|
On September 01 2009 03:27 HuskyTheHusky wrote:This picture I've found also angers a lot of Christians I've talked to. Though honestly I dont really get into religious debates anymore. People will believe what they've always believed and almost never change (at least from a single conversation). + Show Spoiler +
I hope that 10 doesn't include Job's family.
|
On September 01 2009 04:46 Track wrote:
qrs, I agree completely, the regression of cause-and-effect CANNOT go forever, since inevitably we would need to explain where God came from. God presents an infinite regress from which there is no escape, if you consider the Christian God to be the true one. A Deist doesn't have these complications, because he doesn't consider God to be intrinsically a part of our lives, ie, not a personal God, and not caring what we do.
You present an extremely intriguing point. If one believes in causation, the infinite regress seems to be as interminable as if one believes in the Christian God. I hesitate, though, to postulate the existence of a supreme being in order to escape this, as that's not really good science. But it does present a very good "excuse" to believe in Christianity.
I'm not really sure how to address your argument at all, really. Are you suggesting that there is no real process for decision making that is deterministic? It's difficult for me to even imagine such a concept, if truth be told. Could you elaborate a bit more for my own curiosity?
Well, think of it this way, maybe: we agree that if we are going to make any meaningful statements about anything, we have to start with fundamentals. If you take the deterministic approach, the decision-making faculty in people is just a machine whose outcome is determined given the input factors. Those factors are the fundamentals involved--the elements, if you will--e.g. in the smoking example, I enjoy smoking because I enjoy smoking. That is an element. Another element might be my desire for health, or my fear of an early death. Another element might be the degree to which I reify hypothetical future outcomes of my actions. For all of these "elements", you would not ask what the process for coming up with them is. You wouldn't say, "What is the process for determining whether you enjoy this?" It is just a given.
I was suggesting that the most fundamental part of the decision-making process can be--conceivably--the decider itself. Yes, it may consider various inputs, which seems to make it less "elemental" and blurs the issue. Even so, I can imagine that the same way you might consider a person's most basic desires to be a "given", the faculty which decides among these desires is also a "given".
I don't know if that is really a useful explanation. Like you, I find the concept difficult to fully grasp in an intuitive way, but I think that this is because people tend to reason by analogy. When there is no useful analogy to hand, it is hard to fully imagine something. That doesn't necessarily mean it is impossible.
|
On September 01 2009 07:07 CharlieMurphy wrote:
did anyone post epicurius's riddle yet?
Yep i did on the first page. I love that riddle- so great ^^
|
[B]As a case study, let's consider a man and his son. The man warns his son not to eat the cookies, because they will make him sick. The son, being disobedient, decides to eat the cookies. This is an act of free will against the father, because the son had the free choice to either eat the cookies or not to do so.
What kind of cookies? Please tell me they are oreos.
|
On September 01 2009 03:10 Track wrote:
I'll give you a good example, and it deals with the central tenet to Christianity: free will. You can immediately see how free will is essential to Christianity in that if man is not responsible for his actions, then man cannot "sin". If man cannot sin, there is no need for Jesus to die for man's sins, thereby reducing Christianity to nothingness.
I appreciate any and all input on the subject.
Your definition of "sin," or lack thereof, is a major flaw in all of this. Free will is overrated, I don't think that anyone really has free will under your broad definition:
On September 01 2009 03:10 Track wrote:
It's very important to note at this point that "free will" is defined as: The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will. Ie, there are no external agents operating on you, "forcing" you to do anything.
It is a ridiculous notion to say that anyone in their entire life has made even a single choice that was not somehow influenced by some type of external circumstance, so no one really has free will and your whole logic about God was not really necessary to show that.
Anyway, so you were trying to show that there's no free will in Christianity. Well, according to good 'ol Wikipedia:
The Bible portrays sin as not following God's plan for creatures and desiring to be like the Creator, based on the account of Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis, and thus in direct opposition to Him. To Sin is to willfully desire to be in control of your earthly purposes and destiny in opposition to God’s purposes and destiny for his creation.
Thus you have simply tried to show what is already meant to be, that by practicing Christianity you are forgoing free will. So according to the Bible sinning is supposed to be an act of free will, but it's actually not, because God created man such that man would sin, so the Bible is wrong. The author must have just gotten a bit mixed up XD
|
And before your girlfriend thinks you're an immoral pig you could add the Socratic objection just to show how God is independent of morality.
