Another serious reason why these conversations are futile

[Spock]

Well, Spockmeister, that is an uncategorical assertion. My uncategorical rebuttal is that it does. Neither of us can win this with naked assertions. I did not describe the events of those days to be a proof of the assertion that intercessory prayer works. It’s just strange that it coincided. I prefer to believe that the coincidence was not fortuitous.

Maybe you did not consider the ramifications of what I say. I don’t think that you would assert that God always heals all those for whom prayers are uttered. (If you differ, let me know.) Therefore there is no functional causation between prayer and healing.

At best, you can say that God sometimes heals those for whom people pray, and at other times he does not. This would be a stochastic correlation, which could be measured. This measuring process is used routinely in clinical trials when new drugs are tested, to find out if the new drug is effective, or not. I described later how the process is set up, and your comment was “My goodness, how sterile!!”. Of course it is “sterile”, to avoid the unwanted skewing of the result, to make sure that medications “work as intended”.

So, my friend, there is no “naked assertion” involved in what I am saying. It is something that can be verified. As a matter of fact such tests were performed and there was no significant correlation. This does not “prove”, of course that God never answers those prayers affirmatively. But it does prove that such assertions cannot be substantiated. theonion.com/articles/god-answers-prayers-of-paralyzed-little-boy,475/

If you were using me as an example, I will state for the record that your argument is nothing more than fairly close to ad hominem, monsieur!

An “ad hominem” attack would be to attack the other person’s character, instead of addressing the issue at hand. If I am guilty of it, please point it out, and you will have my most humble apologies. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

[Spock]

God commanded us to procreate. He did not command us to participate in pure hedonistic pleasure for the sake of hedonistic pleasure. You know very well that married couples engage in foreplay. You know very well that all acts of love-making do not end in fornication. Many times it’s purely natural.

According to theists, he did (proof, anyone?). Did he also “command” that procreation should be our aim every time? But of course this is not the only point here. If I recall correctly, you (and other posters) asserted that non-procreation driven sexual behavior is also detrimental to society. Not just a “mortal sin”, but actively undermines society.

But, and this may sound silly, how would they know?

It does sound silly. How would they know that they are happy without children? Do you really think that one should try everything before they can make an informed decision about it?

Conclusions by Spock?

You can address it, if you want to. We routinely imprison murderers and other sociopaths. Thus we deprive them of the freedom to execute their free will. When we can, we even attempt to change their attitude, to educate them about the proper behavior, to rehabilitiate them - which amounts to a mild form of “brain-washing”. And no one says that this is an impremissibale behavior. So, if such practices are considered acceptable (maybe even moral!) when done by us, why would it be a problem if God would engage in the same type of practices (much more effectively, of course)?

When we contemplate some of God’s actions, described in the OT, where God commands full-scale genocides and other atrocities, many theists assert that for God it is perfectly all right to do this, even if for us it is not.

Now you assert the exact opposite. It is perfectly all right for us to deprive someone of his free will, but the same is not “proper” for God.

Don’t you see that sometimes you argue one side, sometimes you argue the diametriacally opposite side?

Not a contradiction: people live and people die. That such things take place has nothing whatsoever to do with God’s Love for his people.

Indeed. But how we live and how we die is not irrelevant. For me, of course. Some people say that this existence is totally, completely irrelevant in contrast to what will await us in the hereafter. Somehow I don’t see them following their own “preaching”. Isn’t that a tad hypocritical?

 

[Spock]

Biblical hermeneutics requires context and grammical-historical analysis, in other words an understanding author’s original intended meaning in the text. Parsing out text to suit an exegetical perspective is intellectually unacceptable. To address why God has commanded the death of defeated opponents, let’s examine Number 33:55, which occurs a couple of verses later:

“BUT IF YOU DON’T KILL the inhabitants of the land: they that remain, SHALL BE AS NAIL IN YOUR EYES, AND SPEARS IN YOUR SIDES, and they shall be your ENEMIES in the land of your habitation.”

A defeated people that is allowed to continue will return to become lethal rivals to the ancient Israelis, the people chosen to be stewards for the word of God.

