Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Why did God start the whole ball rolling?
-
30-09-2011 11:50am#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
antiskeptic wrote: »What I was attempting to say was that the world is perfect. Perfect for the purpose God has regarding it. That kind of perfection (it fits God's purpose perfectly) sits above in the pecking order to the the other class of (im)perfecton (that the world doesn't operate how God would ultimately like it to operate)
OK, fair enough, but if that's so why doesn't God just go and fix things as he sees fit? If you built a house or an engine that didn't serve your purpose, then would you not go and sort it out? Would you ask the house for its opinion? I wouldn't think so.antiskeptic wrote: »I'm not sure what you mean by feeling superior (to the world). Do you mean superior to the other people in the world? If so, then I guess there is a sense that the Christian (since that is the only religion I know intimately) feels themselves superior. They would see themselves as occupying a position that is better than other positions a person could occupy. Much like someone who occupies a nice home would see themselves in a better position compared to occupying no home at all
Christians (not all, but the more adamant ones) go on about the 'imperfection' of the world. To be able to recognise fault they have to feel above, or superior, to it. The aim of a Christian's life is all about what does or doesn't happen when they are no longer alive in the flesh, which makes no sense, as it denigrates the value of life in favour of non-life, which is death and cessation of mind.antiskeptic wrote: »a) Whilst this might be true in the context of human psychology, it would need to be shown that that is what is operating in Christians/religionists. You would need to demonstrate that human psychology is all that is at work in them.
What else do you think there can be? If they are human, then all that can exist of them is based on human psychology, which has many aspects. It all depends on what aspects they use to become what they are.antiskeptic wrote: »b) I was pointing out above that 'superiority' (in the sense of holding a better position than non-Christians) is the mode involved. Not one of inferiority.
It can be the mode involved, depending on the mind of the individual. You get good and bad types in all religions and none, so Christians, like others, may feel that they hold as better position, but most of this 'feeling' is subjective, and based on rote teaching of many contradictions. False ideas are indicated when contradictions in the thinking process exist, so the use of belief as a form of self-persuasion is ultimately faulted, as it operates on what they only feel they know but don't in fact know, as in ideas like "I know that God loves me". They don't; they just believe he does, but even he is not proven anyway. See what I mean?
Quote F12: You may decide to build on what you have to reach what you don't have.antiskeptic wrote: »If you know everything what is there to have? You already know it perfectly.
Well, don't you think that if you think you know everything, the one thing you don't have is awareness that you are fooling yourself that you think you know everything? To have knowledge of everything is the dream of fools, as we only live for a short period of time and we can only learn so much in that time. Being receptive to learning is the best way to learn, and not to assume that you fully understand all you think might be true.
Quote F12: Perfect knowledge is fact, truth.antiskeptic wrote: »At least that. But since knowledge and truth and fact and perfect are such big words, not a lot is conveyed by short sentences on the matter
Fair enough, but most seeds are small, aren't they, and they tend to grow according to the soils they are planted in, no? Just because there may be many flowery ways of embedding supposed truth into the imagination, does not necessarily mean that the soils are good, would you not think?
Why do you think that you see truth as being 'big'. They are there to look at and learn from, and the trick is not to make unnecessary comparisons that are based on self-centred bias. Look at a thing as objectively as you can, and you stand some chance of understanding it, but if we make beliefs about it then we will become lost to the truth of the thing.
Quote F12: What you don't have is what you need,antiskeptic wrote: »Why necessarily?
Simply because need is something required, as it is based on deficiency of a thing. You can only not have what you don't yet have.
Quote F12: so in order to make progress you need to realise that you don't know that you don't know what you don't know. If you start off with lack of knowledge, which is either ignorance and/or belief, then the outcome will be determined by the outset, unless reason and realisation arises in the process.antiskeptic wrote: »Relevance to the question:
Well, you don't start from a point of knowing nothing, as you have some prior knowledge already e.g. how to use memory, experiences, knowledge. You don't actually begin and end to learn things, as you build up a reservoir of self-evident truths, be it history, experience, ability to read and count etc. It's about progressing, and therefore improving a step at a time, and never assuming that you can't learn of better ways to do things. That's life.
Quote F12: Primarily, that deities exist,antiskeptic wrote: »Christians don't assume that, they conclude that in part helped by starting assumptions. One such assumption is that rational conclusions accurately reflect reality. If I rationally arrive at the conclusion "God exists" then I'm assuming he actually does.
