like just another Sunday school story. Doesn't it, on close inspection, actually make sense???"
It depends. In terms of me seeing where you're coming from, yes, I can understand it. But in terms of the story making sense in and of itself ... well ... I always ask myself this (and this is honest puzzlement right here): Why would a perfect and all-powerful god need to have his own son - who also happens to be another aspect of himself - tortured to death to be able to forgive people their sins? One would think that he would be able to do so directly, instead of taking such a convoluted approach. He obviously has no problem with embodying paradoxes, otherwise he could not be perfectly just and perfectly merciful and benevolent at the same time, which allegedly he is, right? So ... why all the hassle?
As to your analogy of the highway ... well, if the exit is clearly visible, labeled and proven to be actually leading to the Amusement Park, sure, I'd take it. But reality would be closer to this analogy: Imagine you're in the same situation, driving down the same highway, but instead of a clear "Amusement Park" exit, you find innumerable, dusty dirt roads that all have labels of one amusement park or another at their beginnings, some on more or less compelling-looking signs, some on cardboard signs, some on bright neon signs ... and as you look more closely at them, some of those dirt roads seem to end after a few metres with signs pointing up into the sky, and none of the seem like they'd be good for your car to drive on. What's more, all around you, for mile after mile, and day after day, there is only an endless desert. You've never seen an amusement park anywhere and you're not even sure that they have 'em in this state. So ... would you take one of those dirt-road exits on the off-chance that you might find something worthwhile on them if you keep driving for long enough? Or will you continue on the road you know and settle for the comfort of the occasional diner and gas station you know do exist?
Now ... concerning Hell ...
"The suffering that is Hell, it's... inevitable. It's the choice to be away from God--God the creator, God who gives life. How can any place outside of God's direct rule be nice?"
Well ... in that case, I'm in hell right now, am I not? Ostensibly, I'm away from god, whether by conscious choice as you think or by cumulative result of my life, experiences and worldview as I think (it really doesn't matter in the end), and I must honestly say that it's rather nice here. My life is good, it's obviously not as good as can be - that's impossible, by all means - but it's good. I agree that there is a lot of suffering in this world, but ultimately that's due to human arrogance, greed and other failings. We can overcome those, in fact we gradually are. Compare life today with life a millenium ago. It'll take time and we'll stumble along the way, but I'm confident we'll eventually make it.
I guess my point is ... I don't see the value of preparing for any life after death when there's so much to do and improve in this life, this one life we know for certain we do have. Call me a naive optimist, call me a hopeless romantic, but I think it's something worth striving for. And I personally don't feel like I need a higher authority for this.
"But anyway... that's what I think about that video. It's ignoring sin--human's propensity to do evil, the REAL reason people are judged--and that belief or disbelief in an unfalsifiable concept is absolutely a choice.
"
It is ignoring sin, yes. But as I said, I don't think he's ignoring it for the reasons you think. And it's not as simple as you make it out to be, it's not a binary choice ^_-
Now that that's done ... on to more light-hearted stuff, shall we? Boy, this is getting long again ... xD
First of all, thank you for not tapping into the old No-true-Scotsman fallacy. I can't believe I finally meet a christian wo doesn't use it.
I personally think that it's hard to say if somebody is an actual christian or not, but if they themselves are convinced of it, it usually means that they are. That indeed doesn't render them immune from doing bad things - just as personally I don't think that it makes them more inclined to do bad things per sΓ© - even if many extremists like the WBC makes one want to believe otherwise sometimes ... but those are a very vocal, very small minority.
As to baptism ...
Depends. It's not even always nice. That incredible story of mormons baptizing dead jews by proxy comes to mind, I'd certainly not call that "nice" ... xD It's mostly very tasteless.
Gay rights ...
"(actually, the fact is I just don't know, only God knows and He hasn't exactly been clear on the matter in the Bible)"
Heh ... I know, right? I like when people use that one verse from Leviticus to justify their homophobia, without realizing that the original uses two different words that have both - incorrectly - translated as "man" but in fact mean "man" and "sanctified man". So essentially, the only thing that's rightly considered an abomination is what some pastors are doing with their altar boys ... ^__^
As to the whole gay marriage issue I really think that a religious marriage ceremony should be up to the individual church to grant or deny, but the civil marriage and the rights that come with it should be unquestionably equal for any and every couple.
Good fruit ...
I never did assume that, no worries ^^
I myself don't believe that we can ever attain perfection, nor do I see why it would be desirable, as I have pointed out, but perfect goodness is a healthy goal to strive for, I guess.
Convictions ...
Hah. I guess we're encouraging each other here, really
I do say that I rather enjoy myself, this kind of spirited discussion is actually pretty rare these days. Even though it takes a while as far as typing is concerned ...
In any case, consider yourself internet-hugged back
Star Trek ...
Yeah. I enjoy Voyager for similar reasons, really ... the cast is a lot more familiar than you'd find in, say, DS9. It reminds me of Stargate at times, even (which is still among my absolute favorite scifi shows ever, among Battlestar Galactica (the new one) and Firefly ... oh, and Farscape, although for some reason hardly anyone seems to know about it, which is a shame).
And the doctor is awesome. There are a few episodes where it's overdone a little, but generally ... awesome. Of course, Robert Picardo is generally pretty cool.
And I've watched much of TNG the first 1.5 seasons of ENT, VOY completely (twice, in fact) and am just about to wrap up DS9 ^^
Yeah ... time is always an issue once you leave your youth behind, isn't it? I never find enough time for anything any more. I'll have to continue playing STO in a while, because I also like it a lot (well, besides the obvious free2play side of it, but that's to be expected ... ^^) - it just does have all those nice little details all over the place. It feels right, the atmosphere is spot-on.
Starmade ...
