Lost faith

uck51js9zml2yt · 10-09-2019 8:49pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Entirely

As the atheist says: Christianity is a crutch. As the Christian says: Christianity is a crutch.

The question is whether we are crippled or not.
.

You're looking in the wrong places if you see Christianity as a crutch.

The God I serve takes away the crutches and heals you.:)

Cabaal · 10-09-2019 9:13pm

Charlee Yellow Redcoat wrote: »

So just because you don't believe in God means He doesn't exist?

Pompous springs to mind that you would think an infinite, omnipresent, omniesent, omnipotent being would not exist just because you say so.

Fixed:)

to be fair, its rather pompous for anyone to claim they know a infinite, omnipresent, omniesent, omnipotent being does actually exist and that you just happen to be worshipping the correct one out of thousands believed throughout our species history

uck51js9zml2yt · 10-09-2019 9:19pm

Cabaal wrote: »

to be fair, its rather pompous for anyone to claim they know a infinite, omnipresent, omniesent, omnipotent being does actually exist and that you just happen to be worshipping the correct one out of thousands believed throughout our species history

That's were you're wrong...there is only One..

That He revealed Himself in the form of a man makes Him approachable. A form He still has in Heaven. And that's why He came, that we should know God.

Hotblack Desiato · 11-09-2019 12:26am

Charlee Yellow Redcoat wrote: »

So just because you don't believe in God means He doesn't exist?

That's not what my post was about, at all.

smacl · 11-09-2019 7:59am

theological wrote: »

In fact the Bible says that what God speaks is more certain than the created order because it was created by His Word.

Every major religion has its own unique creation story and whether or not you consider any given one true is still a matter of subjective belief, or an article of faith if you prefer.

If we really believed that words were devoid of objective meaning we'd be unable to communicate anything. Fortunately, I'm convinced that isn't true.

I don't believe words are devoid of objective meaning though, quite the opposite. Words are part of the language we speak and their objective meaning is defined in dictionaries, arrived at by consensus and refined and updated on an ongoing basis. It is this well defined consensus of meaning that allows is to communicate with the minimum of ambiguity.

antiskeptic · 11-09-2019 7:27pm

Charlee Yellow Redcoat wrote: »

You're looking in the wrong places if you see Christianity as a crutch.

The God I serve takes away the crutches and heals you.:)

So you're fully sorted. No more leaning on God?

You're looking in the wrong places if you see Christianity as a means to be independent of God

☺

ChrisJ84 · 11-09-2019 8:20pm

smacl wrote: »

And mine, though with a daughter currently studying for a physics degree I'm being forced to bone up on the basics.

Absolutely loads of belief involved and taking technology either on faith or in terms of massively simplified abstracts. What we do have for almost everything we consider to be fact is the option to study it in depth ourselves, test its veracity, and hopefully refine or even reject our previous understanding.

With you on this but testing, refining our understanding, and rejecting error all rely on the unprovable presuppositions that we are operating in an orderly system and that our brains are rational enough to make such judgements. Those presuppositions are consistent with the idea of a creator God who is in control; do you think they are equally valid for your worldview?

smacl wrote: »

I think where religion suffers to some extent here is that it holds on to absolutes, where human understanding is constantly evolving and changing. e.g. the earth is flat, but what about the horizon -> the earth is round and the centre of the universe where the sun orbits it (geocentrism) -> nope, the earth orbits the sun which is the centre of the universe (heliocentrism) -> nope, the sun is the centre of our solar system which is one of many and the whole shebang is moving, etc... So our current understanding of genetics clearly shows us that humanity didn't evolve from two people in the garden of Eden, nor is it possible to put a mating pair of every animal in existence on a wooden boat as a mechanism to avoid their extinction. Previous beliefs, that once seemed reasonable, now seem extremely dubious to anyone with a modicum of education. As such, when someone tells me something is true because it appears a sacred text, I'm reminded that so much else contained in the same or other sacred texts is clearly false.

Obviously there is a lot more to say here, but my belief is that the biblical text (including Genesis) is authoritative and free from error. The Genesis accounts of creation and the flood are clearly presented as history, so I have to conclude that Adam and Eve were real individuals, and that the flood did happen (though not necessarily covering the whole earth). The bible isn't a science textbook and doesn't set out to answer all the questions we have, and I don't think there is really a clash with science where it is rightly understood. But that said, if there is a clear conflict between what scripture says and what the received wisdom of our day says, I will go with scripture.

smacl wrote: »

Thanks, that's very generous, but I'd ask you is it true to categorically say that everyone who says they love their spouse actually does, and how can you tell either way?

No, I don't think that would be true. And I don't know if there is any definitive way for us to tell (or if it would be any of our business!), but my point is that it is either true or false, regardless of what we, they, or anyone else thinks. I would expect there to be some evidence one way or the other.

smacl wrote: »

Like everything, it gets complicated. Personally I'm of the opinion that taking someone's life against their will is wrong in most circumstances, with the possible exception of self defence or defence of a loved one where no other options existed. When you start looking at war it becomes more difficult and do you consider execution to be murder in and of itself? In my opinion this is where secularism becomes so important, in that our laws should be based on societal consensus rather than the dogma of one religion or another.

Societal consensus is a bit slippery though, isn't it? Society used to think it was ok to burn heretics at the stake, for example (!). It's consistent with my position to say that was wrong, regardless of what society thought about it. What basis would you use to critique a society that approves of something that you think is wrong?

smacl wrote: »

As a trade off for possible for immortality of sorts? Tough call, but for my (lack of) beliefs it is essentially a fantasy so doesn't really come under consideration.

Yes, but dismissing it as a fantasy is convenient in that you can then ignore any demands it would place on you. The result is that you are back in the driving seat. What I'm saying is that confirmation bias applies to everyone, regardless of their religion or lack thereof.

smacl · 12-09-2019 8:24am

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

With you on this but testing, refining our understanding, and rejecting error all rely on the unprovable presuppositions that we are operating in an orderly system and that our brains are rational enough to make such judgements. Those presuppositions are consistent with the idea of a creator God who is in control; do you think they are equally valid for your worldview?

Not so. When we talk about something being true in a mathematical sense we can prove it to be true. When dealing with science we talk about things being demonstrably true (or not) to a given level of confidence for a given range of values. So for example, the speed of light is not based on supposition it is based on measurement and widely applied to technologies which clearly work and would not do so if these measurements were incorrect.

Obviously there is a lot more to say here, but my belief is that the biblical text (including Genesis) is authoritative and free from error. The Genesis accounts of creation and the flood are clearly presented as history, so I have to conclude that Adam and Eve were real individuals, and that the flood did happen (though not necessarily covering the whole earth). The bible isn't a science textbook and doesn't set out to answer all the questions we have, and I don't think there is really a clash with science where it is rightly understood. But that said, if there is a clear conflict between what scripture says and what the received wisdom of our day says, I will go with scripture.

