General Discussions

For all those who believe in Christianity or Some form of it...

POSTED BY: RiveR6213
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 10:10
VIEWED: 25834
PAGE 7 of 16

LEADB

Thursday, May 17, 2007 10:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Actually, I was saying the latter, not the former. In my response to you, I wasn't positing any particular God or afterlife-destination. I was just trying to point out that I think that your assertion led to logical inconsistencies. And apparently you're OK with that, so there's really no way to argue against you, because we apparently don't agree about whether or not things have to be argued logically. My thought is this: logical truths seem to be necessary truths. That is, they are true in every possible world; it is impossible for them to be false. Now if God exists, he seems like the sort of being that would be a necessarily existent being--so he would exist in all possible worlds. So if there are some rules that are necessarily true and some being who inhabits every world that those rules are true, and if, as I think, God can't do a logical impossibility (like make a round square), then why can't God "break" the rules of logic? If he made the world, they're his rules. I think that it might turn out to be the case that the rules aren't made by God per se, but just are what they are in virtue of who God is. That is, it might turn out that God is eminently rational. In any event, I take it to be true that the rules of logic are necessary, inviolable truths (even for a deity), and it is that presupposition that governs my thinking in this area. (And I'd like to point out that we both have a set of presuppositions we're working from.)

I'm pained to see that you think that I'm using Pascal's wager. Personally, I think Pascal was full of it. [...]

Anyway, what fun talking about this without the yelling and screaming. Pure genius to put this in General Discussions instead of RWED.

The easy part first: Yes, "Pascal's wager", that was the name I couldn't think of; and we are clearly in agreement on that issue.

The logical portion; I lead my life based on a predominantly logical approach based on the perceived reality; which some praticality tucked in. The problem is in using logic to discuss the existance of heaven is a bit tough if one accepts that god is not bound to our assumptions; and thus might trump us all. It's always the assumptions and preconceptions that do you (and me ;-) ) in. And agreed, I have mine; never meant to imply otherwise.

CONSTANCE

Thursday, May 17, 2007 10:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by raidok:
<>

Hi Constance...not logical? Logic, reason or sound judgment is not why Scientists would have us believe we were once monkeys. It requires faith to believe this, and makes me wonder where all the Gorilla people are? Spider monkey's would have made funny looking human beings to be sure, and the more than 300 species of primates still in existence today probably should have evolved by now...but it takes millions of years to change one species to another apparently, and we cannot test this theory, but people believe it as fact because they are told it is so from day one in school.

Science tells us to believe that life was created from happenstance...mere random chance, yet scientists cannot even "create" life from the resources provided by this planet (from whose elements life is said to have evolved from) where life is so abundant. They can stimulate growth, but they cannot create life. Now, how a nameless faceless, unintellignet, and lifeless universe created life on earth (which is by all the evidence to date, the only life we know of) is completely illogical.

Life, depends on so many specific variables to even be possible...for example...if days were too long all plant and animal life would die. If days were too short all plant and animal life would die. If our orbit was one degree off, life would cease to exist. If the earth was further from the sun, or closer to the sun, if the sun was too hot or too cool life couldn't exist, if the moon was closer or further away, if water were less abundant, if gravity was too weak or too strong...so many elements that must be perfect in order for life to even have the chance to be and this is just scratching the surface...look into it yourself.

If this is the case, and if it turns out to be comepletely ludicrous to you, to believe that life was created so haphazardly without cause or purpose despite there being so many specific pre-requisites for life, then there is only one other option. That life was created intentionally.

If there is a purpose to anything in existence, there must be a rational and logical explanation for it...

Denying that God exists because it is "supposedly" illogical to believe He does is simple laziness. If the all powerful, all knowing, ever-present all loving God does exist, it provides that there is a reason and a purpose to everything that happens here on earth and in the Universe, and provides the very fabric for logic and rational thinking Atheists tend to use in order to try and discredit God.

If Atheists are right, it means simply this...all suffering in the world, all good in the world, all things in this world...no matter how grandiose or how flawed, all are pointless and amount to nothing because we all die (100% of all people die--an uncontested fact.) The poorest person who suffers all their life will die and cease to exist if they are just "meat." The richest person on the planet will die and cease to exist, people who suffer tragedy, those who are awarded for excellence and integrity will simply vanish and soon be forgotten by all the others who will shortly die off as well...all life will die and cease to exist leaving no legacy to no one.

A very depressing yet surprisingly unrealistic--in my opinion--viewpoint to hold to.

If God does exist, then it means that suffering has a purpose and is not in vain, and in fact provides the opportunity for people to be generous, compassionate, loving to one another when they need it most. Suffering brings people closer together in love and brings out the very best in humanity. Suffering can motivate action, and it can allow for the opportuntity to come closer to and rely on God who wants to relieve our suffering and give us the promise of life after this earthly death. The suffering gives birth to faith, not out of sadistic intent, but out of a

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

CONSTANCE

Thursday, May 17, 2007 10:45 PM

And why does it have to be a reason behind everything? I am aware that I have called faith in a higher power illogical, but that was in reference to my own personal logic... my belief if you will. Not everything can make sense and not everything will. Death is pointless to those left behind in mourning. It is up to us (that is still living) to make sense and meaning out of it.

