|
On October 18 2013 00:09 koreasilver wrote:
What does anyone even accomplish with all this speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God? You're just assuaging your insecurities and grasping at straws. This is mostly pointed to the religious apologia. Trying to safeguard faith by endlessly retreating into the limits of rationality is pathetic.
Stop being a hypocrite would you? I could say the same thing about the threads that are created for Christians to confirm each other's views, the anti-evolution conferences and the various other conferences where people go to confirm their faith and oppose scientific theories, and some functions of churches that just aim to convince the people that their religion is true. We're all curious, we're all 'insecure' sometimes because we're smart enough to ask questions. If 'retreating' is pathetic, then you guys are incredibly pathetic, with your large institutions which have the sole purpose of dealing with your insecurities. (I don't believe that, but it follows your argument).
You retreat to the limits of faith and human perception, we retreat to the presumed, potential limits of rationality. You calling this 'pathetic' shows your personal insecurities a lot more than our attempt to have a (sometimes) intellectual discussion about this.
True insecurity is not in the argument but in the refusal to have it. Man up.
|
On October 18 2013 00:18 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 00:09 koreasilver wrote:
What does anyone even accomplish with all this speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God? You're just assuaging your insecurities and grasping at straws. This is mostly pointed to the religious apologia. Trying to safeguard faith by endlessly retreating into the limits of rationality is pathetic. Stop being a hypocrite would you? I could say the same thing about the threads that are created for Christians to confirm each other's views, the anti-evolution conferences and the various other conferences where people go to confirm their faith and oppose scientific theories, and some functions of churches that just aim to convince the people that their religion is true. We're all curious, we're all 'insecure' sometimes because we're smart enough to ask questions. If 'retreating' is pathetic, then you guys are incredibly pathetic, with your large institutions which have the sole purpose of dealing with your insecurities. (I don't believe that, but it follows your argument). You retreat to the limits of faith and human perception, we retreat to the presumed, potential limits of rationality. You calling this 'pathetic' shows your personal insecurities a lot more than our attempt to have a (sometimes) intellectual discussion about this. True insecurity is not in the argument but in the refusal to have it. Man up.
He was pointing at religious apologetics... it makes little sense when you follow that up "with your large institutions".
|
On October 18 2013 00:30 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 00:18 Djzapz wrote:On October 18 2013 00:09 koreasilver wrote:
What does anyone even accomplish with all this speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God? You're just assuaging your insecurities and grasping at straws. This is mostly pointed to the religious apologia. Trying to safeguard faith by endlessly retreating into the limits of rationality is pathetic. Stop being a hypocrite would you? I could say the same thing about the threads that are created for Christians to confirm each other's views, the anti-evolution conferences and the various other conferences where people go to confirm their faith and oppose scientific theories, and some functions of churches that just aim to convince the people that their religion is true. We're all curious, we're all 'insecure' sometimes because we're smart enough to ask questions. If 'retreating' is pathetic, then you guys are incredibly pathetic, with your large institutions which have the sole purpose of dealing with your insecurities. (I don't believe that, but it follows your argument). You retreat to the limits of faith and human perception, we retreat to the presumed, potential limits of rationality. You calling this 'pathetic' shows your personal insecurities a lot more than our attempt to have a (sometimes) intellectual discussion about this. True insecurity is not in the argument but in the refusal to have it. Man up. He was pointing at religious apologetics... it makes little sense when you follow that up "with your large institutions".
My point is I see nothing pathetic about 'speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God', and calling us pathetic is bullshit. I don't see what the part about religious apologetics changes about that.