And then, later, this immutable God says in the human form of Jesus: “Do not resist evil. Turn the other cheek. Those who live by the sword, will die by the sword.”. Aha. Immutable, indeed. Of course this still does not explain why all the male children were to be put to death, while the virgo intacta girls were to be kept for some unspecified purposes… Not to mention that all the animals were to be slaughtered. I can just imagine those evil cows and sheep spreading dangerous rumors about some “false gods” and enticing the people to abandon God. Fortunately today the cows are much more docile.

 

[Spock]

I know I said I’d back out, but there came a real reason to post I could not in good conscience ignore:

Thank you. He is my current “stalker”, following me from thread to thread, taunting and prodding with his posts. There were others. I can live with it. Though, come to think of it, the forum rules explicitly forbid that kind of behavior. But that is not for me to decide, the mods will take action, if they so choose. You are perfectly right, posters of this kind are a huge impediment to your side. But I will never generalize and allow them to cast a shadow on those who engage in decent conversations.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

And then, later, this immutable God says in the human form of Jesus: “Do not resist evil. Turn the other cheek. Those who live by the sword, will die by the sword.”. Aha. Immutable, indeed. Of course this still does not explain why all the male children were to be put to death, while the virgo intacta girls were to be kept for some unspecified purposes… Not to mention that all the animals were to be slaughtered. I can just imagine those evil cows and sheep spreading dangerous rumors about some “false gods” and enticing the people to abandon God. Fortunately today the cows are much more docile.

As for why only the young women were permitted to live, the blood retribution practiced by primeval tribal culture would not permit the Jews the opportunity to settle their allocated lands. They would be perpetual conflict with “sinful” peoples. This particular group were to be considered implacable adversaries because they had previously ruthlessly treated the Israelites as foes. The origins of this strife can be found in Numbers 25:16 in the bible, where they deceived the Israelites. The practices of all the adults were an anathema to the Israelites and they could not be permitted to live.

Without parents, the young boys could not survive on their own and were presumably killed as a mercy so they wouldn’t die of starvation or thirst. The girls could be more easily assimilated into Jewish culture as maidservants or to perform other female oriented roles. The boys, if adopted, would be rivals of natural born sons of the Israelites, which is something I doubt would be readily acceptable to the men of the tribe of Israel, considering the past histories of their respective peoples. Applying modern principles of rights and fairness to an ancient tribal people is unreasonable.

It is my impression that many non-believers assert God must do everything the exactly the same way and cannot diverge given differing conditions. The complexities of human interactions require complex resolutions and, from a human standpoint, may appear unfathomable at first glance. The purposes and machinations of God are fulfilled in different ways at different times and are progressive in nature because the disposition and condition of man is mutable. The expectation that approaches must be invariant without regards to the varying context and purposes is not a logical one.

It must be understood that bible passages has framework and circumstance. To simply compare to non-related statements from vastly different textual accounts (which address different issues) to show they are somehow incongruent is being intellectually dishonest. A study of the bible from a simple literal standpoint will lead to many difficulties as the text is rife is symbolism, provisos and allegory. The “contradictions” in within the Bible largely stem from not interpreting the Bible in an anagogical manner.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

No, there is not. Time is not an independent variable, it is a property of STEM - space, time, energy and matter. The only thing we can say is that STEM - in its current form “started” at the Big Bang. The properties of the singularity are unknown at this point. Everything about the singularity is mere speculation.

The science of it is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is that qualities such as “change”, “potentiality”, are evident to senses. Thus a rational mind can reason and infer the necessity that either there is a point where change begins, and thus must be caused by that which is not changing and is thus not apart of that which is changing, or that the universe infinitely regresses. If the universe infinitely regresses, then one must admit that potentiality ontologically precedes infinity, which is impossible; and without potentiality and a reality of some sort ontologically preceding the fact of it, there can be no change, since out of nothing comes nothing. Either way, whether it be that time has a beginning or is infinite, the atheist must say that the potentiality of the universe came out of nothing. Any rational person can see that there is no physical third option that doesn’t result in a fundamental contradiction.

No matter how many times you are going to repeat it, no one says that.

