Comment please........

[cho_pilo]

If one wants to have certainty about God, but doesn’t have it yet:

1. If one doesn’t yet have certainty about God, but one thinks that what one has done so far to come to certainty about God, should already be enough, then one implicitly believes that God is not just and does not give spiritual insight justly.
   This way, one sabotages one’s own efforts to come to certainty about God, since nobody in their right mind would be interested in an unjust God.
2. If one doesn’t yet have certainty about God, but one thinks that what one has done so far to come to certainty about God, might not yet be enough, then one implicitly believes that God is just and does give spiritual insight justly.
   This way, one empowers one’s own efforts to come to certainty about God, since everybody in their right mind would be interested in a just God.

 

[fhansen]

If one wants to have certainty about God, but doesn’t have it yet:

1. If one doesn’t yet have certainty about God, but one thinks that what one has done so far to come to certainty about God, should already be enough, then one implicitly believes that God is not just and does not give spiritual insight justly.
   This way, one sabotages one’s own efforts to come to certainty about God, since nobody in their right mind would be interested in an unjust God.
2. If one doesn’t yet have certainty about God, but one thinks that what one has done so far to come to certainty about God, might not yet be enough, then one implicitly believes that God is just and does give spiritual insight justly.
   This way, one empowers one’s own efforts to come to certainty about God, since everybody in their right mind would be interested in a just God.

Well, if you don’t have certainty about God, then any notion that He’s just would be a hypothetical-a hope- rather than a belief at that point.

 

[4Horsemen]

Jeremiah 29 tells us that when we seek God with all of our hearts, we will find Him.

 

[eagle_eye222001]

If one wants to have certainty about God, but doesn’t have it yet:

1. If one doesn’t yet have certainty about God, but one thinks that what one has done so far to come to certainty about God, should already be enough, then one implicitly believes that God is not just and does not give spiritual insight justly.
   This way, one sabotages one’s own efforts to come to certainty about God, since nobody in their right mind would be interested in an unjust God.

Of course if one does not have certainty of God but thinks they have done enough to warrant such a belief, then they have preconditioned what they think “God” to be and thus arrive at a conclusion based on their parameters.

1. If one doesn’t yet have certainty about God, but one thinks that what one has done so far to come to certainty about God, might not yet be enough, then one implicitly believes that God is just and does give spiritual insight justly.
   This way, one empowers one’s own efforts to come to certainty about God, since everybody in their right mind would be interested in a just God.

What is just? Or what is “fair?” One can easily come up with different versions of what they think “just” to be.

I recommend the book “The Godless Delusion” by Madrid.

 

[tonyrey]

(Following on from fhansen’s post) If we don’t have certainty about God we cannot have certainty about the reality of justice - or any other moral truths. If only matter exists nothing matters!

 

[greylorn]

If one wants to have certainty about God, but doesn’t have it yet:

1. If one doesn’t yet have certainty about God, but one thinks that what one has done so far to come to certainty about God, should already be enough, then one implicitly believes that God is not just and does not give spiritual insight justly.
   This way, one sabotages one’s own efforts to come to certainty about God, since nobody in their right mind would be interested in an unjust God.
2. If one doesn’t yet have certainty about God, but one thinks that what one has done so far to come to certainty about God, might not yet be enough, then one implicitly believes that God is just and does give spiritual insight justly.
   This way, one empowers one’s own efforts to come to certainty about God, since everybody in their right mind would be interested in a just God.

This entire exploration is irrelevant without a specific definition of God.

 

[4Horsemen]

This entire exploration is irrelevant without a specific definition of God.

We’re talking about the one true God, the Supreme Being who made all things. God is HE WHO IS as revealed to Moses in the burning bush." His many attributes reveal Himself in Perfection and Wisdom.

 

[greylorn]

We’re talking about the one true God, the Supreme Being who made all things. God is HE WHO IS as revealed to Moses in the burning bush." His many attributes reveal Himself in Perfection and Wisdom.