I am aware that this is no argument against fait in a god or gods...

Constance

CAUSAL

Thursday, May 17, 2007 11:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Rhyianan:
...logic does dictate that god is a construct made by men trying to explain the world.

Regardless of what anybody tells you, this just ain't so. Real logic is just rules for accurate thinking. And you can obey the rules of logic talking about anything--or nothing at all! Hence, "if all A is B and if all B is C, then all A is C"--We are thinking logically, but A, B, and C have no content at all! Similarly, we can use the rules of logic to talk about Star Trek, or Harry Potter, or the beginnings of the universe, or black holes, or God. All that's required to think about these things logically is to obey the rules of logic. Anyone who says that belief in God is inherently illogical really means that "Given my presuppositions, belief in God is unjustified." But something can be unjustified without being illogical. Consider the following argument: "1) If the moon is made of a food product, it is made of cheese; 2) the moon is made of a food product; therefore 3) the moon is made of cheese." Now, this is a logically valid argument. That is, if all the premises were true, the conclusion can't possibly be false. But there's a problem with this argument, isn't there? The second premise is false! That means that the argument isn't sound--that is, it's valid, but not all its premises are true. You see, there are two ways to argue against an argument. One is to detect a logical error (i.e. a place where the argument violates the rules of logic). The other is to demonstrate that one of the premises is false. In either case, the conclusion won't follow and the argument will be defeated. All that said, the same rules of logic apply to talking about God. Take, for instance, the following argument: "1) If there is a God, then God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent; 2) There is a God; 3) God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent." That is a logically valid argument: if the premises (1 & 2) are true, it is impossible for the conclusion (3) to be false. It correctly applies a very simple logical rule (modus ponens). Now, we may debate about whether or not one of the premises is true, but it remains a valid argument.

If you think that religion can't be talked about logically (that is, according to the rules of logic), you should really read something by Alvin Plantinga. I'd recommend God, Freedom, and Evil. Also, I've posted an essay I wrote about Plantinga on my blog: http://calebkeller.blogspot.com/ Check it out to see an example of how one might go about talking about God logically.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

RHYIANAN

Friday, May 18, 2007 12:11 AM

The wording of that statement may have been wrong, and I apologize if it rubbed you the wrong way. I am fully aware of the mechanics of logic, I just meant that all of the evidence I have seen points to religion being a construct. You can also apply the line of thinking I used to say that science is a construct as well, a way to explain things that we truly do not understand. This doesn't mean that we should reject science, just as we don't have to reject religion.

I never meant to imply that logic couldn't be applied to religion, but since you brought it up, I don't think it should be. Humans cannot fully comprehend the way that God (or whatever deity you prefer) works. He is all powerful, and unlike someone stated earlier, I don't think he is bound by our logic. If you believe in miracles like healing things that we cannot heal (like cancer or some other terminal illness) and jesus raising people from the dead, do those things conform to natural laws and what most people call logic? Not to my understanding, no.

To quote (or paraphrase if I got the quote wrong, which is possible) something that we all know and love: "It [Religion] isn't about making sense, it's about believing in something and letting that belief change your life. It's about faith, and you can't fix faith."

I'm a leaf on the wind

CAUSAL

Friday, May 18, 2007 12:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Rhyianan:
I never meant to imply that logic couldn't be applied to religion, but since you brought it up, I don't think it should be. Humans cannot fully comprehend the way that God (or whatever deity you prefer) works. He is all powerful, and unlike someone stated earlier, I don't think he is bound by our logic. If you believe in miracles like healing things that we cannot heal (like cancer or some other terminal illness) and jesus raising people from the dead, do those things conform to natural laws and what most people call logic? Not to my understanding, no.

Well, actually, that was me earlier. And it's not "our" logic. The truths of logic would be true whether or not any human being was around to notice them or not. That's the whole point: they're necessary truths--it's impossible for them to be false. We don't make our own logic any more than we make our own math 1+1=2 is true not in virtue of anything that we say about it, but in virtue of the fact that that's the way the world really is. Similarly with logic. It's not "our" logic--the fact that one and the same thing can't both exist and not exist at the same time is not true in virtue of anything we have to say about it, but in virtue of the the fact that that's the way the world really is. I also think that the rules of logic are what they are because that's the way God is. The law of contradiction is the foundation of logic--some think that all other logic truths can be deduced from it alone. But the Law of Contradiction holds in virtue of the fact that God is perfectly self-consistent. So to violate logic would not be to violate "our" logic, but to violate his own nature. And he can't do that. Thus it doesn't limit God at all to say that he can't do the logically impossible, because all that really says is that he can't be what he's not.

