|
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.
|
With this revelation, my mind has officially been blown.
|
While I'm sure most anyone who's read any of my posts already knows my beliefs, I will just say, you are a brave brave soul for dating someone who is extremely Christian while you are not yourself.
Now, I dont have anything against them (except the ones that try to convert me), but I cant imagine falling in love with someone who has such extreme different views. Thats just me though, and its good to hear you two are able to make it happen.
That aside, as someone posted recently (forget if it was here or another forum), being an atheist is just denying one more god than all the gods Christians deny. Thus your logic rox!
Edit: I'm not really atheist btw... I just know Christians think they're all going to hell etc etc.
|
I find it easier to be ignorant
|
Dude are you trying to find some logic in religion? C´mon just think for second now....
I don´t watch TV but wasn´t it House who said: " If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people."
E. And I´m going to be totally honest here: I would never date a non atheist girl, because I could never appreciate one. She would always be inferior to me. And you extreme fundamentalists better not ban me for this.
|
Just because free will doesn't exist (it doesn't, your environment and genetics decide everything you are going to do) doesn't mean that God exists. So really God = genes + environment.
Oh, and I once had a crush on a conservative Christian girl. Nothing happened, but I also was willing to compromise my beliefs to get a girl. It's totally normally dude.
|
Since you are a deist, I will offer my argument since I consider myself to be one as well. To note, however, seeing your sophiscated argument I think mine may not be good enough, but I will try.
First we will establish the faith for an all-loving being, call it God. Since you are a deist as you claimed, I trust that you have no problem with God, but may get sore noses on the "all-loving" part. In my personal opinion, if you cannot have the faith that any possible supreme beings are all-loving and all-good, there is little point left in deism (and you might as well go athiesm). If you can do that, the rest is quite trivial (we don't need omnipotency or any other bullcraps).
The Christianity God is all-loving and all-good, which is compatible what I have described earlier. Therefore, there is no reason why you should not believe it, as you should be compatible with its moralities, etc..
If, however, it turned out that the Christian God is not the real God, that should be OK since the all-loving, all-good real God will forgive you for making such mistakes - you were simply fooled for a clever con-artist.
|
here's how you get your logic refuted
talk to your girlfriend about the same exact subject matter you've posted
see who wins the argument. faith > logic
|
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 +
|
On September 01 2009 03:25 Athos wrote: Just because free will doesn't exist (it doesn't, your environment and genetics decide everything you are going to do) doesn't mean that God exists. So really God = genes + environment.
Oh, and I once had a crush on a conservative Christian girl. Nothing happened, but I also was willing to compromise my beliefs to get a girl. It's totally normally dude. Good thing your ID's not pAthos! Eh heh heh... heh...
...fuck.
|
Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God. ~ Epicurus
Just thought that i should begin with Epicurus.
Ok so let me try and explain in more laymen terms what i believe could be the one flaw in your argument.
As a preface- i am not christian, nor am i catholic. The only reason i would like to try and show that i am not extremely biased is simply to try and form some sense of credibility within this thread. In fact it doesn't matter if i am religious or religious at all, this is simply my opinion. From a novice theologian like myself it is simply at your discretion to take my advice or ignore it.
To begin:
The one flaw in your argument that i cannot come to terms with is your idea of free will. From what i gather- and from what my experiences in religious classes, debates and from partitions of the faith themselves- free will is seen in a completely different light than the one that you describe. From what i understand, free will while having been created by god, is not controlled by him. IE- your soul is yours, and will always be yours to keep. Even though god creates your soul, and understands everything within it, he simply decides to not control it. Basically you can do what you like. God will not stop you either way, but at the same time god knows exactly what you will do. So why eve and the fall from grace? According to a priest- it's "all part of his plan."
However this statement in itself some how defies the logic that God is an omnipotent and omnipotent diety- so really once again this is weak. (i fully admit this) Because why would god create man if god knew that man would fall, would suffer, and sin? The simple answer- That is extremely illogical, is this:
God wants to see- that even in the face of pain, tragedy, and the endless suffering that is life- will you still praise him?
Applying logic to god is impossible. Because if you could reason with religious people- there would be no religious people left. Faith is called faith for a reason, and it is up to you to decide if you really believe in God. No amount of logic can make that decision for you. Because logically- i disproved the entire idea of god with my first paragraph lol.
|
the Christian religion is illogical to begin with. Since your core issue is with the girl rather than your logic, i would advice to just avoid this flamefest with her to begin with. Get to know her, have fun enjoying her company, and settle to agree to disagree regarding religion. If you prove that your logic is flawless, then by implication she is wrong. If we DO manage to dismantle your logical conclusion, then you will just find something else about Christianity to disagree with, since it is so full of logic holes. Either way it will form an unnecessary wedge in your relationship with her in the long run.
Unless you are looking to marry her, there is no need to dismantle another person's laboriously constructed cornerstone of belief, that would be unnecessarily cruel. Pretend ignorance or claim to be vaguely agnostic, ask her to respect your religious beliefs as you do hers, and drop the topic. She is much more than her belief in god, so there is not much point dwelling on it.
|
United States24346 Posts
Your first problem in your proof is with step 1 since nothing can be omnipotent.
According to biblical times didn't God have to flood the entire Earth to kill pretty much everyone? I stopped taking Abrahamic religions seriously after that.
|
No girl is worth compromising your metaphysical principles
|
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 +
That picture is one of the most awesome things i've seen in a while. Fukkin saved.
|
Yeah people will believe what they will believe.
|
United States40832 Posts
|
This is interesting. I agree with you that free will doesn't exist. However, I'm an atheist. I can say, though, that in your reasoning, we can almost replace god by "physics" (with some tweaks of course) and it works the same! Some chemical interaction created us, so we're dependent to them, etc.
|
"God is dead" - Nietsche
Saying free will doesn´t exist is madness. I think I saw a research which said that our brains make decisions before we "make" them, so in a way I think free will exist but it might not be our conciousness that makes the decisions.
|
|
My take on this:
Even if God is "evil" or "good", there's nothing you can do about it, if he really exists. So what if he made Eva eat the apple, kill people or w/e. Going to sue him? If he's almighty there's nothing you can do but to bow down.
|
On September 01 2009 03:23 HuskyTheHusky wrote: While I'm sure most anyone who's read any of my posts already knows my beliefs, I will just say, you are a brave brave soul for dating someone who is extremely Christian while you are not yourself.
Now, I dont have anything against them (except the ones that try to convert me), but I cant imagine falling in love with someone who has such extreme different views. Thats just me though, and its good to hear you two are able to make it happen.
That aside, as someone posted recently (forget if it was here or another forum), being an atheist is just denying one more god than all the gods Christians deny. Thus your logic rox!
Edit: I'm not really atheist btw... I just know Christians think they're all going to hell etc etc.
That's just the thing though, we AREN'T able to make it happen. . I'm having to compromise, which I'm not really okay with, but I'm willing to do it to be with her, as intellectually heinous as that is.
Since you are a deist, I will offer my argument since I consider myself to be one as well. To note, however, seeing your sophiscated argument I think mine may not be good enough, but I will try.
First we will establish the faith for an all-loving being, call it God. Since you are a deist as you claimed, I trust that you have no problem with God, but may get sore noses on the "all-loving" part. In my personal opinion, if you cannot have the faith that any possible supreme beings are all-loving and all-good, there is little point left in deism (and you might as well go athiesm). If you can do that, the rest is quite trivial (we don't need omnipotency or any other bullcraps).
The Christianity God is all-loving and all-good, which is compatible what I have described earlier. Therefore, there is no reason why you should not believe it, as you should be compatible with its moralities, etc..
If, however, it turned out that the Christian God is not the real God, that should be OK since the all-loving, all-good real God will forgive you for making such mistakes - you were simply fooled for a clever con-artist.
This is an intriguing concept. I certainly concur with your assertions regarding an "all-loving" God, and it does give me a bit of a sore nose.