My tangent about religious institutions and all the resources that are put in place to deal with the insecurities of christians was nothing more than an example. There is nothing pathetic in retreating to rationality or retreating to your faith.
|
On October 18 2013 00:35 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 00:30 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 00:18 Djzapz wrote:On October 18 2013 00:09 koreasilver wrote:
What does anyone even accomplish with all this speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God? You're just assuaging your insecurities and grasping at straws. This is mostly pointed to the religious apologia. Trying to safeguard faith by endlessly retreating into the limits of rationality is pathetic. Stop being a hypocrite would you? I could say the same thing about the threads that are created for Christians to confirm each other's views, the anti-evolution conferences and the various other conferences where people go to confirm their faith and oppose scientific theories, and some functions of churches that just aim to convince the people that their religion is true. We're all curious, we're all 'insecure' sometimes because we're smart enough to ask questions. If 'retreating' is pathetic, then you guys are incredibly pathetic, with your large institutions which have the sole purpose of dealing with your insecurities. (I don't believe that, but it follows your argument). You retreat to the limits of faith and human perception, we retreat to the presumed, potential limits of rationality. You calling this 'pathetic' shows your personal insecurities a lot more than our attempt to have a (sometimes) intellectual discussion about this. True insecurity is not in the argument but in the refusal to have it. Man up. He was pointing at religious apologetics... it makes little sense when you follow that up "with your large institutions". My point is I see nothing pathetic about 'speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God', and calling us pathetic is bullshit. I don't see what the part about religious apologetics changes about that.
I'm just saying, you debate his post by pointing a sword towards christians when he did the exact same thing. You're not actually saying he's dumb for arguing against discussion, you're saying he's a hypocrite because christians do the same thing, even though that was exactly his point.
|
On October 18 2013 00:37 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 00:35 Djzapz wrote:On October 18 2013 00:30 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 00:18 Djzapz wrote:On October 18 2013 00:09 koreasilver wrote:
What does anyone even accomplish with all this speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God? You're just assuaging your insecurities and grasping at straws. This is mostly pointed to the religious apologia. Trying to safeguard faith by endlessly retreating into the limits of rationality is pathetic. Stop being a hypocrite would you? I could say the same thing about the threads that are created for Christians to confirm each other's views, the anti-evolution conferences and the various other conferences where people go to confirm their faith and oppose scientific theories, and some functions of churches that just aim to convince the people that their religion is true. We're all curious, we're all 'insecure' sometimes because we're smart enough to ask questions. If 'retreating' is pathetic, then you guys are incredibly pathetic, with your large institutions which have the sole purpose of dealing with your insecurities. (I don't believe that, but it follows your argument). You retreat to the limits of faith and human perception, we retreat to the presumed, potential limits of rationality. You calling this 'pathetic' shows your personal insecurities a lot more than our attempt to have a (sometimes) intellectual discussion about this. True insecurity is not in the argument but in the refusal to have it. Man up. He was pointing at religious apologetics... it makes little sense when you follow that up "with your large institutions". My point is I see nothing pathetic about 'speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God', and calling us pathetic is bullshit. I don't see what the part about religious apologetics changes about that. I'm just saying, you debate his post by pointing a sword towards christians when he did the exact same thing. You're not actually saying he's dumb for arguing against discussion, you're saying he's a hypocrite because christians do the same thing, even though that was exactly his point.
I think you missed his point tbh, he specifically said the retreat to reason was pathetic. I didn't point a sword toward christians, he pointed a sword toward the people who rely on reason, and I said it's unfair, christians are guilty of the same thing, and that same thing is not 'pathetic' in the first place.
That said, I entirely reject the idea that his point was balanced. It wasn't. It was targeted.
|
On October 18 2013 00:43 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 00:37 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 00:35 Djzapz wrote:On October 18 2013 00:30 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 00:18 Djzapz wrote:On October 18 2013 00:09 koreasilver wrote:
What does anyone even accomplish with all this speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God? You're just assuaging your insecurities and grasping at straws. This is mostly pointed to the religious apologia. Trying to safeguard faith by endlessly retreating into the limits of rationality is pathetic. Stop being a hypocrite would you? I could say the same thing about the threads that are created for Christians to confirm each other's views, the anti-evolution conferences and the various other conferences where people go to confirm their faith and oppose scientific theories, and some functions of churches that just aim to convince the people that their religion is true. We're all curious, we're all 'insecure' sometimes because we're smart enough to ask questions. If 'retreating' is pathetic, then you guys are incredibly pathetic, with your large institutions which have the sole purpose of dealing with your insecurities. (I don't believe that, but it follows your argument). You retreat to the limits of faith and human perception, we retreat to the presumed, potential limits of rationality. You calling this 'pathetic' shows your personal insecurities a lot more than our attempt to have a (sometimes) intellectual discussion about this. True insecurity is not in the argument but in the refusal to have it. Man up. He was pointing at religious apologetics... it makes little sense when you follow that up "with your large institutions". My point is I see nothing pathetic about 'speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God', and calling us pathetic is bullshit. I don't see what the part about religious apologetics changes about that. I'm just saying, you debate his post by pointing a sword towards christians when he did the exact same thing. You're not actually saying he's dumb for arguing against discussion, you're saying he's a hypocrite because christians do the same thing, even though that was exactly his point. I think you missed his point tbh, he specifically said the retreat to reason was pathetic. I didn't point a sword toward christians, he pointed a sword toward the people who rely on reason, and I said it's unfair, christians are guilty of the same thing, and that same thing is not 'pathetic' in the first place. That said, I entirely reject the idea that his point was balanced. It wasn't. It was targeted.
