|
General Random thoughts and ideas. "General" does not mean random drivel, nonsense or inane silliness. |
View Poll Results: Why do you accept the proposition that a deity exists? | |||
I know God through reason, science, etc. | 3 | 7.89% | |
I accept God through belief or personal revelation | 11 | 28.95% | |
Other | 12 | 31.58% | |
I am an atheist but want to vote in this poll because polls are dope | 12 | 31.58% | |
Voters: 38. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Food for Thought: A Discourse on Deities
So I was eating my metaphysical cake the other day and drinking my decanter of philosophical wine -- as I often do on a Sunday evening -- while mulling over some interesting counter points to the argument from non-belief. It goes without saying that there were a good number of interesting comments on the subject to be had, but it was the not the argument itself (well, not ONLY the argument itself), nor even a specific counter-point that has brought me hither to the land of Scape.
Rather, I was struck by a couple of interesting discussion topics that I would like to explore more in-depth. The topics of interest are two in number. First, I think there is an interesting contrast between theists who maintain that the existence of a deity is demonstrable and verifiable, and those that hold he/she/it can only be experienced or observed through pure faith or personal revelation. I am curious as to the beliefs of those theists on Heroscapers and just why you believe one way or the other, and what makes you most convinced of that which you adhere to. Does philosophy convince you that a deity exists? Is there a verse in the Bible that holds that faith is the only way to know god and hence you feel you can only believe in god, but not demonstrate his existence? Do you think that because god is not of our universe, he cannot be shown to exist by methods used within our universe? Secondly, how do you respond to the argument of non-belief? I'd like to preface the discussion with a quote from Blaze Pascal, "God being thus hidden, any religion that does not say that god is hidden is not true, and any religion that does not explain why does not instruct." I have provided a hasty syllogism of the argument, as I need to go to the grocery store momentarily: Premise 1: God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent Premise 2: God desires for all souls to know that he exists so that we may be saved* Premise 3 (from 1 and 2): There should be no reasonable doubt that God exists. Premise 4: Reasonable doubt for the existence of God does exist Conclusion (from 1, 2, 3, and 4): Either God is not omniscient, not omnipotent, not all loving, there is no threat to humanity by way of non-belief, or God does not exist. *1 Timothy 2:4 Anyway, gotta dash because one does not live on metaphysical cake alone, but by real cake as well! ~JS, eagerly awaiting responses on the subject Last edited by Joseph Sweeney; May 16th, 2018 at 11:03 PM. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Food for Thought: A Discourse on Deities
Interesting thought.
I will start off by saying that I'm a Christian, and a Reformed/Calvinistic one, if that means anything to you. I think your issue is in Premise 3, but it could stem from some semantics in Premise 2. In reformed theology, we speak of God having two "wills": one that he wants, and one that he actualizes. For example, God doesn't want anybody to be a murderer, but yet there are murderers. So I would clarify Premise 2 by saying that God only "wills" for some to know him, although he "wants" all to know him. Another thing the Bible says is that all humans know about God, but they suppress that knowledge (Romans 1). Obviously this is an inarguable point. No evidence can be offered in support or in opposition of this claim. But if we're accepting Biblical arguments for our premises, we can take this to mean that there is no "reasonable" doubt for the existence of God. Hope I made some sense there. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Food for Thought: A Discourse on Deities
Quote:
Am I correct in assuming that the argument of freewill is not one you adhere to? And as such, murder is not viewed as a consequence of human error, but as predestination? If that is the case, could you hit me up with a crash course in predestination, as I would hate to straw man or misconstrue the argument in anyway. And on the point of Biblical quotations, I could honestly take that point or leave it. One could just as easily infer from premise 1 that, because god is omnibenevolent, he would want to naturally save all creatures from eternal damnation, leaving the verse from Timothy well enough alone. But more to the point, I was using the Bible as a source for God's nature, as that is something more abstract and not something I can observe directly. I know for certain that I possess reasonable doubt, and I understand that you cannot be sure of this as someone not privy to my thoughts. But I think it follows naturally that the onus of the burden of proof would be on someone supporting the claim that everyone has ample belief, not on one rejecting the claim as that would involve disproving a negative. But I digress. My point was merely to demonstrate that the Christian God has this desire drawn inherently from his characteristics based on a Biblical worldview. I in no way accept this as true; in fact, I don't believe in God, let alone that he wants to us to know the truth and for us to be saved, but I am attempting to grant a premise in order to invalidate a view of God. I am accepting the Biblical worldview as a source of authority on the characteristics of God for the purpose of this discussion, but I don't think for the argument I need to apply Biblical authority universally, especially to things that I know for certain it lays in blatant contradiction to. My point more or less is, I do not believe I am applying a double standard by accepting one proposition from the Bible and not another. As a rough example, I may assume the claim that God hates jealousy from the Biblical account is objectively true, but I need not agree that jealousy is objectively worthy of hatred despite Biblical insistence that it is. You see? ~JS, *cuts himself and superfrog another piece of metaphysical cake* |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Food for Thought: A Discourse on Deities
Cool. I can see where you're arguing from.