I have no problem with accepting Christian morals, etc(though admittedly not the applications of those morals throughout history, nor most of the morals in the Old Testament). The only thing in my way of accepting Christian belief is the contradictions within it: namely that of free will that I talked about in the OP. How can I believe Jesus died for my sins if he caused me to sin in the first place by setting my variables to make sinning inevitable?
--
Misrah, here's the thing. In what I wrote in the OP, I concluded that, from our premises regarding what we know of God(in a Christian sense anyway), God DOES control us. That's the whole point: I think I've defeated free will. Therefore we do NOT have control over our actions. We cannot be held accountable for behaving in a manner in which we were created to.
If I were to accept, as you say, that it's "all part of his plan", then I'd have to come to terms with the fact that God DOES want man to suffer, that God DOES want man to behave in an evil fashion, and that he is happy with all the strife and unhappiness and despair that occurs on Earth, since he directly caused it by causation. Can we call that creature God that behaves in such a manner? Certainly not a benevolent one, anyway.
Railxp, I wish it were that easy, honestly. But we simply can't agree to disagree on this point.
|
On September 01 2009 03:51 Mah Buckit! wrote: "God is dead" - Nietsche
Saying free will doesn´t exist is madness. I think I saw a research which said that our brains make decisions before we "make" them, so in a way I think free will exist but it might not be our conciousness that makes the decisions.
Firstly, you misspelled Nietzsche.
Secondly, I don't think Nietzsche himself believed in such a thing as free will. He certainly despised Kant's ethical system and its notion of the transcendental agent, which is the canonical example of an explanation and defense of a "free will", that is, being a self-legislating being able to act upon logical reasons that come from oneself (not that this does justice to Kant, but I'm really not that concerned in that anyways- there are plenty of modern day Kantians to do that).
Thirdly, why would you think there is such a thing as free will, and (more importantly) what do you mean by those words?
|
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 + And don't you fucking forget it.
|
Very well-written and thought out op. I made the mistake of dating a very religious girl, and I will never again allow myself to do it. I'm not going to try to refute your logic because i've been trying to say the same thing for years, but I wouldn't blame yourself for allowing the relationship to develop.
|
On September 01 2009 04:04 Hieros wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2009 03:51 Mah Buckit! wrote: "God is dead" - Nietsche
Saying free will doesn´t exist is madness. I think I saw a research which said that our brains make decisions before we "make" them, so in a way I think free will exist but it might not be our conciousness that makes the decisions. Firstly, you misspelled Nietzsche. Secondly, I don't think Nietzsche himself believed in such a thing as free will. He certainly despised Kant's ethical system and its notion of the transcendental agent, which is the canonical example of an explanation and defense of a "free will", that is, being a self-legislating being able to act upon logical reasons that come from oneself (not that this does justice to Kant, but I'm really not that concerned in that anyways- there are plenty of modern day Kantians to do that). Thirdly, why would you think there is such a thing as free will, and (more importantly) what do you mean by those words?
I believe there is free will because I'm a Deist, and I don't believe God gives two shits about what we do. The proof I provided was operating under Christian premises. By free will I mean operating under one's own power with no external agent affecting(or effecting) decisions.
|
3. Given premise 1, God does not make mistakes, and he fully understands the consequences of everything he does, since he knows the future.
So he fully understands the consequences of natural disasters, people killing in his name etc etc. This is guy is just made of love man, oh and btw he needs some cash. Drop him a buck or two next time you're in church.
On a less cynical and much more hilarious note. Just look at the platypus.
P.S.: I used to be very serious with a Christian girl a couple years back. While I let her know upfront that I'm not really into Christianity we still had a nice, initially non-conflicting time together. However, fate-induced or not, she tried change me from my normal cynically sarcastic self. Constantly telling me to smile and that God loves me and whatnot. It didn't work out.
|
|
You are going about this the wrong way. God (or the lack thereof) are not demonstrable propositions.
Even in very narrow and seemingly well defined fields such as math or physics, things we used to think were "True" with a capital T often turned out to not be so. Doing geometry on a disc (non-Euclidean space) is rather different than doing it in the usual Cartesian plane, and all sorts of weird things happen (infinite number of parallels to a line through a fixed point, sum of angles in a triangle is not 180 degrees, etc. etc.). This is just a tiny example of how limited and system of reference dependent our knowledge is: there will always be "stuff" we do not know. A Christian priest/minister would rephrase this (admittedly roundabout) discussion as follows: God's wisdom is infinite and cannot be questioned or comprehended with our limited human understanding. If you want to believe, do so. If you do not, your choice / damnation / etc.
+ Show Spoiler +By the way, some people would argue that being somewhat irrational and / or hard to accept ADDS to the usefulness of a religion, to some degree. Religion is about signalling to others you share a common set of beliefs, that you are a good person by a commonly accepted standard. This was HUGE a while back, when laws were not well enforced, there were no credit score and so on. This also means there need to be some costs associated with producing this signal, otherwise everyone could "fake it" and get the benefits of instant acceptance. Hence the memorized passages, church attendance, funny hats, circumcisions, flagellation, etc... A prediction could then be that as the usefulness of the signal diminishes (perhaps governments get better at taking some of these functions over) the "harshness" of religion decreases.
|
On September 01 2009 04:08 Track wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2009 04:04 Hieros wrote:On September 01 2009 03:51 Mah Buckit! wrote: "God is dead" - Nietsche
Saying free will doesn´t exist is madness. I think I saw a research which said that our brains make decisions before we "make" them, so in a way I think free will exist but it might not be our conciousness that makes the decisions. Firstly, you misspelled Nietzsche. Secondly, I don't think Nietzsche himself believed in such a thing as free will. He certainly despised Kant's ethical system and its notion of the transcendental agent, which is the canonical example of an explanation and defense of a "free will", that is, being a self-legislating being able to act upon logical reasons that come from oneself (not that this does justice to Kant, but I'm really not that concerned in that anyways- there are plenty of modern day Kantians to do that). Thirdly, why would you think there is such a thing as free will, and (more importantly) what do you mean by those words? I believe there is free will because I'm a Deist, and I don't believe God gives two shits about what we do. The proof I provided was operating under Christian premises. By free will I mean operating under one's own power with no external agent affecting(or effecting) decisions.
I was replying specifically to that poster, as I am generally skeptical of people quoting Nietzsche out of context. (The God is Dead quote, for example, first appears in the Gay Science (book V if I recall correctly) in an account of a madman that is a reference to an old Greek philosopher (note that he holds a lantern in the daytime, can't remember which one off the top of my head) and is, as almost goes without saying, highly metaphorical and hardly a statement as simple as that the notion of God is incoherent.)
But to take up a similar question, what do you mean by operating under one's own power without an affecting/effecting agents? Do you need the notion of not being under the effect of other agents to lack free will? Please explain.
|
Stop debating religion on teamliquid for heavens sake, you are just going to start a flame war. What was the whole point of this thread, why dont u go research some shit up on google before coming here. You know as well as i do that religion =/= teamliquid.net and shit has happened in the past.
|
On September 01 2009 04:12 citi.zen wrote:You are going about this the wrong way. God (or the lack thereof) are not demonstrable propositions. Even in very narrow and seemingly well defined fields such as math or physics, things we used to think were "True" with a capital T often turned out to not be so. Doing geometry on a disc (non-Euclidean space) is rather different than doing it in the usual Cartesian plane, and all sorts of weird things happen (infinite number of parallels to a line through a fixed point, sum of angles in a triangle is not 180 degrees, etc. etc.). This is just a tiny example of how limited and system of reference dependent our knowledge is: there will always be "stuff" we do not know. A Christian priest/minister would rephrase this (admittedly roundabout) discussion as follows: God's wisdom is infinite and cannot be questioned or comprehended with our limited human understanding. If you want to believe, do so. If you do not, your choice / damnation / etc. + Show Spoiler +By the way, some people would argue that being somewhat irrational and / or hard to accept ADDS to the usefulness of a religion, to some degree. Religion is about signalling to others you share a common set of beliefs, that you are a good person by a commonly accepted standard. This was HUGE a while back, when laws were not well enforced, there were no credit score and so on. This also means there need to be some costs associated with producing this signal, otherwise everyone could "fake it" and get the benefits of instant acceptance. Hence the memorized passages, church attendance, funny hats, circumcisions, flagellation, etc... A prediction could then be that as the usefulness of the signal diminishes (perhaps governments get better at taking some of these functions over) the "harshness" of religion decreases.
