Login

Ruggedtouch · 01-01-2007, 11:24 PM

Yes, you are.


Check your PM inbox.

You're kinda right! It's the other way around - knowledge is a pathway to acquiring faith.


This is counter intuitive to me.

The question of gods is the only question humans allow to escape the strictures of what constitutes knowledge. Everything else within our knowledgebase is required to adhere to strict guidelines before being embraced as actual fact, as best as we humans can manage to discern the truth. That does not always mean that the truth is readily evident or even that the evidence is interpreted correctly. The point is, the evidence needs to be looked at, and tested, and corroborated, and thrown against other evidence that may be contrary. For instance, one can theorize about a black hole, and have no solid evidence, but continue to seek it. The assertion about the black hole remains speculative, but not confirmed. Then, as evidence mounts (as tools become more sophisticated) the speculation becomes more solid, more likely to be a fact. Then, when confirming evidence is achieved, one can satisfactorily embrace the speculation has become fact.

Ultimately, it does boil down to faith. That's the point I was trying to make to Submit in my earlier post. I could mention the fact that God sent His only Son to the world as evidence but not even the people during Jesus' time accepted Him & proof was staring them right in the face!

I have to ask, what evidence can anyone share to demonstrate that in fact, Jesus was Gods’ son sent to earth? The question becomes, when (or how) does one decide or conclude that an unknowable entity exists, or does one forever remain a Hamlet?

Taking this further, within the Christian environment, Genesis is not about to change into anything more specific. We know what it says, and if we are going to approach this in a way that humans approach the attainment of knowledge (i.e., support and falsify, test and verify), Genesis is not going to be fleshed out in more detail. There it sits, creationism in 2 short poetic chapters. There is no indication that we can ever know anything more about the most significant event in human history and all indications are that as more fossils are found, as scientific tools become more sophisticated and exacting, evolution is going to be more and more supported and defined.

The second question is, if one is not going to discount any possibility, then one better be fully prepared to take that to its logical conclusion. Therefore, the J-C account is only one of several thousand creation accounts, and I suggest it's time to start looking for evidence of the Lodge in the Sky that is derived from the Iroquois mythology. But wait, first let's make sure the Chaos / Zeus paradigm is eliminated... ah, but then there's that Viking thing too... and what about the Aztecs...

Ways of coming to know God...


It is recognized that science doesn't bend when it comes to an incontrovertible truth. Most people don't like incontrovertible truths especially if it removes from them their comfort zone. Most people prefer to believe in gods and spirits and heavens and hells because it comforts them (that most believe they are going to heaven should tell you something about why they believe as they do). It would be nice if the god paradigm were true. That would make things easier (though also depressingly unexplainable) ? human knowledge would be hopeless in a god-model because that ultimate answer is forever beyond us). I’d like to live in paradise too, and see my dead loved ones, and so on. It’s just like the deep desire makes me careful about accepting models and paradigms without adequate support. That’s how we discern truth from falsehood, not what we feelabout something, but what are the realities of it.

That's 'blind faith'.


It would be nice if the god paradigm were true. That would make things easier (though also depressingly unexplainable) – human knowledge would be hopeless in a god-model because that ultimate answer is forever beyond us). I’d like to live in paradise too, and see my dead loved ones, and so on. It’s just like the deep desire makes me careful about accepting models and paradigms without adequate support.

We have no solid evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms, this despite multiple millennia of theories and claims and suppositions and books and icons and so on. Not one single verifiable shred of evidence that a god exists (and even an argument that states that if there were proof, it would defeat his requirement for pure faith), and in fact, a very youthful science that shows more and more every day that a god isn't even needed for reality to exist... god theories crumble quickly under the light of scientific knowledge.

If there is an impersonal "spring-winder" god, he remains unproven, and by definition -- if he is uninvolved -- he is not about to make himself known in a way we are accustomed to or not. Therefore, atheism once again stands as the only conclusion a rational person can make. Atheism is not a belief per se. For instance, someone could not have ever heard of a theistic model. They are atheist by definition but have no active belief.

There are two worldviews: the one that establishes reality as all encompassing and has no need for the supernatural realm. This is the "rational" (within the bounds of reason exclusively) worldview.

The other view, the theistic view, asserts that reality requires a supernatural causation; thus, the supernatural --and less diplomatic sounding-- "irrational" (outside the bounds of reason exclusively) worldview.