Wasn't that exactly what he said? That Christians do it? Safeguard faith by retreating?
|
On October 18 2013 01:22 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 00:43 Djzapz wrote:On October 18 2013 00:37 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 00:35 Djzapz wrote:On October 18 2013 00:30 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 00:18 Djzapz wrote:On October 18 2013 00:09 koreasilver wrote:
What does anyone even accomplish with all this speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God? You're just assuaging your insecurities and grasping at straws. This is mostly pointed to the religious apologia. Trying to safeguard faith by endlessly retreating into the limits of rationality is pathetic. Stop being a hypocrite would you? I could say the same thing about the threads that are created for Christians to confirm each other's views, the anti-evolution conferences and the various other conferences where people go to confirm their faith and oppose scientific theories, and some functions of churches that just aim to convince the people that their religion is true. We're all curious, we're all 'insecure' sometimes because we're smart enough to ask questions. If 'retreating' is pathetic, then you guys are incredibly pathetic, with your large institutions which have the sole purpose of dealing with your insecurities. (I don't believe that, but it follows your argument). You retreat to the limits of faith and human perception, we retreat to the presumed, potential limits of rationality. You calling this 'pathetic' shows your personal insecurities a lot more than our attempt to have a (sometimes) intellectual discussion about this. True insecurity is not in the argument but in the refusal to have it. Man up. He was pointing at religious apologetics... it makes little sense when you follow that up "with your large institutions". My point is I see nothing pathetic about 'speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God', and calling us pathetic is bullshit. I don't see what the part about religious apologetics changes about that. I'm just saying, you debate his post by pointing a sword towards christians when he did the exact same thing. You're not actually saying he's dumb for arguing against discussion, you're saying he's a hypocrite because christians do the same thing, even though that was exactly his point. I think you missed his point tbh, he specifically said the retreat to reason was pathetic. I didn't point a sword toward christians, he pointed a sword toward the people who rely on reason, and I said it's unfair, christians are guilty of the same thing, and that same thing is not 'pathetic' in the first place. That said, I entirely reject the idea that his point was balanced. It wasn't. It was targeted. Wasn't that exactly what he said? That Christians do it? Safeguard faith by retreating?
I dont think that's what he meant by safeguard. Koreasilver is very much into defending religion and whatnot. He'll correct me if I'm wrong but I think he's talking about the opposition between the religious and non-religious... Maybe I'm wrong.