I understand that logic cannot be accurately applied to God's person in general. But, when one makes sweeping claims about the natural world(ie, that God created everything, and wants us to behave in a certain fashion), how do you not apply logic to that? If God is an inherent contradiction in what we understand to be true, how can that be reconciled?
The simple addition of faith merely precludes one from needing to ask questions, or from caring what the answers are.
|
On September 01 2009 04:19 Track wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2009 04:12 citi.zen wrote:You are going about this the wrong way. God (or the lack thereof) are not demonstrable propositions. Even in very narrow and seemingly well defined fields such as math or physics, things we used to think were "True" with a capital T often turned out to not be so. Doing geometry on a disc (non-Euclidean space) is rather different than doing it in the usual Cartesian plane, and all sorts of weird things happen (infinite number of parallels to a line through a fixed point, sum of angles in a triangle is not 180 degrees, etc. etc.). This is just a tiny example of how limited and system of reference dependent our knowledge is: there will always be "stuff" we do not know. A Christian priest/minister would rephrase this (admittedly roundabout) discussion as follows: God's wisdom is infinite and cannot be questioned or comprehended with our limited human understanding. If you want to believe, do so. If you do not, your choice / damnation / etc. + Show Spoiler +By the way, some people would argue that being somewhat irrational and / or hard to accept ADDS to the usefulness of a religion, to some degree. Religion is about signalling to others you share a common set of beliefs, that you are a good person by a commonly accepted standard. This was HUGE a while back, when laws were not well enforced, there were no credit score and so on. This also means there need to be some costs associated with producing this signal, otherwise everyone could "fake it" and get the benefits of instant acceptance. Hence the memorized passages, church attendance, funny hats, circumcisions, flagellation, etc... A prediction could then be that as the usefulness of the signal diminishes (perhaps governments get better at taking some of these functions over) the "harshness" of religion decreases. I understand that logic cannot be accurately applied to God's person in general. But, when one makes sweeping claims about the natural world(ie, that God created everything, and wants us to behave in a certain fashion), how do you not apply logic to that? If God is an inherent contradiction in what we understand to be true, how can that be reconciled? The simple addition of faith merely precludes one from needing to ask questions, or from caring what the answers are.
You just answered your own question right there.
|
On September 01 2009 04:16 Hieros wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2009 04:08 Track wrote:On September 01 2009 04:04 Hieros wrote:On September 01 2009 03:51 Mah Buckit! wrote: "God is dead" - Nietsche
Saying free will doesn´t exist is madness. I think I saw a research which said that our brains make decisions before we "make" them, so in a way I think free will exist but it might not be our conciousness that makes the decisions. Firstly, you misspelled Nietzsche. Secondly, I don't think Nietzsche himself believed in such a thing as free will. He certainly despised Kant's ethical system and its notion of the transcendental agent, which is the canonical example of an explanation and defense of a "free will", that is, being a self-legislating being able to act upon logical reasons that come from oneself (not that this does justice to Kant, but I'm really not that concerned in that anyways- there are plenty of modern day Kantians to do that). Thirdly, why would you think there is such a thing as free will, and (more importantly) what do you mean by those words? I believe there is free will because I'm a Deist, and I don't believe God gives two shits about what we do. The proof I provided was operating under Christian premises. By free will I mean operating under one's own power with no external agent affecting(or effecting) decisions. I was replying specifically to that poster, as I am generally skeptical of people quoting Nietzsche out of context. (The God is Dead quote, for example, first appears in the Gay Science (book V if I recall correctly) in an account of a madman that is a reference to an old Greek philosopher (note that he holds a lantern in the daytime, can't remember which one off the top of my head) and is, as almost goes without saying, highly metaphorical and hardly a statement as simple as that the notion of God is incoherent.) But to take up a similar question, what do you mean by operating under one's own power without an affecting/effecting agents? Do you need the notion of not being under the effect of other agents to lack free will? Please explain.
An example of what I mean would be this: we don't consider a confession given when an policeman is breaking your fingers to be one made of free will. You can clearly see how there is an external agent(ie, the policeman) operating on your decision making, coercing you into doing something. In much the same way, albeit a more fundamental one, God shaped our thoughts, and our thoughts are what make us sin, so how can it be said that we sin against God of our own free will, when his influence is effecting our decisions?
No, you need the notion of not being under other agents to HAVE free will. If there ARE agents operating on you, be they policemen or God, you can't be said to be operating of your own volition. Only when there are NO agents affecting your reasoning can it be said that you're operating under your own free will.
SanguineToss, do you see any flames? There are no rules preventing discussion of religious concepts, so if you disapprove of my blog you can feel free to not take part in the discussion.
|
Just throwing out some variables and saying that your environment and mind determines every decision you make doesn't prove that free will doesn't exist. What if there is some extra factor that you aren't considering that is independent of these factors, such as the concept of a soul, or possibly equivalently, consciousness, that implements free will?
|
God is so powerful, that He can create a sword which can and at the same time can't destroy the shield he made. Which is very strong too. It's like quantum mechanics; God is so powerful that he can make 1 = 0.
Apply this to your case.
|
On September 01 2009 04:27 Navane wrote: God is so powerful, that He can create a sword which can and at the same time can't destroy the shield he made. Which is very strong too. It's like quantum mechanics; God is so powerful that he can make 1 = 0.
Apply this to your case. I cant believe you didnt use the burrito quote from the Simpsons instead. And yes if omnipotence exist we wouldn't be able to understand it with our logic.
|
FiveJulys, I acknowledged that in my OP. But, adding variables doesn't change the fact that any additions you might recommend, such as a soul of consciousness, would invariably also come from God and would also be subjected to the same reasoning that my 2 variables were. You can add in any of a thousand things that influence your thinking, but by our premise that nothing exists independently of God, they would similarly be of God's design and therefore part of his agency.
Navane, could you elaborate? Are you simply proposing that God is inherently paradoxical and that as such these questions simply do not have answers?
|
Track, you pretty much just laid out my exact reasoning for dismissing christianity, and the theory that Humans can do sins. I realized the same thing a few years ago, and that that model for the world simply makes no sense.
Nondualistic teachings make much more sense, and are actually able to withstand logical questioning.
|
Although I am not a Christian, I do not think that free will is an illogical concept, although it is not really intuitive.
The entire argument against free will is based on the axiom that everything must have a prior cause, which itself has a cause, and so forth. It's natural to think this way, since in the world around us things work that way, but ultimately the chain of cause-and-effect cannot run forever. In fact, one variation of this is an argument for the existence of God: a cause for which there is no prior cause. If you don't believe in God, perhaps you believe in a Universe that just exists, but again, that would be something without a cause.
Once you are willing to go that far, I don't see a problem with believing in free will. This would mean that the self-aware consciousness that you think of as "you" (the soul, if you like), has the ability to make decisions independent of the factors that go into them. Suppose, for instance, that you have the desire to smoke a cigarette, and the knowledge that eventually, smoking will pose a hazard to your health. For argument's sake, let's suppose that no other factors go into the decision.
Sure, you could posit that one of the two factors must have a stronger weight in your mind. But can't you also conceive of the possibility that a third quantity is able to decide between the two? What is the decision based on? It doesn't have to be "based on" something other than the soul itself. Free will is the self's ability to make decisions.
Specifically, it's premise 4 that I take issue with. Premise 4 seems to imply that all decisions must be founded on a deterministic thought process. If one believes in free will, he believes that this is not the case.