Unfortunately this particular part of your belief system is incompatible with much of modern genetics, biology, and of course the theory of evolution. If we look at acceptance of evolution by religions in the US, while this is a position commonly held by evangelical protestants, most Catholics and mainstream protestants accept evolution and consider stories such as Adam and Eve to be allegorical rather than literal truth. Here in Europe, those that hold to the literal creation story of the bible are a considerably smaller minority and a dwindling one at that. See the following paper on the subject. Certainly in this country, I'd imagine creationism would be considered to be on the extreme fringe of Christianity and treated with a broad mix of scepticism and derision.

gandalfio · 12-09-2019 8:35am

santana75 wrote: »

I cant give you the facts and figures you're looking for but I can say that since I came to Christianity my mental, emotional and even physical health have improved greatly. And I see it in my peers also. Theres a joy and peace there amongst Christians that is most definitely absent from my non- christian friends(I dont just hang out with christians and this is why I am in a position to see both sides of the divide). And its not like people who follow Christ dont have troubles, they do but the difference is that Jesus walks with us who have given our lives over to him. And thats like having a rock solid foundation that can stand any storm that comes. Jesus said he would give the "Peace that surpasses all understanding" to those who believe in him and that peace is something the world and the people in it, can never give. So when I hear that depression and suicide are on the increase as people turn away from God, I know its the truth, even though I dont see hard facts and figures to back that up. I know it because I see it all around me and I can see a big difference in those that follow Christ with their hearts and those who have chosen not to.

What a load of nonsense

ChrisJ84 · 12-09-2019 10:19am

smacl wrote: »

Not so. When we talk about something being true in a mathematical sense we can prove it to be true. When dealing with science we talk about things being demonstrably true (or not) to a given level of confidence for a given range of values. So for example, the speed of light is not based on supposition it is based on measurement and widely applied to technologies which clearly work and would not do so if these measurements were incorrect.

I'm not saying at all that things like the speed of light or 2+2=4 are matters of faith. But assumptions like "inductive logic works" and "we can rely on the perceptions of our senses" are unprovable, and science relies on them to function. I realise that they are validated to an extent in practice because we can see that science works if we apply them, and doesn't work if we don't, but they are nevertheless unprovable. Similarly, I see ample evidence in the bible, in the world and in my own experience to validate the claims of Christianity. You and many others don;t accept that evidence, but Christianity is clear that that is a spiritual matter and not down to anything being lacking in the evidence itself.

At least we should be able to say that the old trope of "science deals with facts, religion deals with blind faith" is a bit too simplistic.

smacl wrote: »

Unfortunately this particular part of your belief system is incompatible with much of modern genetics, biology, and of course the theory of evolution. If we look at acceptance of evolution by religions in the US, while this is a position commonly held by evangelical protestants, most Catholics and mainstream protestants accept evolution and consider stories such as Adam and Eve to be allegorical rather than literal truth. Here in Europe, those that hold to the literal creation story of the bible are a considerably smaller minority and a dwindling one at that. See the following paper on the subject. Certainly in this country, I'd imagine creationism would be considered to be on the extreme fringe of Christianity and treated with a broad mix of scepticism and derision.

Again, I don't think it is quite so simple as that. Claims like "genetics have disproved the existence of a literal Adam and Eve" are not quite true. Any time I have looked into matters like that (and it's not something I do often to be fair), the science is a lot more tentative and inconclusive than the headlines would suggest. I don't want to make an argument from absence, but I also think you need to be careful not to overreach on that basis. It's also important to bear in mind the different questions that science and the bible are seeking to answer; Genesis isn't a science textbook and for the most part isn't concerned with the kinds of questions science asks and answers. The claims that God is the creator, that he created the first humans, and that humanity is special within his creation are simply outside the remit of what science can tell us.

I also don't want to get dragged into a creation vs evolution argument, but for what it's worth I'm not a young earth creationist. The kind of craziness you see in the US with dinosaurs on the ark etc. doesn't do anyone any good, and it is frankly unnecessary to tie yourself into such unscientific knots to hold to a high view of the reliability of the bible. That being said, I also think that using evolution as an all encompassing explanation for the origin and development of all the complexity and variety in humanity, never mind the natural world, is a stretch. You might call that an argument from incredulity, and I am certainly not an expert in evolutionary biology, but we shouldn't pretend that evolution provides a simple and finally conclusive explanation for our origins either.

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Societal consensus is a bit slippery though, isn't it? Society used to think it was ok to burn heretics at the stake, for example (!). It's consistent with my position to say that was wrong, regardless of what society thought about it. What basis would you use to critique a society that approves of something that you think is wrong?

Curious to know your thoughts on this.

smacl · 12-09-2019 11:06am

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I'm not saying at all that things like the speed of light or 2+2=4 are matters of faith. But assumptions like "inductive logic works" and "we can rely on the perceptions of our senses" are unprovable, and science relies on them to function. I realise that they are validated to an extent in practice because we can see that science works if we apply them, and doesn't work if we don't, but they are nevertheless unprovable. Similarly, I see ample evidence in the bible, in the world and in my own experience to validate the claims of Christianity. You and many others don;t accept that evidence, but Christianity is clear that that is a spiritual matter and not down to anything being lacking in the evidence itself.

Proof by induction is a fundamental part of mathematics and is no less refutable than saying 2+2=4. This is pretty basic stuff.

At least we should be able to say that the old trope of "science deals with facts, religion deals with blind faith" is a bit too simplistic.

Science deals with understanding based on observation and rigorous testing, where that understanding expands and is refined over time. What religion deals with seems to change depending on who you're talking to. So for example, where you take scripture as being literally true in its entirety, most Christians apparently have an evolving belief system that is broadly compatible with scientific understanding.

Again, I don't think it is quite so simple as that. Claims like "genetics have disproved the existence of a literal Adam and Eve" are not quite true. Any time I have looked into matters like that (and it's not something I do often to be fair), the science is a lot more tentative and inconclusive than the headlines would suggest. I don't want to make an argument from absence, but I also think you need to be careful not to overreach on that basis. It's also important to bear in mind the different questions that science and the bible are seeking to answer; Genesis isn't a science textbook and for the most part isn't concerned with the kinds of questions science asks and answers. The claims that God is the creator, that he created the first humans, and that humanity is special within his creation are simply outside the remit of what science can tell us.

I also don't want to get dragged into a creation vs evolution argument, but for what it's worth I'm not a young earth creationist. The kind of craziness you see in the US with dinosaurs on the ark etc. doesn't do anyone any good, and it is frankly unnecessary to tie yourself into such unscientific knots to hold to a high view of the reliability of the bible. That being said, I also think that using evolution as an all encompassing explanation for the origin and development of all the complexity and variety in humanity, never mind the natural world, is a stretch. You might call that an argument from incredulity, and I am certainly not an expert in evolutionary biology, but we shouldn't pretend that evolution provides a simple and finally conclusive explanation for our origins either.