Oh, yeah, I know all about hype ... my GW2 guild was formed more than three years before release, actually. We went to gamescom together for the very first reveal (in fact, I guess I was one of the first people worldwide to get my hands on it), the anticipation, the waiting, the theorycrafting ... it was almost better than the game itself ^^ I even played in their closed alpha tests for nearly a year before release. So ... yeah, I definitely understand hype xD
In fact, I'm again hyped for a game right now ... have you by chance heard of Star Citizen? (I really should know by now that hype is dangerous ... but I never seem to get any wiser. It's funny, isn't it? ^^)
And don't worry about replying. Take your time. I'll be here a while yet ... ^^
Heh ... I really should get a word count on one of these replies one of these days. Is it me or are they getting longer and longer? xD
Anyway. Strangely enough, I have a story spooking around in my head for years now, waiting to be written down, but I never seem to get to it. It's gotten quite complex over the years already. Originally intended to turn it into an old-school RPG, but I haven't done anything in that direction in years now ... maybe I'll finish it someday ... who knows? ^^
π: 0 β©: 1
"Heh .... you know, there are days when I really hate DA for artificially elongating any comment replies in your inbox, cramming them in a 10th of your screen width instead of using the whole thing ... xD
All you have to do is click "reply" where it says "Username posted a reply on blahblahblah." It will take you to a separate page where everything fits the screen ^^
Re: Cosmological Argument
I'll just go ahead and post the argument here for us all to work with, as per the classical version on Wikipedia (also, my apologies, at least once I have said 'first premise' when I really meant the second, but aha, I guess that doesn't matter now.)
1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;
Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.
"I have a problem with it in the way that there is one thing where we do not know this to be true, and that is the universe itself."
That's what I meant when I said that you can reject the second premise (I really said 'first', which is my bad, I apologize) and make up alternate theories, but as far as I'm aware, those we don't and probably can't know, but the big bang we do know, so I think that if you have a problem with the first premise (and here I really do mean first), you can't point to the universe itself as a counterexample unless you favor working with hypothetical models instead of actual, proven science (the big bang). Which is fine by me, but it does nothing to take away the credibility of the second premise (and by extension, the first) unless you actually prove one of them (since if you assert those models to be true, the burden of proof rests with you or the scientists who have proposed them. And Occam's Razor and all that, hey.)
But actually I'm not going to pull out "burden of proof" and "Occam's razor" as a weapon, because honestly I think those get in the way of civilized discourse by hiding behind these "aha gotcha!" phrases that don't actually mean anything but are supposed to halt the argument and put the opponent on the defense without the accuser themself coming up with an actual, valid point to discuss. I find it kind of pointless and needlessly tiring.
Oh, anyway, my actual point is--as before--if you want to discard this argument as unconvincing for any of the above discussed reasons, that's fine, but I do not see any sort of inherent flaw with the reasoning. In fact, if you take everything at face value and indeed follow it to it's conclusion and say, "Then the cause of the universe is a supernatural universe which exists in spacial and temporal realms beyond our own." -- That's absolutely as valid as concluding that, "There must be a God Creator." Which brings me back to what I said a few posts ago about such a universe, hahaha, I guess we better stop this before we start circling around. I do want to say one more thing, though.
"so we have no way of knowing for sure that the premise "everything needs a cause" is factually true in every case. And since the cosmological argument itself actually disregards this very premise in its conclusion - because an entity that could be regarded as an "uncaused cause" would violate that very premise"
But the premise isn't "everything needs a cause." It's "everything that has a BEGINNING needs a cause," which doesn't encompass everything, such as mathematics principles or a hypothetical God or a hypothetical "super-universe." An "uncaused cause" is perfectly valid as long as said entity is eternal and has no beginning.
Re: Faith
"Basically what I mean is that anything you take on "faith" in your daily life - you mentioned many good examples I won't need to repeat individually - can, at least theoretically, be verified by you, by worldly means."
What about faith in friends? ^^ What about faith in historical events that are only known through written records or passed down orally? Those cannot be verified (unless you have a time machine), so then would you say that those are classified in the same realm as "non-rational" faith? If yes, then, that's my entire point. Every average person--even the non-religious ones--relies on "non-rational" (I don't like this term but if that's how you've chosen to label it) faith. It's a giant, big faith boat we're all in together, except those paranoid hermits who are in their rational boat--the true skeptics, I guess you could say.
Re: Free Will
"So, to take up your recording analogy, yes, he would know the recording before it happened, but not only that - it would have been perfectly within his power to stop any and every single event in said recording from happening, including the existence of the recording in the first place. So in a way the act of creation itself would indeed be an intervention, would it not?
I don't follow. How is "the power to stop" = "creation"? To me they seem opposite.
"I think one thing you have overlooked a little in his wording is that he is, in fact, speaking hypothetically. I guess he ultimately holds much the same views about free will as I do, that is to say I reckon he does think we actually have it, but believes that - were he to assume (here obviously for the sake of argument) that the christian god with all his characteristics, including omniscience, did indeed exist - we would not really have true free will."
I still don't understand why that would be. So you're saying his argument only applies to a version of the Christian God where free will is nonexistent? Then... yeah, I guess his argument is fine o.O But see I don't understand where that's coming from. I don't understand how a God--any God--would nullify free will.
Re: Faith as Choice
You're saying faith is akin to likes and dislikes and it cannot be helped. I just totally and completely disagree, because I feel like you're equating faith with emotion (correct me if I'm wrong), but faith is not an emotion. Confidence is, I think, and I if I re-read your entire paragraphs replacing "faith" with "confidence," then I find myself able to agree to a certain extent and understand.
I guess it comes down to semantics.
But I think the difference is that confidence is how you feel and faith is what you choose to regard as true or trustworthy. I guess I'm defining faith AS a choice which is unfair, but I'm not sure what other word I should use. Because it DOES exist. What about when a friend really hurts you and messes up and begs for a second chance? Your confidence in them is very low based on emotions and experiences you cannot control, but isn't there something within you that can decide to forgive them and give them a second chance, putting your faith in them and the friendship once more? That's the faith I'm talking about. That's the faith that religion requires, I think--not based on confidence (emotion) or experience (something out of your control) but on a decision that comes from your heart.
IDK what do you think? ^_^ Can you at least see where I'm coming from?
Re: Sin
"I can understand the underlying sentiment, really - to lead the best and most moral life you can, that's noble, really - but the idea of always being measured to a standard of absolute perfection that one can impossibly hope to live up to is something I find completely absurd and, honestly, quite unhealthy for one's self-esteem"
That's not the sentiment, though, at least not for Christianity. We know we will never live the 'best and most moral life we can.' God knows it, too. That's why he gives us a way to escape the judgment of sin through Jesus -- all very basic Christian principles. ^^ It's far from damaging to our self-esteem, it's bolstering! Even though we still mess up a lot -- and CHOOSE to mess up even though we know better -- God still found a way for us to escape the judgment that we rightfully deserve and even sacrificed Himself to do it, because he values us, so we have no trouble valuing ourselves.
Actually, I do have low self-esteem because of a multitude of reasons, but almost all of them are imposed by society (such as one's appearance and one's social skills). The one thing that does give me a little bit of belief in myself is knowing that I was created by God and I have been bought by the blood of God and therefore I do have worth, no matter what happens.