On the contrary, the laws of nature are not necessary. God could have made things differently. The laws of nature are what they are because God made them be that way. So while there is no possible world in which 1+1=2, there is some possible world in which gravitation is stronger, one where it is weaker, and so forth. And furthermore, God made the laws of nature be what they are. They are his creations and he can make and unmake them as he sees fit. So when you ask whether healing and resurrection follow the laws of nature, the answer is no: they are violations of the laws of nature. But unlike logical impossibilities, they are violations that God can make because to do so would not amount to a violation of his character. Consider this argument: "1) If God made the law of gravity, he controls the law of gravity; 2) Controlling a law means one can unmake the law; 3) God made the law of gravity; 4) Therefore, God controls the law of gravity; 5) Therefore, God can unmake the law of gravity." This is a valid argument (though maybe not a sound one). And now we have an account for miracles that is logically valid (though maybe not sound). You need to be more careful about deploying the world "logical" because you seem to be using it to mean, "doesn't make any sense"--and that's not what illogical means. Violating natural laws isn't a logical impossibility, so God can do it as he sees fit. And interestingly, we can talk logically about that. Basically, the argument would be this: "1) If God is omnipotent, he can do anything that isn't logically impossible; 2) God is omnipotent; 3) Therefore, God can do anything that isn't logically impossible; 4) Breaking the rules of nature isn't logically impossible; 5) Therefore, God can break the laws of nature."

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

RIVER6213

Friday, May 18, 2007 2:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by cozen:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
So I'll just make the most of life, and let whatever's coming come.

Thank you for that. Y'see, to directly address River6213, my answer to your question, as I understand it, is neither place , because maybe, just maybe, they do not actually exist. In the sense that "God", and Heaven and Hell, are imaginary creations posited by people. Constructs invented by people to form some fundamental ethical and moral basis upon which to build an understandable way of living. We humans are pretty talented at inventing conscructs that work well enough to explain mysteries and to create technologies in the short term. To wit (skipping many steps here), there's the Platonion shperical model of the stars which leant a form of logic to the funky planet Earth's placement in the universe that the Gods of the time played around in, to Newtonian physics, which worked (and continue to do so) well enough as a basis to build ballistic toys and enable mapping routes to the Moon, to Einstein and Relativity, which gets us nearer to the concept that God ain't playing dice with this universe... except the possibility that maybe there is no God, so maybe there is a random element to our existence, eh? And so forth, into realms of mathematical paradigms I'm not going to pretend to understand. Paradigms we can use as tools that function well enough for us humans to build stuff enabling us to expand our abilities to spread our seed, mayhaps on galactic platforms, who knows?

What if, yeah, what if God and Jesus, and, by extension, Heaven and Hell, and feel free to add Infinite Oneness and existential accident to the list, are mere conceptual tricks that people have invented, in order to erect a convenient temporary foundations upon which to mitigate our fear of random happenstance?

I think that it's important that we don't know what makes the universe, um, and by extension, us humans' role within it, tick, because it's exactly that mystery that makes our endeavours interesting. That the concept of God, and Heaven and Hell, has, perhaps, psychological attributes may well be worthwhile tools for the time being. Yet I remain unconvinced of the truths of such concepts merely in terms of, "it feels right, ergo it must be so".

Also, I don't grok the "6213" part, which, in and of itself, belittles all that I've ever done and been, eh?

In short (lol!), we ain't necessarily destined for either place, cuz we just made 'em up. Doesn't mean we can't work on finding ways to not hate ourselves, and to not hate others. The work involved, heh, can be a bitch. In my opinion, an embraceable bitch.

And I thought I was long-winded! Okay, humor me then. If there WAS, or IS a place called Heaven and Hell as described by the Judeo-Christian religion, which one would you end up in? Also "6213" has a deep meaning too me thank you very much.

-River

RIVER6213

Friday, May 18, 2007 3:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:

Actually - my bigger problem with the notion of hell is that no one - and I mean NO ONE - is intrinsically evil. Even you, River. You may have all kinds of evil plans, and even do evil acts, but I'll stack that against the amount of pain you've been through in your life. There's not a God out there who'll think that putting you through more pain and torment will solve the problem that is you. Certainly, not a God who deserves the title.

NO. I think I've dealt out more pain than I originally received in the beginning, therefore I've earned my ticket to hell because most of what I've done was done with glee, and a vengeful nature. I always believe in not doing things half measure.

If the Christian God exists I shall receive my reward for my campaign against life. All I know was my ass was "Pearl-Harbored" one day and I've been fighting the war ever since. At the age of 45 I have WON my war, now when I die I guess that's when my "War Crimes" against God, Christ, and humanity will begin. I will be found guilty (no surprise there) and sentenced to hell. There will be none of the screaming for mercy and saying that "Someone else made me do it" or "I didn't know what I was doing!" There will be none of that from me. I am guilty and am proud of it. I didn't let this fucking planet knock me down and that was worth every ounce of revenge, so I will get tossed into the lake of fire or whatever passes for hell. I guess God will be taking out the trash.

-River

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Friday, May 18, 2007 3:10 AM

Welcome Clearstatic!

---- plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose

Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

RIVER6213

Friday, May 18, 2007 3:15 AM

Come on FutureMrsFillion! Weigh in your opinion on this topic!

-River