Curious to know your thoughts on this.

As you point out there's a good reason why most Christian traditions at this stage consider the likes of the garden of Eden and Noah's ark to be allegory which is that they cannot reasonably be considered literally true without rejecting a large part of current scientific knowledge. At the same time, a young earth creationist might say that you're calling into question parts of scripture by not agreeing with their position and a more moderate Catholic or Protestant might lump you in with the creationists for considering evolution questionable.

What seems clear is that Christianity covers a wide spectrum of beliefs, from those who consider every item of minutiae in the bible to be literally and unquestionably true to those who take a broad and rather loose notion of a caring God above who will welcome them into heaven if they do their best to be good people.

uck51js9zml2yt · 12-09-2019 11:08am

antiskeptic wrote: »

So you're fully sorted. No more leaning on God?

You're looking in the wrong places if you see Christianity as a means to be independent of God

☺

That's not what I said and you know it

ChrisJ84 · 12-09-2019 11:35am

smacl wrote: »

Proof by induction is a fundamental part of mathematics and is no less refutable than saying 2+2=4. This is pretty basic stuff.

Sure, I had inductive reasoning in mind rather than mathematical induction. For that matter, the order and structure implied by mathematics is consistent with what I would expect to see in a creation ordered by divine wisdom.

smacl wrote: »

Science deals with understanding based on observation and rigorous testing, where that understanding expands and is refined over time. What religion deals with seems to change depending on who you're talking to. So for example, where you take scripture as being literally true in its entirety, most Christians apparently have an evolving belief system that is broadly compatible with scientific understanding.

As you point out there's a good reason why most Christian traditions at this stage consider the likes of the garden of Eden and Noah's ark to be allegory which is that they cannot reasonably be considered literally true without rejecting a large part of current scientific knowledge. At the same time, a young earth creationist might say that you're calling into question parts of scripture by not agreeing with their position and a more moderate Catholic or Protestant might lump you in with the creationists for considering evolution questionable.

What seems clear is that Christianity covers a wide spectrum of beliefs, from those who consider every item of minutiae in the bible to be literally and unquestionably true to those who take a broad and rather loose notion of a caring God above who will welcome them into heaven if they do their best to be good people.

Not sure I said it's with good reason but the important point to stress is that Christians, even those with a high view of scripture, have no reason to be fearful of science. Quite the opposite in fact, the more science we do the better. Adding to and refining our understanding of the natural world are unequivocally good things. In my experience, the only people who come to the conclusion that science has somehow "disproved God" are people who had already come to that conclusion anyway. From my perspective, no-one is neutral and dispassionately weighs the evidence; like I said before, confirmation bias applies to everyone.

You're quite right that different Christians relate to questions of science, particularly creation/evolution in a variety of different ways. In part, I think that is because those questions are relatively unimportant and certainly aren't core tenets of the faith. What we think of Jesus Christ and the claims he makes are what is of primary importance, and is what makes us Christian (or not).

ChrisJ84 · 12-09-2019 2:15pm

smacl wrote: »

As you point out there's a good reason why most Christian traditions at this stage consider the likes of the garden of Eden and Noah's ark to be allegory which is that they cannot reasonably be considered literally true without rejecting a large part of current scientific knowledge. At the same time, a young earth creationist might say that you're calling into question parts of scripture by not agreeing with their position and a more moderate Catholic or Protestant might lump you in with the creationists for considering evolution questionable.

Something else that needs to be acknowledged in relation to this is that I don't think I've got it all figured out, or that I have all the answers. I have doubts, and vast gaps in my understanding. But I still need to set those in the balance against the things I do know and am certain of, such as that God exists, that I am a guilty sinner, that God came to earth in the person of Jesus Christ for our salvation, and that the New Testament claims about Jesus are true.

The fact that I can't reconcile everything into a nice neat system with no ambiguities doesn't particularly bother me. And the idea that every scientific study with a provocative title should cause me to suddenly doubt my entire worldview is a strange one.

smacl · 12-09-2019 4:49pm

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Sure, I had inductive reasoning in mind rather than mathematical induction.

Most modern forms of measurement are based on discrete statistical observations taken from a larger possible population and hence use inductive reasoning. We take a number of discrete observations with estimated errors and use these to compute a result. To verify the correctness of our result we take a separate set of observations (our control set) and predict their values based on our calculated result. Thus our inductive or apriori assumptions are validated aposteriori results to form a stochastic model. This is a very robust technique.

For that matter, the order and structure implied by mathematics is consistent with what I would expect to see in a creation ordered by divine wisdom.

Mathematics is no more or less than a more efficient way use to express certain abstract ideas, observed relationships and phenomena. If used to describe aspects of the known universe in will by necessity correspond with the universe, but this says nothing about divinity or wisdom either way.

Not sure I said it's with good reason but the important point to stress is that Christians, even those with a high view of scripture, have no reason to be fearful of science. Quite the opposite in fact, the more science we do the better. Adding to and refining our understanding of the natural world are unequivocally good things. In my experience, the only people who come to the conclusion that science has somehow "disproved God" are people who had already come to that conclusion anyway. From my perspective, no-one is neutral and dispassionately weighs the evidence; like I said before, confirmation bias applies to everyone.

I agree. Religion is a matter of personally held beliefs and only comes into conflict with science where it makes claims about the objective nature of the observable universe, as Galileo found to his detriment in the past and New Earth Creationists are finding today.

You're quite right that different Christians relate to questions of science, particularly creation/evolution in a variety of different ways. In part, I think that is because those questions are relatively unimportant and certainly aren't core tenets of the faith. What we think of Jesus Christ and the claims he makes are what is of primary importance, and is what makes us Christian (or not).

I think it is worth remembering that for many if not most Christians, religion is not the most important aspect of their lives. I think when you talk about Christians and what makes one Christian above, you're making an invalid assumption to the contrary. If you were to further refine your definition of what it means to be Christian to those people whose whole worldview is dominated by their faith I imagine you'd be left with very few Scotsmen, sorry Christians, indeed.

ChrisJ84 · 12-09-2019 5:41pm

smacl wrote: »

Most modern forms of measurement are based on discrete statistical observations taken from a larger possible population and hence use inductive reasoning. We take a number of discrete observations with estimated errors and use these to compute a result. To verify the correctness of our result we take a separate set of observations (our control set) and predict their values based on our calculated result. Thus our inductive or apriori assumptions are validated aposteriori results to form a stochastic model. This is a very robust technique.

Mathematics is no more or less than a more efficient way use to express certain abstract ideas, observed relationships and phenomena. If used to describe aspects of the known universe in will by necessity correspond with the universe, but this says nothing about divinity or wisdom either way.

Right, the most we can say is that it is consistent with a Christian worldview.

smacl wrote: »

I agree. Religion is a matter of personally held beliefs and only comes into conflict with science where it makes claims about the objective nature of the observable universe, as Galileo found to his detriment in the past and New Earth Creationists are finding today.

I think it's important for both the religious and the non-religious not to overstep. Scientists aren't qualified to make theological / philosophical pronouncements on the existence of God on the basis of their science. Nor are theologians qualified to make sweeping scientific statements on the basis of their theology. In my experience, most of the science vs. religion debate generates a lot of heat and not much else.

That said, my position is that where scripture comments on something in relation to the natural world it is correct and authoritative. The nuance comes from the fact that the bible is not a modern scientific treatise, nor is it written in scientific language. I have yet to see an instance where the two cannot be reconciled to my satisfaction.

smacl wrote: »

I think it is worth remembering that for many if not most Christians, religion is not the most important aspect of their lives. I think when you talk about Christians and what makes one Christian above, you're making an invalid assumption to the contrary. If you were to further refine your definition of what it means to be Christian to those people whose whole worldview is dominated by their faith I imagine you'd be left with very few Scotsmen, sorry Christians, indeed.

Don't think I can bear to get into the population of Scotland again!

You make an interesting point though. My Christianity fundamentally shapes how I look at the world, but that doesn't mean that everything has to be over spiritualised. For example, if I was a doctor I wouldn't read the bible to teach me how to do my job; but in reading it I will come to understand how I should think about the significance of my job, how I should approach it, how I should treat others etc.

Everyone has a framework through which they view the world. As a Christian, mine is shaped and influenced by my Christian faith.

smacl · 12-09-2019 6:35pm

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Right, the most we can say is that it is consistent with a Christian worldview.

Indeed, and likewise a Muslim worldview, and a Hindu worldview etc... though a religious worldview has to compartmentalise the spiritual and physical to a greater or lesser extent depending on the degree of conflict between religious articles of faith and current scientific understanding.

I think it's important for both the religious and the non-religious not to overstep. Scientists aren't qualified to make theological / philosophical pronouncements on the existence of God on the basis of their science. Nor are theologians qualified to make sweeping scientific statements on the basis of their theology. In my experience, most of the science vs. religion debate generates a lot of heat and not much else.

Agreed, but in saying that it confirms my point that religion isn't really fit to contract science when it comes to objective statements about the physical universe.

That said, my position is that where scripture comments on something in relation to the natural world it is correct and authoritative. The nuance comes from the fact that the bible is not a modern scientific treatise, nor is it written in scientific language. I have yet to see an instance where the two cannot be reconciled to my satisfaction.

On that basis, how do you reconcile the theological position than all of humankind are directly descended from Adam and Eve, where science clearly shows us that this is not possible? Likewise breeding populations of single pairs of animals from the ark. This is not historical fact it is mythology, written at a time when it seemed possible but we now no that not to be the case.

Don't think I can bear to get into the population of Scotland again!

You make an interesting point though. My Christianity fundamentally shapes how I look at the world, but that doesn't mean that everything has to be over spiritualised. For example, if I was a doctor I wouldn't read the bible to teach me how to do my job; but in reading it I will come to understand how I should think about the significance of my job, how I should approach it, how I should treat others etc.

Everyone has a framework through which they view the world. As a Christian, mine is shaped and influenced by my Christian faith.

I don't think everyone has a framework in the well defined if somewhat rigid sense that you do. If that was the case, people would tend to behave consistently, where some do and others don't. Many people tend to be quite easily influenced, which can be a good and bad thing, whereas others doggedly stick to their guns regardless, which also can be good or bad. There's a lot of variety out there.

theological · 12-09-2019 6:42pm

smacl wrote: »

I think it is worth remembering that for many if not most Christians, religion is not the most important aspect of their lives. I think when you talk about Christians and what makes one Christian above, you're making an invalid assumption to the contrary. If you were to further refine your definition of what it means to be Christian to those people whose whole worldview is dominated by their faith I imagine you'd be left with very few Scotsmen, sorry Christians, indeed.

We've been through this already. We've got different assumptions that lead us to different conclusions.

You treat truth claims regarding God as subjective preference.

I and others on this thread hold that God has objectively spoken in Scripture and that He has the right to declare who He is and what He is like and what He expects of His people. That is no longer just an opinion if He has truly spoken Himself.

We need to acknowledge this difference and move on. We're not going to agree with you.

smacl · 12-09-2019 8:02pm

theological wrote: »

You treat truth claims regarding God as subjective preference.

No preference, belief. Whether or not you believe in God is a subjective belief, as any belief is something held by you personally. I don't believe in God, which also a subjective belief. You might believe that God has objectively spoken in scripture, but your belief does not make this a fact in any objective sense, any more than a Muslim claiming that Allah has objectively spoken.

We need to acknowledge this difference and move on. We're not going to agree with you.

That's fair enough. We similarly need to acknowledge that you are in no better a position to categorically state who is or is not a Christian than anyone else, least of all that person who considers themselves a Christian who you do not.

ChrisJ84 · 12-09-2019 8:10pm

smacl wrote: »

Indeed, and likewise a Muslim worldview, and a Hindu worldview etc... though a religious worldview has to compartmentalise the spiritual and physical to a greater or lesser extent depending on the degree of conflict between religious articles of faith and current scientific understanding.

I wouldn't say they have to be compartmentalised, but we might need to do some work to reconcile them alright.

smacl wrote: »

Agreed, but in saying that it confirms my point that religion isn't really fit to contract science when it comes to objective statements about the physical universe.

I would generally agree, with the caveats from my last post. The historical and orthodox Christian position is that the bible is authoritative in the matters it addresses. On that basis, it isn't valid to look to it for answers on all sorts of questions we want to ask about other things.

smacl wrote: »

On that basis, how do you reconcile the theological position than all of humankind are directly descended from Adam and Eve, where science clearly shows us that this is not possible? Likewise breeding populations of single pairs of animals from the ark. This is not historical fact it is mythology, written at a time when it seemed possible but we now no that not to be the case.

I don't think science has shown us that all humankind can't be descended from Adam and Eve. If it claims to, then I think that's a wrong conclusion and will stick with the biblical version. On the flood, I don't think we have to consider it to be a global event. A more localised flood is a fully valid understanding of the biblical text.

That's my take on it anyway, but other Christians could legitimately disagree with me on both Adam and Eve and the flood.

smacl wrote: »

I don't think everyone has a framework in the well defined if somewhat rigid sense that you do. If that was the case, people would tend to behave consistently, where some do and others don't. Many people tend to be quite easily influenced, which can be a good and bad thing, whereas others doggedly stick to their guns regardless, which also can be good or bad. There's a lot of variety out there.

If I've given the impression of something overly rigid or neat, that's my bad. Christians have a great degree of freedom in how we think and act. Perhaps a better metaphor is of a lens, through which I see the world and which informs how I understand what I see.

Your point on consistency is really well made, I frequently act in ways that are inconsistent with what I profess to believe. And if I can be so bold, so do atheists like yourself who often act as if life has objective meaning and value. We are complex creatures.

smacl · 12-09-2019 8:55pm

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

And if I can be so bold, so do atheists like yourself who often act as if life has objective meaning and value. We are complex creatures.

Absolutely, whatever about commonality in Christians there is very little that atheism says about a person other than a lack of belief in a God or gods. I regard my atheism much as I regard my lack of interest in football, which my football fanatic wife finds rather strange, but there you go. We're certainly complex creatures in a complex universe and I suspect we all struggle with that complexity to varying degrees and prefer simple answers.

FWIW, I'm not convinced life has objective meaning and value in any absolute sense. My take on it is that it has subjective meaning and relative value.

ChrisJ84 · 13-09-2019 9:02am

smacl wrote: »

Absolutely, whatever about commonality in Christians there is very little that atheism says about a person other than a lack of belief in a God or gods. I regard my atheism much as I regard my lack of interest in football, which my football fanatic wife finds rather strange, but there you go. We're certainly complex creatures in a complex universe and I suspect we all struggle with that complexity to varying degrees and prefer simple answers.

Yep, I would say that atheism is no more a religion than monotheism. But just like monotheists tend towards certain faiths (Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc.), so do atheists. Materialism is a common one in the West; there mightn't be temples or physical idols but it certainly has religious qualities about it. An urge to worship something does seem to be hardwired into us.

smacl wrote: »

FWIW, I'm not convinced life has objective meaning and value in any absolute sense. My take on it is that it has subjective meaning and relative value.

This is interesting, and brings me back to something we touched on earlier. In the moral arena, do you think there are any objective absolutes? Using either society or the individual as the final arbiter seems problematic, but I'm interested to hear your thoughts on it.

antiskeptic · 13-09-2019 9:53am

smacl wrote: »

No preference, belief. Whether or not you believe in God is a subjective belief, as any belief is something held by you personally. I don't believe in God, which also a subjective belief. You might believe that God has objectively spoken in scripture, but your belief does not make this a fact in any objective sense, any more than a Muslim claiming that Allah has objectively spoken.

That's fair enough. We similarly need to acknowledge that you are in no better a position to categorically state who is or is not a Christian than anyone else, least of all that person who considers themselves a Christian who you do not.

Someone can categorically state who is an isn't a Christian. In the event that God exists, makes himself known to a person and as a consequence, the person knows what is and isn't a Christian, the person can indeed be categoric.

smacl · 13-09-2019 10:07am

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Yep, I would say that atheism is no more a religion than monotheism. But just like monotheists tend towards certain faiths (Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc.), so do atheists. Materialism is a common one in the West; there mightn't be temples or physical idols but it certainly has religious qualities about it. An urge to worship something does seem to be hardwired into us.

With respect, I think whatever hope you have about generalising what it means to be a Christian you have none whatsoever with respect to atheism. For example, that I'm an atheist simply means that I don't believe in a god or gods, no more no less. My attitude towards religion is influenced more by my secularist leanings and personally held philosophy. There are other atheists on here that I tend to have opposing views on on most topics and theists who I'm in broad agreement with on most topics.

This is interesting, and brings me back to something we touched on earlier. In the moral arena, do you think there are any objective absolutes? Using either society or the individual as the final arbiter seems problematic, but I'm interested to hear your thoughts on it.

I think you ignore context at your peril, which is what an absolute morality seeks to do. For example, we were talking about murder earlier, "thou shalt not kill" and all that, but would you use lethal force to protect a loved one if it was the only option available? Do you agree with the notion of just war under any circumstances? Where do you stand on execution? Is execution for a crime such as apostasy or heresy actually a murder, and if so, how do you define murder? Can we judge people's behaviour in the past based on today's standards and can we judge people's behaviour?

More simply perhaps, can you state any specific objective moral absolute that holds true for every context without exception?

smacl · 13-09-2019 10:15am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Someone can categorically state who is an isn't a Christian. In the event that God exists, makes himself known to a person and as a consequence, the person knows what is and isn't a Christian, the person can indeed be categoric.

Rubbish. Until that God, who the person believes exists is actually shown to exist and to have spoken to the person in question, this is no more than subjective opinion. You might think you know that God exists and you might think that God has imbued you with special knowledge but you might also be deluded. You're basically saying that you're right and everyone else with a contrary opinion is wrong but what separates their opinion from your opinion?

uck51js9zml2yt · 13-09-2019 10:33am

smacl wrote: »

Rubbish. Until that God, who the person believes exists is actually shown to exist and to have spoken to the person in question, this is no more than subjective opinion. You might think you know that God exists and you might think that God has imbued you with special knowledge but you might also be deluded. You're basically saying that you're right and everyone else with a contrary opinion is wrong but what separates their opinion from your opinion?

You're just looking at it from the view of proving He exists.
For Christians the proof is the experience they have of Him and the change He brings about in their lives.

Until you experience that change you've no idea what we're really on about, though its evident if you look at the person and how they behave.

That makes it possible to say someone isn't a Christian just because they say so. If I don't see the evidence then it's no true.
The Bible goes into detail of what we should be and should expect to see.

If I don't see it even at a very rudimentary level then the words don't matter.

theological · 13-09-2019 10:41am

smacl wrote: »

No preference, belief. Whether or not you believe in God is a subjective belief, as any belief is something held by you personally. I don't believe in God, which also a subjective belief. You might believe that God has objectively spoken in scripture, but your belief does not make this a fact in any objective sense, any more than a Muslim claiming that Allah has objectively spoken.

More assumptions I don't agree with you on.

All positions are equally valid. I don't think this is true. Truth isn't dependent on my thoughts or anyone else's (subjectivity), but on what is true from the world around us (objectivity). If God indeed has spoken then what He says about Himself fall into the objective category.

smacl wrote: »

That's fair enough. We similarly need to acknowledge that you are in no better a position to categorically state who is or is not a Christian than anyone else, least of all that person who considers themselves a Christian who you do not.

More of the same. Not all positions are equally valid. A few minutes ago you dismissed new earth creationism because you think it doesn't line up with scientific reality. I'd be inclined to agree.

The same holds for this issue. Some arguments are closer to the truth than others and we can reason about what God has said in Scripture to work that out.

We don't agree with your assumptions.

Fourier · 13-09-2019 10:45am

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Are there any non-material things that you would say are objectively true?

I don't want to interupt the polite and interesting exchange between yourself and smacl, but just a quick note.

You made a point earlier about knowledge depending on whether our minds can understand things correctly and so on. This is essentially the question of whether the world is identical to or very similar to a mental picture we are capable of having.

Science has in the past worked very well with reductionism. Especially physics. This is where we picture a world made of fundamental components that influence each other in a way that be expressed mathematically. Everything then arises from these components and their laws of behaviour.

Ultimately though it has turned out that this is not the case as quantum theory has shown us. Not only is the above reductionist picture not true, but it seems the world does not conform to any picture we are capable of having.

All we can do is "bet" on the likelyhood of how the world responds when we interact with a piece of it, but we have no picture of what the world is actually like. It's not really made of particles for example. The responses given when you choose to look at the world in different ways don't mesh either. Sort of like taking a photo of a garden, but if it looked completely different with different flowers and trees depending on whether you choose foreground or background focus. You choose a subjective point of view.

So since betting/probability reflects how likely you think different responses are given what you know and since you choose the point of view to look at things from, it means our ultimate theory of the world is very much a subjective one.

Which I think ties in nicely with a point I've seen smacl make before about the complexity of the world and the human urge for a picture that is both simple and objective, as well as your own that science ultimately depends on subjective human elements.

ChrisJ84 · 13-09-2019 10:57am

smacl wrote: »

With respect, I think whatever hope you have about generalising what it means to be a Christian you have none whatsoever with respect to atheism. For example, that I'm an atheist simply means that I don't believe in a god or gods, no more no less. My attitude towards religion is influenced more by my secularist leanings and personally held philosophy. There are other atheists on here that I tend to have opposing views on on most topics and theists who I'm in broad agreement with on most topics.

I'm not really trying to generalise, but neither do I think that we're nothing more than unique snowflakes who can craft our own version of reality. Some things you believe might be consistent with your atheism, and others might not. I think the latter in particular can make for an interesting conversation.

I stand by my contention that everyone is a worshiper of something, even if they don't think of it in that way.

smacl wrote: »

I think you ignore context at your peril, which is what an absolute morality seeks to do. For example, we were talking about murder earlier, "thou shalt not kill" and all that, but would you use lethal force to protect a loved one if it was the only option available? Do you agree with the notion of just war under any circumstances? Where do you stand on execution?

Self defence, judicial execution and war all lie outside the common definition of murder so aren't relevant here. I think murder can be safely defined as the unlawful or immoral killing of another human being - that's not really disputed, is it? The exact opposite of murder would be the biblical call to love our neighbour as ourselves.

The difficulty in classifying an individual act as murder or not is a completely separate problem from whether murder is absolutely and objectively wrong.

smacl wrote: »

Is execution for a crime such as apostasy or heresy actually a murder, and if so, how do you define murder? Can we judge people's behaviour in the past based on today's standards and can we judge people's behaviour?

More simply perhaps, can you state any specific objective moral absolute that holds true for every context without exception?

Execution for something like apostasy requires a bit more nuance; assuming it is state sanctioned then strictly speaking it isn't murder. But it is a fundamental misuse of the power of the state, because apostasy shouldn't be a crime, nevermind a capital one.

It might be a helpful example though, as it's something that different societies today disagree on. I believe that societies that execute apostates should stop doing it, regardless of whether they think it is the right thing to do or not. That is consistent with my religious beliefs and worldview. I'm assuming that you agree that they should stop, but I'm genuinely curious to know the basis on which you do so.

ChrisJ84 · 13-09-2019 11:28am

Fourier wrote: »

I don't want to interupt the polite and interesting exchange between yourself and smacl, but just a quick note.

You made a point earlier about knowledge depending on whether our minds can understand things correctly and so on. This is essentially the question of whether the world is identical to or very similar to a mental picture we are capable of having.

Science has in the past worked very well with reductionism. Especially physics. This is where we picture a world made of fundamental components that influence each other in a way that be expressed mathematically. Everything then arises from these components and their laws of behaviour.

Ultimately though it has turned out that this is not the case as quantum theory has shown us. Not only is the above reductionist picture not true, but it seems the world does not conform to any picture we are capable of having.

All we can do is "bet" on the likelyhood of how the world responds when we interact with a piece of it, but we have no picture of what the world is actually like. It's not really made of particles for example. The responses given when you choose to look at the world in different ways don't mesh either. Sort of like taking a photo of a garden, but if it looked completely different with different flowers and trees depending on whether you choose foreground or background focus. You choose a subjective point of view.

So since betting/probability reflects how likely you think different responses are given what you know and since you choose the point of view to look at things from, it means our ultimate theory of the world is very much a subjective one.

Which I think ties in nicely with a point I've seen smacl make before about the complexity of the world and the human urge for a picture that is both simple and objective, as well as your own that science ultimately depends on subjective human elements.

I think that's really helpful. There is a common but (I believe) mistaken idea that science explains (or someday will explain) everything. One problem with that is that, strictly speaking, science provides descriptions and doesn't actually explain anything.

A second problem is that, as you say, when science probes deeper into the nature of reality the models and concepts it uses to explain them become more non-intuitive and more difficult to demonstrate or prove experimentally. I think it's fair to say that science rarely, if ever, traces our experiences and observations back to a priori concepts that need no further explanation.

Of course, none of that provides proof for the existence of God. But at least it should put the brakes on some of the science vs religion stuff we hear so much about.

On that basis, I think that the question of whether reality is ultimately objective or subjective is back to being a philosophical / theological one. It's also important to bear in mind that our individual understanding will always be subjective, incomplete and open to correction. The question is whether that is all there is, or an objective reality that lies behind it. I believe that there is, and that Christianity is not only consistent with that fact but reveals it to us in a unique way in the person of Jesus.

Clearly we're not going to solve all the world's problems on this thread, but it's fun to riff on these things anyway

antiskeptic · 13-09-2019 11:35am

smacl wrote: »

Rubbish. Until that God, who the person believes exists is actually shown to exist and to have spoken to the person in question, this is no more than subjective opinion.

It's no more than a subjective opinion to a third party. So far so fair enough.

However:

a) God either exists or he doesn't. If he does then it doesn't matter what anyone thinks or believes on the matter. His existence doesn't rely on that anymore than the existence of a yet undiscovered planet relies out what is thought or believed about it's existence

b) If God exists he can communicate with a person

c) If he does communicate with a person, the person will know he exists. Their knowledge is objective since it is reliant on what God is able to do, not on what the person is able to do. This renders their knowledge objective - even if not a single other person in the world is privy to what they are privy to.

The only "out" I can see for you is that you suppose God is not capable of revealing his existence to a person. Good luck with that.

You might think you know that God exists and you might think that God has imbued you with special knowledge but you might also be deluded. You're basically saying that you're right and everyone else with a contrary opinion is wrong but what separates their opinion from your opinion?

I'm not making any comment on anyone else - but certainly it wouldn't be as black and white as you make out.

Point underlined here: you are placing the onus on what I can do (which is subject to individual ability to err and misconstrue) whereas the above places the onus on what God can do.

You need to deal with that problem

smacl · 13-09-2019 12:14pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's no more than a subjective opinion to a third party. So far so fair enough.

However:

a) God either exists or he doesn't. If he does then it doesn't matter what anyone thinks or believes on the matter. His existence doesn't rely on that anymore than the existence of a yet undiscovered planet relies out what is thought or believed about it's existence

b) If God exists he can communicate with a person

c) If he does communicate with a person, the person will know he exists. Their knowledge is objective since it is reliant on what God is able to do, not on what the person is able to do. This renders their knowledge objective - even if not a single other person in the world is privy to what they are privy to.

The only "out" I can see for you is that you suppose God is not capable of revealing his existence to a person. Good luck with that.

Substitute Allah, Ganesha above and it still holds true. Similarly a Muslim or Hindu might make your exact claim. Now whether God appears to a Christian, Allah to a Muslim or Ganesha to a Hindu seems to primarily relate to where a person is born. Why do you think that is, why does your God not reveal himself to people in India, or the Middle East, particularly as his son apparently lived in the Middle East?

Similarly, even if God did exist on what basis do you differentiate delusion from divine inspiration? That God could choose to speak to you is not an implication that he would choose to speak to you. From my understanding, he didn't actually choose to communicate with that many people even in biblical times.

I'm not making any comment on anyone else - but certainly it wouldn't be as black and white as you make out.

Point underlined here: you are placing the onus on what I can do (which is subject to individual ability to err and misconstrue) whereas the above places the onus on what God can do.

You need to deal with that problem

And you are second guessing what God would do were he to exist. You holy argument seems wholly holey.

Hotblack Desiato · 13-09-2019 2:12pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

c) If he does communicate with a person, the person will know he exists. Their knowledge is objective since it is reliant on what God is able to do, not on what the person is able to do. This renders their knowledge objective - even if not a single other person in the world is privy to what they are privy to.

No. One person's claim to have experienced something is not objective.

Nearly any time there is a plane crash, someone will be on the TV saying they saw the plane going down in flames. This is their firmly held truth of what they experienced. Then the investigation invariably shows that there was no fire before impact.

There are strong caveats placed in courts of law on uncorroborated "eyewitness" evidence.

Are we to cast that aside once religion enters the picture? Must we take every "vision" or "near death" or "out of body" experience as fact simply because the person claims their god did it?

antiskeptic · 13-09-2019 2:43pm

smacl wrote: »

Substitute Allah, Ganesha above and it still holds true. Similarly a Muslim or Hindu might make your exact claim. Now whether God appears to a Christian, Allah to a Muslim or Ganesha to a Hindu seems to primarily relate to where a person is born. Why do you think that is, why does your God not reveal himself to people in India, or the Middle East, particularly as his son apparently lived in the Middle East?

[In addressing this, I'll leave aside the issue of whether or not Allah, Ganesha relate to God/ are through-a-glass-darkly versions of God (assuming for a moment that God is the top of the heap). And will suppose for the sake of argument that it's either God OR Allah OR Ganesha OR no God at all]

The question posed an IF. If Allan THEN not God and the point I made isn't relevant. The point was IF God is a true statement. In that event, the rest follows and you need to deal with that.

Could you go back and rework in light of that

I'll leave aside your localisation theory on the basis that it has nothing to do with the problem I posed you

Similarly, even if God did exist on what basis do you differentiate delusion from divine inspiration? That God could choose to speak to you is not an implication that he would choose to speak to you. From my understanding, he didn't actually choose to communicate with that many people even in biblical times.

Again, this sidesteps the issue. The question centres on what God is able to do. Unless of course, you suppose that God, whilst able to create all and design the very mechanisms whereby we build up our sense of reality, is unable to demonstrate himself to us.

The problem was posed with IF's. IF God exists. IF God choses to reveal himself. IF those if's are satisfied then the person knows he exists. And all this talk of subjectives falls away.

[Does it occur to you that reliance on what are only subjectively existing other persons to bolster your own subjective observations, thus rendinger them objective realities is subjectives the whole way down? By simply piling subjectives on top of each other you achieve objective. Problematic that.]

And you are second guessing what God would do were he to exist. You holy argument seems wholly holey.

IF/THEN. It's not that hard.

smacl · 13-09-2019 4:18pm

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I'm not really trying to generalise, but neither do I think that we're nothing more than unique snowflakes who can craft our own version of reality. Some things you believe might be consistent with your atheism, and others might not. I think the latter in particular can make for an interesting conversation.

I stand by my contention that everyone is a worshiper of something, even if they don't think of it in that way.

Hmm, not so sure about worship insofar as there is any single thing or notion that receives a disproportionately large amount of unquestioning devotion. Personally, I can't think of anything in my life for example that would correspond to your worship.

Self defence, judicial execution and war all lie outside the common definition of murder so aren't relevant here. I think murder can be safely defined as the unlawful or immoral killing of another human being - that's not really disputed, is it? The exact opposite of murder would be the biblical call to love our neighbour as ourselves.

The difficulty in classifying an individual act as murder or not is a completely separate problem from whether murder is absolutely and objectively wrong.

Execution for something like apostasy requires a bit more nuance; assuming it is state sanctioned then strictly speaking it isn't murder. But it is a fundamental misuse of the power of the state, because apostasy shouldn't be a crime, nevermind a capital one.

It might be a helpful example though, as it's something that different societies today disagree on. I believe that societies that execute apostates should stop doing it, regardless of whether they think it is the right thing to do or not. That is consistent with my religious beliefs and worldview. I'm assuming that you agree that they should stop, but I'm genuinely curious to know the basis on which you do so.

The thing is that the biblical absolute in this instance, as I understand it, is "Thou shalt not kill". Once you allow any qualifiers or nuance, you have shifted from an absolute position to a contextual one. If we can't come to an acceptable universal definition of murder, irrespective of contextual factors such as society, we're not in a position to make a universal judgement on it. A 'just' war for example depends very much on notion of justice held by those using the weapons. One person's terrorists might be another's freedom fighters.

antiskeptic · 13-09-2019 4:31pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

No. One person's claim to have experienced something is not objective.

Nearly any time there is a plane crash, someone will be on the TV saying they saw the plane going down in flames. This is their firmly held truth of what they experienced. Then the investigation invariably shows that there was no fire before impact.

There are strong caveats placed in courts of law on uncorroborated "eyewitness" evidence.

Are we to cast that aside once religion enters the picture? Must we take every "vision" or "near death" or "out of body" experience as fact simply because the person claims their god did it?

You need to go back and read what's written and argue against it. Grabbing a dictionary or a philosophy tract isn't sufficient.

smacl · 13-09-2019 4:43pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

IF/THEN. It's not that hard.

Right so.

IF your god exists AND IF your god is the only god AND IF your god has decided to talk to specifically rather than Christians who take a different view of things AND IF you're not just imagining all this THEN your argument is valid ELSE you're wrong

Let me know IF I've missed anything there and how you get past all of those rather big IFs.

ChrisJ84 · 13-09-2019 4:54pm

smacl wrote: »

Hmm, not so sure about worship insofar as there is any single thing or notion that receives a disproportionately large amount of unquestioning devotion. Personally, I can't think of anything in my life for example that would correspond to your worship.

Happy for us to agree to disagree on this one, I wouldn't expect you to see things in this way.

smacl wrote: »

The thing is that the biblical absolute in this instance, as I understand it, is "Thou shalt not kill". Once you allow any qualifiers or nuance, you have shifted from an absolute position to a contextual one. If we can't come to an acceptable universal definition of murder, irrespective of contextual factors such as society, we're not in a position to make a universal judgement on it. A 'just' war for example depends very much on notion of justice held by those using the weapons. One person's terrorists might be another's freedom fighters.

Not quite. The commandment clearly indicates that murder is forbidden, not all killing in any context whatsoever. I already defined murder as the unlawful and immoral killing of another human being. This is codified in the legal system of pretty much every society - so I think we have a good enough definition to work with.

From the perspective of the Christianity, murder is absolutely, universally, objectively, for all times and all places morally wrong.

Do you agree with that? And how would you critique and individual or society who disagreed?

antiskeptic · 13-09-2019 5:01pm

smacl wrote: »

Right so.

IF your god exists AND IF your god is the only god AND IF your god has decided to talk to (you) specifically rather than Christians who take a different view of things AND IF you're not just imagining all this THEN your argument is valid ELSE you're wrong

Let me know IF I've missed anything there and how you get past all of those rather big IFs.

Other than suggest that God's definition of a Christian is the only one that counts (and so his talking to this "Christian" and not that "Christian" is understandable), you've done well enough for our purposes.

Two things to point out in order to progress:

1. I've inserted a "you" where you appear to have left it out. The AND element is superfluous in that case. Per definition, if the previous IF's are true then I couldn't be imagining it.

2.There is nothing for me to 'get past' if the IF's are true. It is as it is because of something done unto me. Period. There is nothing big about it: I don't have to satisfy you in order for me to know God exists - although I accept satisfying you so that you know I know would be a big thing. Nor is God's existence or his communicating a big thing (in terms of being likely, probable etc.) It is big in terms of the significance of God existing as opposed to his not existing. But that big-ness has nothing much to do with the issue we are dealing with.

Hotblack Desiato · 13-09-2019 5:03pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

You need to go back and read what's written and argue against it. Grabbing a dictionary or a philosophy tract isn't sufficient.

Condescending meaningless waffle. I'll leave you to it.

one world order · 13-09-2019 5:14pm

You need more faith to be an atheist than any other religion given that God's creation is all around us. As the world is controlled by luciferian worshippers at the very top, it's no surprise they have been targeting Christianity and moving us to an atheist society through the mass produced mainstream media, film and music industries.

antiskeptic · 13-09-2019 5:19pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Condescending meaningless waffle. I'll leave you to it.

Logic is capable of condescension? I think you've made a wise decision in opting to leave well alone.

smacl · 13-09-2019 5:26pm

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Not quite. The commandment clearly indicates that murder is forbidden, not all killing in any context whatsoever. I already defined murder as the unlawful and immoral killing of another human being. This is codified in the legal system of pretty much every society - so I think we have a good enough definition to work with.

From the perspective of the Christianity, murder is absolutely, universally, objectively, for all times and all places morally wrong.

Do you agree with that? And how would you critique and individual or society who disagreed?

If we define murder as unlawful killing it becomes dependent on who's laws we're bound by. For example, some pro-life types have declared abortion to be a form of murder, others consider assisted suicide a form of murder. I personally don't consider those to be valid definitions of murder but that is not to say they couldn't be enacted as such in law. The converse is more commonly true where I'd consider lawful forms of killing to be murderous. I don't know if you followed the Asia Bibi case for example, who was sentenced to death for blasphemy (and thankfully released some years later) but had she been executed would you consider it murder? Would you consider someone involved in assisted suicide guilty of murder? Again, I think what at face value seems like a universally acceptable moral standard has exceptions and we need to account for context.

smacl · 13-09-2019 5:31pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is nothing for me to 'get past' if the IF's are true.

IF TRUE is a tautology though, either the IF is superfluous of you have to explain why the outcome is reasonable.

Hotblack Desiato · 13-09-2019 5:34pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Logic is capable of condescension? I think you've made a wise decision in opting to leave well alone.

No, your post. "You need to go back and read what is written." And there you are, doing it again.

antiskeptic · 13-09-2019 5:49pm

smacl wrote: »

IF TRUE is a tautology though, either the IF is superfluous of you have to explain why the outcome is reasonable.

tautology: the saying of the same thing twice over in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style.

I'm not saying the same thing twice. The IF condition can either be true or false. If the IF is true x follows. If the IF is false y follows.

There is nothing I have to explain by way of reasonability. I can know God exists (all that need be is the IF be true).

Since it is possible for the IF to be true, it is also possible for me to comment on who is and isn't a Christian. Remember from whence we came:

smacl wrote:

Until that God, who the person believes exists is actually shown to exist and to have spoken to the person in question, this is no more than subjective opinion.

Since it is possible for me to know God exists, it is possible for me to have an objective opinion, without showing God exists.

smacl · 13-09-2019 6:28pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Since it is possible for me to know God exists, it is possible for me to have an objective opinion, without showing God exists.

It isn't possible for you to know god exists in any objective sense, you believe god exists but that is subjective. You can't therefore have an objective opinion on the matter because an objective opinion is an opinion based solely on fact.

Also IF TRUE is a tautology in logic, from Wikipedia

In logic, a tautology (from the Greek word ταυτολογία) is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation.

antiskeptic · 13-09-2019 8:15pm

smacl wrote: »

It isn't possible for you to know god exists in any objective sense, you believe god exists but that is subjective. You can't therefore have an objective opinion on the matter because an objective opinion is an opinion based solely on fact.

There's a touch of running to the hills up there. A hint of desperation by means of reiteration. Let's stick to the logic shall we?

Also IF TRUE is a tautology in logic, from Wikipedia

IF TRUE THEN X, IF FALSE THEN Y is a tautology? God help programmable logic controllers which run the world.

I think you need to do a bit more work than you've done. Try again.
.

smacl · 13-09-2019 8:55pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

There's a touch of running to the hills up there. A hint of desperation by means of reiteration. Let's stick to the logic shall we?

IF TRUE THEN X, IF FALSE THEN Y is a tautology? God help programmable logic controllers which run the world.

I think you need to do a bit more work than you've done. Try again.
.

if you reckon IF TRUE is the same as IF TRUE THEN X, IF FALSE THEN Y then I'd recommend you steer well clear of both logic and PLCs

antiskeptic · 13-09-2019 8:59pm

smacl wrote: »

if you reckon IF TRUE is the same as IF TRUE THEN X, IF FALSE THEN Y then I'd recommend you steer well clear of both logic and PLCs

IF TRUE (whatever the hell that means) is your construction. I'm in the IF TRUE THEN territory.

IF God exists THEN x,y,z follows.

Clearly the plc has to ask whether the IF condition is satisfied or not.

Is it "TRUE" ...the plc considers to isself before deciding which output lever to pull. Not IF TRUE.

Lost faith

Comments