Thank you for the regurgitation of dogma. Pretend for a few cogent moments that you are posting to a philosophy section, where a question like mine might be intelligently considered by honest thinkers.

 

[sidbrown]

If one wants to have certainty about God, but doesn’t have it yet:

1. If one doesn’t yet have certainty about God, but one thinks that what one has done so far to come to certainty about God, should already be enough, then one implicitly believes that God is not just and does not give spiritual insight justly.
   This way, one sabotages one’s own efforts to come to certainty about God, since nobody in their right mind would be interested in an unjust God.
2. If one doesn’t yet have certainty about God, but one thinks that what one has done so far to come to certainty about God, might not yet be enough, then one implicitly believes that God is just and does give spiritual insight justly.
   This way, one empowers one’s own efforts to come to certainty about God, since everybody in their right mind would be interested in a just God.

It is true that a lot of people have problems believing in God, and that one of the questions brought up concerns the evil in the world, especially the terrible evil done to children and other innocent victims.
In the case of an atheist, he might base his sense of justice on humanitarian grounds and a belief that it is a value to be good to one’s neighbor.
However, if you do want to have more certitude about the existence of God, I would recommend reading and studying a few books
For example:
Help My Unbelief by William J. O’Malley
or
New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy by
Robert J. Spitzer

 

[4Horsemen]

Thank you for the regurgitation of dogma. Pretend for a few cogent moments that you are posting to a philosophy section, where a question like mine might be intelligently considered by honest thinkers.

Well how would you define God? I suppose you have your own dogma that is “intelligently considered.”

 

[cho_pilo]

However, if you do want to have more certitude about the existence of God, I would recommend reading and studying a few books

Thanks. But it seems my issues are more basic - toward problems of pure epistemology.

 

[sidbrown]

Thanks. But it seems my issues are more basic - toward problems of pure epistemology.

Studying and reading in the area does not hurt and may illuminate your questions.

 

[greylorn]

Well how would you define God? I suppose you have your own dogma that is “intelligently considered.”

I have some ideas on the subject designed with the compatibility of hard science and the notion of a created universe in mind. I’d not call my ideas dogma. IMO various religions have versions of absolute truth which they call dogma. Dogma seems to be a set of beliefs which have no basis in fact or logic, but are based upon authority. For some, dogma is the tale of Moses, written by a Jewish scribe during the Babylonian captivity, and declared to be absolute truth— or Joseph Smith’s teaching, inscribed in golden tablets which mysteriously disappeared after translation— or Darwin’s silly teaching that biological life evolves by random chance, and that “natural selection” is a meaningful scientific principle.

These and various dogmas are simply things that some guys made up and convinced others the truth of. I’m not interested in developing a dogma. I would not write as I do on CAF without a serious opinion about the subjects I address, but my postings are intended as points for thoughtful consideration and discussion.

Their target audience is the small percentage of people who open CAF because they are dissatisfied with their beliefs. My experience is that dogmatists like yourself, whether religious or atheist, are incapable of objectively evaluating any of these ideas. That seems to be the way the human brain works. It is a simple “be right” machine. Thinking back to my time as a serious Catholic, I expect that I’d have rejected outright the ideas I’ve since developed.

Since they are derived from a bit of physics and some simple, basic logic, they are best addressed in those terms. I’ve presented them all on CAF already. There’s no point in setting them out again for you, because you have made it pretty clear that all you will do is throw dogma at them.

I did post a summary of my God-definition on one of “Spock’s” threads a few weeks back, thinking mistakenly that he was a thoughtful sort who might take them under consideration, rather than simply another atheist stooge. If you are genuinely curious, they are easy to find.

I will leave you with this single property: God must be an entity bound by the first and third Laws of Thermodynamics, but capable of freely violating the Second Law. This simple consideration leads to a number of interesting secondary properties, including the notion that God thinks creatively.

Admittedly this notion contradicts the conservation of information principle in physics, which is a stupid bit of dogma in its own right, and dreadfully atheistic.

 

[4Horsemen]

I have some ideas on the subject designed with the compatibility of hard science and the notion of a created universe in mind. I’d not call my ideas dogma. IMO various religions have versions of absolute truth which they call dogma. Dogma seems to be a set of beliefs which have no basis in fact or logic, but are based upon authority. For some, dogma is the tale of Moses, written by a Jewish scribe during the Babylonian captivity, and declared to be absolute truth— or Joseph Smith’s teaching, inscribed in golden tablets which mysteriously disappeared after translation— or Darwin’s silly teaching that biological life evolves by random chance, and that “natural selection” is a meaningful scientific principle.

I agree that religions, in general, have some understanding of “absolute truth.” There is truth concerning both dogma and ethics/morality. People in all times and place can use reason to come to a closer understanding of absolute truth. (I’m surprised you believe in absolute truth. From where does it proceed?)

These and various dogmas are simply things that some guys made up and convinced others the truth of. I’m not interested in developing a dogma.

So if you don’t care to develop your own dogma (relativism) and aren’t convinced of what others have to offer, what about what God offers? Like the Ten Commandments on stone tablets for our benefit? Although we can discover truths through reason, it is imperfect because we are imperfect. God’s Revelation points the way assuredly. Too dogmatic for you?

Their target audience is the small percentage of people who open CAF because they are dissatisfied with their beliefs.

Are you dissatisfied with your beliefs?

My experience is that dogmatists like yourself, whether religious or atheist, are incapable of objectively evaluating any of these ideas. That seems to be the way the human brain works. It is a simple “be right” machine. Thinking back to my time as a serious Catholic, I expect that I’d have rejected outright the ideas I’ve since developed.

What does it mean to be completely objective? Having no opinion at all? I don’t think anyone can be outside of himself. We all come through life with ideas swirling around in our minds some of which we believe more strongly than others; some we dismiss altogether for whatever reason, usually because of our basic desires.

Since they are derived from a bit of physics and some simple, basic logic, they are best addressed in those terms. I’ve presented them all on CAF already. There’s no point in setting them out again for you, because you have made it pretty clear that all you will do is throw dogma at them.

You may be right on that. But I look for kernals of truth.

I did post a summary of my God-definition on one of “Spock’s” threads a few weeks back, thinking mistakenly that he was a thoughtful sort who might take them under consideration, rather than simply another atheist stooge. If you are genuinely curious, they are easy to find.

Cue me in with a link, please. It makes things so much easier.

I will leave you with this single property: God must be an entity bound by the first and third Laws of Thermodynamics, but capable of freely violating the Second Law. This simple consideration leads to a number of interesting secondary properties, including the notion that God thinks creatively.

God not only thinks creatively, He acts creatively. He formed the Laws of Thermodynamics and is not bound by any law. (You say He can “violate” the law about entropy but not the law of conservation of energy and the third law that something cannot reach absolute zero? P.S. That’s about all I know about science. )

Admittedly this notion contradicts the conservation of information principle in physics, which is a stupid bit of dogma in its own right, and dreadfully atheistic.

Huh?
“Conservation of information?”

 

[greylorn]

Reply 1 of 2.

I agree that religions, in general, have some understanding of “absolute truth.” There is truth concerning both dogma and ethics/morality. People in all times and place can use reason to come to a closer understanding of absolute truth. (I’m surprised you believe in absolute truth. From where does it proceed?)

From absolute reality, one of the few things that I do believe in. I think it a well-founded belief, since the alternative seems to be that I imagined a universe too complex for me to understand, and invented personalities for non-existent people who I dislike. I’m neither smart enough nor interested enough to do such things.

So if you don’t care to develop your own dogma (relativism) and aren’t convinced of what others have to offer, what about what God offers? Like the Ten Commandments on stone tablets for our benefit? Although we can discover truths through reason, it is imperfect because we are imperfect. God’s Revelation points the way assuredly. Too dogmatic for you?