Whether you disagree with my belief is one thing, but to say that Christian beliefs are unhealthy for self-esteem, I testify that as wrong ^_^
"I can accept that everybody makes wrong choices at some point in their life. Maybe they even hurt others. That's a fact of life, it happens."
That is what sin is.
"We can and should do our best to minimize those occurrences. But I do not believe that being told that we are born with some kind of stigma that increases by doing something wrong in our lives (and mind you, that does not only include things that we as a species and society generally agree on as "wrong", but many completely nonsensical and arbitrary things - again, I'd very much like to point to Leviticus) and can never be lifted from us within the confines of our worldly lives, because that would take reaching a hypothetical standard we are completely incapable of possibly achieving, is something that doesn't do anything more to minimize those occurrences than simply deciding to try and live a decent life"
I understand and appreciate that point of view, but when one adds God into the equation, things change. (I was under the assumption we were operating under the hypothetical circumstance that the Christian God DOES exist, right? After all, we're still talking about his video and why I think it was unfair, aren't we? The video where God's existence is accepted for the sake of argument? If we're not talking about the potential for God's existence anymore, then yeah I agree that talking about sin is pointless.)
If you do accept God's existence, sin and its importance make sense. We are accountable. There IS a holy standard we should live up to, there IS someone who upholds justice, there IS a way for us to overcome all of it through the power of Christ, and He DOES have the power to help us strengthen our character.
So--yes--he should have included the topic of sin in his video, because he was temporarily suspending his disbelief, and therefore his atheist world view as you describe was not relevant to the context.
Re: Original Sin
Here I have nothing of value to say, because I have not researched this topic nor read much about it, so the wisest course of action would be for me to defer to another Christian or theologian on this topic. ^^
Re: Afterlife
Your constructed afterlife system is rather interesting, but you didn't really explain much about what the gradient is actually like. How bad is the low part and how good is the high part? Is anyone actually completely happy? If you do not demand perfection and even allow sin to occur anywhere (again, take it at face value: wrongdoings and evil), allowing people to "screw up even more," and BE hurt by others--even if they're in the top tier--then a person's happiness is going to fluctuate and most probably--well, there's a virtual certainty, if we're working with the timeframe of eternity--they're going to end up hating their (after)life at certain points.
This is a perfectly just afterlife, but is it loving at all? You would be a cold-hearted God, unwilling to show any mercy at all--only giving people exactly what they deserve based on your algorithms. That's fine, I guess, but I'm glad that the Christian God is not like that, and I have a chance to live in a true paradise where I will be happy and secure in my joy forever.
"As long as you die with a sword in hand, you'll go to Valhalla to drink, eat and party until the end of time. Sounds good enough to me, especially since there's bound to be a whole lot of mead involved, and I love mead. Why would I need or want a "perfect paradise"?"
I know you were speaking jokingly, but answer seriously: do you truly consider that an imperfect paradise? And why?
"Why would a perfect and all-powerful god need to have his own son - who also happens to be another aspect of himself - tortured to death to be able to forgive people their sins? One would think that he would be able to do so directly, instead of taking such a convoluted approach."
I think there are plenty of ways to look at this, and not all of these may be true (since I obviously cannot understand the exact ways of God), but there's a smattering of reasons that could be the actual case, or a combination, or something related:
1. To prove He understands pain.
2. To prove He can conquer death, even the worst kind.
3. To embody His forgiveness in a tangible, historical event.
4. To show that His love transcends anything.
5. Both symbolically and literally fulfilling the sacrificial requirement needed to forgive sin under the old law of animal sacrifice. (Hebrews 9:22; In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.)
6. Free will was one of God's gifts to us, but in order to honor that, it comes with a price.
7. To reveal humanity's ugliest nature.
He took our sins upon Himself, and although I don't understand exactly what it means or how it works, knowing that it happened and DOES work is good enough for me. Full comprehension is not necessary (or probably even possible).
"He obviously has no problem with embodying paradoxes, otherwise he could not be perfectly just and perfectly merciful and benevolent at the same time, which allegedly he is, right?"
God proves that the qualities are not incompatible, for he judges us all fairly and thus condemns us, but at the same time He provides an outlet for mercy in Jesus Christ. Without the justice of His perfect judgement, there could be no mercy--because there would be nothing to countermand, which is something mercy requires--and thus they both support each other's existence. Both, according to Christianity, occur, and there is no conflict.
It even applies to earthly life. A pardon for a condemned criminal means nothing at all if he has not already been fairly convicted.
Re: Amusement Park Analogy
I actually really appreciate your counter-analogy and think it's quite clever. However, my intention was not to show that Christianity is clearly the right religion; my intention was to show that NOT going down a certain path is a choice that is your own responsibility and has consequences. If, after all, there really was a good road to go down and you purposefully ignored it, then that's your own fault. And you can't say there isn't, because every single road stretches beyond a thick white fog with no possibility of seeing the other side from the highway (ie the unfalsifiability of religion), so you have to decide without visual proof whether you choose to trust the sign or not. Is not the amusement park worth it?
Aaaanyway
Re: Sci-fi
I've never seen Stargate or Farscape (although my friend liked Farscape I believe) or even Firefly (although I MUST watch it sometime with how much praise I hear about it), but I did watch a little bit of the new BSG and it was pretty neat ^^ I didn't finish it, though...
Oh, but have you watched Babylon-5?? It was funny, because I once went to Best Buy looking for ST Enterprise DVDs, but they didn't have the seasons I wanted, so my dad handed me the nearest sci-fi DVD which was season 1 of Babylon-5 and told me to try it instead. I looked at it and it seemed like just another cheesy B-series to me, so I was like, uhhh naaaw xD But he refused to leave without getting me something, so he bought it for me, and so I watched it... And I really, REALLY loved it. It reminds me a lot of DS9 not just because they're on a stationary space station but because it's a little bit grittier than most Star Treks, but at the same time it has the same spirit of the show which is overall positive and peaceful even throughout turmoil. The characters and the issues they face seem genuine, and I really liked the music and atmosphere.
But I heard that season 5 was pretty terrible so I stopped at season 4, heheheh, I didn't want to ruin it for myself ^.^ I might watch it eventually, though, because I'm curious how it is (the season 4 finale was pretty much a definite series-ender because the showrunners didn't think they were going to get a 5th season.)
