Another serious reason why these conversations are futile

[Neil_Anthony]

Yes, that is one possible answer. I fail to see the power of intercessory prayer, of course. The meditative prayer is a whole different issue, but here here we talk about the intercessory kind.

It seems like this is breaking one of the cardinal rules of apologetics, but I’ll be honest. (Honesty is supposed to be important to us Christians). I agree with you, intercessory prayer makes no sense. God does not need our help to know what he should do or not do. It’s just one of those things I don’t really understand but I put up with anyway.

I’ve spent time thinking about it, and I have a few lines of thought about intercessory prayer … 1. maybe it benefits the person praying by helping them be more compassionate towards those they are praying for 2. maybe it helps us to get to know God better, since God is love, and intercessory prayer is a loving act … etc. but of course none of those answers are really good enough.

Partly because even the faithful one has no idea what God’s will might be. Now, I can uderstand why praying to win the jackpot on the lottery will not be granted. But many people of goodwill do pray for healing the sick, to remove wars, in general for the betterment of circumstances for the whole mankind. Is that also against God’s will?

It must be God’s permissive will to allow these bad situations, like war, sickness, famine, etc. (I assume you know what I mean by permissive will). Why, I don’t know… I can speculate again, but none of the answers are that great. (maybe God knows ahead of time which souls will benefit the most spiritually from these bad things, and assigns them to those situations? maybe suffering exists to help us understand what evil is? maybe someone is born with a disability because God forsaw that it was the only way for that person to avoid following a wrong path leading to eternal sorrow?) There are leads… but no certain answers.

No, that would be unmeasurable. The point is that praing for something which can be measured is a no-no - precisely because it would be construed as a testing device. You are only supposed to pray for either something that will happen anyway, or for something that cannot be measured.

I think you could measure virtue. For example, temperance. Have people pray for temperance, then put them on diets and see whether those who pray for temperance are more successful with their diets. Or have people pray for patience and use a standardized questionaire to see if their partners notice a difference.

How could I pray sincerely to someone whose existence I cannot believe in? Indeed that is impossible.

You would have to be really humble and pray, addressing it to “God, if you exist… please help my unbelief”.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The Catholic Church’s stance regarding sexuality is particularly repulsive to me. As I said before, nothing I (as an atheist) say can be as disrespectful to the Almighty Creator of Everything then the Church’s assertion that this Most High Being has nothing better to do than playing a Peeping Tom, and judge what two loving people do with other in the privacy of their bedroom. In other words, one of the greatest impediments is the message put forth by the apologists themselves.

I think that’s a terrible misunderstanding of the Church’s teaching, even if the Church bears some responsibility for that impression existing.

God created sexuality and it is good. In fact the Church regards it as sacred, and even has a sacrament based on it (marriage). The “rules” are guidelines to help us from misusing a good thing and turning it into something harmful. Sex was meant to allow us to be co-creators with God, so that our love for each other would bring pleasure and joy and new life.

Anything good can be abused and turned into a harmful thing. Food is an example. If kids don’t learn to save their dessert for after dinner, they will never learn about the full variety of foods. If we snack before our meal we will ruin our appetite and not appreciate the main course when it comes, that so much work went into. If we abuse food too much, we will become overweight and possibly die from it. There are eating disorders to avoid.

Even if you disagree with the specific rules, at least you should understand that the rules are there for our benefit. They aren’t supposed to be arbitrary rules made up by a controlling God. They are an instruction manual for our happiness. Even if you think the instruction manual is wrong, at least you should understand that it was meant to help us.

 

[Spock]

It seems like this is breaking one of the cardinal rules of apologetics, but I’ll be honest. (Honesty is supposed to be important to us Christians).

I really like you for your honest words. Sending a big hug.

I agree with you, intercessory prayer makes no sense. God does not need our help to know what he should do or not do. It’s just one of those things I don’t really understand but I put up with anyway.

I’ve spent time thinking about it, and I have a few lines of thought about intercessory prayer … 1. maybe it benefits the person praying by helping them be more compassionate towards those they are praying for 2. maybe it helps us to get to know God better, since God is love, and intercessory prayer is a loving act … etc. but of course none of those answers are really good enough.

Nevertheless, those are sensible thoughts. It can clarify one’s ideas, intents, and in this sense they have a place under the Sun. I remember a co-worker, who came to work after the huge hurricane Hugo (a couple of years ago), and who seriously asserted that his in-law’s house in Charleston was only spared by the storm, because, he, his wife and 3 children spent the whole night praying that the house would not be demolished - and he honestly believed what he said. I had to bite down on my tongue to stay quiet.

It must be God’s permissive will to allow these bad situations, like war, sickness, famine, etc. (I assume you know what I mean by permissive will). Why, I don’t know… I can speculate again, but none of the answers are that great. (maybe God knows ahead of time which souls will benefit the most spiritually from these bad things, and assigns them to those situations? maybe suffering exists to help us understand what evil is? maybe someone is born with a disability because God forsaw that it was the only way for that person to avoid following a wrong path leading to eternal sorrow?) There are leads… but no certain answers.

I agree, these are no real answers. What I really appreciate is the fact that you do not try to offer them as definitive answers. Too many people around here do that.

You would have to be really humble and pray, addressing it to “God, if you exist… please help my unbelief”.

I could do that, but it would be a farce. I might even be sincere about it, but deep inside it would be a hollow request. And besides, if God wanted to, he could convince me in a heartbeat. It would also be an intercessory prayer, and we already agreed that such prayers do not make sense.

 

[Spock]

I think that’s a terrible misunderstanding of the Church’s teaching, even if the Church bears some responsibility for that impression existing.

God created sexuality and it is good. In fact the Church regards it as sacred, and even has a sacrament based on it (marriage). The “rules” are guidelines to help us from misusing a good thing and turning it into something harmful. Sex was meant to allow us to be co-creators with God, so that our love for each other would bring pleasure and joy and new life.

Anything good can be abused and turned into a harmful thing. Food is an example. If kids don’t learn to save their dessert for after dinner, they will never learn about the full variety of foods. If we snack before our meal we will ruin our appetite and not appreciate the main course when it comes, that so much work went into. If we abuse food too much, we will become overweight and possibly die from it. There are eating disorders to avoid.

Even if you disagree with the specific rules, at least you should understand that the rules are there for our benefit. They aren’t supposed to be arbitrary rules made up by a controlling God. They are an instruction manual for our happiness. Even if you think the instruction manual is wrong, at least you should understand that it was meant to help us.

I don’t disagree with your line of argument, that sex (just like everything else) can be abused. But the “instruction manual” is horribly wrong. How could it be helpful if it prohibits the behavior which should be encouraged? An incorrect “instruction manual” does much more harm than good. Actually, no instuction manual would be preferred. When I peek into the other forum (Moral Theology) I very much despair to see all those poor teenagers struggling with horrible guilt for such an innocent activity as some masturbation.

When two consenting adults know that they cannot afford (or do not want) children, why should they stay abstinent? To bring children into the world is a huge responsibility, not to be taken lightly. If they know that they cannot provide adequately for the children, it is much more reasonable to prevent pregnancy. The absolute and adamant refusal of the Church to acknowledge the beneficial effects of preventive birth control is horribly misguided. Isn’t it much better to have a few, wanted and expected children, who will be cared for?

If there is a God, he would be much more reasonable than come up with such nonsensical prohibitions. No, my friend, It is unacceptable that God would be so unreasonable. As I said before, nothing I can say against God can possibly be as disrespectful as the defense most apologists use in defense of God. The defense is much more detrimental to God’s “reputation” than the worst attack I could mount.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I could do that, but it would be a farce. I might even be sincere about it, but deep inside it would be a hollow request. And besides, if God wanted to, he could convince me in a heartbeat. It would also be an intercessory prayer, and we already agreed that such prayers do not make sense.

It’s the intercessory prayer for others that I don’t think makes much sense. Intercessory prayer for myself seems to be very effective. But its effectiveness might lie more in the face that it helps me discern God’s will for me and to accept it and work with it, rather than convincing God to do something he wouldn’t otherwise have thought a good idea.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I don’t disagree with your line of argument, that sex (just like everything else) can be abused. But the “instruction manual” is horribly wrong. How could it be helpful if it prohibits the behavior which should be encouraged? An incorrect “instruction manual” does much more harm than good. Actually, no instuction manual would be preferred. When I peek into the other forum (Moral Theology) I very much despair to see all those poor teenagers struggling with horrible guilt for such an innocent activity as some masturbation.

When two consenting adults know that they cannot afford (or do not want) children, why should they stay abstinent? To bring children into the world is a huge responsibility, not to be taken lightly. If they know that they cannot provide adequately for the children, it is much more reasonable to prevent pregnancy. The absolute and adamant refusal of the Church to acknowledge the beneficial effects of preventive birth control is horribly misguided. Isn’t it much better to have a few, wanted and expected children, who will be cared for?

If there is a God, he would be much more reasonable than come up with such nonsensical prohibitions. No, my friend, It is unacceptable that God would be so unreasonable. As I said before, nothing I can say against God can possibly be as disrespectful as the defense most apologists use in defense of God. The defense is much more detrimental to God’s “reputation” than the worst attack I could mount.

If you find the Catholic Church’s teachings on sex to be incorrect, then, shouldn’t you come to the conclusion that the Church is wrong, rather than that God is wrong?

Discussing the specifics of moral teachings on sex deserves a thread of its own and I don’t want to derail this one (in fact it has so many threads already).

 

[JDaniel]

Indeed he said: “Whatever you ask in my name will be fulfilled, because I will go to the Father”. That is a very strong promise. He also said: “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can tell the moutain, go yonder, and it will go”. (Not verbatim quotations). Also an explicit promise. Did you try it? Did the mountain move?

To preempt the usual response, obviously Jesus did not mean “everything”, when he said “everything” (which is sloppy wording on his part). He must have meant: “if the prayer was what God otherwise intended”. “If it be thy will…” is the form most people use. So, why issue intercessory prayers at all? “If it be thy will, please perform this…”? If it is God’s will, he will do it anyhow. If it is against his will, he will not do it, even if you pray for it. Not to mention that God is immutable, he cannot be influenced by prayer.

I cannot resist to quote from Ambrose Bierce’s Devil’s Dictionary:

To pray (verb): To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner, confessedly unworthy.

Double blind tests are the only kind, which can separate the actual results from the placebo effects.

The patients are divided into two groups. In the first group there are the patients for whom prayer is uttered in a systematic fashion (Group A). The other group is the control group, for whom no systematic prayer is performed (Group B). The point is that neither the doctor, nor the patient is aware of who belongs to which group. At the end of the experiment it is eveluated if the patients in Group A show a significant benefit which does not occur in Group B. Significant beyond the statistical fluctuations. There were never any positive results.

Spock:

You and I both know well that there are no double-blind tests to prove or disprove the effects of prayer. There’s absolutely no way to set something like that up and test for it. So, it boils down to what is simpler to believe. If one is predisposed to anti-theism, one will conclude something natural; if one is predisposed to theism, one will conclude something supernatural. You could put 10,000 scientists in a room to test for a single instance of the fingers of God reaching out because of intercessory prayer and granting the thing asked for.

What instruments would be used? What mediums would be used? What presuppositions would be involved? The incidence of the girl I spoke of did not solidify my affinity for God. I was still indifferent for years afterwords. My return to the church was precipitated by numerous other things. The incident actually seemed rather trivial, at the time, as the pastor was not a Catholic!

If there were no - none at all - positive effects due possibly from prayer, in the hospitals of the world, all but a very few doctors would almost instantly become non-theistic. As we can see with our eyes, that is not happening.

Christ proposed that we pray the “Our Father,” which is intercessory. But, the truth is that our lives are trivial. Our time on this planet is trivial. Our relationships with all others is trivial - with the exception that we are to hold their hands, so to speak. Trivial relative to what is in store for most (in my opinion) upon our deaths.

God created us (in my belief): the pinnacles of the universe. He lost some of his Angels before creating man. I conceive that he would prefer not to lose too many of us. He is Fecund. Thus he creates. He is Love. Thus he cares for his creatures. God is the Beatific Vision. Thus he wants us with him. He does not want robots. He shortened our lives to the current 70 - 80 years. Thus we don’t have an excruciating centuries long wait anymore. He allows us to sense what it is like to Hope. He allows us to witness horrendous exigencies here on earth in order to know that this is not all there is. These are the things the atheists cannot take from us. We are not worms.

We can talk to each other; we can talk at each other; and, we can talk past each other. I see - with my own eyes - more people returning home to God, than falling away, despite all of the seemingly insurmountable work of Satan. That makes me happy. I am happy for them. I am saddened when I see people fall away. My emotionality in this regard was labeled “messianic” by one of my college professors. But, I am sorry: I must love others as God loves me, and do for other as God does for me. It is in this respect that I understand God and my relationship with him.

I have never been more fulfilled than I am now. But, that’s just me.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Yes, there are a few of that kind. The Catholic Church’s stance regarding sexuality is particularly repulsive to me. As I said before, nothing I (as an atheist) say can be as disrespectful to the Almighty Creator of Everything then the Church’s assertion that this Most High Being has nothing better to do than playing a Peeping Tom, and judge what two loving people do with other in the privacy of their bedroom. In other words, one of the greatest impediments is the message put forth by the apologists themselves.

Oh, Spock, for goodness sake! The bolded assertion is so childish. The Church does not assert anything of the kind. And, I don’t believe that you would disagree in the least with the desire to curb the societal problems that such behavior, left uncurbed, does and will cause. The current reduction in Christian populations vs the rise in Muslim populations is a cutting-edge example. Ethnic populations will lose their identities.

But the main problem is that I just cannot see any reason to assume the existence of any “deity”. Especially not a “benevolent” one.

You see, and I believe that not assuming the existence of God renders this life absurd to the maximum. We should all just take Rev. Jones’ cool-aid, if there is no God.

Yes, if you believe in an “infinite” God, and then lots of things are “mysteries”. But, I don’t. And those alleged mysteries are simply contradictions, as far as I am concerned.

As the Yale school of literary critics might have called them: “Hateful Contraries!”

God bless,
jd

 

[MindOverMatter2]

However, there is another obstacle, which is even more serious. During conversations it will inevitably pop up that we are not supposed to issue judgmental comments regarding God. Usually they are in the form of “who are you to criticize God?” or “how dares the pot question the maker?”. These comments are always the last resort, when there is no rational answer.

These questions are certainly problems which are difficult to answer. However i must point out to you that your sense of right and moral frustration presented in this thread, such as what one ought to do with gifts etc, suggests to me that you already know that God exists; you just don’t identify it as God.

It is insisted that God, being the law-giver, should be exempt from the laws he allegedly issued.

No, certainly not. But if God is the being through which we exist, then creation exists to serve it, because creation is necessarily contingent upon it. If we exist in and through God, than it only makes sense that there are rules that we must abide by in order avoid abusing God. God has a right not to be abused since existence belongs to God. The servant will necessarily have limited rights to existence because the servant is not existence, but is instead a participant in it. Thus when Gods creates something, his relationship to that being is necessarily very close, intimate and personal, even though the creation may not be aware of it. Thus it stands to reason that Gods is offended by some of our actions because our actions do not conform or fulfill the natural end of existence. There are certainly things that God must do in-order to serve the good of his creation, but given the context of Gods perspective which is very different from ours, what he must do isn’t necessarily going to be the same as what we must do, since our service to God is one of existential and essential dependence. We need God in-order to be truly fulfilled in our existence, and thus there are things that we must do that God doesn’t have to, since Gods nature is already intrinsic to Gods existence. God is already fulfilled by Gods own nature, while we on the other hand must serve in order to participate in that which is intrinsic to God. Thus moral rules necessarily exists for us, and this morality exists because of Gods intrinsic nature and our relationship to that nature. But God does not command of us things in order to fulfill God. God commands of us these things because we cannot be fulfilled in God without conformity to these rules.

More later; gotta get to work!!..

 

[paulinx]

An interesting question to ponder if you believe that God is the source of moral code:

What if God decided to change His mind on some aspect of morality? For example, what if He decided that stealing is not a problem anymore? Would it still be wrong to steal? *

If God is the giver of morality, the answer should be yes. He is the moral code, and the moral code is changed. However, I think most people would still think it is wrong to steal. If it is still wrong to steal, then there is something outside of God that determines the morality of theft. And if there is something outside of God that determines morality, does it apply to God as well? Why or why not?

*I am anticipating that some people will object to this example saying “God would never do that.” This is a hypothetical. If God is the giver of moral law, that he CAN decide in whatever way He chooses.

One can use the term “God” in different ways just as any other term can be used in different ways. It’s not clear to me everyone here is using the term to refer to the same thing, in which case people are talking past each other at best or speaking nonsense at worst.

So, I’ll define the term so you understand what I mean. By “God” I just mean that being which transcends all other being and is the one source of all other being and as goodness itself appropriately loves all other being as well as Himself.

Now to answer your and other questions. God is indeed the source or ground of all morality because God is that perfect, transcendent goodness in which and by which all other things find their created, finite goodness. Without God, nothing would exist. It’s not possible for God to not exist as God is the fundamental feature of reality, as fundamental if not more so than say gravity.

So God does not determine what is good; rather God is goodness and God is infinite intellect and so what God might say is good is infallibly going to be that which is good. But just because God can say with infallibility that which is good does not mean that God makes it good by that say so – the goodness that God holds to be good is grounded in God’s own self, God’s own being – because God and goodness are one and the same thing – numerically identical. So your question rests on a category mistake. We, or at least I, are talking about the ground of goodness, not some being who would decide what is good, but that being which is the ground, the ontological basis by which anything is good.

Now it is a different separate question as to whether God has actually spoken anything about what is good apart from what exists inherently in nature – the natural law; it’s also a different third separate question as to whether God has spoken in a particular tradition or sacred text. One could take the position that God has never so spoken but nevertheless God would still be that goodness from which flows all morality or which by our relation to it morality comes.

I suppose you could also take the position that there is no ground of all other goodness. In that case how would anything be good at all? One could take the position that there is a ground of all other goodness and just not call it “God.” Perhaps that’s what MindOverMatter2 was getting at.

BTW, the Mormons or at least the Mormon bishop whose teaching I listened to said that “God” was himself perhaps bound by moral laws. As a Christian – though I struggle with my faith at times – that doesn’t sound right. It almost sounds like they are not speaking of God but of some other being. But I suppose you could say that God, the ground of all goodness and being, is bound by His own goodness by which He relates justly to all things to relate justly to all things.

 

[Spock]

If you find the Catholic Church’s teachings on sex to be incorrect, then, shouldn’t you come to the conclusion that the Church is wrong, rather than that God is wrong?

But of course! You are perfectly correct. When I speak about God, it is actually an “abbreviation”. I really should say: “the hypothetical being, with all sorts of attributes and features whose existence I do not believe in”. I do not judge God, I judge the human concept called God. I do not blame God for anything, just like I would not blame the Invisible Pink Unicorn, if I were on a website filled with Unicornists.

Discussing the specifics of moral teachings on sex deserves a thread of its own and I don’t want to derail this one (in fact it has so many threads already).

Agreed. It was merely an example.

 

[Spock]

You and I both know well that there are no double-blind tests to prove or disprove the effects of prayer. There’s absolutely no way to set something like that up and test for it. So, it boils down to what is simpler to believe. If one is predisposed to anti-theism, one will conclude something natural; if one is predisposed to theism, one will conclude something supernatural.

Sure thing. I agree. By the very nature of the experiment it would be impossible to set up a control group. After all there are many people who pray for all the sick in a “blanket fashion”. The only thing such a test could prove conculsively that there is no discernible effect of the prayers who are selected to do the praying.

If there were no - none at all - positive effects due possibly from prayer, in the hospitals of the world, all but a very few doctors would almost instantly become non-theistic. As we can see with our eyes, that is not happening.

Well, there can be some placebo effects at work. Homeopathy (the dilution of the effective material to an imperceptible level) cannot have any physical effect, yet, the proper double blind experiments did show some interesting results. It turned out, that the positive effects were attributable to the increased interaction between the doctors and the prayers. The doctors spent a lot of time with the patients, unlike in a “regular” environment, where they just checked the symptoms, and gave the medication.

Christ proposed that we pray the “Our Father,” which is intercessory. But, the truth is that our lives are trivial. Our time on this planet is trivial. Our relationships with all others is trivial - with the exception that we are to hold their hands, so to speak. Trivial relative to what is in store for most (in my opinion) upon our deaths.

I really don’t think (or at least I hope) that even you believe that. You care for others, you take care of yourself, it does matter to you if you are healthy or ill. If and when your children are in pain you call the doctor, and do not shrug it off. You don’t think for a second that it does not really matter. Do you?

The truth is that I heard this before, the first time it happened many years ago. It was one ofthose threads about pain and suffering. The poster said that it does not matter how much we suffer, because in the “greater scheme of things”, no matter how horrible the suffering might be, it will be “dwarfed” by the alleged happiness inr the “hereafter”. I could hardly believe my eyes, and use some pretty harsh words.

God created us (in my belief): the pinnacles of the universe. He lost some of his Angels before creating man. I conceive that he would prefer not to lose too many of us. He is Fecund. Thus he creates. He is Love. Thus he cares for his creatures. God is the Beatific Vision. Thus he wants us with him. He does not want robots. He shortened our lives to the current 70 - 80 years. Thus we don’t have an excruciating centuries long wait anymore. He allows us to sense what it is like to Hope. He allows us to witness horrendous exigencies here on earth in order to know that this is not all there is. These are the things the atheists cannot take from us.

I cannot take it, because all I see is wishful thinking. I see absolutely no sign of “love”. All I see is a huge, complicated set of contradictions. If God “needs” or “wants” to share his love, why not create us directly into heaven? I have to object to the words “God wants”. At best “God would like” us to be with him.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

But of course! You are perfectly correct. When I speak about God, it is actually an “abbreviation”. I really should say: “the hypothetical being, with all sorts of attributes and features whose existence I do not believe in”. I do not judge God, I judge the human concept called God. I do not blame God for anything, just like I would not blame the Invisible Pink Unicorn, if I were on a website filled with Unicornists.

Wouldn’t it be more fair to talk about a “transcendant creator” whose qualities and existence are under debate, rather than bringing up pink unicorns (or flying spaghetti monsters)? How can you ever have an intelligent discussion when you intentionally misrepresent and misunderstand the other side? You’re failing to acknowledge any difference between a primitive prehistoric religion and modern theology which has been studied by some of the brightest human minds.

I was pointing out that a disagreement over the proper use of sexuality shouldn’t affect whether there is a transcendant creator (which is what most of us mean by “God”). They are two separate questions.

 

[Spock]

Wouldn’t it be more fair to talk about a “transcendant creator” whose qualities and existence are under debate, rather than bringing up pink unicorns (or flying spaghetti monsters)?

I am willing. Very enthusiastically willing.

How can you ever have an intelligent discussion when you intentionally misrepresent and misunderstand the other side? You’re failing to acknowledge any difference between a primitive prehistoric religion and modern theology which has been studied by some of the brightest human minds.

The starting point would be, and that is what I was hoping for - the mutually acceptable definition of those terms. If we could agree what those attributes and qualities are supposed to mean, we would make a tremendous progress toward understanding each other. That is what I would like to achieve. There are obstacles, of course. For example, the idea of timeless, yet active existence is something I cannot understand or accept. Or the idea that the future does not exist from our perspective, yet it is supposed to exist from the perspective of God. The problems are huge, but together we could try to resolve them. What I would like to avoid is the staple “answer”, that these are “mysteries”, what one must accept of faith. That is a major no-no.

I was pointing out that a disagreement over the proper use of sexuality shouldn’t affect whether there is a transcendant creator (which is what most of us mean by “God”). They are two separate questions.

In principle I agree with you. The trouble is that the two are intertwined, and they really should not be.

 

[Spock]

Oh, Spock, for goodness sake! The bolded assertion is so childish. The Church does not assert anything of the kind. And, I don’t believe that you would disagree in the least with the desire to curb the societal problems that such behavior, left uncurbed, does and will cause.

Show me what the negative ramifications might be of two loving people expressing their mutual caring and desire to make the other one happy in a way that does not involve the possibility of procreation.

The current reduction in Christian populations vs the rise in Muslim populations is a cutting-edge example. Ethnic populations will lose their identities.

I fail to see a problem here. Ethnic idenity leads to “us vs. them” type of attitude, which is detrimental.

You see, and I believe that not assuming the existence of God renders this life absurd to the maximum. We should all just take Rev. Jones’ cool-aid, if there is no God.

This is the saddest and most depressing comment I have ever seen. I am actually left speechless. What could I say to explain how wrong your perception is? (And, yes, I know exactly what you are referring to.)

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I am willing. Very enthusiastically willing.

The starting point would be, and that is what I was hoping for - the mutually acceptable definition of those terms. If we could agree what those attributes and qualities are supposed to mean, we would make a tremendous progress toward understanding each other. That is what I would like to achieve.

I’m hesitant to go here since I’ve only taken a few classes in philosophy, and no formal theology training. But I’ll do my best to define “transcendent creator”

Definition of TRANSCENDENT
1a : exceeding usual limits : surpassing b : extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience c in Kantian philosophy : being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge
2: being beyond comprehension
3: transcending the universe or material existence — compare immanent 2
4: universally applicable or significant <the antislavery movement … recognized the transcendent importance of liberty — L. H. Tribe>

I would like to use definition 3. That is, God is outside or beyond the material universe, or outside of space and time.

cre·a·tor noun \krē-ˈā-tər
Definition of CREATOR
: one that creates usually by bringing something new or original into being; especially capitalized : god 1

So, the “transcendent creator” is something that exists beyond space and time and brought the universe into existence.

That leaves the definition very broad, but it would rule out things like “a pink unicorn” because pink unicorns don’t normally have the ability to create a universe. It would have to be something that can bring a universe into existence.

Also it should not require a creator of its own. Part of its nature would be that it exists of itself without requiring anything to bring it into existence. If something else created it, then that other thing would be the creator.

There are obstacles, of course. For example, the idea of timeless, yet active existence is something I cannot understand or accept. Or the idea that the future does not exist from our perspective, yet it is supposed to exist from the perspective of God. The problems are huge, but together we could try to resolve them. What I would like to avoid is the staple “answer”, that these are “mysteries”, what one must accept of faith. That is a major no-no.

For God to have an “active” existence, there would have to be some other continuum that isn’t exactly time, but has some quality that makes it comparable with time.

I don’t think it’s possible for us to really understand something that exists beyond space and time, or something that exists in itself without need to be created. So it will have to remain mysterious to some extent.

 

[Spock]

I would like to use definition 3. That is, God is outside or beyond the material universe, or outside of space and time.

So, the “transcendent creator” is something that exists beyond space and time and brought the universe into existence.

That is a good start. The first question is, why would such an entity be postulated? A much simpler hypothesis is that the physical universe simply exists. It has no creator, it simply IS. Instead of “I AM WHO AM”, I say “IT IS THAT IS”.

That leaves the definition very broad, but it would rule out things like “a pink unicorn” because pink unicorns don’t normally have the ability to create a universe. It would have to be something that can bring a universe into existence.

I do not want to nitpick, but that unicorn is not a simple, run-of-the-mill unicorn, it is an invisible and pink unicorn. In other words, it is a magical creature, beyond our understanding. It has two features, it is invisible, and it is pink. Now, if you say that such a being cannot exist, because it is self-contradictory, like a married bachelor, then I will agree with you.

But, if I were to follow the usual theist line, I could dig in my heels and say, that it is a mystery, beyond our comprehension, and you need faith to accept its existence. If you do not have the faith, you could pray - honestly! - to the IPU, and eventually it will grant you the necessary faith. You see, the example of the IPU is not to be taken seriously, it is a “caricature”, which shows, how empty the objections introduced by the theists happen to be. (Pray for understanding long enough, and hard enough, and eventually - if it is God’s will, of course - you will be given the necessary knowledge. And, if not - oh well - you will learn about it when you die, when it is too late to employ that knowledge. Do you see how hollow it sounds?)

Also it should not require a creator of its own. Part of its nature would be that it exists of itself without requiring anything to bring it into existence. If something else created it, then that other thing would be the creator.

In other words, you wish to avoid the infinite regress. Which is fine… but you have to remember the ancient turtle worldview, which said that the Universe stands on the back of a giant turtle. When the proponent was asked, on what does that turtle stand upon, he answered: “it is turtles all the way down”.

For God to have an “active” existence, there would have to be some other continuum that isn’t exactly time, but has some quality that makes it comparable with time.

Excellent! From the very concept of “acting” comes inevitably that there is a change (brought forth by the action), which will separate the existence into a “before” and and an “after”.

I don’t think it’s possible for us to really understand something that exists beyond space and time, or something that exists in itself without need to be created. So it will have to remain mysterious to some extent.

To some extent, yes.

Now the question I am positing is in the first line. The simple hypothesis is that the Universe simply exists, it has no “explanation” for its existence, it simply IS. Why do you think that this view is insufficient in some respect? And if it is insufficient, how does the postulated creator “explain” that? Don’t forget, the explanation should give an insight into the event. Also remember that God simply exists, has no “explanation” for his existence.

 

[tonyrey]

Spock, the supreme reason why these conversations are futile is that you ignore the posts which contain statements you cannot refute!

 

[Neil_Anthony]

That is a good start. The first question is, why would such an entity be postulated? A much simpler hypothesis is that the physical universe simply exists. It has no creator, it simply IS. Instead of “I AM WHO AM”, I say “IT IS THAT IS”.

I postulate that entity because the physical universe we know about does not seem to possess the property of being “self-causing”. There doesn’t seem to be any reason why it must necessarily exist - it seems very arbitrary in many ways. It’s quite concievable that it would not exist at all. So I believe it must have been caused by something.

If you believe that the universe “just is”, does that mean you think it caused itself? Or do you say that it doesn’t require a cause?

I do not want to nitpick, but that unicorn is not a simple, run-of-the-mill unicorn, it is an invisible and pink unicorn. In other words, it is a magical creature, beyond our understanding. It has two features, it is invisible, and it is pink. Now, if you say that such a being cannot exist, because it is self-contradictory, like a married bachelor, then I will agree with you.

But, if I were to follow the usual theist line, I could dig in my heels and say, that it is a mystery, beyond our comprehension, and you need faith to accept its existence. If you do not have the faith, you could pray - honestly! - to the IPU, and eventually it will grant you the necessary faith. You see, the example of the IPU is not to be taken seriously, it is a “caricature”, which shows, how empty the objections introduced by the theists happen to be. (Pray for understanding long enough, and hard enough, and eventually - if it is God’s will, of course - you will be given the necessary knowledge. And, if not - oh well - you will learn about it when you die, when it is too late to employ that knowledge. Do you see how hollow it sounds?)