And please note these conventions have nothing to do with the common ideas that a rational person is a well thought out person and an irrational one is a chaotic maniac. These are philosophical conventions, nothing more.

Both the theist and the materialist require some level or faith or trust (respectively) in order to believe their worldviews are reality. The theist's theological faith is an acceptance of the existence of a divine being who via supernatural means establishes all of reality including the laws of nature and logic which allow for the existence of knowledge. The materialist relies on a priori logic that states that reality is self-caused, and empirical events allow for the existence of knowledge. For myself, I don't conceive of my atheism as a belief as much as I conceive it as a conclusion based on the asserted models out there and the lack of evidence to support those assertions. As an example, one can't really consider oneself as having the "belief that Santa doesn't exist". It's just a fact-- Santa doesn't exist, and only those who would assert he does are required to support the claim with evidence.

Until then, Gods, Demons, Jinn, etc., remain an unsupported, untested and unproved assertion that even those who embrace it admit cannot really be explained or defended.

Well, I can only speak on behalf of Catholicism (I'd be stoked with input from Muslims on this matter too), our purpose in this life is to know, love & serve God. God created each one of us with an intellect. We can't love Him if we don't know Him. Knowledge is good but pride is bad. We shouldn't try to be Him.


Theists acknowledge that god(s) is /are ultimately incomprehensible. If you cannot understand him, then how do you understand what he expects of you? This is a good example of a self-contradictory assertion, although you may not see it that way. Of course, as you know, I would have no reply to you if you told me that this "understanding" is revealed to you. Revelation is a viable method, though the act of sharing a revelation is no different from it being hearsay.

Given that this would be such a great life if existence conformed to our wishes, isn't it much harder to face the cold-hearted truths of reality when life doesn't conform to our desires? I think it's vastly harder to accept the materialist perspective, because it does leave us on our own. The evidence leaves us as responsible for our own destiny, the arbiters of justice (or lack thereof), always responsible for the kind of world we live in.

From where I sit, it's nobler to believe in that which is supported and corroborated, despite how uncomfortable it might be. It's easy to foist it all on a god who must to be ultimately responsible for everything if you define that he's created everything.

It's a shame you don't believe in your Heavenly Father - you were made in His image & likeness.


Which heavenly father? I’m assuming you mean the one you believe to be the true god. However, there are literally hundreds of competing claims. I see not a single thing that separates one from another.

Are you aware that science has proven every single human on earth is descended from one woman - formally known as Eve???


I’ve seen nothing to support that claim.

How can you possibly not believe in life after death? Have you ever lost a loved one? Don't you still feel their presence? Or do you just cease thinking about them altogether once they're gone? Do you believe in spirits? Demons? Ghosts? What's your essence? Do you have a human nature? Please define your nature for me in relation to other natures.


Tell me. What do you remember before you were born? Anything? No, of course not. It’s pretty self evident, pre-natal and post mortem are indistinguishable from one another.

As to the rest of your paragraph, you’re speaking of “feelings”, and a host of non-material concepts including emotions. Emotions can be shown to exist in lower creatures; for instance, nurturing and parental caring can be seen in higher apes. As you go lower down the chain, you can see a marked "lessening" of these sorts of carings, until, as you get to simple-brained creatures, they no longer exist. There is nothing to indicate that emotions are not the result of chemicals and neurons in the brain. Certain drugs for instance can create a feeling of deep love, based upon activation of brain chemicals.

This is a perfectly valid explanation for emotions, and it doesn't require the mumbo-jumbo of gods to explain it.

Non-material concepts are not fully non-material. You need a brain to substantiate them. Damage or impact to the brain directly affects the development and delivery of the concepts. You are simply assuming a spiritual nature for these things, and not submitting any case to support it. I am submitting they are the effects of the brain along with neurons and chemicals within the brain, and I can demonstrate how they can be manipulated by physical impact.

By way of example, I can

1. end all thought by killing that brain

2. create an emotion by chemical inducement of that brain

3. limit the thought and emotion of the brain by removing sections of it.

All the poetry about feelings and spirit and so on -- reside only in the brain. Remove it, and away it all goes. All of it. Even belief in gods.

Now you demonstrate the spiritual source, which you assert is the actual reason emotions exist and disassemble my case, please.

How can we know the existence of a Supreme Being?

There is one God. There are many false idols - & not all are figures. People worship money, food, pleasure, fame - anything that takes your love & attention away from the true God is idolatry.


I will make an assumption that you are suggesting your particular supreme being but yours is not the only asserted Supreme Being.

From the atheistic point of view, the theist cannot withstand a world wherein humans are the final owners of our destiny, that acts need to be watched over and adjudicated by a figure from on high (and never seen), and that human progress is inherently hindered, impossible without the guidance of the father figure. Finally, the theist is in a psychological dilemma of superiority/inferiority -- they are so vaunted by their gods that the entire realm of existence was created exclusively for them, but they are so unworthy that they are but worms in the sight of their deities. That is a prescription for a maladjusted personality, and again, it's evident by the seething passions that theistic belief has whipped up time and time again.

Consider:

Pascal's Wager-- the underlying threat of the theistic argument-- "Gamble that there is a god on the chance he will not send you to an eternity of torture."

Fallacies:

a. What if you have chosen the wrong god? You will spend an eternity apart from your “real” god for making such an egregious error

b. "Betting" on god displays prideful ego and might anger god, and you might spend eternity apart from him for making such an egregious error

c. God might prefer courage of one's convictions instead of cowardice and self-deceit, in which case you might spend eternity apart from him for making such an egregious error

d. What if the gods deplore such self-serving narcissism and instead embraces the atheist for not succumbing to threats of a human nature? In that case you might spend eternity apart from him for making such an egregious error.

e. What if the gods are revolted by the very suggestion that there is something like an "eternal punishment"? In that case you might spend eternity apart from him for making such an egregious error.

Because the universe is finite. God was not created out of nothing. God is uncreated. If He were created then there'd be a power above Him. God is not composite or made up of parts. If you'd like to know more, read the Catechism.


Your comments are couched in terms of using the Bible to prove the Bible is true. You have to because the argument for gods by definition requires faith, not knowledge. The question of course, whether or not there is a god, is answered by theists in the same way-- you must choose to assume the thing it is you wish to prove is true, but that's a viciously circular argument. It's irrelevant what attributes and other human qualities theists force upon their alleged gods. The fact is we see an old universe and that clashes with the timeline of Genesis.

God could have chosen to establish existence in such a way that there was no mistaking his presence, but he does not do that. As our technology and science grows, and our view of reality broadens, we see more and more and in no place do we see the claims of theism in evidence exclusive of any other explanation. Why be purposely obscure? I go by empirical evidence. The theistic assertions of the way it all began ends in an assertion of a supernatural entity purposely outside of the natural we can never know. But empirically we have progressed in our science and technology to see farther and farther, deeper and deeper, and there's no reason to assume it won't continue.

I'm sorry, I can't comprehend the notion.


You’re being dishonest. The three Abrahamic faiths are relatively recent in humans reign on the planet. We’re obviously here. We’ve obviously evolved.

I believe strongly in the Natural Moral Law. But according to you who is its author? Are you saying its relative? Subject to change? Who decides? What you consider to be right, others might deem wrong, & vice versa. If certain Muslims/Christians/Jews/e.t.c., can go to bed with a clear conscience after beating someone to death, having pure intentions, then who are you to say that they've acted immorally? Every Philosopher who believed in the 'Golden Rule' believed in a higher power.


As I noted in my prior post, morality is both transitory and subjective.

Speaking of morality, If I was a god, (and I’m speaking of the Judeo-Christian god, although the same characteristics would apply equally to most gods) these are the things I wouldn’t do as they are not demonstrable of a moral compass:

I wouldn't set up a test for my children that was impossible for them to pass, purposely tempt them, and when they did fail it I wouldn't curse my children, and their children, and their children and their children and...

I wouldn't drown them all.

I wouldn't be the general of some of them and order some of them to put others to the sword -- but keep the female virgins for their pleasure.

I wouldn't create a Satan and allow him any power over my children.

I wouldn't create a hell and condemn my children to it forever, even if they did call me names and spit on me and hurt me or didn't acknowledge me.

I wouldn't allow vials to be poured out carrying disease and death and destruction.

The list of things this "loving father" does is horrifying in the extreme. You may think that bashes him, but I didn't write the book that describes him doing such things, remember?

If you're going to make extraordinary claims, you need to back them up with extraordinary evidence. Please try again.


Simple, and I backed it up previously. Many civilizations have existed without any acknowledgement of your particular god(s). The fact that civilizations have come and gone without the requirement of your particular god(s) is, of course, not extraordinary, it’s just a fact.