Oh man now I want to watch it so bad right now ;_;
Today I finally get to finish Doctor Who, though! I spent the last week catching up on my backlog of episodes, and now all I have left is the 50th anniversary special
"Oh, yeah, I know all about hype ... my GW2 guild was formed more than three years before release, actually."
*falls off chair* Haha I wouldn't be able to stand waiting that long!! XD
Star Citizen... I haven't heard of it, no, but I looked it up and watched part of the trailer, and, whoa, gonna be fun to have an Oculus Rift with that baby XD
Starbound has been pretty fun so far, although they keep updating it with patches which are totally swinging the balance of the game around like a spinning top, and so it's hard to really commit to playing with all the changes and the character wipes and stuff XD Hopefully the latest update will keep things stable for a while, though; it seems like it fixed a lot of the main problems :3
"Anyway. Strangely enough, I have a story spooking around in my head for years now, waiting to be written down, but I never seem to get to it. It's gotten quite complex over the years already. Originally intended to turn it into an old-school RPG, but I haven't done anything in that direction in years now ... maybe I'll finish it someday ... who knows? ^^"
Complex stories are the best kind of story. I always used to pick books at the library based on their thickness. I imagine I still would if not for pesky time constraints XP
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh, right, I've almost forgotten about that. DA does make it hard sometimes to find what you want (especially if you're using the search engine ... *cough*).
Aight. Cosmological argument.
Well ... the big bang is most likely the beginning of the universe as we know it, that's true, so I'd rephrase the whole thing to say "known universe" instead of "universe". The big bang is not necessarily the beginning, it's only the furthest point we can look back to, and we are fairly certain things were a lot different befor its occurrence.
"if you want to discard this argument as unconvincing for any of the above discussed reasons, that's fine"
Well, that's my whole point. I'm not saying I can disprove it, because I can't. But it's not enough to convince me (or most other scientists for that matter), because it's by far not the most plausible, let alone the only thinkable explanation.
"That's absolutely as valid as concluding that, "There must be a God Creator." "
True, but at this point we arrive at the unfalsifiable wall again. It would be just as valid to claim that because we grant the premises of the cosmological argument, Odin has formed the universe out of the corpse of the frost giant Ymir. It's a classical "Russell's Teapot" situation - you could claim anything - as long as it is supposedly eternal - as the conclusion of the cosmological argument, and this arbitrariness is the major point that makes it unconvincing especially as an attempt to prove the existence of the christian god. Or any specific other god or mythology.
The argument as you copied it from wikipedia in itself would be just fine, because yes, I tend to agree that something caused the universe in its current form. However, the argument offers absolutely no indications whatsoever as to what exactly this "something" is, therefore asserting that "we call this cause God", as Thomas Aquinus does, is indeed a faulty conclusion.
"But the premise isn't "everything needs a cause." It's "everything that has a BEGINNING needs a cause," which doesn't encompass everything, such as mathematics principles or a hypothetical God or a hypothetical "super-universe." An "uncaused cause" is perfectly valid as long as said entity is eternal and has no beginning."
Maybe, but that again raises the question of why that "uncaused cause", or "first cause", or "prime mover", or whatever you may call it, is or even can be eternal, when a version of the argument itself asserts that the eternal is an impossibility in reality. Some may therefore call the conclusion special pleading.
"What about faith in friends? ^^ What about faith in historical events that are only known through written records or passed down orally?"
Well, I think this again falls into the category of "things we can be reasonably certain of, within limits". We cannot be absolutely certain in those cases, but we can in theory reach a sufficient level of certainty by verifiable means and research (or in case of friends, experience and insight into human nature). That still works very well within boundaries. I believe you seem to view it too much as a black/white thing, it's never that binary I think. It's more grayscale.
The field of human social interaction is a tricky one, and in certain cases it does become rather irrational, I'll agree (love is one of those cases ... they don't say "love makes blind" for no reason, after all ... ^^), but in either that or cases like history, we still have a far better chance of knowing something with a reasonable degree of certainty than is the case with religion or faith in the supernatural in general, because we cannot verify those at all.
"How is "the power to stop" = "creation"? To me they seem opposite."
Ah, but I didn't say they were the same thing. I said creation is an intervention of sorts. And the power to stop that recording, essentially the power to not create would also be an intervention - two sides of the same coin.
"I still don't understand why that would be. So you're saying his argument only applies to a version of the Christian God where free will is nonexistent? Then... yeah, I guess his argument is fine o.O But see I don't understand where that's coming from. I don't understand how a God--any God--would nullify free will."
I think it comes from the same reasoning I made a few posts before, about how the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient being would essentially mean that free will cannot exist. I realize (as you pointed out) that this is probably debatable, but he could very well operate under this assumption. It's fairly common among atheists as far as I can tell.
"You're saying faith is akin to likes and dislikes and it cannot be helped. I just totally and completely disagree, because I feel like you're equating faith with emotion (correct me if I'm wrong), but faith is not an emotion."
Correct you I shall ^^
I only used likes and dislikes as an example (likes/dislikes are not necessarily emotions, either. Based on them, maybe, but they're not emptions themselves - faith is also based on emotions to a degree. As is everything, really), an example of how something that might seem as if it was a choice is actually a more unconscious development over time, influenced by myriads of different factors.
I've been thinking about this one, actually, and I think it's possible that actually, positively choosing faith/religion can be a conscious choice for some people (not necessarily for all of them, mind you - how many people have been indoctrinated from an early age and just took it at face value while never thinking to question anything?). However, it's not a binary choice. You don't arrive at a point in your life where you pick between "faith" and "no faith". While you may make a conscious effort to embrace it, that effort is still influenced by many factors. You'll never be at a point where the options of believing in, say, a god, and not believing in such a being have equal weight and you could go in either direction, you'll always carry a predisposition in one direction or another, for any number of reasons. As such, an atheist like myself who has done a lot of thinking about the subject, a lot of research and reading, will be heavily leaning in the no-faith direction already, so it really isn't much of a choice to not believe. It just follows naturally, and in light of all the thinking, the evidence and the research I personally could not have "chosen" to believe in a god, because it would directly contradict that heavy, accumulated predisposition. I cannot choose to believe something despite my perceived knowledge of reality, therefore it really isn't a choice, all things considered.
I hope that made some sense.
"Actually, I do have low self-esteem because of a multitude of reasons, but almost all of them are imposed by society (such as one's appearance and one's social skills). "
Yeah, society is a double-edged sword. I struggled with similar problems in my youth (damn, that sounded way older than I intended it to xD). I can't even really pinpoint what helped me out of it, but I have since come to regard many "social norms" as nonsense. For example, I don't really give a damn any more how other people perceive me. If they don't like how I look, that's their problem. I don't care that society says that men must have short hair and be clean-shaven, I do what I like and it feels great, and long hair and bears are awesome!