I’ll agree with you that it is possible to make statements about a possible transcendent creator that are contradictory, like pink and invisible. But I don’t think I’ve introduced anything like that yet, have I?

In other words, you wish to avoid the infinite regress. Which is fine… but you have to remember the ancient turtle worldview, which said that the Universe stands on the back of a giant turtle. When the proponent was asked, on what does that turtle stand upon, he answered: “it is turtles all the way down”.

I don’t claim to be able to explain what a self-caused thing is like. I just think that there must be such a thing, and that this universe doesn’t appear to be such a thing, and so it must lie outside the universe we know. I don’t really think anyone can understand how it would work. But I don’t think that means we should refuse to consider the idea.

Excellent! From the very concept of “acting” comes inevitably that there is a change (brought forth by the action), which will separate the existence into a “before” and and an “after”.

Yes, acting requires a before and after, but God’s “acting” may be only a metaphor to what we call acting, with something analogous to “before” and “after”. And I don’t think we could really speculate much about it, since we can’t understand things that transcend space and time, since we are in space and time.

I admit that such speculation doesn’t belong in science, but I think there is a place for it. I also admit that its completely speculative, and probably can’t be proved or disproved.

To some extent, yes.

Now the question I am positing is in the first line. The simple hypothesis is that the Universe simply exists, it has no “explanation” for its existence, it simply IS. Why do you think that this view is insufficient in some respect? And if it is insufficient, how does the postulated creator “explain” that? Don’t forget, the explanation should give an insight into the event. Also remember that God simply exists, has no “explanation” for his existence.

I don’t know if I can explain why that isn’t sufficient for me. I just study the world around me, and it doesn’t make sense that it causes itself. It doesn’t seem to have properties that would allow it to do that.

I think its like asking someone how they know that “If A is true, then (A OR B) is true”. You can demonstrate it with as many examples as you want, but someone could say that you haven’t shown it to be true in all cases. At some point you just have to accept something as being self-evident or obvious. To me, it is obvious that the physical universe I know about didn’t cause itself.

 

[Spock]

I postulate that entity because the physical universe we know about does not seem to possess the property of being “self-causing”. There doesn’t seem to be any reason why it must necessarily exist - it seems very arbitrary in many ways. It’s quite concievable that it would not exist at all. So I believe it must have been caused by something.

If you believe that the universe “just is”, does that mean you think it caused itself? Or do you say that it doesn’t require a cause?

The latter. “Self-causation” does not make any sense to me. I say about the Universe exactly what you say about God. You dont’ say that God is “self-caused”, you say that God does not require a cause. At least that is how I read you. Maybe I am mistaken. You can enlighten me.

I’ll agree with you that it is possible to make statements about a possible transcendent creator that are contradictory, like pink and invisible. But I don’t think I’ve introduced anything like that yet, have I?

No, you did not. The reason I brought it up to show how weak the “pray and you shall receive” type of argument is. And, no, you did not try that either.

Yes, acting requires a before and after, but God’s “acting” may be only a metaphor to what we call acting, with something analogous to “before” and “after”. And I don’t think we could really speculate much about it, since we can’t understand things that transcend space and time, since we are in space and time.

I admit that such speculation doesn’t belong in science, but I think there is a place for it. I also admit that its completely speculative, and probably can’t be proved or disproved.

In and by itself there is nothing wrong with pure speculation. But if it stays at the “pure” speculation level, if it does not lead anywhere, then it becomes “empty” speculation. A metaphorical statement is useful if it leads to understanding. The trouble in your statement that is does not help at all. What do we do with “God does not really ‘act’, but performs something similar, and it seems that there would be something like a ‘before’ and an ‘after’ associated with it, but it is not really the case”? And what is wrong with assuming that there is “time” in the realm where God dwells?

I don’t know if I can explain why that isn’t sufficient for me. I just study the world around me, and it doesn’t make sense that it causes itself. It doesn’t seem to have properties that would allow it to do that.

I think its like asking someone how they know that “If A is true, then (A OR B) is true”. You can demonstrate it with as many examples as you want, but someone could say that you haven’t shown it to be true in all cases. At some point you just have to accept something as being self-evident or obvious. To me, it is obvious that the physical universe I know about didn’t cause itself.

Indeed there are some very basic concepts which are self-evident. These are called axioms or principles. Substitute the “universe is self-caused” with the “universe is uncaused” and I see nothing problematic with that. I would agree that the ideas that “the universe is self-caused” is nonsensical.