They do not need to say, it follows necessarily from their philosophical position or belief or non-belief; however way you want to put it.

First of all “nothing” is not an entity, it is merely a concept.

I never said it was a real thing, quite the contrary; it is you who is maintaining that the potentiality of the universe proceeds from absolutely nothing. This is the consequences of your argument.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Causation, just like space, time, etc… can only be defined within the Universe.

This is an assumption.

It is just as incorrect to ask “what caused the Universe?” or “what happened before the Universe?” or “what exists outside the Universe?”

One can correctly speak of ontological necessities using analogies that are normally used in the context of time. To ontologically precede potentiality, is only to say that being is always the foundation of potentiality/change. Ontologically speaking, to fully explain potentiality in a logically consistent manner, we must say that all potentiality/change has to be rooted in a reality that is not itself a potentiality and is thus not changing. We are correct in making this argument because it follows necessarily from the fact that out of nothing comes nothing and thus change cannot come out of nothing, regardless of any linguistic difficulties we encounter in explaining this fact. Words such as “before” and “precede” is not being applied here in a physical sense or context, and certainly cannot be (which rules out a physical cause); but they can be applied in an ontological sense, such as for example “the table is the foundation which is holding up my computer”. This is a kind of cause without speaking about before or after. Before and after is irrelevant in this context, and is not rendered meaningless just because i use a word that is commonly used in a time dependent context.

What is relevant is that physical change/potentiality cannot explain itself, since out of nothing comes nothing. Thus there must be a transcendent reality that can cause things to be real with out reference to physical time limitations. Certain “attributes” must be applied to that being in-order to make its causality logically consistent even if it is not comprehensible by your imagination. The attributes that we are left with describes Gods nature. Thus the theist is rationally justified in saying that there is a God. Even if you don’t think so. That’s the beauty of rational objectivity.

as it is to ask “what exists to the north from the North Pole?”. (The direction of “north” is simply undefined at the North Pole.) These questions attempt to apply some something where it is not applicable. Usually this error is called the “fallacy of the stolen concept”.

The problem you describe here is irrelevant since you cannot prove that causality is only meaningful in a time dependent sense. You are committing the fallacy of composition. You saying that because you only ever experience causality in time that therefore there is no other kind of causality; you are saying that there cannot be a causality that is not dependent on time. I have shown on more than one occasion how there could be, and there must be, otherwise you are saying that something can come from nothing.

There are some things which are called “brute facts”. Theists call their brute fact God, atheists call their brute fact the Universe.

In the context of existence, a brute fact, if by that you mean something existing with out some sort of an objective ontological reason as to why it exists, is a hypocritical notion that not only goes against reason but also cannot be proven a-prior or a-posterior to exist. Brute facts have never be positively discovered by either science or philosophy; thus this is something you believe according to faith, the faith that there is only physical things thus there must be brute facts; which also indirectly nicely illustrates to us that you agree that physicality is insufficient in rationally explaining its own existence. If you are talking about epistemological brute facts, this only refers to a limitation in our ability to comprehend or know things. That’s not an ontological brute fact. If you are not speaking in the nature of any of these definitions, then i don’t see its relevance to this conversation

The Thomistic theist, on the other-hand, does not argue for the existence of a brute fact. The theist argues that a things existence either has its explanation in something else or in its own nature.

That is not the same as arguing for a brute fact; since it admits that all things can be rationally explained. But that doesn’t mean we can all understand or comprehend those explanations; thus the theist also admits that where a thing is not ontologically necessary (required for the existence of something), we cannot truly know of its existence without science. Metaphysics allows us a knowledge that is greater than science and is certain because it makes arguments about general facts rather than particular things.

Also, there are no “consequences” of what you say. Your faceless, skeletal, deistic god - even if exists, would have no relevance to us. And there is no logical way that would lead from this deity to the Christian God.

How do you know? It seems that this is what you want to be true since you placing the cart before the horse. The idea that there can never be a proof, is something that you believe, it is not something that you have proven. Your attitude reveals your intentions. perhaps if you saw the proof you still wouldn’t know it, because you cannot comprehend simple things such as out of nothing comes nothing.

 

[tonyrey]

If you **could **

You are obviously unacquainted with all the posts in this thread. Otherwise you would realise I’m simply stating an indisputable fact.

The following points remain unanswered:

Cherry picking, as usual. Which parts are supposed to accepted as verbatim, which parts are allegorical (and what do they mean?), and which parts are simply wrong? Since you, Catholics believe that the Church is the only one, which is “qualified” to make that distinction, and the Church obviously does not do in a rigorous, line by line fashion, we have a grey area, which is somethimes interpreted this way, sometimes interpreted differently.

Your nitpicking approach to the Old Testament reveals your unawareness that its main purpose was give basic moral laws to a primitive tribe which would foreshadow and prepare the Chosen People for the coming of the Messiah with His message of love and hope for everyone, not just the select few.

The Church did not do its duty to separate the wheat from the chaff - if there is any wheat in it at all.

If you reject the wheat what are you left with? Your own parochial, fallible notions of what is good and evil - assuming you even accept that distinction!

Somehow the Holy Spirit did not do a good job of “inspiring” or “guiding”.

The fact that the Bible has inspired countless human beings to heroic lives of service and love for others is ample evidence that it contains moral and spiritual truths which are the basis of modern civilisation. What is your source of guidance and inspiration?

It “neglected” to inform the authors that the circumference of the circle in not 3 times its diameter - even though the contemporaries already knew it better.

Your example of “neglect” merely underlines the absurdity of your argument with its implication that the Bible is defective because it is not an encyclopaedia which contains all scientific and mathematical truths!

Since you maintain that the code is not applicable to God himself, it is obviously not universal and not absolute.

A non sequitur, given that the nature of God is absolute…

It is not such a difficult concept to understand: any code or rule, which has exceptions is not universal and not absolute…

It should not be too difficult to understand that the Source of morality is not an exception but the Model on which all rules are based.

We weaken our witness to Christ if we let those who make such allegations off the hook when they cannot support them…

 

[tonyrey]

Thank you. He is my current “stalker”, following me from thread to thread, taunting and prodding with his posts. There were others. I can live with it. Though, come to think of it, the forum rules explicitly forbid that kind of behavior. But that is not for me to decide, the mods will take action, if they so choose. You are perfectly right, posters of this kind are a huge impediment to your side. But I will never generalize and allow them to cast a shadow on those who engage in decent conversations.

False accusations on top of false claims!

 

[Spock]

As for why only the young women were permitted to live, the blood retribution practiced by primeval tribal culture would not permit the Jews the opportunity to settle their allocated lands. They would be perpetual conflict with “sinful” peoples. This particular group were to be considered implacable adversaries because they had previously ruthlessly treated the Israelites as foes. The origins of this strife can be found in Numbers 25:16 in the bible, where they deceived the Israelites. The practices of all the adults were an anathema to the Israelites and they could not be permitted to live.

Without parents, the young boys could not survive on their own and were presumably killed as a mercy so they wouldn’t die of starvation or thirst. The girls could be more easily assimilated into Jewish culture as maidservants or to perform other female oriented roles. The boys, if adopted, would be rivals of natural born sons of the Israelites, which is something I doubt would be readily acceptable to the men of the tribe of Israel, considering the past histories of their respective peoples. Applying modern principles of rights and fairness to an ancient tribal people is unreasonable.

It is my impression that many non-believers assert God must do everything the exactly the same way and cannot diverge given differing conditions. The complexities of human interactions require complex resolutions and, from a human standpoint, may appear unfathomable at first glance. The purposes and machinations of God are fulfilled in different ways at different times and are progressive in nature because the disposition and condition of man is mutable. The expectation that approaches must be invariant without regards to the varying context and purposes is not a logical one.

It must be understood that bible passages has framework and circumstance. To simply compare to non-related statements from vastly different textual accounts (which address different issues) to show they are somehow incongruent is being intellectually dishonest. A study of the bible from a simple literal standpoint will lead to many difficulties as the text is rife is symbolism, provisos and allegory. The “contradictions” in within the Bible largely stem from not interpreting the Bible in an anagogical manner.

Well, this is not a bad explanation, but far from being satisfactory. First, the wanton destruction of all the livestock is simply nonsensical. Second, it does not explain why only the virgins were spared. Knowing, what we know about those societies, virgins were “valued” excessively, and keeping them alive was not because of their possible contibutions as handmaidens only.

But the most serious objection is that God is supposed to be immutable, and the God of the OT is very different from the NT. Also, instead of simply ordering the destruction of the different tribes, God could have presented himself to them, in all his “glory”, surrounded by a few million angels, all waving their flaming swords, and thus convince the other tribes to “mend” their ways. Can you imagine the effect on those who would witness such a presentation of power? Much more “humane” solution than putting everyone to the sword.

Of course, the simplest explanation is that the whole incident is just the story of one tribe being cruel and victorious over the other, and the whole God-stuff is merely a legend, or embellishment of the actual happenings.

When you say that in different times God was somehow behaving differently, and imposed a different moral standard (wars, slavery) then you deny the existence of “absolute” moral standards.

 

[Spock]

The science of it is irrelevant.

Ahh, cool. Let’s just get rid of this “pesky” science. Why not drop this thing and start a new conversation about the last chess-tournament between the angels and the demons? Or was it baseball?

 

[Spock]

…perhaps if you saw the proof you still wouldn’t know it, because you cannot comprehend simple things such as out of nothing comes nothing.

Yes, I guess, I am simply too stupid to comprehend your explanation. Isn’t this always the final “argument”? On that happy note I will wave goodbye to you.

 

[tonyrey]

As for why only the young women were permitted to live, the blood retribution practiced by primeval tribal culture would not permit the Jews the opportunity to settle their allocated lands. They would be perpetual conflict with “sinful” peoples. This particular group were to be considered implacable adversaries because they had previously ruthlessly treated the Israelites as foes. The origins of this strife can be found in Numbers 25:16 in the bible, where they deceived the Israelites. The practices of all the adults were an anathema to the Israelites and they could not be permitted to live.

Without parents, the young boys could not survive on their own and were presumably killed as a mercy so they wouldn’t die of starvation or thirst. The girls could be more easily assimilated into Jewish culture as maidservants or to perform other female oriented roles. The boys, if adopted, would be rivals of natural born sons of the Israelites, which is something I doubt would be readily acceptable to the men of the tribe of Israel, considering the past histories of their respective peoples. Applying modern principles of rights and fairness to an ancient tribal people is unreasonable.

It is my impression that many non-believers assert God must do everything the exactly the same way and cannot diverge given differing conditions. The complexities of human interactions require complex resolutions and, from a human standpoint, may appear unfathomable at first glance. The purposes and machinations of God are fulfilled in different ways at different times and are progressive in nature because the disposition and condition of man is mutable. The expectation that approaches must be invariant without regards to the varying context and purposes is not a logical one.

It must be understood that bible passages has framework and circumstance. To simply compare to non-related statements from vastly different textual accounts (which address different issues) to show they are somehow incongruent is being intellectually dishonest. A study of the bible from a simple literal standpoint will lead to many difficulties as the text is rife is symbolism, provisos and allegory. The “contradictions” in within the Bible largely stem from not interpreting the Bible in an anagogical manner.

A member of this forum recently drew our attention to the following statement:

*The Books of the Old and New Testament provide us with the first and fundamental fact concerning the Lord’s mercy and forgiveness. In the Psalms and in the preaching of the Prophets, the name **merciful *is perhaps the one most often given to the Lord, in contrast to the persistent cliché whereby the God of the Old Testament is presented above all as severe and vengeful. (JPII, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia #29)

(My emphasis) The Old Testament depicts the gradual purification of the concept of God which culminated in the Loving Father revealed by Jesus…

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Well, this is not a bad explanation, but far from being satisfactory. First, the wanton destruction of all the livestock is simply nonsensical. Second, it does not explain why only the virgins were spared. Knowing, what we know about those societies, virgins were “valued” excessively, and keeping them alive was not because of their possible contibutions as handmaidens only.