I guess I wanted to make a point of giving you advice or something like that, but ... I honestly don't even know how I developed that self-esteem myself xD I'll just say ... you can definitely overcome it.
Um ... anyway. Sin, was it?
"I understand and appreciate that point of view, but when one adds God into the equation, things change. (I was under the assumption we were operating under the hypothetical circumstance that the Christian God DOES exist, right? After all, we're still talking about his video and why I think it was unfair, aren't we? The video where God's existence is accepted for the sake of argument? If we're not talking about the potential for God's existence anymore, then yeah I agree that talking about sin is pointless.)
"
I actually didn't consider that in my previous post (I might have been rambling on about my personal views on the subject too much ^^), but yes, assuming your god DOES exist, the whole concept, however unfair I might deem it, would indeed be relevant. But as I (at least I hope I did ... ) pointed out previously, the concept of sin and the workingd of redemption etc. are rather alien to most atheists, so I don't think he disregarded it on purpose, I think he jsut didn't really think about it because other things seemed more important. And since it is an answer to pascale's wager and he did point out that the judgement part of the whole experience would be secondary to him (keep in mind that his view of your religion may differ from how you view it yourself - that may well include the points you make about how everybody categorically will be judged unworthy and go to hell regardless - unless jesus, yadda yadda - you know what I mean ^^ He may well see it more akin to everybody being judged based on how sinful their lives were or something like that), I don't really see it as unfair. He's focusing on his reasoning for being an atheist and god knowing and understanding said reasoning intimately.
"because he was temporarily suspending his disbelief, and therefore his atheist world view as you describe was not relevant to the context."
No, careful there. He was not suspending his disbelief in the slightest. He was arguing how he - as an atheist still -Β would react to finding out that he was wrong. His disbelief is still relevant, as are the reasons behind it. Sure, in the hypothetical situation he describes, he wouldn't hold said disbelief any longer for obvious reasons, but in that situation he would still be looking at the past and analyze his disbelief and the reasons for it to see where he might have made a mistake. That's the whole point.
"you didn't really explain much about what the gradient is actually like. How bad is the low part and how good is the high part? Is anyone actually completely happy?"
Well, I do have to point out that the christian faith doesn't really explain how bad or good hell and heaven are, respectively, either. This goes less so for hell, since some christians seem to love to paint the most gruesome depictions of hell (I'm looking at you, Dante ... ), but especially about heaven we actually know very little, don't we? We do know that there seems to be some sort of hierarchy in it, because the lowest of the low in this life apparently become the highest of the high in heaven, and vice versa (how that is compatible with complete happiness for everybody, I don't know). We also know somebody will be handing out some crowns of some sort for some of the denizens. And frequently, it's described as "being close to god" - which doesn't sound too enticing as a concept for all eternity, if you ask me. Other than that, the only thing I've heard being said about christian heaven is that people who inhabit it will get to watch the sinners suffer in hell, which strikes me as rather petty, not to say small-minded and cruel.
As to my own "afterlife" idea ... well, I don't know, there are several concepts that could work. For example, one I came up with off the top of my head right now: On every level, people will be together with others of their kind (sin-wise, I mean). Psychopaths will be put together with psychopaths, murderers with murderers and so on, and they'd have nobody but each other to prey on. If they treat each other kindly, however (think good conduct), they'd slowly rise up the slope, so to speak. Since old sin is not erased, the worse their sins the more good deeds they'd have to do to counter them and raise their average. As far as the "locations" themselves go ... the lowest place would be a place of perpetual pain or something much like concepts of christian hell, I guess, and it'd get gradually better and better. Your average joe (meaning somebody who may have lied here and there and desired his neighbor's wife once or twice, but always did his best to be kind to people) in this life would already go to a place of luxury and happiness, and the higher up it goes the more of that you'd see, up to the top 5-10% or something who'd have the ability to form their afterlife into whatever makes them happiest. There will of course never be someone who has led a sinfree life, so the scale would go up as high as, say, 99.99999% or something, but never factually reach 100%, but in all honesty, as I already said ... absolute perfection, with absolutely perfect people and an absolutely perfect "life" would also mean nothing more to strive for, nothing more to exist for, boredom. For all eternity. So I think that really isn't all bad. After all, if you really think about it ... we never are completely and perfectly happy in this life, either, there are ups and downs even in the greatest life imaginable, and while it could always be a little better still, aren't those ups and downs what makes life worth living in the first place? We don't even have an actual concept of "perfect happiness", it's as unimaginable as the concept of infinity, if you really think about it.
"If you do not demand perfection and even allow sin to occur anywhere (again, take it at face value: wrongdoings and evil), allowing people to "screw up even more," and BE hurt by others--even if they're in the top tier--then a person's happiness is going to fluctuate and most probably--well, there's a virtual certainty, if we're working with the timeframe of eternity--they're going to end up hating their (after)life at certain points. "
I think they would in any case. At least if they're still themselves.
See, another problem I see with the whole "demanding perfection" thing is that essentially, this would change people so much they'd be unrecognizable. Your personality is made up of different traits, aspects, quirks, maybe even ticks, whatever, and most if not all of these cannot be considered "perfect" by any means. If all those parameters were to be set to "perfect", so to speak, would you still be you? Other people's personalities also have those same traits, aspects, quirks and ticks, but in different configuration and degree. You may be more compassionate than someone else, but they might be more skilled at woodcarving. Just a dumb example, substitute whatever you like in there. If everybody is perfect at everything and if everybody has perfect traits, aspects, quirks and ticks, wouldn't everybody be more or less the same? They certainly wouldn't be themselves.
So it would seem to me that you have two options here: Either you allow people to be imperfect, have their own personalities and particularities, and accept a certain amount of fluctuation in happiness - maybe even to the point of resentment of the eternity they are given;
Or you demand absolute perfection (which you'd have to artificially enforce by making people absolutely perfect) and do not tolerate any sin at all however small, but accept that everybody is basically the same person, there is no individuality and you have basically created a horde of perfect little shells without personality, but at least they'd all be absolutely and perfectly happy at all times and perfectly incapable of not liking their state of being.
"I know you were speaking jokingly, but answer seriously: do you truly consider that an imperfect paradise? And why?"