By the way, the little I know about quantum mechanics doesn't square with determinism either. Do you believe in stuff like Schrodinger's cat?
edit: PS- this took a bit of time to write; therefore, some of the later posts in this thread had not yet been posted when I began to write it. Apologies if anything I wrote is redundant
|
Isn't this similar to Hume's Theodice Problem: (Because God Created Satan/Evil)
"If the evil in the world is intended by God he is not good. If it violates his intentions he is not almighty. God can't be both almighty and good.”
That being said, I'm in the same position as you with my Girlfriend but it really hasn't manifested into any problems. Just leave it alone, religion is a good thing for some.
|
Why exactly can't the chain of cause and effect run on forever?
I see that it's an infinite regress. I just don't see why, prima facie, that's a problem.
|
On September 01 2009 04:37 Hieros wrote: Why exactly can't the chain of cause and effect run on forever?
I see that it's an infinite regress. I just don't see why, prima facie, that's a problem. Well, it's a cop out. You can say it does, but that would imply that there is no "ultimate cause". For any effect, you can adduce an infinite amount of intermediate causes, but no cause (or combination of causes) that is sufficient on its own. That is the same thing as saying that nothing has a true cause.
|
Logic is overrated.
Best advice I can give you is to stop trying to convince her she's wrong, chances are she'll vehemently deny even if she realizes she is.
|
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?
|
This is an age-long debate. I agree with most of your logic, but if you are looking for worthwhile refutation, there is an incredible wealth of dialectic from theologians and philosophers from history. Look into Hume, Thomas Aquinas, and more recently Leibniz.
|
How can you, a mere human, begin to comprehend what God is and what God's plans are. Trying to use logic from our feeble mortal minds to prove or disprove something that is supposedly all-knowing and all-powerful will always prove futile.
Faith and ones own beliefs should not be argued over.
Relationships are about compromises. Would she still be willing to be with you even if you do not accept her God as your own? Would you be willing to get married with her in a church even if logically it does not make sense to you?
|
[edit to put in a t on though at the start of the first quote]
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).
I think it depends on the goal of religious debate or I guess discussion in general. Is the purpose of discussion to gain a deeper understanding of an opposite point of view while expressing your own? Or is the purpose of a discussion to simply "win" by convincing people of your own point of view?
If I were to accept, as you say, that it's "all part of his plan", then I'd have to come to terms with the fact that God DOES want man to suffer, that God DOES want man to behave in an evil fashion, and that he is happy with all the strife and unhappiness and despair that occurs on Earth, since he directly caused it by causation. Can we call that creature God that behaves in such a manner? Certainly not a benevolent one, anyway.
Railxp, I wish it were that easy, honestly. But we simply can't agree to disagree on this point.
You are making two assumptions here: 1) that all suffering is evil and 2) men behaving in an evil fashion is irreconcilably evil 3) we have the equivalent moral perspective to God in order to judge actions with eternal consequences.
1) is a very Buddhist thought and I really dont have any comments on it. but
2) There is a religious conception that God is capable of redeeming evil for good. There are arguments that this is the central focus of New Testament teaching.
Some biblical backing on the thought: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes 3:11&version=NIV
There also seems to be some kicking around of the idea that God created evil. Not sure why religious people argue against this since the bible straight up states it.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=proverbs 16:4&version=NASB
That being said, I don't think its logical to say that God created evil therefore God is evil or therefore God is not good.
3) I am not going to elaborate on this point because I feel like its a weak and unsatisfying argument. But I will say the entire book of Job centers around the concept of taking God to public trial. Part of the poetic conception is that when you put God on trial, you put yourself on trial.
Its clear to say that given any conception of an "all powerful" god, good evil or neutral, a mortal man does not possibly have the moral or mental capacity to judge its actions. Even assuming we did have the moral capacity I am not sure we would have the mental capacity to view the implications of even simple actions in view of the eternal flow of time.
Replying to the original post:
I find your initial argument of a "forced decision" to be very illogical. A choice of any limited option is still a choice and therefore evidence of free will.
If you pull back your perspective a bit and view the world we live in as a conglomeration of the laws of physics and the infinite variables bouncing around in it, we are "forced" to make every decision in our day to day lives.
Breath or not breath. Eat or not eat. Play starcraft or not.
This is a far cry from a violation of free will.
Additionally I dont think we can argue how an "all powerful god" sees or interacts with the future given that we are pinned to a solid cause and effect time line.
To try to stab at my first comment "understanding the opposite point of view", I think your frustration is with the concept of being confronted with choices of good and evil. You would rather have God either allow a 3rd neutral option (a very zen existence I guess) or just not be confronted with such choices at all.
I don't think there is a logic proof for the argument, but I do believe that free will is a requirement for real love. In other words for love to exist, free will must exist and I would then say that evil must therefore be capable of existing.
I am not saying that evil is the opposite of love automatically, but I will say that the capacity for the conditions of evil are the same as the conditions for the capacity of love.
That being said, it is my opinion that the risk of evil is worth potential benefit of love. In my opinion a lot of basic human interaction flows from this concept as well. You date your girlfriend at risk that she will reject you for who you are in hopes that she might truly accept you for who you are. Erg bad sentence ending. Whatever.
|
hmm for some reason i find this topic very interesting and would look to try and anwser what i have come to known through my logic..
God is everything we are not ,but to have a relationship with God it is through jesus God reconciled the world and you are no longer of this world.. this world is not Gods its Satans and Satan gained when sin was first intruduced via Eve in the Garden she was tempted by him and fell, this just goes to show God is the only with mistakes and sin he made provisions however by sending his son because he so loved the world. to kno and have this relationship you must do something different from human nature and its to not put yourself as the most important thing and by seeking godly things you will love people because that is what God loves the most and whats people to be with him. Einstein said it best when he said darkness does not exist it is a word we use when there is no light, because light can be a quantity but darkness cant , evil is that when God is not present. Also God will give u want u want he will promise what u need, and what we should ask of him is more of his presence and thoughts in our lives. The evil in this world is just but a sympton of our disobiedience to God. The other realization is that we all say this person is that and this person is this, the truth of the matter is we are all sinners and have fallen short of the Glory of God.
|
On September 01 2009 04:41 qrs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2009 04:37 Hieros wrote: Why exactly can't the chain of cause and effect run on forever?
I see that it's an infinite regress. I just don't see why, prima facie, that's a problem. Well, it's a cop out. You can say it does, but that would imply that there is no "ultimate cause". For any effect, you can adduce an infinite amount of intermediate causes, but no cause (or combination of causes) that is sufficient on its own. That is the same thing as saying that nothing has a true cause.
Right and my point is what's wrong with saying that there is no "ultimate cause", or that there are no "true causes"? And why should we think that there is something "sufficient on its own"?
You might say it's a cop out, but for me the notion of a ultimate cause sounds like a Russell's teapot.
|
Like others have said, this is not a new argument. Your question really boils down to the age-old question of "How can God allow evil to exist if he is good?". It is this propensity for evil that allows us to sin, such as with Eve and the apple.
Ask yourself, are you really searching for an answer? If so, I would suggest posting your question on a forum geared more towards Christian apologetics, rather than a starcraft forum. Or you could do a quick google search to find countless books written on this subject. There really are tremendous amounts of resources that can help you find the answer you are looking for.
edit: I'll leave the first google result I got when I typed in "how can god allow evil to exist" http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/evil.html just for some reference. There are many, many more resources where that came from.
|
Weapon, the point of the OP is that we had no choice but to fall short, not that it was a willful decision.
Diggity, that's a very interesting point. "I find your initial argument of a "forced decision" to be very illogical. A choice of any limited option is still a choice and therefore evidence of free will." I would reply that we have merely the illusion of choice, but my point wasn't that we have no choice in a pragmatic sense, only that given those Christian premises, we cannot be held responsible for those choices, given that God is directly, through the shaping of our mind, causing us to make them.
I concur with you in that we can't possibly hope to understand the machinations of a being who operates on a completely different scale than we do, we have no frame of reference and therefore cannot hope to morally hold God accountable.
My frustration isn't so much that I want the choice to be made for me, but rather that I feel as though God cannot hold me accountable for making that choice when he is directly causing me to make it. Ie, if someone were to force you to sign a confession, how could they then be angry at you for signing the confession?
I concur with your assertion that free will is necessary for love, and on the practical level I think you're completely right.
"That being said, I don't think its logical to say that God created evil therefore God is evil or therefore God is not good. "
If God is omnipotent, he should be able to create a universe where free will exists but evil does not. That's the crux of my argument.
|
I dated a ridiculously Christian girl in high school and because I liked her and wanted her to feel as if I was supporting her, I started attending her bible study things. So, although I didn't feel like I was gaining anything by being there, I sort of lumped it in the category of her maybe going to a concert I was playing in or going to see some movie I wanted to see, but she didn't. I guess if you like the girl more than you hate that specific part of her (lack of) reasoning, then by all means go for it. Although, ultraconservatism doesn't make for good love life. : l
|
Well to start with. I'm a strong Catholic. I believe in everything that the Church teaches. Second I'm a philosopher, so I believe that the truth is one thing but is also in exhaustible, meaning that no one can say something like "God is good" and understand either the good in relation to God, nor vise versa, nor God alone because God is beyond our ability to comprehend.
This argument you bring up is, I think, due to a miss understanding of God and bad theology. Yes everything is dependent on God, but only from our perspective. From my perspective at my computer, my world is small and insignificant. I know that writing this will do just about nothing for anyone. I don't know you and you don't know me. So perception is very important.
First premise is true, but only in a certain way. God is omniscient and omnipotent, but he does not know the world like we do. He is omnipotent only because He can do all that He can do. It doesn't mean He can do absurd things like kill Himself. He knows everything because He knows Himself, and He is the source of all this. He doesn't know things like we do--by our senses. Rather He has an abstract knowledge of it.
premise 2 is right...because God is the root of all things, the Eternal First. Premise 3 is wrong. God Can't make mistakes because God is Good. If God is not all good, then there must be a greater Good and if that is the case He is not God, but a Demi-God or a lesser God. Again God's knows the future, but not as the future. He knows time as "is", not as "once was" or "will be" This is necessarily so because he God lives in time, then he must be subject to change (time=measurement of change) and that means he must be changing... In Short, God knows us through Himself and not through looking at us...THOUGH from our point of view God looks at us. (something similar is, Is the Earth the center of the universe, or is the Sun. When I am on the Earth, being ignorant I might say either.)
Premise 4 true, there are things that influence our thought pattern. Upbringing, culture, people we hang out with, rights and wrongs done to us and things we have done...the list goes on. So this is extremely hard to figure out. When all is said and done, though. You do have free will. No one, not even God can make you do anything. (God can't because taking free will away is an evil, if God is Good he can't do that, if God is evil then he's not god) However there are times when emotions can seem to take away free will...Alcohol and drugs can take away free will, but you first have to get them into your system.
Premise 5, our thought process comes from God in a very remote way. But look, God can't make you think anything. If He could, why would have allowed so many people not being Catholic--if Catholicism is the true religion...God loves us, and love demands freedom. No freedom. No Love. You can ask yourself the same question: who loves me? I mean truly? When someone is raped--is that not the same bodily function as marital sex. But in one case it is evil and the other it is good? It is nearly the same act! (two parties, BOTH have to freely give of their freedom)
Premise 6, Yeah God knows everything. God knows that I'm here in my room typing--but is that my perception of God, or God's perception of me? That I don't know. Look, don't you know your friends? Can't you say that if you are going to a dance party, that you will have a good time? What does that mean? Did you suddenly become God because you foreknew something? God sets variables is a remote way, God doesn't control people. He lets them choose whatever. God inspires good in everyone, but they still have to choose it. For example, Take starcraft, everything is already done--there are no more units (unless you use map settings), you can only do so many things...But does that mean you didn't have a choice? You are born into the world because of parents, so you do have set circumstances. This world and its inhabitants work in a certain way. Yes, God knows all that. Some have said God knows all possible actions and possible worlds. In short, God knows, but doesn't control.
Premise 7, If God is the end result of our sin, then it is our fault? Yet today in the world, everyone knows its our fault when we do wrong. Set me say this, I'm playing a Game of starcraft, I pause it and left you take over. You punch the screen and smash the computer...is that my fault or yours? You can't say it was God's fault, you choose to do it, or you were on drugs (out of your mind).
Some of the ideas are taken from Aquinas' work, Contra Gentiles God loves you. ~Mokinono
|
We're getting nowhere on the phylosophical tangents, so I'll return to your discussion about this girl:
* If you just want to "have fun messing around" stop wasting your time and find an easier target; * If you think you might be interested in her long term with marriage in mind, you should decide whether you can live with her as she is. Don't argue or discuss religion. Join her in church every now and then, to test it out. Maybe you can't stand it, or maybe its not too bad. Keep in mind, she is likely not a whore and could be a good mother with strong values.
Edit: mg beat me to it :-)
|
On September 01 2009 04:31 Track wrote: Navane, could you elaborate? Are you simply proposing that God is inherently paradoxical and that as such these questions simply do not have answers?
Yes.
If not; who created god?
A question I'm more interested is: why did god create the world?
|
I haven't read all the other posts, but I'm going to tell you what I think.
You're trying to apply logic and reason to religion, which calls for faith. Religious faith calls for you to believe without, or in spite of evidence. Faith is the opposite of logic in reason. They do not work together by definition, one must be surrendered to the other. You must choose whether you prefer using your mind and your intellect, the one thing that separates us from everything on earth, or you can submit to authority and be a mindless drone.
Also, I think it's very important to know what we're talking about when we discuss "free will". I don't see it as any more than an abstract idea.
|
On September 01 2009 05:23 nomsayin wrote: I haven't read all the other posts, but I'm going to tell you what I think.
You're trying to apply logic and reason to religion, which calls for faith. Religious faith calls for you to believe without, or in spite of evidence. Faith is the opposite of logic in reason. They do not work together by definition, one must be surrendered to the other. You must choose whether you prefer using your mind and your intellect, the one thing that separates us from everything on earth, or you can submit to authority and be a mindless drone.
Damn simpleton drones and their smug belief in their superiority!
+ Show Spoiler +Sorry, I liked the first part of your post but could not resist the 2nd.
|
On September 01 2009 05:27 citi.zen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2009 05:23 nomsayin wrote: I haven't read all the other posts, but I'm going to tell you what I think.
You're trying to apply logic and reason to religion, which calls for faith. Religious faith calls for you to believe without, or in spite of evidence. Faith is the opposite of logic in reason. They do not work together by definition, one must be surrendered to the other. You must choose whether you prefer using your mind and your intellect, the one thing that separates us from everything on earth, or you can submit to authority and be a mindless drone. Damn simpleton drones and their smug belief in their superiority! + Show Spoiler +Sorry, I liked the first part of your post but could not resist the 2nd.
I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
|
There are millions of people just like you, thinking the same thing, but at the same time, there are just as many, if not more, that believe in Christianity? There has to be a reason for this. but rather than dwell upon that, You said in your post that you SHOULD break up with her, but you won't. That you love her.
Explain THAT to me, an illogical act in its own, and I will explain what you ask for. And if you list simple reasons such as "She's pretty, beautiful and wonderful to me and simply the best person alive" then.... I have no words for you.
|
I'm not sure I'm understanding why you wouldn't just not compromise your beliefs. It's that important to her? If it is, then as you've already asked us not to say anything, I'll be quiet.
|
On September 01 2009 05:32 nomsayin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2009 05:27 citi.zen wrote:On September 01 2009 05:23 nomsayin wrote: I haven't read all the other posts, but I'm going to tell you what I think.
You're trying to apply logic and reason to religion, which calls for faith. Religious faith calls for you to believe without, or in spite of evidence. Faith is the opposite of logic in reason. They do not work together by definition, one must be surrendered to the other. You must choose whether you prefer using your mind and your intellect, the one thing that separates us from everything on earth, or you can submit to authority and be a mindless drone. Damn simpleton drones and their smug belief in their superiority! + Show Spoiler +Sorry, I liked the first part of your post but could not resist the 2nd. I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
QED? Just kidding... as I hope you are as well.
|
On September 01 2009 05:46 citi.zen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2009 05:32 nomsayin wrote:On September 01 2009 05:27 citi.zen wrote:On September 01 2009 05:23 nomsayin wrote: I haven't read all the other posts, but I'm going to tell you what I think.
You're trying to apply logic and reason to religion, which calls for faith. Religious faith calls for you to believe without, or in spite of evidence. Faith is the opposite of logic in reason. They do not work together by definition, one must be surrendered to the other. You must choose whether you prefer using your mind and your intellect, the one thing that separates us from everything on earth, or you can submit to authority and be a mindless drone. Damn simpleton drones and their smug belief in their superiority! + Show Spoiler +Sorry, I liked the first part of your post but could not resist the 2nd. I don't understand the point you are trying to make. QED? Just kidding... as I hope you are as well.
No I am not kidding.
|
to OP, I remember have a debate once with a christian friend regarding the same points you are talking about
his response was:
god created man as companionship or something like that. god wants us to choose to love him, not be forced to love him, thus he gave man free will. free will as a phenomenon doesn't make logical sense (your decisions are chemical reactions in your brain right?), but god can create free will because hes god. he has incentive to create free will, and he has the ability to do so, thus he did it
to the OP, I assure you, I am every bit as skeptical and analytical of religion as you are, but I can also guarantee you that intelligent christians will be able to refute ANY point that you can come up with. I'm sure you've heard this before, but it really is true. religion can't be proven or disproven, it's a matter of faith.
I acknowledge that religion might be true because none of us know enough to make claims otherwise. However, I choose not to be religious because I personally dislike the premise of religions. Science and technology can change as we learn more, but religion can't (not easily anyway). religion assumes a set of facts to be eternally true, so its possible that it could be wrong. On the other hand, if religion is really true, then I science will eventually converge with religion.
|
As an atheist, I can't agree with your premises. They are as logical to me as stating as an axiom to a discussion, the benevolence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the source of all good in the world.
|
On September 01 2009 05:56 Wangsta wrote: to the OP, I assure you, I am every bit as skeptical and analytical of religion as you are, but I can also guarantee you that intelligent christians will be able to refute ANY point that you can come up with. I'm sure you've heard this before, but it really is true. religion can't be proven or disproven, it's a matter of faith.
Nothing can really be proven or disproven. However, things can be virtually proven or disproven, beyond any reasonable uncertainty. For example, Christianity is faced with an enormous amount of evidence against its claims. It has been disproven beyond any reasonable uncertainty that the teachings of Christianity are true. There is a chance that the Bible is the word of god in the same sense that there is also a chance that there is an army of Leprechauns that lives under my bed.
|
If she can accept you don't want to believe, then maybe she is worth pursuing something with. If not, I think your relationship is going no where.
If religion is a huge part of her life, it's a bad thing for you. If she just says she's Christian but doesn't really do much about it, maybe you can get along with her. Don't bother trying to argue her out of it though, that's something people have to do on their own.
|
EDIT: My post seems pretty pointless after all these pages
|
It has been disproven beyond any reasonable uncertainty that the teachings of Christianity are true. You disproved "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?
Nice.
Guess I'm free to go back to stealing money from grannies.
|
Hmm if you are really trying to find a way to refute the entire religion- perhaps your going about it the wrong way? Most of the western faith's have a larger flaw that perhaps your girlfriend could better understand-
"Why is evil necessary?"
Simply ask her to answer this question. Ask her why Lucifer exists and what is his purpose, because if the christian God is truly Omnipotent and omnipotent- there has to be a damn good reason.
Ask her-
"Can Good exist without evil? Or Evil without good?"
See what she says. Because really these two questions strike the dogma that the catholic God is built upon.
Basically if she understands the argument it should turn into something to the effect of- is good or evil quantifiable, and how can one tell the difference between good or evil?
|
What I'm getting from the original post is: God created free will, but God knows all, so how is it free will?
which is the same as: God created an indestructible block, but God can destroy anything, so is is indestructible or destructible?
It all ends up being a paradox with no real solution
Can God make 1 = 0? Can God make red = blue? this stuff is beyond the realm of logic, you can't use logic to define God. That's your logical flaw. God just doesn't work in the boundaries of a rational, logical world. He's "beyond" reasoning and logic.
EDIT: Specific to your argument, you assume that logic and reasoning CAN be applied to a supreme being, and that the supreme being works within these boundaries. That is your faith because you are a Deist. There is no proof and it is not a logically proven argument.
|
grammar edit
If God is omnipotent, he should be able to create a universe where free will exists but evil does not. That's the crux of my argument.
Interesting. Yea this is why I like discussions like these.
I do think there are limits to omnipotence. (yea I know). There is always the silly question: Can God make a rock so big he couldn't lift it up?
Sometimes I wonder if this world is simply a giant experiment to see truly see if good is more powerful than evil. From that perspective denying evil's existence would be a cop out. But even then I come back to your point about infinite creative power. In the face of omnipotent creative power there could be something else that isn't evil that is given a challenging authority to good and made to be less destructive.
Would we then think of whatever that was as evil? Often times I don't like walking down this line of thought (even though it is interesting) because I feel it loses all grip in reality.
As an atheist, I can't agree with your premises. They are as logical to me as stating as an axiom to a discussion, the benevolence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the source of all good in the world.
I generally acknowledge pantheist and agnostics point of view, but I have a hard time coming to grips with atheism. Its one thing to say I don't know if a god exists or not. It may be possible but its very possible a god does not exist. Its another to say a god definitely does not exist because I cannot observe it in any scientific experiment which I can conceive.
Generally it seems like atheism is a denial of the specific the christian conception of God. There are plenty of other possibilities along the axiom of all-knowing, all-powerful and good
examples: You could have an all knowing all powerful evil god who is simply setting up reality for emotionally abusive amusement.
You could have an all knowing, good god who is not all powerful. (try reading "When good things happen to bad people")
In my personal experience most deist take the view of an all knowing, all powerful god who is neither good nor evil, just disinterested. Although this begs the question "Why bother in the first place?"
I can also understand a strong argument against the general Christian conception of creation. But this isn't definitely bound to the conception of god.
I generally don't like the flying spaghetti monster simply because it seems like a mean spirited attempt to portray any view of deity as foolish. Ultimately if you are breaking down any belief to a core component it is going to be somewhat bizarre.
Taking an atheistic point of view on the start of creation... nothingness with no provocation split itself into matter and anti-matter. That is pretty nuts. (not that I am saying it didn't happen, just saying intellectually this is bizarre) Also to be fair many Christians argue this is the physical representation of the opening line of Genesis
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis 1:3-4&version=NIV
At a certain point though either direction I find it boggling that the very way energy, matter and everything interacts allows for our existence.
For example, water could have just as easily gained density when it freezes. Thus all fresh water would sink to the bottom of the ocean and life on land would be radically different. Taking it a step further back, matter could just as easily have properties that make any form of life impossible. Again I don't like going down these lines of thought too far because they also lose basis in reality. Its also just a giant game of what if at the end of the day.
Personally I find consciousness unfathomable. I know there is no following logic, but generally I point to consciousness as proof of the existence of god. I can definitely understand why people would not agree with this point of view though.
|
On September 01 2009 03:10 Track wrote:
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.
Alright, so your concern, if I understand correctly, is essentially as follows. God created Eve, so God created the conditions of Eve's life, and since God knows everything, God preplanned Eve's whole life, so from the view point of God, Eve has no free will.
The problem with this is that (1) it presupposes the existence of God. The hidden premise: If God created the universe then God created Eve. Well, first one would have to convincingly argue that God exists. If God doesn't exist, then God could not have created the universe, and thus could not have created Eve. The problem of free will nevertheless remains from a purely scientific viewpoint. Traditionally, the worry is this: if we knew all the causal facts about the world since its inception (read: big bang) we could determine what anyone will do under such and such conditions (i.e., all our actions are predictable, predetermined by antecedent conditions).
The problem with this: Hume's argument that causation is not a metaphysical necessity. Hume argues that causation is just a psychological fact about human beings. Whenever we see two things constantly conjoined (e.g., whenever I drop a rock on my foot, then feel pain), out of habit we assume that the first event caused the second. This, however, cannot be established without presupposing that the first event is the cause of the second -- cannot be established without arguing in a circle (assuming causality, then arguing for it based on that assumption). If you're unconvinced by Hume, then we still have another response to consider.
Compatibilism. The Stoics argued as follows. Suppose a cylinder at the top of a hill is set in motion by someone. Who is responsible for the cylinder's rolling down the hill? The Stoics argue that the cylinder's "rollability" is responsible for its rolling. That is, they argue counterfactually: if the cylinder were not shaped as it is, then it would not roll. Thus, even though someone pushed it down the hill, the cylinder itself is responsible for its rolling because it is circular.
Well, there's a problem. In your case, God creates Eve (creates the cylinder's "rollability"), so one might argue that God is responsible for whatever actions Eve performs. But that doesn't seem right. Eve still performs the actions that Eve performs. If Eve punches me, even though her desire and will power were determined by God, it is still nevertheless the case that Eve punches me. So, in purely pragmatic terms, I'm going to hold Eve responsible for punching me. I can't, after all, prosecute God for assault.
|
On September 01 2009 06:22 L wrote:Show nested quote +It has been disproven beyond any reasonable uncertainty that the teachings of Christianity are true. You disproved "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? Nice. Guess I'm free to go back to stealing money from grannies.
That is irrelevant to the truth of the teachings, it is part of a moral code. Moral codes are subjective. I also never claimed that I did any of the disproving.
|
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. I think that's stretching it a bit. I'm not sure I like how you came about 6 (that's a redundant statement that is basically repeating premise 1), and premise 7...does not really logically follow.
You're basically saying that because we were created by some kind of being you can relate to on some level as a human being, man no longer makes actions? Sure, if you look at it this way, you inevitably have to see the universe (and more importantly, the lives of the people in it) as working within the framework of said god. However, then everything in the universe is under the same framework, and it's your assumption that free will can possibly be completely free of god that is flawed. I hope you can see where I'm going with this.
EDIT Just as a disclaimer, I don't like to take sides in religious arguments. I just point out problems I see in one argument or another, or even play devil's advocate. In this case, I really don't see a full on contradiction. It's definitely a beard-scratcher, but really isn't strong enough to refute free will entirely.
In any case, you really can't logically defeat religion. It's been tried many, many times, yet there are still many very intelligent people out there who remain religious. You can't really prove it logically either, which is why people find religion so offensive. They're caught up in their pure empirical logicism and can't stand the thought that something doesn't fit into their little dreamworld. -_______-
|
This thread is both interesting and totally stupid at the same time. Why does it bug you so much that this girl is religious? IMO clearly the fact that you are thinking about it and made a thread about it shows that it's a pretty big deal to you one way or another. Are you having some kind of faith (in your lack of faith i guess) struggle/doubt and looking for people to reinforce/echo your previously standing opinion that faith is stupid? If so why not try to understand it yourself?
Like other people said in this thread, if God exists (or doesnt) you're not going to be able to reason his existance or lack of existance -_-;;; how thick can you be to think "OH! Figured it out! GG no re"
Believe what you want to believe and leave people that believe other things to themselves. If this girl can't accept you as non religious (it sounds like you just can't accept her AS religious) then enjoy it while you can and eventually find someone else. Not a huge deal, although I admit it's an interesting thing to discuss.
|
On September 01 2009 06:32 Diggity wrote: Generally it seems like atheism is a denial of the specific the christian conception of God. There are plenty of other possibilities along the axiom of all-knowing, all-powerful and good
Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a deity. In regard to some conceptions of god, however, atheists do often take a stronger position.
|
On September 01 2009 06:32 Diggity wrote: Sometimes I wonder if this world is simply a giant experiment to see truly see if good is more powerful than evil. From that perspective denying evil's existence would be a cop out. But even then I come back to your point about infinite creative power. In the face of omnipotent creative power there could be something else that isn't evil that is given a challenging authority to good and made to be less destructive.
Would we then think of whatever that was as evil? Often times I don't like walking down this line of thought (even though it is interesting) because I feel it loses all grip in reality.
The problem is good and evil are abstract ideas, and have no physical manifestation.
I generally acknowledge pantheist and agnostics point of view, but I have a hard time coming to grips with atheism. Its one thing to say I don't know if a god exists or not. It may be possible but its very possible a god does not exist. Its another to say a god definitely does not exist because I cannot observe it in any scientific experiment which I can conceive.
Well it is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything. The burden of proof lies upon the one making the claim of existence. There is nothing wrong with denying the existence of God as long as there is some uncertainty, however small. This is true with any belief.
Taking an atheistic point of view on the start of creation... nothingness with no provocation split itself into matter and anti-matter. That is pretty nuts. (not that I am saying it didn't happen, just saying intellectually this is bizarre) Also to be fair many Christians argue this is the physical representation of the opening line of Genesis
Atheism makes no claims about the creation of the universe, other than the denial of the existence of god, and therefore that god created the universe.
At a certain point though either direction I find it boggling that the very way energy, matter and everything interacts allows for our existence.
It is boggling and absolutely beautiful.
For example, water could have just as easily gained density when it freezes. Thus all fresh water would sink to the bottom of the ocean and life on land would be radically different. Taking it a step further back, matter could just as easily have properties that make any form of life impossible. Again I don't like going down these lines of thought too far because they also lose basis in reality. Its also just a giant game of what if at the end of the day.
I do not think you have any grounds to make these claims. There may be no other way for water to exist than how it does. The universe may have no other way to exist other than the way it does. We are ignorant on these matters, and therefore unable to judge any likely hood of any other theoretical possibilities.
Personally I find consciousness unfathomable. I know there is no following logic, but generally I point to consciousness as proof of the existence of god. I can definitely understand why people would not agree with this point of view though.
You point to a proof that you don't find very convincing yourself? That is a huge contradiction.
|
It's all about finding a middle ground between logic AND faith. Hence my undying devotion to the Invisible Pink Unicorn:
"We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them." - Steve Eley
|
did anyone post epicurius's riddle yet?
|
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
|
United States4795 Posts
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.
|
On September 01 2009 10:20 beetlelisk wrote: 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?
Because religion, and belief in ideas without, or in despite of evidence is dangerous. This is clearly evident in the cases of religious fundamentalism, and still true, but less obvious with religious moderates. If anyone believes that they will be rewarded in the afterlife by 72 virgins for committing mass murder of the innocent, it is clearly dangerous.
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?
There are many religious people that I have relationships which I am glad to have. However, I can only reach a certain level of fulfillment from these relationships, as we, at some point, can no longer discuss matters in terms of reason and logic. I value my intellect above all else, and to connect with someone who denies reason on the deepest levels is impossible to me. Maybe he has reached a stage where he is seeking fulfillment in his relationship that cannot be satisfied by her due to her religion.
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.
I'm not certain that I understand what you are saying, but some form of comfort is not justification for the belief in the irrational.
|
On September 01 2009 05:23 nomsayin wrote: I haven't read all the other posts, but I'm going to tell you what I think.
You're trying to apply logic and reason to religion, which calls for faith. Religious faith calls for you to believe without, or in spite of evidence. Faith is the opposite of logic in reason. They do not work together by definition, one must be surrendered to the other. You must choose whether you prefer using your mind and your intellect, the one thing that separates us from everything on earth, or you can submit to authority and be a mindless drone.
Also, I think it's very important to know what we're talking about when we discuss "free will". I don't see it as any more than an abstract idea.
Well said. Logic and religion are incompatible.
|
First of all, i didnt read all, i just saw the clock and need to do something, i was like in the half of the thread.
Second, i am an atheist, but for the pure logic i will tell you something. You need axioms to use formal logic. Try to find your axioms and then deduce everything on them. There is plenty of information about the set of axioms for every single thread in christianism. They diverge due axiom difference. Do your research, then reform your idea.