That’s a big comment with multiple implications. I don’t believe that God talks to humans and tells them how to behave. Space aliens on Mt. Sinai make more sense. If God did talk to humans, why the different instruction sets?

Some religions do offer a set of moral standards, whether set down by God, space aliens, or simply made up by wise men (not that hard to do), does not matter. I find that the teachings of Christ in the first two or three N.T. books are excellent behavioral guidelines. So are the teachings of Confucius. The different guidelines match the respective cultures.

I do not need to believe that either man was God in order to recognize the inherent common-sense genius behind the standards they proposed. I am not alone in this. Back when I was a Catholic, my boss/mentor, an astronomer-engineer who was an avowed atheist, set behavioral standards for himself and the treatment of others to which well professed Christians rarely aspire. He wasn’t being a good man to get to heaven or avoid hell. He simply was a good man, far better than me.

A book chapter I finished last year expresses my wish that the Church had tended to the business Jesus Christ charged it with, namely, teaching his ideas, instead of getting off into matters like science, theology, and metaphysics, subjects in which he’d given no prior instruction and for which mankind in general was ill-equipped to understand.

The Church’s biggest mistake, IMO, was in devising a theology. God is none of its business. Christ devoted his life to teaching mankind how to live among one another, not about God. We weren’t ready then, and still are not.

Until we learn to treat one another with love and honesty, and to think coherently, we are not qualified to know God.

I don’t figure on being able to improve upon Christ’s teachings, but cleaning up the mess which various ordinary humans have made of theology and metaphysics, under the guise of alleged inspiration, is not difficult so long as I remain uninspired.

There is some responsibility involved in having one’s own thoughts. Very little in adopting the widely agreed-upon ideas of others. Zero in inventing ideas which one attributes to a divine source.

 

[greylorn]

Are you dissatisfied with your beliefs?

I have only a few. I won’t take on something so thought-controlling as a belief unless it is absolutely necessary.

I have a number of theories which make sense to me and seem to fit the facts of our day. They even predicted the existence of dark energy, but I was too slow to publish.

I’ve found that the opinions of any man trying to understand the universe should be as closely held as the affections of a housecat or woman, and as trusted as the promises of a politician one has not personally bought at great expense.

Doesn’t mean that one can’t be satisfied with the cat’s mousing skills or the woman’s affections, or the Senator’s help— at the moment. But a new neighbor might set out free tuna fish for your cat, be the better looking and richer guy your woman was really looking for, and give your Senator a bigger bribe.

What does it mean to be completely objective? Having no opinion at all? I don’t think anyone can be outside of himself. We all come through life with ideas swirling around in our minds some of which we believe more strongly than others; some we dismiss altogether for whatever reason, usually because of our basic desires.

It’s tough. The worst part of it is, if you ever come to believe that you are perfectly objective, to the point where you declare yourself to be so, you have your head so far up your dorsal orifice that a glass navel won’t help you see.

I learned this decades ago after coming to admire the writings of Ayn Rand and subscribing to her journal, The Objectivist, written mostly by the stooge she was cozy with, an intellectual nitwit. Their writings were disfigured by atheism. Ayn and her cronies were kind of objective in politics and human motivation, but were too narrow of mind to be genuinely objective in wider areas.

Objectivity is a kind of perfection, something to strive for. You’ll know exactly what it is when someone else finds it first.

To be objective, argue your beliefs with people whose minds you respect, who know things you don’t, and with whom you disagree. (Like you’re doing now.) I discussed my ideas about God and physics with Ph.D physicists who thought I was nuts. So I bought the drinks. I argued with Witnesses too (cheaper, and you get what you pay for). Today you can find my annoying posts on the Physics Forum as well as CAF.

Always honor facts. Few do. I knew an astronomer who’s motto was, “Never let mere fact interfere with a good theory.” He was not successful because science honors facts, however grudgingly.

You may be right on that. But I look for kernals of truth.

What better kernel of truth than a correct statement?

Cue me in with a link, please. It makes things so much easier.

Yeah, I know, but I’d have to look for it myself, taking the same time as you would. It is recent, and is a brief thread. CAF has a decent search engine. Last I looked, mine was the last post.

I don’t figure that you’ll be greatly engaged by the ideas, and if I’m right, my time would be wasted. However, by actually spending your own time to find them, you’d develop enough of a vested interest to maybe take them a tad more seriously than if they came easily. If the ideas prove interesting to you, you’ve gained something. If not, its your time wasted instead of mine.

God not only thinks creatively, He acts creatively. He formed the Laws of Thermodynamics and is not bound by any law. (You say He can “violate” the law about entropy but not the law of conservation of energy and the third law that something cannot reach absolute zero? P.S. That’s about all I know about science. )

Since we are in agreement on the idea that God is Creative, we must also be in agreement that God does not know everything. Yes?

Any argument between us re: laws of thermodynamics is pretty silly, since only one of us has studied physics. I appreciate your honesty about your knowledge— great first step for acquiring some! I find Wikipedia an interesting and generally correct of basic (and some advanced) physics information, and there are many excellent books on the subject for non-scientists. It would be best if you came up to speed on the subject, as the simple exchange of assertions is unprofitable.

Both your assertions and mine are derived from ideas invented by others, which we learned in school.

Huh?
“Conservation of information?”

Sorry. From your answer, I assume that you do not follow the conversations on various science documentary channels. Thought you might, incorrectly.

 

[sidbrown]

I will leave you with this single property: God must be an entity bound by the first and third Laws of Thermodynamics, but capable of freely violating the Second Law. .

No, that does not seem right to me, because God can create or destroy energy. So the first law of thermodynamics concerning the principle of conservation of energy would not hold for God.

 

[greylorn]

No, that does not seem right to me, because God can create or destroy energy. So the first law of thermodynamics concerning the principle of conservation of energy would not hold for God.

It cannot seem right to you because your thinking on the matter is entirely determined by your beliefs. That’s okay.

My thinking is determined, to some extent, by principles of physics and common logic.

While there is evidence for a Creator, there is no evidence that He has the properties your beliefs ascribe to Him. Logic says that He cannot have the properties ascribed by Christianity and other monotheistic religions.

The principles upon which I base my thinking are well-founded mathematically and derived from detailed observations of God’s universe. I choose to base my thinking on proven concepts rather than beliefs which some people who knew nothing about the universe made up, long ago.

 

[sidbrown]

It cannot seem right to you because your thinking on the matter is entirely determined by your beliefs. That’s okay.

My thinking is determined, to some extent, by principles of physics and common logic.

While there is evidence for a Creator, there is no evidence that He has the properties your beliefs ascribe to Him. Logic says that He cannot have the properties ascribed by Christianity and other monotheistic religions.

The principles upon which I base my thinking are well-founded mathematically and derived from detailed observations of God’s universe. I choose to base my thinking on proven concepts rather than beliefs which some people who knew nothing about the universe made up, long ago.

I would say that you are wrong on two counts.
First of all, if God exists, He is the Creator and then He would be able to create and destroy and therefore not be bound by the first law of thermodynamics.

However, if God did not exist, then the Second Law of thermodynamics would hold, because as Clausius has pointed out no process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature. If you think that this is wrong, then give a specific example.
But actually, God does exist, and still the second Law of thermodynamics does hold in the physical world. I haven’t seen any violation of it, except perhaps for an infinitesimal quantum process in an infinitesimal time interval.

 

[4Horsemen]

Reply 1 of 2.

From absolute reality, one of the few things that I do believe in. I think it a well-founded belief, since the alternative seems to be that I imagined a universe too complex for me to understand, and invented personalities for non-existent people who I dislike. I’m neither smart enough nor interested enough to do such things.

Doesn’t the concept of “absolute reality” presuppose a Grand Designer who created all things according to His Word? Absolute laws are objective and can only be designed by the Creator of all things who knows all things.

Congrats! You made a very important step in humility to realize you’re “not smart enough” to understand “a universe too complex.” I don’t get the part about “invented personalities for non-existent people who I (you) dislike.”

That’s a big comment with multiple implications. I don’t believe that God talks to humans and tells them how to behave. Space aliens on Mt. Sinai make more sense. If God did talk to humans, why the different instruction sets?

God talks to each of us in different ways. Elijah heard Him not in the wind or thunder but in a still, small voice. Many great saints have had locutions as well as visions. God works with us in individual ways. However, He made it clear that He sent His son to save us from our sins. As St. Paul says that it’s through the law we are under condemnation, but through grace in Jesus Christ we are conformed to Him and free from the law. We are under the “law of love.” (Not that morality has been done away with, but that through the salvific power of Christ we can conquer sin).

Some religions do offer a set of moral standards, whether set down by God, space aliens, or simply made up by wise men (not that hard to do), does not matter. I find that the teachings of Christ in the first two or three N.T. books are excellent behavioral guidelines. So are the teachings of Confucius. The different guidelines match the respective cultures.

All cultures have some understanding of objective truth as we discussed previously. You mentioned the first two or three NT books, but why not the fourth, the gospel of John and Acts of the Apostles?

I do not need to believe that either man was God in order to recognize the inherent common-sense genius behind the standards they proposed. I am not alone in this. Back when I was a Catholic, my boss/mentor, an astronomer-engineer who was an avowed atheist, set behavioral standards for himself and the treatment of others to which well professed Christians rarely aspire. He wasn’t being a good man to get to heaven or avoid hell. He simply was a good man, far better than me.

I agree that secularists can develop moral/ethical standards, but I kind of wonder about their basic motives. Did you ever see the movie The Edge with Anthony Hopkins? Hopkins (playing Charles) does everything to save Alec Baldwin (can’t recall stage name)after their small engine plane crashed in the wilderness. The drama was intensified by a bear who ate another companion. Although Charles was swindled and found out about Baldwin’s affair with his wife, he did everything to help save him. You might question his motives which can only be pure if the action is done not for himself but for God. Baldwin asks him why he’s helping him when he knows about the affair and guesses that it’s done for the sake of having a friend–something Hopkin’s money couldn’t buy. (He was used to people coxying up to him for his money). Anyway, I digress . . .

A book chapter I finished last year expresses my wish that the Church had tended to the business Jesus Christ charged it with, namely, teaching his ideas, instead of getting off into matters like science, theology, and metaphysics, subjects in which he’d given no prior instruction and for which mankind in general was ill-equipped to understand.

You mean the Galileo issue? The Vatican has an observatory and is involved in astonomy. I have no problem with the Church getting into secular subjects since the basic disciplines evolve from the study of philosophy itself.

The Church’s biggest mistake, IMO, was in devising a theology. God is none of its business. Christ devoted his life to teaching mankind how to live among one another, not about God. We weren’t ready then, and still are not.

You mean the Galileo issue? The Vatican has an observatory and is involved in astonomy. I have no problem with the Church getting into secular subjects since most evolve from the study of philosophy itself.

Until we learn to treat one another with love and honesty, and to think coherently, we are not qualified to know God.

I don’t figure on being able to improve upon Christ’s teachings, but cleaning up the mess which various ordinary humans have made of theology and metaphysics, under the guise of alleged inspiration, is not difficult so long as I remain uninspired.

There is some responsibility involved in having one’s own thoughts. Very little in adopting the widely agreed-upon ideas of others. Zero in inventing ideas which one attributes to a divine source.

God calls us to know Him, love Him and serve Him in this world and be happy with him in the next. When our hearts are attuned to God, it makes it easier to “treat one another with love and honesty”–to love our neighbor as we love ourselves.