Of course I do. It might be a very desirable paradise, but as long as there is the potential for it being even better, it cannot be perfect, can it? And I have no problem imagining an even better one, even if it is admittedly pretty good already. That's the thing with perfection, it's inachievable, and if you really think about it, it's even inconceivable for the human mind.
"1. To prove He understands pain.
2. To prove He can conquer death, even the worst kind.
3. To embody His forgiveness in a tangible, historical event.
4. To show that His love transcends anything.
5. Both symbolically and literally fulfilling the sacrificial requirement needed to forgive sin under the old law of animal sacrifice. (Hebrews 9:22; In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.)
6. Free will was one of God's gifts to us, but in order to honor that, it comes with a price.
7. To reveal humanity's ugliest nature."
These are interesting points. Some of them could indeed be possible, some of them I don't agree with, but they're interesting at the very least. I'll write my thoughts to most of them:
1. He could have done that any other way, though. No need for death, either.
2. Possibly. If it actually happened, this would indeed be a good point.
3. Why, then, not in a more developed area of the world where more records of it would have survived the centuries? Like, say, Rome? The only accounts of the actual resurrection are found in the bible, this event is not mentioned by any other contemporary source (even though the name Chrestus is mentioned here and there, mostly in accounts of rumors). Why couldn't he have been clearer? Why did he not make himself known to all of the cultures in other parts of the world (China, for example)?
4. Again, possibly. See 2.
5. Well, why couldn't he just undo the law instead? He wrote it, didn't he? And since he is omniscient, why did he not forsee the need of his circumventing said law in the first place?
6. Pretty grisly price, isn't it? There could have been another way. One less bloody, maybe.
7. Why does he need to reveal humanity's ugly nature in a plot to save humanity? Besides, one look at how people were regularly behaving back then would have sufficed, methinks.
"God proves that the qualities are not incompatible, for he judges us all fairly and thus condemns us, but at the same time He provides an outlet for mercy in Jesus Christ. Without the justice of His perfect judgement, there could be no mercy--because there would be nothing to countermand, which is something mercy requires--and thus they both support each other's existence. Both, according to Christianity, occur, and there is no conflict."
But doesn't the existence of said mercy - and the fact that it is widely known to exist in exactly that fashion - effectively relieve humanity of any obligation to be moral? Think about it, if you were to kill a million people, or rape a child or two every day, your judgement would simply be hell, just as the judgement of the guy who lied to his mom back when he was nine. Both can simply get out of that punishment if they accept jesus as their savior, right? Isn't that effectively removing any punishment and therefore any reason to behave like a civilized human being? I mean, utterly beside the fact that "his perfect judgement" apparently means that lying to somebody is exactly as bad as committing multiple genocide, the whole deal effectively means that nobody is really accountable for their actions in the end, as long as they believe and accept jesus, right? How is this system just in any way? It strikes me as incredibly unjust. Merciful, maybe, I'll give you that - at least merciful to criminals. But just? How?
"A pardon for a condemned criminal means nothing at all if he has not already been fairly convicted."
A pardon isn't handed out to anybody who asks for one, though. A pardon is tied to several conditions, usually, and the convicted would have to make a lot of amends to get it. Which is kinda like my proposed afterlife, I think ... ^^
Besides, a pardon for, say, a murderer, rapist, pedophile, is usually not that just. Certainly not in the eyes of the victim or the victim's relatives.
And to use it as an analogy to divine forgiveness ... in the end, wouldn't it mean that one is convicted only to immediately be told that there is no actual punishment as long as you believe in the son of the judge, whom he had turned into a scapegoat beforehand? Isn't it like saying "You're convicted and will get what you deserve. Well, actually, now that I think about it ... nah, strike that."?
"And you can't say there isn't, because every single road stretches beyond a thick white fog with no possibility of seeing the other side from the highway (ie the unfalsifiability of religion), so you have to decide without visual proof whether you choose to trust the sign or not. Is not the amusement park worth it?"
It depends. I can't actually see the amusement park through the fog, so even if I happen to know for a fact that it's out there somewhere, how can I possibly say if it's worth it? After all, I won't know if it lives up to the hype until I get there (provided I ever will), will I? ^^
And on an entirely different note ... what if I'm not the type of guy who takes a particular liking to amusement parks? ^_-
Right.
Serious stuff out of the way ... *whew*. Getting late again xD
Heh. BSG is pretty good. Right up to the last episode, that is. It's mostly pretty badass, but the resolution is just .... iunno. The series takes so much care of building up its storylines and premises, and right when you expect them to come to a resounding close, it's like they completely threw them out. It's a slap in the face, really ... but right until then the series is great ^^
And I can definitely recommend Firefly. I will forever despise FOX for cancelling that series after not even a single full season, and I'm by far not alone with that sentiment ^^
Stargate and Farscape are great as well, though. I mean ... I basically grew up with Stargate. Maybe I'm biased. Have I mentioned already that Robert Picardo also plays a recurring role for much of the series (even though he's not involved in any comic relief as opposed to his role as the Doctor)?
Babylon 5? Ohh yes. Seen the whole thing. At first I wasn't too sure about it (that lasted for, maybe, an episode or two), but in the end I absolutely loved it. I don't see why the last season would be bad, though. I suspect classical nerdrage, the type of reason for which many Trekkies seem to hate Voyager, something I will never comprehend. The similarities with DS9 are indeed striking, though, especially during the first seasons of each. But considering that they launched maybe a year apart, it's no surprise ... ^^
"*falls off chair* Haha I wouldn't be able to stand waiting that long!! XD"
Hah. looking back, the waiting was probably one of the greatest things. It really kept the guild as a whole together. Which is kinda bittersweet, as it's effectively crumbling due to inactivity right now.
Yep, that's pretty much what I thought. I want an Oculus Rift anyway - really hope the 1080p consumer version comes out next year - even if only for Star Citizen. I backed back in November 2012, because it seemed to really have the right idea, but I hadn't dreamed of it becoming so huge (I think it's by far the most successful crowdfunding project of all time - nearly halfway to $35 million right now), and I am really beginning to believe they can pull it off.
Hum. I've been watching a few let's plays of Starbound over the last few days, and it really looks pretty cool. I'll probably dive into it once I have the money for it again (read: after christmas ^^).
Looks like something to keep me occupied for a while, at least until march 2014 when Dark Souls 2 finally comes out ... ^^
Ahh, reading is important. Trying to teach that to my little cousin right now (even though he doesn't agree with me). Personally, I've since switched to ebooks, mostly because I lack space for any more physical books (the whole Weel of Time series alone takes up a complete shelf, and I don't have that many shelves xD), but I do read quite a lot.