If you're accepting the Biblical definition of God, ought you not also accept the Biblical definition of good? If not, how do you define goodness (and therefore benevolence etc.)? EDIT: and I'm curious who voted "other" and what they mean by that vote. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Divine and Debranches
I have on occasions referred to myself as an agnostic Christian. I'm not sure God is knowable/observable and I'm not sure if it'd be a good thing if They were (I use gender neutral pronouns for God for reasons I'll elaborate on if anyone wants but they're tangential to this discussion).
My belief in God is mainly predicated on personal experiences I have that don't fit quite as nicely without a deity and a few external things that based on my understanding fit better with a deity. I wouldn't go so far as to say my belief is certain. That said, I have one very interesting philosophical reason I can't be an atheist: I believe/want to believe in redemption and as an atheist I would have to accept some things are simply being redemption since they just end. It's probably not the most sound philosophical reason to not be an atheist but it is what it is (by the way considering that after life is either nothingness or eternity; both possibilities terrify me) Now all that said, I'm likely going to end up disagreeing with you and SF theologically (and likely many others who come in) just based on the current discussion and it's possibly because I'm less rigid on my theology (largely for the same reason I'm less rigid on my eschatology; we were really good at predicting the specifics of a Messiah :eyeroll: ) Theodicy bugs me and simultaneously it doesn't partially because I'm not entirely convinced God is omnipotent or omniscient in the sense of "capable of knowing/doing anything" and may actually be in the realm of "immensely powerful/knowledgeable" or "capable of knowing/doing anything within certain constraints". I'm also not entirely convinced that things "end" end here. While I don't agree with everything Rob Bell concludes in Love Wins, he made me rethink a lot of conceptions I had about life, the way salvation happens, after life, hell, etc. I've also shifted decently from a lot of current understandings of hell popular within most American Christians based on more information I've come across. Basically, I'm not convinced there's a horrible afterlife coming for most of humanity because of lack of belief in things or something similar (although I'm not sure I have great answers for the current struggles going on right now) I could possibly go into more detail on a lot more things, but it's late and I'm tired and a lot of these could require some in depth discussion. ~Dysole, who finds her theology tends to be more practical than philosophical My Twitch Channel where I play Scape and other things My YouTube Channel where the games get uploaded later Dysole's Draft Rankings Map Thread (Not responsible for psychic damage) Customs Battle Reports This sentence is seven words long. This sentence is not seven words long. Last edited by Dysole; May 15th, 2018 at 10:08 AM. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Food for Thought: A Discourse on Deities
I always felt if you were trying to prove god, you were doing it wrong. Arguments and rational seem like a flimsy way of justifying something that the founding fathers had the wisdom to put down as a basic right. I'd even go as far as believing that trying to explain faith cheapens it.
When I was a youth (catholic upbringing for the record) I believed I knew god. Not through some logical argument or rational, but because I felt the presence of something greater. I didn't need God (or the devil) to explain good and evil, creation or morality. Physics and Humans do a fine job explaining/creating all those things just fine. It also seemed odd that the Pre-Prophet humans would be doomed, or those that are simply born in places that have not had the 'pleasure' of hearing gods words from other men. Not to offend, but as an adult, I no longer feel god. I look at my son, and don't see God's creation or blessing, just the cycle of life that stems from physics to chemistry to biology. I've been told I have strong moral fiber, which arises from with in, not from a duty to serve god (or fear of the devil). Of course my morality may be DNA based, but that is a discussion for another time. I no longer need/have/feel God in my world, and other than not waking up early on Sunday, my life is no different than it would be otherwise. I wouldn't call myself an Atheist either, since I don't even ask the question, and don't think there is an answer that has meaning to anyone but oneself. The question about God is as relevant as the question about tea pots around Saturn as they say. God is welcome in my life, I'm just not actively looking for divinity at this time, so the vacancy remains. However, I have not been tested. If I should find myself in a hospital with a loved one, I'll check if I find myself talking to God. The real test is if I get an answer (an no I don't mean a miracle, I mean that feeling I had as a youth, when I felt I knew God.) |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Food for Thought: A Discourse on Deities
There was no option to vote more than one. Both these apply.
Statistics show most people on earth know God exists, whether through science or personal revelation. However knowing God does not mean you accept God, it's just a start. Satan knows God more than anyone in heaven or earth (excepting Jesus) but does not accept him. Semantics, or food for thought - you decide! C3V/SoV cards @ 3/page PDF / LeftOn4ya's Customs (including Jurassic World) / Competitive Unit Alters / New? Start Here! Unit Debates REVIVED - #76 Tandros Kreel vs Torin "Today is a good day to die... but the day is not yet over"
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Food for Thought: A Discourse on Deities
Great topic JS. I have always enjoyed my discussions with
@Aldin
on this subject and I hope he weighs in here.
wriggz summed up my feelings pretty well, though I will say that I want to believe. I just do not want to be told how. I think it is not possible for mere mortals to understand the mechanisms of an all powerful deity. I do find it unlikely that an infinitely powerful and wise being would require worship. That feels really petty for a being of such stature but again how could I possibly understand. The best case for proof is life itself. Humans have figured out a lot but how life formed is not one of them and that magic is still special in my eyes and lets me hope there are some things that cannot be explained by science. The important thing about religion is what it means to the individual. If it brings them peace and happiness then that is a great gift and all that is really important. "If God wanted all of us to be the same, why did he make us all so different?" ~ Jenna Malone's character in Saved!. |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Food for Thought: A Discourse on Deities
Quote:
In a way, I have a theory of God the way we have a theory of gravity. When I was young, I observed the world and was taught about the world and came to fully believe in a loving, unseen Creator God. As I grew older I began to test that theory, looking at the evidence observable in the universe and reading both the original source of the Bible (in modern translations and as agreed by the Nicene council), and the thoughts and discussions of many commentators. As I have studied more deeply, it has confirmed the faithful acceptance of my youth that there is indeed a loving, unseen Creator God and that He is the God of the Bible. My studies have changed the way I understand God, and I am certain that my understanding even now is not complete. I enjoy having discussions and examining new evidence because it gives me opportunities to see where my theories of God seem to stand up well and where they need adjustment. I stand open to the idea that someone could "disprove God" to me, but only in the same vague way that a scientist would agree they were open to someone "disproving gravity". My relationship with God is something I experience everyday, and my studies have led me to a place that would seem to me to be unshakable. As for Joseph Sweeny's original syllogism... let's break it down: Quote:
So the potential issue here isn't a question of whether or not God is all-loving, but whether or not we are capable of recognizing what an all-loving God might choose to do or not do. Just think of times you've behaved nicely toward someone only to have them misunderstand you. Quote:
The long story short version is that we were created, sinless and in God's image, to have dominion over the world and to have fellowship with God. In order to have fellowship, we have to be able to make choices. A created automaton without free will can not be a friend because they have no ability to choose that relationship. However, God can not have fellowship with anyone who is sinful,because sin violates the nature of God. Kinda like a lightbulb can't just leave a patch of darkness sitting in the middle of an area it illuminates. When Adam sinned, it broke the fellowship that had existed until that time. God never stopped desiring that fellowship, and He had a plan to restore it - that His son would die to pay the penalty for sin, and having lived a perfect life, would be sinless on our behalf so we can have that fellowship. But the choice never went away. He will no more make us automatons now than He did then. Therefore, any test of love must come with the understanding that fellowship can not be forced. Quote:
Define "reasonable". The Bible more or less says that while sinners, we are living in darkness. It also says that those living in darkness hate the light and do not come to the light. It also says that those who earnestly seek God will find Him. So it is a matter then of whether someone genuinely seeking the God of the Bible can fail to find Him. For my once-religious friends who no longer call themselves Christian, I tend to find a single commonality. There is something about God, as He is revealed in the Bible, that they reject. It isn't so much an inability to know God as it is an unwillingness to accept the God they seem to have found. To paraphrase Matthew, "ask and you will receive, seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened. For all who ask, receive. All who seek, find. And all who knock shall have the door opened". The first step is always to recognize that we are sinners, and that we need a salvation we haven't earned and don't deserve. For those who see that in themselves, I believe all will find the God they earnestly seek. ~Aldin, summonedly He either fears his fate too much or his desserts are small That dares not put it to the touch to gain or lose it all ~James Graham |
#10
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
Re: Food for Thought: A Discourse on Deities
Quote:
I do not know how exactly I would define the characteristic of possessing good morals. But a rough definition I could offer on the spot would be: actions with good intentions that maximize health, happiness and well-being or minimize unnecessary suffering and harm with a rational application of this principle. Hence, if one were to argue that my definition does not cover the rape of an unconscious women who experiences no harm from the rape by a perpetrator whose only intent was pleasure (meeting my first two requirements) they could still not argue the act is moral, as there was no rational application of the act. For instance, just because no harm came, does not mean that the women couldn't have woken up and experienced harm because of this, or that either party could have contracted a venereal, or that the rapist could have been caught etc. Of course, I just pulled that off the top of my head after five minutes of consideration, so I would be open to critique. It is also noteworthy to understand that my definition is based off my subjective understanding that what is good maximizes health, happiness and well-being and minimizes unnecessary harm and suffering. Another person may have a different understanding, and thus have different morals. I would be open to changing my stance based on reasoning, and this is a product of me acknowledging that my morals are subjective. Quote:
Quote:
Also, I would very much like to hear more on that final paragraph when your schedule would allow. Quote:
I should have written each as "I accept the proposition that a god exists based on X" as both "know" and "accept" in the poll were not meant to deviate from each other in definition. My mistake. They were both meant to pertain to accepting a proposition. Quote:
I would caution against some of the claims you made about a lack of knowledge seeming as evidence, at least to you, for a god. It resembles the god of the gaps and argument from ignorance format. How life arose is not yet certain, but in the field of abiogenesis we are making strides in that direction. For instance, we have discerned how amino acids can come to arise by natural process. And at one time, we thought the sun a mystery and therefor a god, but now we know it not to be true. Or that the moon was made of crystal, but we would never know for certain because we couldn't reach it. So I do urge an air of caution in that line of belief. Quote:
I assumed you would turn up eventually, as you often do for these discussion, and as Tornado mentioned, you're an awesome person to have around for a discussion. Glad you showed up! Now to the meat of the post. In Defense of the Argument from Non-Belief: Premise 1: Quote:
Quote:
Furthermore, I find it strange that we assume God would create rational creatures with the inability to comprehend his nature, or even his existence. This fact is easily accounted for if God does not exist, or if most of the other possibilities of my conclusion are true, but is almost impossible to explain in a theistic wordlview without making some sort of appeal to ignorance. Premise 2: Quote:
Quote:
So I will amend Premise 2: God desires for all souls to know that he exists so that they may love and serve him Quote:
Quote:
I am so concerned with discerning the truth (which I am sure a Christian could argue that the truth and God are one in the same) that I have changed my world views based on reasoning, and am willing to travel hundreds of miles to see if some new evidence can change my mind. Yet so far, the search for the truth has lead me not to a deity, but away from one. I did not change my beliefs based on a dislike for the Biblical God. That came later, after I had been convinced of the unlikelihood of his existence through reason. So I would contest that this is a universal truth for all non-religious peoples, not that you were necessarily making that claim, but incase you were. Quote:
It seems like much of my argument is rejected by way of appeal to ignorance, but that doesn't actually tell us anything. It's much simpler to accept one of the propositions in my conclusion than to accept what is virtually a non-answer. Or rather, an unfalsifiable claim that we just gotta keep trying and that we can't know god because we are shrouded in darkness. Now, that said. I'm not entirely sure if you were debating me, or merely pointing out inconsistencies in my syllogism with your worldview, and if that is the case, then much of my response is moot. ~JS, atheistically P.S. I wrote a much more lengthy response, but it got deleted so you've all been blessed with the shortened, frustrated version of the original. |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Why Are You My Clarity?
Aldin, I just want to say I love it when you give your thoughts. I don't always agree with you, but I always enjoy hearing from you.
JS, not sure which paragraph you're referencing, so give me a topic to ramble way too many words on. Also reincarnation is to paraphrase a Rick and Morty quote "existence with extra steps". Same dilemma, it just comes later. ~Dysole, who tries not to think about it because it really does terrify her; maybe not her greatest fear but something that gives her a sense of dread she can't emulate with anything else My Twitch Channel where I play Scape and other things My YouTube Channel where the games get uploaded later Dysole's Draft Rankings Map Thread (Not responsible for psychic damage) Customs Battle Reports This sentence is seven words long. This sentence is not seven words long. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Why Are You My Clarity?
Quote:
The other topic I was refering to was hell. You said your understanding deviates from the typical notion of hell. ~JS, intrigued |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FOOD | CAR_95 | General | 1 | March 31st, 2008 10:01 PM |
Pet food recall | bad_calvin | General | 16 | March 23rd, 2007 06:33 PM |
Junk food | monkeyfish | General | 86 | September 28th, 2006 05:20 PM |