Sure thing, pal!


Great. It would appear that there’s nothing “morally” wrong with selling child and making a few bucks.

False gods - yes. The one true God, Alpha & Omega - impossible!


It is readily admitted --at least by this materialist-- that ALL world-views operate on some level of faith (theistic) or trust (atheistic) that reality conforms to standards that are perceivable. Given that fundamental reality, I can only operate on what stands as evidence to discern what is real, what is supported, and what is most authoritative. Since you already admit that gods don't lend themselves to proofs, then all god claims, those of Abrahamic lineage as well as those other "obscure" beliefs, as well as Hinduism, Buddhism et al are all equally likely, unless -- once again -- some proof is presented to show one has primacy over the other.

Until that happens, and we all know it won't unless Jesus actually does come back, then as long as we are alive evolution remains the most supported, most logical, most demonstrable paradigm by which we can explain the existence of life on Earth, while creationism remains unsupported assertion, clearly more mythology that requires "special explanations" as to why a god would purposely obscure something as simple as how it all began rather than it being a viable recapitulation of any historical happenstance.

You're in for a big surprise, my friend! Take my word for it (trust me).


I think you’re an intelligent woman who demonstrates with every post that you have a passion for your belief and can express it better than anyone on this board.

However, I have no reason to believe that Zeus will condemn me to everlasting torment for not succumbing to what he has not provided evidence to support. Thanks Zeus.

[color=#3366FF]Hahaha! Whoa... Look out![/color]

Actually, I’ve been rushing this response before the moderators block my log-in.

St Anselm defined Theology as "Faith seeking understanding."


That’s very poetic but it doesn’t tell us anything. As an epistemological method or philosophy, science has every right to demand theism hold to the same standards science holds itself to-- hypothesis, experimentation, falsification, peer review, etc. in order for an assertion to be considered valid. This is fair because science has stringent demands it holds against itself, and it's goal is to arrive at truth as best as possible by vigorous methods-- which are open to any who cares to repeat them.

Theism on the other hand, has this "faith, not proof" standard, so by its own standards theism must give equal weight to all claims based upon faith as being just as likely true as the theism's own professed beliefs-- even science! Scientists, by theists' standards, could shrug and say, "Since you don't have to show me no steenkin' proofs I don't have to show you no steenkin' proofs!" and still comfortably adhere to theisms expressed standards of "knowledge". If theism finds this unacceptable, then theism must devise why it feels it can exempt itself from standards it demands other beliefs are required to adhere to.

Here are some snippets from an essay I wrote recently...


Nicely done. Let me offer a counter proposal.

I'll be accused of "religion-bashing" by some more than likely, of being "prideful and vain" by pointing these things out, but it all comes down to what is more likely, so consider the following:

A god created existence in only 6 days, but did so in such a way to make it look immensely old and left massive clues to support that belief... and this god put forth a test to only two humans without(at least in terms of the Judeo-Christian god) giving them either the ability to make a considered choice nor did he bother to tell them the consequences would extend to every person born after them... and this god then inspired a book but did not allow the original to last in case the condemned to damnation by definition humans worship those texts... and allowed copies of copies to multiply so that huge civilizations would clash with one another over interpretations... and this god then comes down to earth as a human to act as a mediator to experience human weakness and pain and sin that he created in the first place anyway, and he's letting billions upon billions of people suffer thusly and choose eternal damnation on an ongoing basis in order to satisfy this need to experience the aforementioned... and finally in a climactic battle wherein agony and suffering will spread over the globe this god will battle his nemesis that he himself created and could blink to make disappear if he really wanted to...

or

Existence is natural, patterns form out of the exchange of energy, life evolved in some places, competition for that life implemented social structures, sentience ignited that social structure to a more and more complicated degree... and allowed for technology to extend the perceptions of humans to further and further reaches, chipping away at old, perhaps poetic and elegant but nonetheless outdated beliefs created by a ruling class that knew the power of ignorance and fear in people made them vastly more controllable?

Just a side note - we see stars forming today by the way, in the Pleiades-- various stages of stars being formed are quite visible. Knowing the speed of light one can measure distances, showing billions of years is required to establish the size and distances we see.

When you look at the very deepest foundation of the entire doctrine, when you go to the theological reason the entire book was written, you are left with this conclusion the bible tells us over and over:

Ignorance is bliss

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me