Well, is belief not an assumption that something is or is not a certain way, without the benefit of verification? To start with an assumption is to start with a vague idea, taking some idea for granted, and if you try to reinforce that idea by selectively ignoring the fact that it is only an assumption then you will become lost to the reality of the thing you are supposed to be looking for, no? This is why nobody sees 'God', as it is only assumed to exist, though people will persist in assuming it does exist in fact.
You said "If I rationally arrive at the conclusion "God exists" then I'm assuming he actually does". I do appreciate your honesty, but I would then have to ask you, "How do you judge as to if you are using rational thinking? What exactly is it? What does it mean?"
Rational thinking is based on reason and evidence, not assumptions. There is no actual evidence that the deity called 'God' exists, regardless of what people might choose to assume, and there is quite a lot of evidence that it does not exist. To begin with and assumption will most likely end up with a full-blown and much larger, though no more correct, assumption as the one you started with. That's what is called irrational thinking, which gives irrational outcomes. I know that this whole area can appear to be a tangle of words and meanings, but the only way to understand what you are telling yourself, is to find out what the words and their attendant ideas actually mean. Words such as belief, hope, assume, know, reason, knowledge, fact, etc. Otherwise we end up confusing our minds, which are 90% unreasoning anyway. If fact and reason are not used to balance that unreason, then we go off the path of reason, which is ultimately pointless anyway. It's all about understanding the point of things, or that there is in fact no point to some things, as they are just assumed in the first place. Hope this hasn't confused you, but I do hope that it helps to work some stuff out.antiskeptic wrote: »I'm not much of a fan of the ritualised behaviour aspects of Christianity tbh.
Fair enough. Most everyday Christians aren't either, as they would be completely unable to function if they complied with all the rote behaviours that comes with the religion.antiskeptic wrote: »Whilst believing that faith can move mountains of a more significant type than the Dublin ones, I'd not be swallowing every Tom, Dick and Harry of a story myself. And would agree there's a lot of sh1te out there when it comes to faith claims.
Good for you. Best thing is to keep an open mind, but don't let sh1te in, as it's a bugger to get rid of, as it tends to stick to everything....
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote:
Originally Post by F12
Based on your prefect ability to confirm that God is perfect? Is that not false pride to assume that you can evaluate something that is more perfect than you? It's simply not possible, no more than an ant could evaluate the software in the Space Shuttle. Therefore, your assumption that "God is perfect", is a poorly thought out thought.Jake Rugby Walrus666 wrote: »But if a perfect god exists then he can operate within or dispense any system of logic he wishes (benefits of omnipotence) and so can allow Festus the ability to measure gods perfection while Festus himself is imperfect. If that seems illogical to you then you can pray to god who may for your benefit change the rules of logic to allow you understand this.
Logic is a method of calculation from known causes e.g. one brick plus one brick makes two bricks...etc. Logic is based on the a form of thinking that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference, not supposition. To begin to draw inferences from already known fact may lead to logical outcomes and discoveries. To begin to draw inferences from anything other than known fact will lead to illogical outcomes and lack of further understanding.
To begin with and idea like "But if a perfect god exists then he can operate within or dispense any system of logic he wishes...." is to operate on supposition, as indicated on an 'if', meaning 'based on the idea that'. If is general, and not specific. It may be used to indicate suppositions or hypothetical conditions, often involving doubt or uncertainty. "If I do this, then such will be the case...etc", so it is conditional on the initial idea being correct so as to reach the required outcome.
This sort of thinking is not operating on known fact, but it is operating on unknowing ideas called beliefs, which pay no heed to the lack of fact that the 'if' is only an assumption, possibly an assertion in more extreme cases. Taking off on the wrong foot will result in being wrongfooted when the conclusion is arrived at, leading the unthinker astray.
Let's look at the ideas within the statement that concludes that I should pray to a deity to change my allegedly faulted thinking:
But if a perfect god exists then he can
(1) operate within or dispense any system of logic he wishes (benefits of omnipotence)
(2) and so can allow Festus the ability to measure gods perfection while Festus himself is imperfect. If that seems illogical to you then you can pray to god who may for your benefit change the rules of logic to allow you understand this.
The assumption at 1 and 2 are correctly derived conclusions are based an unverifiable and improbable expression contained within the '...if a perfect god exists', thus leading to incorrect inferences that I should pray to an 'iffed' deity to cure me from using my sense of logic that tells me that it can't exist, because the idea of it is all based on an 'if'.
The notion of changing the rules of logic is yet another illogical notion, as to pervert logical thinking only serves to direct the mind in an opposing direction, which is lack of logic, which is ill-logic.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement