Does God exist? (8 Viewers)

[BradCube]

First part of my response is directed back at Boris (at least I think) on the question on how Jesus dying is love. I suppose one has to first agree with the biblical principles of sin and free will to then see how a God dying for those things is loving.

If we look at the biblical definition of sin, it is simply to do other than that which is morally good in Gods eyes. (ie that which is not of his moral character). Such a decision to do otherwise requires that we have free will. After all if we did not how would we really have the ability to choose anything? So assuming that you agree first with the principle of sin and free will, it becomes simple to see how it is at least possible that humans could move away from Gods will. As such, a decision to move away from God means that you are separated from him. Of course, this is just basic Christian theology but it's always good to clarify the basics, eh?

The selflessness and loving area comes in that God is not required to do anything to restore this relationship. In fact his failure to do so, means that we are bound to always be outside of his character - and hence permanent separation. In my mind there is no reason to think that God is obligated to take any action. Nevertheless, in spite of our choice to be outside of his will, he makes a way by taking himself outside of his own will through taking on the result of our choices and dying for it. In this way the believer regards God as loving since he has taken their placement for the result of their choices which are outside of Gods will - doing all of this without any obligation.

At least, this is as much sense as I can make from current teachings I have had on the doctrine of Christ. I could do some further research on the topic if you would like?

----------------

The free will debate seems to be forming up again. Hopefully not too much to your dismay Kfunk, I have developed some more questions since our last discussions. Essentially, the point we came to in the end was that our choices are based on the conditions we are placed in (since we cannot choose otherwise to the choices we have). I also believe you made the admission that the will has the ability to carry out any action (or can attempt to) when provided with sufficient reasoning - although this makes the will still seem fairly limited compared to the traditional definitions.

My question simply lies in the fact of why it should be the believer in free will that has the burden of proof? Indeed in my mind, it seems absurd to suggest that I don't have the ability to choose either outcome when presented with a choice. Does your reasoning for belief in lack of free will rely on the fact that one cannot prove that they could go back in time and change their choices? I'm close to being in the position that a belief in free will is properly basic and the inability to prove that I can choose different outcomes does nothing to diminish it's validity.

-----------------

Also, on a separate note, I was interested in your comments regarding the morality of eating meat. In my reading I came across mention of Gods original intention for animals to only feed on plant life. This presented a few different problems for me, but I thought it was worthy just for interests sake

youBROKEmyLIFE, I was fascinated to see your descriptions of atheist morality as being "higher" than most? Now I realize you made note of this in your post by saying "higher: Because it requires further extensions of basic empathy to care for different species than it does just other humans." I have to disagree though, if there is no objective morality, how does empathy have anything to do with higher morality? The only way to describe a persons morality (if indeed there are no objective morals) is as "different". There can be no better, worse, higher, lower or any rating factors such as these. It's seems non-nonsensical to me. Any statements that would place morality on a rated scale means it is being weighed up against something.

-----------------

And to 3unitz, I didn't forget you're question! You wanted to know my current opinions on evolution. I have to say that I am still undecided on many issues. Certainly I regard micro-evolution as fact although I would think of it as no more than variation in species in the end. I am still having trouble accepting the conclusions of macro-evolution however. I feel this is probably a good time to get into some discussion on an area which we had previously not discussed - that of irreducible complexity. What are your thoughts on this current line of thought? Is it simply dismissible or do it's objections hold any weight?

 

[BradCube]

I think the entire notion is absurd because God is supposed to be truly benevolent and kind and good, yet he invented sin and evil and death, thus belying his own nature? There's no way to really spin that, unless you take the whole oldschool Catholic Satan notion.

In a loose sense I agree with this, but I would modify you're claim that God created evil. Certainly he allowed it to come into existance, but that is through free will of humans. So in this way it's not outside of His character for evil to exist. Indeed, I would maintain that without his character there would be no such thing as evil since their could be nothing outside of God's character to classify it as such.

 

[Kwayera]

And to 3unitz, I didn't forget you're question! You wanted to know my current opinions on evolution. I have to say that I am still undecided on many issues. Certainly I regard micro-evolution as fact although I would think of it as no more than variation in species in the end. I am still having trouble accepting the conclusions of macro-evolution however. I feel this is probably a good time to get into some discussion on an area which we had previously not discussed - that of irreducible complexity. What are your thoughts on this current line of thought? Is it simply dismissible or do it's objections hold any weight?

Unless you take Michael Behe's words as gospel, irreducible complexity has, as far as I know, been thoroughly debunked - unless you'd like to bring some new examples to the table?

 

[BradCube]

Unless you take Michael Behe's words as gospel, irreducible complexity has, as far as I know, been thoroughly debunked - unless you'd like to bring some new examples to the table?

I'll do some digging and bring some new examples to the table/board tomorrow. I will admit that my research into the problems has been been fairly limited so far (so you would do well to educate me otherwise). The best I had seen (which wasn't very great at all) showed that it's possible that some parts in his examples could have had an earlier use. Either way, we'll wait for that until I bring some examples up tomorrow

Cheers Kwayera, I <3 U

 

[BradCube]

Angels don't have free will; free will is what separated angels from humans if I recall my bible correctly.

Got to disagree here. I that were true then Satan would have had an inability to choose will outside of Gods own (since he originally was an angel, according to the bible). That is clearly not the case

 

[Kwayera]

Hehe, <3's for you too. HOWEVER, you should also know that Behe's irreducible complexity is not only rejected by the scientific community, it was also done so in court. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District. From the Judge's decision:

We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design. (2:15, 2:35-40 (Miller); 28:63-66 (Fuller)).

EDIT: oh and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

 

[BradCube]

Exactly why I initially had issues with the substance of my faith.

So then, could you point out what in the bible gave you the impression that angels don't have free will?

 

[Slidey]

Oy can we be frenz plox. You are the NP to my complete.

You do have a way with words!

So then, could you point out what in the bible gave you the impression that angels don't have free will?

Can you please find the reference to angels in the bible having free will? Please include a reference to a description of Satan, specifically the part where he's a "fallen angel".

'Satan' is really just a catch-all term for all the semi-evil entities in the Bible. If you'll research it carefully, you'll see that the serpent, Lucifer, Beelzebub, etc are simply assumed to be Satan, when in fact are different entities. 'Satan' means "the accuser" in reference to the "accuser of Job". Satan referenced in this sense is non-evil, but consistently out to find the worst in everybody - he is God's inquisitor.

It seems many semi-evil entities in the Jewish scriptures, Christian New Testament, and popular pagan belief of the time (mostly Greek and Roman gods/creatures) were wrapped up into one single malevolent entity for the sake of symmetry (good is God, evil is Satan).

Lucifer was a Babylonian king.
Beelzebub was a pagan god of the city Ekron, also known as Ba'al. His name translates as "Lord of the High Places", but was later corrupted to be "Lord of the Flies", probably due to an association with being a reference to Satan.

Indeed, the "Holy Trinity" itself is a semi-recent interpretation and addition to scripture, again in an effort to wrap-up all entities (this time the good ones) into one being, God.

 

[Iron]

Good show Slidey old man

Edit: What i'd really like to know is why KFunk has been so remiss as to not mention the awesome power of Strauss in connection with Nietzsche, God, esotericism, noble lies etc.

 

[KFunk]

I don't think God is perfectly benevolent, and does judge people for what they do etc. So the question becomes God's moral character/power becomes the issue here, you said earlier in effect, you would not worship a God who isn't benevolent. Is this what you are saying? If so, why do you take this position?

Basically, if god is a jerk (e.g. Old Testament god) then I can't say I'm much of a fan. It'd be like bacteria worshiping the scientist that is testing penicillin on their agar habitat. Perhaps the scientist's personal progeny died (via antibiotic actions) to save the other bacteria from their sins...

 

[geryyy]

you can't prove that god is real or fake... the questions just keeps going round and round no matter how hard you think about it.. personally i hate religions.. so god doesn't exist in my world

how can u say that u hate religions? :jaw:thats a bit racist dnt u think?...if god doesnt exist in your world who do u turn to when noe one is there to help you, how do u live everyday without knowing and having the belief that some spiritual divine is looking over you?...what do u believe in then?...because i really want to know.
I personally think that God is part of everyone,& is in everyone, not believing in God is like losing a part of your self.

 

[KFunk]

The free will debate seems to be forming up again. Hopefully not too much to your dismay Kfunk, I have developed some more questions since our last discussions. Essentially, the point we came to in the end was that our choices are based on the conditions we are placed in (since we cannot choose otherwise to the choices we have). I also believe you made the admission that the will has the ability to carry out any action (or can attempt to) when provided with sufficient reasoning - although this makes the will still seem fairly limited compared to the traditional definitions.

My question simply lies in the fact of why it should be the believer in free will that has the burden of proof? Indeed in my mind, it seems absurd to suggest that I don't have the ability to choose either outcome when presented with a choice. Does your reasoning for belief in lack of free will rely on the fact that one cannot prove that they could go back in time and change their choices? I'm close to being in the position that a belief in free will is properly basic and the inability to prove that I can choose different outcomes does nothing to diminish it's validity.

-----------------

Also, on a separate note, I was interested in your comments regarding the morality of eating meat. In my reading I came across mention of Gods original intention for animals to only feed on plant life. This presented a few different problems for me, but I thought it was worthy just for interests sake

First, the easy part: why I don't eat meat. Essentially it comes down to my personal moral values. To some extent I advocate a broad utilitarian hedonism where you try to minimise pain and maximise pain across those organisms with a capacity for either. I also have reasons based on environmental reasons and those pertaining to social justice.

- I think it is very likely that a lot of animals that we eat have the capacity to experience pleasure and pain (e.g. pigs... things are not so clear in the case of oysters, on the other hand). I don't take issue with killing, per se, but rather with the way in which animals are often forced to live, e.g. caged pigs, abused cows (note recent controversy in California) and battery hens. I don't want to support an industry which puts animals through a life which, as best as I can tell, is better off not lived. (note, I am well aware that many farm animals, especially on smaller family farms, do live good lives...).

- Animals are like protein down-converters. The protein in meat that we eat has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is plants (that we feed the animals). You get less nutrients out of an animal than you put in. Vast tracts of land are used to provide soy, and the like, to feed animals when we could similarly use such plant products to feed humans without the associated losses. Granted, plant products often don't have the same concentration of protein (and haem-iron, Vit B12, etc.) found in meat. However, if we used crops used to feed animals to feed ourselves instead we could feed a much greater proportion of the world (with associated gains good nutrition ---> good health ---> greater productivity ---> better economic outcomes ---> positive cycle...). Also you would perhaps have less clearing of land for livestock (though perhaps this would be replaced by crops anyway?)

-----------------------------------------

Free will:

I don't hold that you have the burden of proof right from the start of the debate. Rather, I feel that the burden is shifted to you given the arguments that I have put forward. In particular I have tried to show how the traditional conception of free will results in consequences that are very much contrary to what we know and believe about human minds and behavior. The rough argument, which I won't go over again in detail (unless you need certain aspects recapped), was that you either have determinism or indeterminism in the context of the will. Indeterminism amounts to randomness and randomness cannot account for the world relevance of our actions, i.e. our actions would not correspond so well to the world, or our supposed values and beliefs. That is, in the case where the will is random rather than being constrained / determined by these factors. Given that I have provided an argument showing the traditional conception of free will to be incoherent I expect you to either a) show why my argument is incorrect or b) provide a different, coherent acount of free will.

 

[Slidey]

how can u say that u hate religions? :jaw:thats a bit racist dnt u think?...if god doesnt exist in your world who do u turn to when noe one is there to help you, how do u live everyday without knowing and having the belief that some spiritual divine is looking over you?...what do u believe in then?...because i really want to know.
I personally think that God is part of everyone,& is in everyone, not believing in God is like losing a part of your self.

You could try reading this thread. Even a few pages would be fine. I'm not asking much.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

youBROKEmyLIFE, I was fascinated to see your descriptions of atheist morality as being "higher" than most? Now I realize you made note of this in your post by saying "higher: Because it requires further extensions of basic empathy to care for different species than it does just other humans." I have to disagree though, if there is no objective morality, how does empathy have anything to do with higher morality? The only way to describe a persons morality (if indeed there are no objective morals) is as "different". There can be no better, worse, higher, lower or any rating factors such as these. It's seems non-nonsensical to me. Any statements that would place morality on a rated scale means it is being weighed up against something.

I'm not saying that it's better, merely that it requires more complex / higher thinking to reach such a moral decision than the simpler ones such as "look after your sister"... It's not about 'atheist morality' as such a thing does not exist... (lol easy points here).

'Satan' is really just a catch-all term for all the semi-evil entities in the Bible. If you'll research it carefully, you'll see that the serpent, Lucifer, Beelzebub, etc are simply assumed to be Satan, when in fact are different entities. 'Satan' means "the accuser" in reference to the "accuser of Job". Satan referenced in this sense is non-evil, but consistently out to find the worst in everybody - he is God's inquisitor.

If I were a christian I've always thought I'd imagine Satan as a part of the trinity... or a "quad"inity as it may be.

 

[Kwayera]

- Animals are like protein down-converters. The protein in meat that we eat has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is plants (that we feed the animals). You get less nutrients out of an animal than you put in. Vast tracts of land are used to provide soy, and the like, to feed animals when we could similarly use such plant products to feed humans without the associated losses. Granted, plant products often don't have the same concentration of protein (and haem-iron, Vit B12, etc.) found in meat. However, if we used crops used to feed animals to feed ourselves instead we could feed a much greater proportion of the world (with associated gains good nutrition ---> good health ---> greater productivity ---> better economic outcomes ---> positive cycle...). Also you would perhaps have less clearing of land for livestock (though perhaps this would be replaced by crops anyway?)

I have a problem with this, sorry. While you are right, unfortunately I don't ever see this happening for a few main reasons: while a vegetarian diet does work for many people, it is medically unsuitable for developing children who need vitamins, minerals and amino acids that generally come exclusively from animal flesh. Are you suggesting we put the children of the world onto supplements?

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

I have a problem with this, sorry. While you are right, unfortunately I don't ever see this happening for a few main reasons: while a vegetarian diet does work for many people, it is medically unsuitable for developing children who need vitamins, minerals and amino acids that generally come exclusively from animal flesh. Are you suggesting we put the children of the world onto supplements?

Nah, you can definitely raise a baby perfectly on a vegetarian diet without any supplements.

edit: I think the whole 'more produce = able to feed more people' thing is a little silly though, because to be honest... We can already feed the world, we just don't.

 

[KFunk]

I have a problem with this, sorry. While you are right, unfortunately I don't ever see this happening for a few main reasons: while a vegetarian diet does work for many people, it is medically unsuitable for developing children who need vitamins, minerals and amino acids that generally come exclusively from animal flesh. Are you suggesting we put the children of the world onto supplements?

As far as I am aware children can attain adequate nutrition from a vegetarian diet but it has to be done carefully (I'm allowing for free range egg and dairy products). Though I don't think supplements would be a bad idea (I use them myself). In terms of general intake of protein/carbs/fats I suspect that much more of the world could be fed adequately (vitamins/minerals aside) if we diverted animal feeding crops to feed humans. Admitedly, this is an idealist vision that will likely never be acheived. But, hypothetically, I think it should be possible to improve the average nutritional status of people in the world if food were produced and redirected in the correct way. A pipe dream, I'm sure, but I still think meat production tends to be wasteful.

 

[Slidey]

That's not true. Milk, eggs and cheese contain the full range of amino acids. Soy also contains the full range (as do a few others).

The full range can also be gained by a varied diet - typically one including beans and lentils. Whilst few plants contain all amino acids, many plants contain most of them, such that a good meat-eater or typical vegetarian diet will cover all amino acids through plant sources alone.

I'm neutral on vegetarian diets for children, but it should be noted, again, that the number of vitamins and minerals necessary for a developing child which can't be provided from non-animal food sources can be counted on one hand. I'd challenge you to name them.

And, since protein isn't a factor, such deficiencies, if they exist, can be accounted for by supplementation.

I do not consider a vegan diet suitable for children (or most adults, really).

 

[KFunk]

I do not consider a vegan diet suitable for children (or most adults, really).

Agreed - I wouldn't recommend vegan diets for children, but I certainly think a vegetarian diet is manageable for the reasons you have mentioned above.

 

[KFunk]

fight for your lentil patch

Lentils are a beautiful thing.