Currently, as it happens, I'm actually reading Dawkins' The God Delusion. I have since come to the conclusion that the title is mostly due to the publisher wanting something controversial ... the book itself isn't nearly as provocative xD
π: 0 β©: 2
So, I want to apologize for taking so long to reply. Honestly, the replies started getting so huge (my fault lol) that they got a bit overwhelming, and so I decided to leave it alone for a while and come back later, and here I am.
But I'm not going to address everything all over again and belabor the process even more. Honestly, re-reading over our last two posts makes me feel pretty satisfied with how we both presented our viewpoints. I think that--and you can correct me here if I'm assuming too much--we both made it so we understood each other (which is a rare occurrence on the Internet eh? ^^), and anyone reading along (as apparently some people did) probably got a fair impression of both sides. So, I'm actually happy to let the comment thread end if it should... except for ooone part which I think I really need to clarify my position on.
Perfection in paradise. You made the point that perfection would be a boring, undesirable endgame scenario if everyone was simply turned into perfect clones with all of their unique personality quirks removed. I agree. But I wasn't talking about that kind of nebulous, safe perfection--the kind where everything is uniform to prevent any differences at all. I was talking about moral perfection.
You said: "You may be more compassionate than someone else, but they might be more skilled at woodcarving. Just a dumb example, substitute whatever you like in there."
But compassion is a moral quality while woodcarving is an art skill--so they fall in different categories here for me.
Yes, I think everyone will be perfect in compassion--because it's only with moral perfection that all pain, sin, and unhappiness can be wiped away--but by NO means do I think that every other facet of personhood will be changed or powered-up or unified with everyone else. Meaning: talents (art skill, creativity, athletic discipline, etc), likes/dislikes (favorite foods, preferred color palettes, favorite songs, etc), quirks (wears mismatching socks, likes to make silly puns, etc) and any other individual-based characteristic that does not do HARM to others, self, or God (ie moral imperfection and sin) will not only be maintained, but in some instances enhanced. (For example, maybe I think I have the mental discipline to be a great tennis player, but my current earthly body is disabled, and so gaining a new body in heaven [or the New Earth, however you phrase the theology] will actually do me a favor in that I'm able to actually develop that side of me. Or--maybe I've always loved singing, but I suck at it, and eventually I stopped because of all the mean and hurtful things people said to me, but in a morally perfect paradise, I can sing all I want without the fear of being bullied or shunned.)
I think a morally perfect paradise with people's individuality remaining in tact has the secret to perfect happiness--because nothing says you still can't learn, you still can't discover, you still can't meet new people and create new friendships--and in tens of billions of different combinations, that's something fun and happy for everyone. And at the same time, nobody will get hurt, nobody will be shot down, nobody will be unloved.
That's what I see when I think of a perfect paradise. Not something boring, but something with all the flaws torn out. Once again, I highly recommend reading CS Lewis's books, because he had this sort of mentality on paradise that you might find very interesting. For nonfiction, turn to the last chapters of Mere Christianity, and for fiction, try The Great Divorce. Very, very thought-provoking. If you'd like me to send a free copy your way, all you have to do is say the word. ^^
Now, that was my single rebuttal I really wanted to type out, but if there's anything else you mentioned that you would like me to respond to--and I'm pretty sure I could, to any of it, if it still is a relevant contention to you this many months later--please just let me know. :)
And if not, I hope that you've learned something valuable from a lone little Christian's perspective. I certainly have learned many valuable things from you and our discussion. So thank you for that. Throughout these months, I've recently returned to it in my thoughts and mulled around some of the perspectives you've elaborated on. I think it's led me to seek out more answers myself, and currently I'm chewing on some theology books that talk about stuff I've never seriously considered before. I think I might have changed my views on a couple things already said.
And I think that might be one of the things people (not saying you) might miss about Christianity. It's not just the single strawman idea of "ridiculously-conservative, anti-progress, Caucasian men who hate gay people and hypocritically want those with different opinions to be burned forever in Hell" (or whatever the image is, but again, not saying you hold this stereotype at all), but it's rich in a multitude of ideas and philosophies that people adhere to and believe--ultimately united in the one pivotal point, trust in the lordship of Jesus Christ--but with so many different expressions of that. So many interpretations (which is both good and bad, I think). So many messages to proclaim (which I like to think are more good than bad).
I'm not saying that this incredible diversity is something to be happy about--because it would all be a lot easier if every Christian agreed on every topic and therefore the world could plainly see what the religion is about without all the static--but at the very least, it's fascinating and worthwhile to explore. If there's a contention, there's an answer out there. Sometimes five different, opposing answers. But I find a sense of peace in that. If humans can think of just one way (or ten-thousand denominations' worth of ways) that it all "works"--all these squabbles of Christian theology, I mean--then I feel secure trusting in God that He's already thought of that and the truth is probably something even better.
Sorry, that might have been a little bit of a tangent there, but anyway
I'm rewatching Babylon-5 with my dad! We're only on season 2, but eventually we'll get to season 5 and so I'll finally see it. Thanks for recommending that last season. That makes me feel better coming from a fellow Voyager fan XD
I AM GETTING SO PUMPED FOR THE OCULUS RIFT XD Or even the other competitors popping up; I'm just excited for this next era of visual interaction to fully hit. I think it really is going to revolutionize a lot of things, videogames only being the first. I was reading an article last night about people using it to get a panoramic view of sports games. I like watching sports, so that's exciting for me. Videogames, sports, movies, therapy, shopping, new forms of immersive entertainment, education and information distribution...! I just can't even get over it right now XDD This... this is the thing that truly deserves the hype, I think
But yeah, I hope you're doing well!
π: 0 β©: 1
Nah, no worries about taking time to reply, it's not like I'm going anywhere ... ^^
It often makes sense to look at things from a distance again for a while.
Yeah, it's fine, going through everything again and spending hours typing some more walls of text isn't what I planned for tonight anyway xD Gotta get my band's homepage done for our gig next weekend, or the guys will hit me over the head with a sword or two ^^
So I agree, we should let it rest, it's a good example of people being capable of civil discussions even while disagreeing on things, that kind of thing is hard to find on the internet these days.
Just a quick jab at the whole perfection thing, then:
"it's only with moral perfection that all pain, sin, and unhappiness can be wiped away"
I don't know. Suppose we're all in heaven and perfectly moral in every sense (for a moment ignoring the problem of defining what is and is not perfectly moral to begin with). Does that mean people couldn't be unhappy? The happiness part is still a major problem for me: I find myself incapable of coming up with any paradise scenario that would make me perfectly happy for all eternity, without a second of unhappiness. I mean ... eternity is a long time. You're bound to get bored eventually, whether it happens in 100 years, 1000 years or even a million years. Boredom means unhappiness of sorts. So, even if you and everyone around you was morally perfect, unhappiness could still exist, unless being happy was hardwired into your personality.
And that aside ... what if something that is considered amoral by whoever decides what is and isn't moral (I suppose that would be god in that scenario) is something that makes me happy? Like, say, getting hopelessly drunk with a few good friends while listening to loud and obscenely offensive music? Doesn't hurt anyone, but I'm sure many christians would call that highly amoral. Does being perfectly moral also mean that one is incapable of disagreeing with god's opinion on such things? And wouldn't that mean that I'm not really myself any more?
I think there is a reason that any "perfect" scenarios are creepy and jarring to us. Just - as an example I just thought of off the top of my head - think of the holodeck family the Doctor made for himself in that one Voyager episode (can't for the life of me remember the name, but I think it was in the last one or two seasons ... ). It feels unnatural. Whether you apply perfection as a whole or just to specific parts of a scenario or personality, it's bound to upset things.
I mean, sure, I understand the sentiment as a whole. We naturally seek to minimize the negative and maximize the positive aspects in our lives. It's only natural that we'd project that desire onto any possible afterlife scenario we can think of. Less pain and unhappiness and suffering is and will always be something we want, and that's a good thing. But this always takes place in a grey area and is never black or white. A place of absolute misery, suffering and pain without even the slightest sliver of hope or positive things feels just as wrong to me as a place where there are only positive things and everybody is perfectly happy 24/7 for all eternity. We're not black/white creatures, we're always working in shades of grey. I believe that being in either pure black or white environments would mean loss of our identity, because we're not either but both. If that makes any sense.
Or, to put it differently, light can't exist without shadows, nor shadows without light. It's the contrast that lets us recognize and differentiate.
Ehh, look at me ... rambling on again.
Well, anyway.
Yeah, I learn something in every debate. Even if most of the time it's just that people tend to be willfully stupid, but that luckily was never the case here ^^
(There was that one guy recently on youtube who quote-mined some out of context thing Dawkins once said, something about evolution never being observed directly - and no matter how many arguments to the contrary and corrections of the actual context of the quote you gave him, he ignored all of it and simply restated his original point. Like I said. Willfully stupid. And ignorant. And as if that wasn't enough, that guy was also an arrogant dick about it. But enough of that ... ^^)
I do see the diversity, yes. It's there in any field, not just religion or christianity. People will always agree on some things and disagree on others, it's only natural ^^
Sadly the more extreme, even funamentalist christians are the most vocal ones on the internet and elsewhere. Small but vocal minorities are always a problem if you ask me.
Any time. Might rewatch it at one point myself, I'll see ...
The promise of VR that the Rift holds is amazing, yeah, but I'm worrying about it these days. Facebook buying Oculus VR was definitely a very worrisome development. Sure, they promise the OR will continue being developed as planned, with no FB strings attached, but what comes after that? Personally, I'm most interested in the potential applications for gaming, but with Facebook behind it I fear the direction VR will take might be more along the lines of extreme commercialization and stepping on peoples' rights whenever they please (as facebook does already, their terms of service are nothing short of ridiculous), and gamers will get that one version and then be ignored as a relevant target group. Don't get me wrong, I'm as hyped about the thing itself as anyone else, and I'm gonna buy one even if it means giving money to the likes of Zuckerberg, but I'm worrying about future developments in that area.
Still, Star Citizen will definitely be glorious on it - already is pretty glorious on a normal monitor.
Yeah, I'm doing well enough. Finally found myself a girl, most wonderful person I've ever met ... studies are progressiond slowly but surely, found a veritable new passion in music (as if I didn't already have enough hobbies, y'know ... ^^) ... life is good.
And you?
Anyway, gotta get some work done ... ^^
π: 0 β©: 1
Okay sounds good ^^
And I'm sure a lot of people would agree with you there, but others would say that they've had enough contrast here in this life already and would wholly welcome something 100% for afterwards.
I think one of the great things about living in our current era is that with stuff like kickstarter--and just the general advancement of technology and technical skill--and the whole 'open source' mindset the Internet cultivates--there's probably always going to be safer alternatives to the big brand name stuff. So if the Oculus Rift somehow ends up turning scary with Facebook being involved, I'm pretty confident that there'll be another product almost as good--or better--that we can opt to buy instead.
Or--you know--we could all end up getting sucked into the Matrix, but hey it might be worth it for the first few years of the new golden gaming/entertainment era. (hehe)
Yeah, you have too many hobbies, so tone it down GEEZ XD
lol well glad to know it's going well for you :)
I'm doing great myself. I just finished--like less than a week ago--the book I mentioned a handful of replies back. I'm incredibly happy to put that bad boy to rest and get started on some other projects. Keepin' myself busy with creative endeavors, always fun.
π: 0 β©: 0
Oh my god I just rea all of this..
π: 0 β©: 1
I must applaud you for your patience, then, I think.
π: 0 β©: 0
actually we dont even know if gods name is actually god considering humans make up our own language so his name could be something else entirely
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, you've got a point, the 'real' name of the Judeo-Christian God is YHWH ( [link] ), usually pronounced Yahweh or Jehovah.
Still, I think our usage of the word "God" is an important name also deserving of respect.
π: 0 β©: 1
still like i said we made up the language,numbers and letters are self taught so we dont really know what his/her name is or if he/she has a name and as for the usage of the word god it really depends on the person and if he or she belives in religion...besides if there is a god out there I would like to think he would jugde us on our actions and not on what we say.And as for deserving of respect I dont like it when people thank god for everything regardless on my veiws I think we should respect eachother and our hardwork because we did it without god's help.
π: 0 β©: 1
I disagree with some of what you said, but I appreciate your point of view.
π: 0 β©: 1
well thanks for at least hearing me out i appreciate it very much
π: 0 β©: 1
Of course! ^^ Thank you for being so polite about it as well.
π: 0 β©: 1
i have no problem with peoples opinion,besides whoΒ amΒ IΒ to push my beliefs on someone
π: 0 β©: 0
Jesus Christ! There, is that any better?
π: 0 β©: 1
It bothers me, but it's your own choice to type it that way.
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>