But the most serious objection is that God is supposed to be immutable, and the God of the OT is very different from the NT. Also, instead of simply ordering the destruction of the different tribes, God could have presented himself to them, in all his “glory”, surrounded by a few million angels, all waving their flaming swords, and thus convince the other tribes to “mend” their ways. Can you imagine the effect on those who would witness such a presentation of power? Much more “humane” solution than putting everyone to the sword.

Of course, the simplest explanation is that the whole incident is just the story of one tribe being cruel and victorious over the other, and the whole God-stuff is merely a legend, or embellishment of the actual happenings.

When you say that in different times God was somehow behaving differently, and imposed a different moral standard (wars, slavery) then you deny the existence of “absolute” moral standards.

Unfortunately, I doubt for you a satisfactory answered can be provided in the context of a literal interpretation of the bible, since the text exposits at many levels including allegorical and anagogical concepts. Biblical text is a dynamic and sourced from varying authors with distinctive worldviews, with the intent of providing a vibrant spiritual conduit, not a static recounting of events. However, I will attempt to clarify my answer further to address some of your concerns in the literary context.

The cattle and livestock were slaughtered because they do not conform to the requirements of dietary kashrut, making them ceremonially unclean for consumption. Even how an animal is raised determines its qualifications of being kashrut and, consequently, these animals were destroyed in accordance to the Law. They would not and could not be used to food or breeding as there is a moral imperative to keep kashrut, despite the potential advantages of having additional livestock. Hence, the slaughtering of the livestock is consistent with the Israelite imperative of keeping kashrut.

As why the “virgin” women being permitted to live, it would be known they would not be held indefinitely as bondservants. The Israelites are required by their Law to release these young women from servitude after seven years. Their virginity or “virtuousness” would allow them to be marriageable (e.g. acceptable to men), facilitating them a future within or external to the Israelite community at large. As such, the future could be somewhat assured, which from standpoint of tribal cultures, as good as a possible outcome that one can expect given the difficult situations that encompass tribal living.

As to the moral “immutability” of God or apparent lack thereof in your view, I believe you are examining it from an assumption that moral behavior must be externally consistent, regardless of the happenstance or conditions. However, valid absolute morality is about intrinsic consistency and not about what is outwardly demonstrated. For example, a person giving candy to a young may give the appearance of kindness but in reality they may be using the candy to tempt the child into an unethical situation (e.g. sexual contact). Fom the standpoint of the situation you are citing in Numbers, the application a “turn the other cheek” stratagem would not only be cognitively incomprehensible from the standpoint of the Israelites, it would also assure their destruction given their circumstances, preventing the fulfillment of the covenant. If one examines the Pentateuch (Five Books of Moses), you can see a general degradation of morality in the Genesis. The convent of God is established with his “chosen people” to reverse this moral downtrend through the Israelites, even though the Israeli people time and time again show they are sinful and fallible.

Ultimately, the objective is to establish and instill moral imperatives that are in alignment with God’s nature. This is done in a progressive, step-by-step fashion based on the spiritual and ethical conditions of man, which are mutable. By way of illustration, how you would instruct and correct a preschool aged child in proper behaviour would be different than a child in their teen aged years. The younger would have to have their toys taken away (punished harshly in their view) in order to instill a sense of consequences for their actions. The older child could be reasoned with without resorting to harsh discipline, as they would have a finer grasp of moral concepts that are more sophisticated and that are beyond the reach of younger children. The morality your are trying to teach is the same, however, the methodology is different based on the audience.

As for God choosing to reveal himself in a grandiose fashion with legions of angels trumpeting his arrival, I believe this to be quite contrary to how God works throughout the bible and would not be consistent with his methods. One does not look upon the face the God according the scriptures. It would seem God would prefer subtle, gentle nudges for granting enlightenment rather than overt expressions of power. Shall devotion be acquired through spiritual fulfillment or through fear of force? Which one would be more genuine?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Ahh, cool. Let’s just get rid of this “pesky” science. Why not drop this thing and start a new conversation about the last chess-tournament between the angels and the demons? Or was it baseball?