|
On October 18 2013 01:28 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 01:22 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 00:43 Djzapz wrote:On October 18 2013 00:37 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 00:35 Djzapz wrote:On October 18 2013 00:30 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 00:18 Djzapz wrote:On October 18 2013 00:09 koreasilver wrote:
What does anyone even accomplish with all this speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God? You're just assuaging your insecurities and grasping at straws. This is mostly pointed to the religious apologia. Trying to safeguard faith by endlessly retreating into the limits of rationality is pathetic. Stop being a hypocrite would you? I could say the same thing about the threads that are created for Christians to confirm each other's views, the anti-evolution conferences and the various other conferences where people go to confirm their faith and oppose scientific theories, and some functions of churches that just aim to convince the people that their religion is true. We're all curious, we're all 'insecure' sometimes because we're smart enough to ask questions. If 'retreating' is pathetic, then you guys are incredibly pathetic, with your large institutions which have the sole purpose of dealing with your insecurities. (I don't believe that, but it follows your argument). You retreat to the limits of faith and human perception, we retreat to the presumed, potential limits of rationality. You calling this 'pathetic' shows your personal insecurities a lot more than our attempt to have a (sometimes) intellectual discussion about this. True insecurity is not in the argument but in the refusal to have it. Man up. He was pointing at religious apologetics... it makes little sense when you follow that up "with your large institutions". My point is I see nothing pathetic about 'speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God', and calling us pathetic is bullshit. I don't see what the part about religious apologetics changes about that. I'm just saying, you debate his post by pointing a sword towards christians when he did the exact same thing. You're not actually saying he's dumb for arguing against discussion, you're saying he's a hypocrite because christians do the same thing, even though that was exactly his point. I think you missed his point tbh, he specifically said the retreat to reason was pathetic. I didn't point a sword toward christians, he pointed a sword toward the people who rely on reason, and I said it's unfair, christians are guilty of the same thing, and that same thing is not 'pathetic' in the first place. That said, I entirely reject the idea that his point was balanced. It wasn't. It was targeted. Wasn't that exactly what he said? That Christians do it? Safeguard faith by retreating? Maybe I'm wrong.
learn2read
I don't even know how my post could have been more explicit. Your past couple of posts "replying" to me is like the definition of putting up a scarecrow and valiantly beating it up.
|
On October 18 2013 01:28 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 01:22 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 00:43 Djzapz wrote:On October 18 2013 00:37 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 00:35 Djzapz wrote:On October 18 2013 00:30 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 00:18 Djzapz wrote:On October 18 2013 00:09 koreasilver wrote:
What does anyone even accomplish with all this speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God? You're just assuaging your insecurities and grasping at straws. This is mostly pointed to the religious apologia. Trying to safeguard faith by endlessly retreating into the limits of rationality is pathetic. Stop being a hypocrite would you? I could say the same thing about the threads that are created for Christians to confirm each other's views, the anti-evolution conferences and the various other conferences where people go to confirm their faith and oppose scientific theories, and some functions of churches that just aim to convince the people that their religion is true. We're all curious, we're all 'insecure' sometimes because we're smart enough to ask questions. If 'retreating' is pathetic, then you guys are incredibly pathetic, with your large institutions which have the sole purpose of dealing with your insecurities. (I don't believe that, but it follows your argument). You retreat to the limits of faith and human perception, we retreat to the presumed, potential limits of rationality. You calling this 'pathetic' shows your personal insecurities a lot more than our attempt to have a (sometimes) intellectual discussion about this. True insecurity is not in the argument but in the refusal to have it. Man up. He was pointing at religious apologetics... it makes little sense when you follow that up "with your large institutions". My point is I see nothing pathetic about 'speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God', and calling us pathetic is bullshit. I don't see what the part about religious apologetics changes about that. I'm just saying, you debate his post by pointing a sword towards christians when he did the exact same thing. You're not actually saying he's dumb for arguing against discussion, you're saying he's a hypocrite because christians do the same thing, even though that was exactly his point. I think you missed his point tbh, he specifically said the retreat to reason was pathetic. I didn't point a sword toward christians, he pointed a sword toward the people who rely on reason, and I said it's unfair, christians are guilty of the same thing, and that same thing is not 'pathetic' in the first place. That said, I entirely reject the idea that his point was balanced. It wasn't. It was targeted. Wasn't that exactly what he said? That Christians do it? Safeguard faith by retreating? I dont think that's what he meant by safeguard. Koreasilver is very much into defending religion and whatnot. He'll correct me if I'm wrong but I think he's talking about the opposition between the religious and non-religious... Maybe I'm wrong.
I am pretty sure that's he's saying arguing the existence or rationality of a God is pathetic - especially natural apologetics. That being said I would say his comment is indirectly a barb at those arguing against the existence of God using rational skepticism. Koreasilver is clearly religious, and if I have understood his posts correctly, he thinks natural apologetics are pathetic, so either he has some other justification for his belief in God that he thinks supercedes rationality or he doesn't think explanations are necessary.
Am I right?
|
I wouldn't exactly say (or even generalize) that Christians retreat to safeguard their faith as if they were in danger of losing it. (I am only basing this off the recent answers, so I may be wrong if I interpreted that differently).
People rely too much on plain evidence of God's existence when we know that all of creation points to him. God is spiritual and invisible, and he's beyond our comprehension. He's not a physical material that we can "discover" in the natural world, but we can discover some of his qualities and characteristics that point to him or reflect a piece of who he is, like how majestic and vast the universe is, how complex the human body is (and many other things in this world), and purely the good things we do for other people. All of these have a resemblance to God and who he is.
As believers, we are called to trust in Jesus for who he is, what he did for us, his promises, and his claims. That is the premise of faith itself. How do you "prove" a promise that God made when you can do nothing but either believe it'll happen or not. How do you "prove" his existence when he is not a physical 'thing' hiding behind some star a few light years away? Again, it goes back to faith. The nice part about it is that he gives you a special kind of faith as a free gift when you come to him; a faith that is of himself. Someone pointed out earlier that you just may be searching in the wrong places, and it's true, because you're looking for physical evidence for something that is invisible, despite having visible qualities all around you. In other words, the argument just becomes "If I see him standing there as he is, then i'll believe."
The wind is a good example. It's invisible, but you can see its effect on things around you, and you can feel it. The moon reflects the sun even though the sun is not visible during the night. While we can believe these things, why is it difficult to grasp the idea that perhaps there's an invisible God out there who displays his love and qualities in life around us?
|
You add so little to the conversation IronManSC that I don't even think you read what people are talking about. If all you are going to do is preach please take it to your blog.
|
I think IronManSC is right in the sense that if you have a belief if God you either have to not care about justifying it, or you have to justify it in a way other than appealing to reason and evidence - I think natural apologetics are extremely weak. That's not to say this alternative justification is appealing or convincing (I don't find it to be) but I accept that it is to some people and I don't mind that.
|
I don't think there is any real way to justify a belief in God through any rational exercise. All arguments for the existence of God is bunk. Accepting this and then moving on to trying to make a space for a reasonable belief in God through some sort of agnosticism or a God-of-the-gaps is just an assuaging of an insecurity. Saying that a belief in God can be "justified" by putting it in a realm beyond rationality by negative theology is just a continuance of this. Personally, I find it to be desperate. For the believer it's really just an intellectual rationalizing exercise that attempts to safeguard the faith in artificial ways most of the time, but I'm sure there are many people that are genuinely affirmative about the whole thing and aren't just scrambling to defend the faith from the "cultured opponents". But I think it's a bit wrongheaded. That's just my personal take on this though.
For example, take a look at IronMan's second and fourth paragraph in his post above. "People rely too much on plain evidence of God's existence when we know that all of creation points to him." I don't think one even has to go too far to show that this sentence is just broken. If we all "really knew" that all of the world "points to God" then one could procure evidence for this. Yes, the moon reflects the sun at night when we cannot see the sun, but we can validate this idea through direct material observation and experimentation. We can make data. If, as IronMan says, that God isn't material then there simply is nothing that we can "really know" about him. Faith doesn't prove God (third paragraph). That's just nonsense. Yes, faith, if there really is a true God, could only come from God because of how revelation works. But faith is a one-way street even if we were to presuppose the logic of revelation. By that very fact the entirety of IronMan's illustrative attempts is just absolute bunk. We can't get to a knowledge of God by looking at nature just like how any attempts to illustrate the doctrine of the Trinity through candles or light or whatnot all falls short. Neither does the complexity of the universe do anything to illuminate God when all material processes work within its own immanent logic and can be observed, experimented, and elucidated purely by natural reason that is not contaminated with theological or pietist wishfulness.
|
On October 18 2013 03:03 koreasilver wrote:
I don't think there is any real way to justify a belief in God through any rational exercise. All arguments for the existence of God is bunk. Accepting this and then moving on to trying to make a space for a reasonable belief in God through some sort of agnosticism or a God-of-the-gaps is just an assuaging of an insecurity. Saying that a belief in God can be "justified" by putting it in a realm beyond rationality by negative theology is just a continuance of this. Personally, I find it to be desperate. For the believer it's really just an intellectual rationalizing exercise that attempts to safeguard the faith in artificial ways most of the time, but I'm sure there are many people that are genuinely affirmative about the whole thing and aren't just scrambling to defend the faith from the "cultured opponents". But I think it's a bit wrongheaded. That's just my personal take on this though.
So how do you justify your faith? Or do you not?
|
On October 18 2013 03:03 koreasilver wrote:
I don't think there is any real way to justify a belief in God through any rational exercise. All arguments for the existence of God is bunk. Accepting this and then moving on to trying to make a space for a reasonable belief in God through some sort of agnosticism or a God-of-the-gaps is just an assuaging of an insecurity. Saying that a belief in God can be "justified" by putting it in a realm beyond rationality by negative theology is just a continuance of this. Personally, I find it to be desperate. For the believer it's really just an intellectual rationalizing exercise that attempts to safeguard the faith in artificial ways most of the time, but I'm sure there are many people that are genuinely affirmative about the whole thing and aren't just scrambling to defend the faith from the "cultured opponents". But I think it's a bit wrongheaded. That's just my personal take on this though.
I totally agree with you but you must realize that the eschewing of rationality insofar as faith and belief are concerned is an incredibly bitter and jagged pill for many, as there are relatively few out there who have read enough of the alternatives to know that they are more than "just making it up."
|
On October 18 2013 03:08 Salv wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 03:03 koreasilver wrote:
I don't think there is any real way to justify a belief in God through any rational exercise. All arguments for the existence of God is bunk. Accepting this and then moving on to trying to make a space for a reasonable belief in God through some sort of agnosticism or a God-of-the-gaps is just an assuaging of an insecurity. Saying that a belief in God can be "justified" by putting it in a realm beyond rationality by negative theology is just a continuance of this. Personally, I find it to be desperate. For the believer it's really just an intellectual rationalizing exercise that attempts to safeguard the faith in artificial ways most of the time, but I'm sure there are many people that are genuinely affirmative about the whole thing and aren't just scrambling to defend the faith from the "cultured opponents". But I think it's a bit wrongheaded. That's just my personal take on this though. So how do you justify your faith? Or do you not?
I'm not koreasilver, but "seeing is believing" is a good first step, i'd imagine. The dude in the sky? Nvr see him before.
|
On October 18 2013 03:03 koreasilver wrote:
For example, take a look at IronMan's second and fourth paragraph in his post above. "People rely too much on plain evidence of God's existence when we know that all of creation points to him." I don't think one even has to go too far to show that this sentence is just broken. If we all "really knew" that all of the world "points to God" then one could procure evidence for this. Yes, the moon reflects the sun at night when we cannot see the sun, but we can validate this idea through direct material observation and experimentation. We can make data. If, as IronMan says, that God isn't material then there simply is nothing that we can "really know" about him. Faith doesn't prove God (third paragraph). That's just nonsense. Yes, faith, if there really is a true God, could only come from God because of how revelation works. But faith is a one-way street even if we were to presuppose the logic of revelation. By that very fact the entirety of IronMan's illustrative attempts is just absolute bunk. We can't get to a knowledge of God by looking at nature just like how any attempts to illustrate the doctrine of the Trinity through candles or light or whatnot all falls short. Neither does the complexity of the universe do anything to illuminate God when all material processes work within its own immanent logic and can be observed, experimented, and elucidated purely by natural reason that is not contaminated with theological or pietist wishfulness.
ugh. You really like using a lot of big fancy words to sound logical and throw me off don't you? When I say that creation "points to God," I'm not saying that looking at the complexity of a leaf sends the message "You found God!" but rather millions of people can conclude that there is a higher power, someone who has a lot of intelligence behind all of this, which points to God, though that's just scratching the surface of the matter. At that point, they can know of God and his existence, but they don't know him yet on a personal level. The wind is invisible, but you see its effect. Why couldn't God be similar, but yet beyond that?, or should he be as simple as feeling the wind that you can discover him with a few pushes of a science machine?