And third, i have been three times (including my current relationship) with very religious girls. The first was a catecumen girl (catholic aphostolic roman congregation) the second a catholic addept, in fact his brother was a priest, and now with a girl from a jehova withness family that isnt actually her religion, but has the limited education that such religion implies (she has learned more about life and philosophy in the last year with me than in her whole life before).
i wanna say too that your long explanation remembered me Isaac Asimov`s robots in their way to decide by positronic potentials...
edit: Forgot to mention. Actually the new testament, the christ story is very logical. It was written by roman people who knew the greek phylosophy. So you actually can make a logical test on it. Just a matter of axioms. And by this i mean that the free will discussion had occur many times in the history and many theologhist have pure logical analisys that actually make sense... if you believe in the axioms
|
Christianity (and religion in general) isn't something that can be defended by logic, although people certainly try. You can either believe in it, idiosyncrasies, contradictions, logical fallacies, and all or you do not.
I've found from my own personal experiences with very religious people that a certain amount of doublethink is almost required to reconcile certain religious ideas with our observed reality. On the one hand, they know some of the foundations of Christianity isn't really possible (immaculate conception, miracles, etc.), but they are able to make themselves believe regardless. It isn't something I can do personally, and I do not see such an ability as a positive asset.
|
On September 01 2009 12:00 nomsayin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2009 10:20 beetlelisk wrote: 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? Because religion, and belief in ideas without, or in despite of evidence is dangerous. This is clearly evident in the cases of religious fundamentalism, and still true, but less obvious with religious moderates. If anyone believes that they will be rewarded in the afterlife by 72 virgins for committing mass murder of the innocent, it is clearly dangerous.
Yeah but we are talking about Christian girl not Islam terrorists here Their case is much more complicated but still what can they replace their eliefs with?
Show nested quote +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? There are many religious people that I have relationships which I am glad to have. However, I can only reach a certain level of fulfillment from these relationships, as we, at some point, can no longer discuss matters in terms of reason and logic. I value my intellect above all else, and to connect with someone who denies reason on the deepest levels is impossible to me.
Would you sacrifice your point of view to be able to see smile of the one you love more often?
Maybe he has reached a stage where he is seeking fulfillment in his relationship that cannot be satisfied by her due to her religion.
OK but in what way exactly? Is it just things they talk about daily or she's trying to "convert" him?
Show nested quote +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. I'm not certain that I understand what you are saying, but some form of comfort is not justification for the belief in the irrational.
I'm saying that what I understood is he said in OP existence of god denies free will and ultimately he concluded there is nothing and no one else to blame for all the misfortune and evil. I don't think this belief came from nowhere so, in my opinion, he has problems with his past he should focus on instead of religion and he can do it with people he love like her.
AFAIK P Christianity is religion about love. Who cares if love is irrational as long as it doesn't change to some kind of madness?
|
Christianity is as much a religion about love as Islam is a religion about peace.
|
On September 02 2009 01:48 beetlelisk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2009 12:00 nomsayin wrote:On September 01 2009 10:20 beetlelisk wrote: 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? Because religion, and belief in ideas without, or in despite of evidence is dangerous. This is clearly evident in the cases of religious fundamentalism, and still true, but less obvious with religious moderates. If anyone believes that they will be rewarded in the afterlife by 72 virgins for committing mass murder of the innocent, it is clearly dangerous. Yeah but we are talking about Christian girl not Islam terrorists here Their case is much more complicated but still what can they replace their eliefs with ? Yes I realize that, and I don't believe her religious beliefs to be nearly as dangerous as some others, but still dangerous. I suggest they replace their beliefs with those supported by facts.
Show nested quote +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? There are many religious people that I have relationships which I am glad to have. However, I can only reach a certain level of fulfillment from these relationships, as we, at some point, can no longer discuss matters in terms of reason and logic. I value my intellect above all else, and to connect with someone who denies reason on the deepest levels is impossible to me. Would you sacrifice your point of view to be able to see smile of the one you love more often?
I am not one to ever sacrifice myself for the good of anyone else. Any so called sacrifice I make, I expect to benefit me overall in the long run. I can imagine theoretical possibilities where I could "sacrafice" my point of views for the happiness of someone else. However, this would in no way change my beliefs. Any sacrifice of belief would only taint the love and destroy it's meaning. If I lied about my beliefs, they would be loving the lie that I am, not who I truly am.
Show nested quote +Maybe he has reached a stage where he is seeking fulfillment in his relationship that cannot be satisfied by her due to her religion. OK but in what way exactly? Is it just things they talk about daily or she's trying to "convert" him?
I do not know his situation. You would have to ask him. I was speculating based on my own experience and of those around me.
Show nested quote +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. I'm not certain that I understand what you are saying, but some form of comfort is not justification for the belief in the irrational. I'm saying that what I understood is he said in OP existence of god denies free will and ultimately he concluded there is nothing and no one else to blame for all the misfortune and evil. I don't think this belief came from nowhere so, in my opinion, he has problems with his past he should focus on instead of religion and he can do it with people he love like her. AFAIK P Christianity is religion about love. Who cares if love is irrational as long as it doesn't change to some kind of madness?
Seems like a radical conclusion. I think he should do whatever is in his best interest. I quote the above poster.
On September 02 2009 01:53 Draconizard wrote: Christianity is as much a religion about love as Islam is a religion about peace.
|
have you talked to your gf? what has she said? it's weird that i'm in the exact same situation haha
|
On September 02 2009 01:53 Draconizard wrote: Christianity is as much a religion about love as Islam is a religion about peace. Why? I couldn't agree less with a pastor that has burned Harry Potter books along with Marilyn Mason CDs but he's just a blind, misleaded?, one, human among many.
Fact that some people twist Chrystanity and try to twist other people's beliefs about it doesn't mean it's bad religion itself imo?
|
You wrote: “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.”
It is good that you are applying logic to determine which religion, if any, that is right. In my blog (bloganders.blogspot.com; see left menu) I do prove the existence of an intelligent Creator and what His purpose is for mankind.
You wrote: “2. Nothing can existent independent of God. 4. There is a thought process that guides our decision making. 5. Given premise 2, our thought process comes inevitably from God.” “
Can you please fully expand on your definition of premise number 2. How did you arrive to that premise?
As I said I do quote a proof in the above website that proves an Intelligent and Perfect Creator. It is impossible for any imperfectness to co-mingle with that Perfect Creator – that would render Him imperfect. It can be deduced from the above proof that there are plenty of humans who are in a state of imperfectness. Since it is impossible for the Perfect Creator to get imperfect, this implies that those people are not connected to the Perfect Creator. Their thought process is completely free from any direct intervention by the Creator.
Anders Branderud
|
OP:
On September 01 2009 03:10 Track wrote: A little introduction.. I'm currently in a relationship with a girl of distinctly Christian beliefs. blah blah blah...
I appreciate any and all input on the subject. Pics pls, then we can all agree on a solution to this problem.
|
On September 06 2009 20:44 Anders Branderud wrote: You wrote: “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.”
It is good that you are applying logic to determine which religion, if any, that is right. In my blog (bloganders.blogspot.com; see left menu) I do prove the existence of an intelligent Creator and what His purpose is for mankind.
You wrote: “2. Nothing can existent independent of God. 4. There is a thought process that guides our decision making. 5. Given premise 2, our thought process comes inevitably from God.” “
Can you please fully expand on your definition of premise number 2. How did you arrive to that premise?
As I said I do quote a proof in the above website that proves an Intelligent and Perfect Creator. It is impossible for any imperfectness to co-mingle with that Perfect Creator – that would render Him imperfect. It can be deduced from the above proof that there are plenty of humans who are in a state of imperfectness. Since it is impossible for the Perfect Creator to get imperfect, this implies that those people are not connected to the Perfect Creator. Their thought process is completely free from any direct intervention by the Creator.
Anders Branderud
Don't tell me you sought this site out for the sole purpose of promoting your blog.
|
|
|
|