More straw-men. Is that all you have? I never said get rid of science. I never said it was false. I said it is irrelevant to the question of explaining the existence of potentiality. Science has its place. Science talks about things that are already changing and have discernible finite measurable features; but it cannot give us anything positive in the way of explaining the existence of quantitative or qualitative potentiality/change. This is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one. Your addition of science into the conversation as providing some sort of explanation is fallacious.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Yes, I guess, I am simply too stupid to comprehend your explanation. Isn’t this always the final “argument”? On that happy note I will wave goodbye to you.

Your not stupid. You just refuse to see the merits of your opponents argument. You have an agenda. You claim that we must take rational argument as far as possible, and then you arbitrarily stop reasoning when you realise that “physics” cannot possibly or logically explain everything that we see in physical reality; and then you fallaciously propose scientific agnosticism and brute facts as if to say that there is no answer and worse no scientific answers, as if to say that the answer must be physical in nature or nothing at all. You back up none of the assumptions dictated by naturalism. However, a truly honest and rational person cannot make any assumptions accept those necessitated by reason. And there is an answer necessitated by reason; and that is the existence of a perfect non-physical timeless reality; a supreme being that consciously and eternally wills the existence of the potential universe. This beings very nature is intrinsically existence, as opposed to a nature that is a contingent being which participates or boroughs reality in order to exist.

If we take reason as far as possible; this is the only logically possible answer when it comes to explaining the existence of potential reality. It is either that or we must believe that the universe came out of nothing. There is no third option. And it shouldn’t take a genius to realise which of the two options are more reasonable. Now, this does not further our knowledge in the context of scientific data, but it certainly explains physical existence in general; even if it does not give us much in the way of fully comprehending the cause. The explanation is certainly there, and it has been their for hundreds of years if not thousands; and the naturalist philosophy (philosophical atheism) has been spending its entire existence trying to find a way by which it can excuse itself from or ignore the metaphysical facts provided to us by reason.

 

[david_friol_1]

Hey Spock

I tried before to suggest that we should attempt to find common ground, by defining basic terms (existence, evidence, love, good, evil, and so on) in a mutually acceptable fashion. Those terms then could serve as a starting point to allow meaningful conversations. Those threads all fizzled out very quickly, which is unfortunate.

I have not read those yet! So we will see!

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.

Who says we are not to say these things and why should anyone obey? Seriously! I have pointed out many many flaws in the things you have written about God and the Church but you do not seem to mind being in error on these points and even try to defend yourself once in a while. Even when you violate your own Spock principle which you made up with you own omnimax powers! So there should be no problem with someone trying their best to defend their position. What really seems to be happening is your obstinate refusal to admit that there is something inside of you that can not be explained completely by any scientific or dare I say rational(at least by human abilities) means and yet it is there poking at you from within and you know it is there but what is it and why can it not be seen under any size micro scope?

It is insisted that God, being the law-giver, should be exempt from the laws he allegedly issued. For humans it is morally unacceptable to wantonly kill, pillage or commit genocide. Posters say, that such behavior is acceptable when God commits, commands, or allows it. The generic principle is, of course, boils down to “might makes right”. God has the big stick, and therefore whatever he says / does / commands / allows is fine and dandy. The irony comes in is that those posters still insist that there is a universal and absolute moral code, which does not apply to God. So why is this moral code universal or absolute, if there is exception to it? Don’t you see that you contradict to your own definitions? If something is universal or absolute, it cannot have exceptions!

I’m sorry Spock but we live in the year 2011 so could you define “human” for me before I comment on: “For humans it is morally unacceptable to wantonly kill, pillage or commit genocide.”? Because I’m sort of old school and I sill believe that those are babies in those wombs. I know that probably sounds foolish to your great and powerful omnimax-ed out and rational brain but I’m gonna go with my instincts on this one.

I don’t think that this post will change your minds. As before, these attempts to rational discourse are futile. If some of you would start to think about it, it would be great. But I don’t hold my breath.

The first half of this one I do agree with whole heartily and I have thought long and hard about it. I do hope some day you do take your first breath in the Spirit of the living God!

Peace to you Spock!