The evidence is merely all around you by seeing how intelligent he really is to make everything so complex and so in-order. If you feel the wind, you can conclude "well, I feel it even though I can't see it, so it exists," whereas if you saw someone's cancer disappear right before your eyes in a matter of seconds without any medicine or surgery, you'll conclude "that is scientifically un-explainable" without even wondering if there was indeed the healing hand of a invisible God behind it. Your argument is that because you didn't see a hand or any physical matter of God in the removal of that cancer, that therefore he can't possible exist. There's more to God than just the things you can feel, learn, touch or see.
Faith is not blind, and it does prove God because it is being sure of what we hope for, and certain of what we do not see. This faith comes from God himself. In essence, you can't truly know God unless he makes himself known to you and gives you the power to believe. Faith has eyes. It looks forward to things that are to come (trusting). It looks to Jesus (believing his claims), and it seeks the company of fellowship (Iron sharpens iron).
|
On October 18 2013 03:08 Salv wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 03:03 koreasilver wrote:
I don't think there is any real way to justify a belief in God through any rational exercise. All arguments for the existence of God is bunk. Accepting this and then moving on to trying to make a space for a reasonable belief in God through some sort of agnosticism or a God-of-the-gaps is just an assuaging of an insecurity. Saying that a belief in God can be "justified" by putting it in a realm beyond rationality by negative theology is just a continuance of this. Personally, I find it to be desperate. For the believer it's really just an intellectual rationalizing exercise that attempts to safeguard the faith in artificial ways most of the time, but I'm sure there are many people that are genuinely affirmative about the whole thing and aren't just scrambling to defend the faith from the "cultured opponents". But I think it's a bit wrongheaded. That's just my personal take on this though. So how do you justify your faith? Or do you not?
Faith is much more than simply believing whether there is a God or not. I absolutely don't attempt at all to justify a belief in God because as I think it's pointless, not just because it's "beyond reason" but because I genuinely think atheism is "correct" in this. I'm not a liberal in the sense that I reject natural theology and all attempts to rationalize faith, and I'm orthodox insofar as I believe that any knowledge of God can only come from revelation. My approach to orthodoxy is that when we come to looking at the world and examining it scientifically it must be "atheistic". Aside from what is given by revelation we can't know anything about God, so trying to impress some theological or pietist hopes unto scientific methodologies isn't just wrong because it fucks up the scientific method, but also because it's just bad theology. It's an insult, through and through.
On October 18 2013 03:11 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 03:03 koreasilver wrote:
I don't think there is any real way to justify a belief in God through any rational exercise. All arguments for the existence of God is bunk. Accepting this and then moving on to trying to make a space for a reasonable belief in God through some sort of agnosticism or a God-of-the-gaps is just an assuaging of an insecurity. Saying that a belief in God can be "justified" by putting it in a realm beyond rationality by negative theology is just a continuance of this. Personally, I find it to be desperate. For the believer it's really just an intellectual rationalizing exercise that attempts to safeguard the faith in artificial ways most of the time, but I'm sure there are many people that are genuinely affirmative about the whole thing and aren't just scrambling to defend the faith from the "cultured opponents". But I think it's a bit wrongheaded. That's just my personal take on this though. I totally agree with you but you must realize that the eschewing of rationality insofar as faith and belief are concerned is an incredibly bitter and jagged pill for many, as there are relatively few out there who have read enough of the alternatives to know that they are more than "just making it up."
Since when was faith ever supposed to be complacent though? Christians need a cold shower. An honest atheist does more good for the faith than apologist charlatans like Platinga and Craig. I honestly wonder if someone like Platinga even really knows/remembers what Christianity is anymore. After all of his tortured logical games, does he even think about what the point of it all is?
edit: IronMan, you can't say that faith comes from God and that one cannot know God except through his actions after spending two bloody paragraphs again reiterating a natural theology.
|
On October 18 2013 03:37 koreasilver wrote:
Aside from what is given by revelation we can't know anything about God
Have you even read the Bible..?
|
And according to the tradition, the Bible is an account of?
+ Show Spoiler +Revelation. But the Bible is not revelation in itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