It goes like this:
There are two options involving God and morality:
1) An action is right because God says it's right (and similarly it is wrong because God says so)
2) God commands you to do the right thing because it is right (and tells you not to do wrong things because they are wrong).
Either way, there are issues to both:
In (1), if God says it is right or wrong, then morals are arbitrary since he could have easily commanded something like killing people to be right. The problem with this is that God would have no rational reason to choose between commanding you to kill somebody or not to kill somebody. Christians want their God to be rational.
In (2), if God commands you to do the right thing because it is right then God is just telling you to do something that you could have figured out yourself: God would just be stating the obvious. In this case, morality would be independent of God.
So at least you can assure your girlfriend that you morals are totally independent of some supposedly omnipotent being.
|
On September 01 2009 03:10 Track wrote:
To save us all a lot of time, don't post and tell me that I should just dump the girl, it's plain that I *should* do that, but we both know that I'm not going to. In a rather infantile and immature fashion, I'm in love with her. And yes, it was foolish for me to allow feelings to develop when I knew there was this colossal hurdle to face, but. They have. I can only face what it is and move forward.
O_O doood
Does really hurdle has similar mean to obstacle ? :|
edit: lol cookies example ;o
edit2: ok before I read responses
On September 01 2009 03:10 Track wrote:
If you consider:
1. God is omniscient and omnipotent.
2. Nothing can existent independent of God.
3. Given premise 1, God does not make mistakes, and he fully understands the consequences of everything he does, since he knows the future.
4. There is a thought process that guides our decision making.
5. Given premise 2, our thought process comes inevitably from God.
6. Given premises 3 and 5, God knows exactly what will happen when he sets the variables.
7. Given premise 1 and 6, God knows what combination will cause us to sin, and, given 2, there are no other factors independent of God.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum: Given your premises, free will is thereby logically defeated.
I appreciate any and all input on the subject.
I have no idea how this is relevant to your current gf.
Are trying to say you don't like Christianity because after you thought about it you came to conclusion all evil is caused by God and there is no one else to blame for it or what?
|
why can't she compromise? is she really that selfish?
|
|
|
On September 01 2009 07:58 ChainLightning wrote:
In (1), if God says it is right or wrong, then morals are arbitrary since he could have easily commanded something like killing people to be right. The problem with this is that God would have no rational reason to choose between commanding you to kill somebody or not to kill somebody. Christians want their God to be rational.
In (2), if God commands you to do the right thing because it is right then God is just telling you to do something that you could have figured out yourself: God would just be stating the obvious. In this case, morality would be independent of God.
just a quip - except according to some religious philosophers, God is in essence "good" so while whatever he commands may be morally ambiguous and seem arbitrary from a relative standpoint - not that God determines what the moral standard is, but that his very nature embodies what is in essence goodness (among other aspects he embodies)
in the end I think the world would be better off if more Christians understood and accepted the (existential) absurdity of their faith
|
My advice to you is to not try to change her, because you simply won't be able to.
Most heavily religious people are trained for it since birth, since day one they are told these things and of course they believe them. They trust their parents and they have nothing else to compare to.
For many religious people saying "there is no God" is like saying 2+2=5, it's just not right.
Many get offended because saying something like that is almost saying "Your whole life is a lie and everything you believe in is a lie, Your parents betrayed you."
It is infinitely harder to convert an educated 30 year old than a child of a couple of years.
At the same time I ask athiests to stop mocking and refuting religion and to stop trying to convert religious people, it's the same aggressive recruiting policy I don't like to see in religion. (not directed at any particular person in this thread, but in life and the way TL is sometimes.)
|
On September 01 2009 08:18 ShaperofDreams wrote:
It is infinitely harder to convert an educated 30 year old than a child of a couple of years.
Convert to any belief.
Educated to any belief.
This is simply a fact of human nature.
|
Has she ever travelled abroad? I think she needs a culture shock. Or some kind of realization that all human cognitive structures are subjective, and one is not more right than any other. I think you have more of this in you than her, and thats what the problem is.
As far as I've thought it through your logic is correct. Not saying its sound, but its correct.
|
On September 01 2009 03:33 Kwidowmaker wrote:
No girl is worth compromising your metaphysical principles
rofl
|
On September 01 2009 08:06 OmgIRok wrote:
why can't she compromise? is she really that selfish?
Replace >she with >he and that's how the girl probably feels.
|
On September 01 2009 03:10 Track wrote:
A little introduction.. I'm currently in a relationship with a girl of distinctly Christian beliefs. Now, naturally, she wants me to feel the same way(if you go back through my blogs, you'll see that this is hardly the first time this has happened, I'm a sucker for punishment).
If she can't get over this then well.. this relationship just isn't going to work.
Religion is completely and entire based around faith... which is illogical. You seem to be a very logical person... applying logic to something illogic just isn't going to work.
Talk with her or something. Try to agree to disagree on religion and move on because if you absolutely can't get past that then you will never have a really good working relationship.
|
On September 01 2009 08:16 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2009 07:58 ChainLightning wrote:
In (1), if God says it is right or wrong, then morals are arbitrary since he could have easily commanded something like killing people to be right. The problem with this is that God would have no rational reason to choose between commanding you to kill somebody or not to kill somebody. Christians want their God to be rational.
In (2), if God commands you to do the right thing because it is right then God is just telling you to do something that you could have figured out yourself: God would just be stating the obvious. In this case, morality would be independent of God. just a quip - except according to some religious philosophers, God is in essence "good" so while whatever he commands may be morally ambiguous and seem arbitrary from a relative standpoint - not that God determines what the moral standard is, but that his very nature embodies what is in essence goodness (among other aspects he embodies)
If genocide is good because it was ordered by God then I do not want to be good.
|
On September 01 2009 03:10 Track wrote:
A little introduction.. I'm currently in a relationship with a girl of distinctly Christian beliefs. Now, naturally, she wants me to feel the same way(if you go back through my blogs, you'll see that this is hardly the first time this has happened, I'm a sucker for punishment).
My problems with Christianity don't stem from the fact that I don't want to believe, just that there are things within Christianity that make it illogical to me. I'm going to post one of them, and I'm honestly hoping that my logic WILL be refuted. Yeah, I know, I'm not being objective at all in wanting my logic to be defeated, my thinking is clearly compromised by wanting to be with this girl. It's sad that I acknowledge this and yet can't quite force myself out of the relationship on these grounds.
I'm currently a mixture between a Deist and a Pantheist, and honestly I see no reason to believe Christianity is *the* true religion when there are countless out there with as much claim to truth. If you disagree, post and tell me why.
To save us all a lot of time, don't post and tell me that I should just dump the girl, it's plain that I *should* do that, but we both know that I'm not going to. In a rather infantile and immature fashion, I'm in love with her. And yes, it was foolish for me to allow feelings to develop when I knew there was this colossal hurdle to face, but. They have. I can only face what it is and move forward.
With no further rambling, here is my problem:
I'll give you a good example, and it deals with the central tenet to Christianity: free will. You can immediately see how free will is essential to Christianity in that if man is not responsible for his actions, then man cannot "sin". If man cannot sin, there is no need for Jesus to die for man's sins, thereby reducing Christianity to nothingness.
The contradiction is this. Think for a moment about your mind. What causes you to make decisions? Imagine if you will a few variables. X represents your desires, be they need for power, lust, you name it. Y represents your ability to overcome those desires, your willpower. You can add in any variables you like, as these can't be quantified, all I'm trying to do is establish what in your mind mixes in order for you to make a decision. For example, if X>Y in any given situation(oversimplification as it may be), then your desires will win out over your willpower, and you'll indulge. Add in any variables you like, the point is that we're considering it an equation for the sake of ease.
As a case study, let's consider a man and his son. The man warns his son not to eat the cookies, because they will make him sick. The son, being disobedient, decides to eat the cookies. This is an act of free will against the father, because the son had the free choice to either eat the cookies or not to do so.
It's very important to note at this point that "free will" is defined as: The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will. Ie, there are no external agents operating on you, "forcing" you to do anything.
Now, if the father had forced the son into either eating the cookie or not, it wouldn't have been free will, would it? Of course not.
One more point is essential to make before we continue: by the nature of God, nothing can exist independently of him. Ie, nothing can simply come into being without being caused by God. Which is pretty intuitive, given that we consider everything made by God, but it's an important premise to list before we go to our conclusion. I hope you're with me so far.
Finally, let's consider Eve and the fruit. Did Eve have free will in deciding to eat the fruit? Well, if we refer to our father-son example, she did. But, there's one crucial difference: the father did not design the son. The father did not set into place the X and Y variables in the son's mind, so, naturally, the father wasn't at all forcing his son to make a decision.
God, however, DID set the variables. He had to, because nothing can exist independent of him. If they simply sprung into existence without God, our entire concept of God is wrecked. God, therefore, put into place within Eve's mind her X and Y variables. She exhibited a weakness for temptation, a willingness to be deceived, corrupted. Is she responsible for this weakness, or is God? By our definition, nothing can exist independent of God, so, by causation, he is responsible for this. This is the crucial point of the case study: her variables couldn't have sprung into existence, they had to come from somewhere, and the only logical place they could have possibly come is from God. So. If the father had FORCED his son into either eating the cookie or not, we would not say that the son was operating of his own free will. How then, given that God is, by having set our variables, forcing us into action, can you say that we operate under free will when we sin? If your car breaks down, who do you blame, the car, or the car maker?
If you consider:
1. God is omniscient and omnipotent.
2. Nothing can existent independent of God.
3. Given premise 1, God does not make mistakes, and he fully understands the consequences of everything he does, since he knows the future.
4. There is a thought process that guides our decision making.
5. Given premise 2, our thought process comes inevitably from God.
6. Given premises 3 and 5, God knows exactly what will happen when he sets the variables.
7. Given premise 1 and 6, God knows what combination will cause us to sin, and, given 2, there are no other factors independent of God.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum: Given your premises, free will is thereby logically defeated.
I appreciate any and all input on the subject.
The problem with using induction is you are assuming God is limited by the rules He created, right? Pretty much all inductive techniques fall over when you take into account more than two possible outcomes.
For example:
Currently we have Right and Wrong, True and False, Good and Evil. Empirically speaking, when something is not one, it automatically assumes it is the other. There are plenty of accounts saying god is totally good, but there are far too many assumptions stating that he is incapable of anything else.
Proof by induction has already been used with The Problem of Evil; but it still doesn't define why the problem exists in the first place. Currently there is more evidence to suggest a God and a Devil exists with the existence of 'intrinsic good' or 'intrinsic evil' than with any other theories. This is due to the fact that:
I) If God can interact with our world, then his effects must be seen as intrinsically good in some aspect, however since he is not bound by logic that is not the ONLY effect he may leave.
II) If the Devil can interact with our world, then his effects must be intrinsically evil in some aspect, although he too is not bound in any way by logic, so that isn't the ONLY effect he leaves ether.
However on the Science side, there is no explanation for the existence of intrinsic good or intrinsic evil for any contemporary theories.
However, by taking this position, you concede that humans have a 'crippled' version of free will. That is, they can choose True or False, Right or Wrong, Good or Evil but nothing else, therefore they cannot possibly do 'anything', and be possible of making their own lives anything you want is slightly skewed since you will always be limited to those decisions.
Although, the existence of a crippled free will is also more plausible, due to the belief in Destiny. That way your life can be shaped in ways you cannot comprehend while still retaining the entirety of your 'free will'.
So, while I'm an atheist, the odds of you disproving god are highly stacked against you...
|
[god@existence:~]# cat /dev/random | eve
(Since we all know God hacked together a true RNG)
|
You can say whatever you want about religion, you can prove God is not omnipotent because "he" can't make stone so big he couldn't hold it and stuff but what is the point?
1) Like someone already wrote why do you even have to speak with her about it?
I've just realized what StorrZerg meant: be ignorant to any statements, comments, avoid and change the topic.
2) If it's hard focus on words by some French that religion is opium for masses.
I don't like it because if someone truly believes this he's a dick but religion like starcraft or any other thing is a source of entertainment, peace, etc etc for people.
That's why I wonder what is the point of religion "debates" - why does anyone need to prove other humans that find religion soothing they are wrong? What are they supposed to find in replacement IF they are wrong?
3) Why do you despise religion to that extent (leaving gf because she believes? if you are together she can't be that bad or I wonder how it happened you are together)? Has something unpleasant happened to you in your life that made your beliefs like that? Was is something more than just crazy old hag from you family screaming about going to church every Sunday or something?
Focus on this instead. Maybe you need religion not to think about something else, maybe you have memories that made you think there is no god because why would your life look like that?
For example it's hard to imagine for me rich kid that says god is bad because all evil comes from him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.hennessy.id.au/quentingeorge/archives/god-v-satan.png)
