I am baffled, please explain

[Pallas_Athene]

Thanks for “listening” anyway, I hope that I am not insulting you if I say I will keep you in my prayers.

Why should I be offended? I value your contribution, even if we happen to disagree. And your prayers are most welcome, they show your good intentions. Thank you.

You see, I am always willing to listen to others. I am definitely NOT omniscient, so I never know when someone offers a new insight which has not occurred to me. The trouble is that I usually hear the same old “stuff”, and it does not improve. God does NOT manifest himself to me in any shape or form that I can recognize. There is a usual response to this, something along these lines: “How dare you expect God to conform to your stipulations? Is God supposed to be your beck and call?”. Well, if God wishes to manifest himself to me, he MUST do on the terms which I am able to recognize.

As I said, I am always willing to listen, but I am only willing to listen to reason and logic. Unsubstantiated claims, blind faith, appeals to self-proclaimed authorities do not impress me.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . if God wishes to manifest himself to me, he MUST do on the terms which I am able to recognize.

As I said, I am always willing to listen, but I am only willing to listen to reason and logic. Unsubstantiated claims, blind faith, appeals to self-proclaimed authorities do not impress me.

We will all come to know Him. The fact that you are here may be trivial, some getting back at an overbearing authority figure. Perhaps, to ridicule those on whom you project your guilt in a vain hope that it will be dominated. Maybe He led you here to pick up some truth. I am wondering how God will make Himself known to you. He will likely break your heart that you might yearn for what is truest, most real, everlasting goodness and beauty. I’ve been told to stick to the Spirituality Subforum, but even philosophers deserve a dose of truth from time to time.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That can be easily discounted. If, for example, Martin Bryant had not existed, then all his victims would still be alive and all their descendants would not be deprived of existence. As he never had any children, and will not have any children, then that is not applicable to him.

[Shaking head] Bradski…Bradski…Bradski…

This can’t be so easily discounted! :tsktsk:

After your ferocious diatribe on the “Gay Cake Case” thread
(forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13058362&postcount=466)
about how quantum mechanics demonstrates that what we consider illogical only “appears” illogical and how, therefore, something could possibly come from nothing, what you are obviously overlooking - by your own logic - is that even if Martin Bryant, his victims or the non-existent children of Martin Bryant never did exist, their descendent children still could and this apparent illogical event could still happen because something (Martin Bryant’s children, their children and all his victims) could still come from nothing (Martin Bryant.)

Your house, your rules! Even if your house is a house of cards.

Let’s hope Martin Bryant - even if he never existed - doesn’t find your address.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well, if God wishes to manifest himself to me, he MUST do on the terms which I am able to recognize.
.

Or …willing to recognize.

Just saying…

…I mean if Bradski is able to convince himself that something can come from nothing, there is still hope that you could recognize such terms as you are not able to at the moment.

 

[oldcelt]

Or …willing to recognize.

Just saying…

…I mean if Bradski is able to convince himself that something can come from nothing, there is still hope that you could recognize such terms as you are not able to at the moment.

Perhaps willing to create in one’s own mind…could that be the solution Peter?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Why should I be offended? I value your contribution, even if we happen to disagree. And your prayers are most welcome, they show your good intentions. Thank you.

You see, I am always willing to listen to others. I am definitely NOT omniscient, so I never know when someone offers a new insight which has not occurred to me. The trouble is that I usually hear the same old “stuff”, and it does not improve. God does NOT manifest himself to me in any shape or form that I can recognize. There is a usual response to this, something along these lines: “How dare you expect God to conform to your stipulations? Is God supposed to be your beck and call?”. Well, if God wishes to manifest himself to me, he MUST do on the terms which I am able to recognize.

As I said, I am always willing to listen, but I am only willing to listen to reason and logic. Unsubstantiated claims, blind faith, appeals to self-proclaimed authorities do not impress me.

God doesn’t HAVE to do anything. You are free to accept or reject him as you choose. If people did not have free will, then no one would ever be able to sincerely love. It would all be a forgone conclusion.

You do not find God through any outward manifestation of his. You find him by looking within. That does, I admit, take some skill, and it comes far more easily to some than it does to others.

This is one of those things that you’ve heard before and find unsatisfying, however it’s true: How would you know it’s light if it were NEVER dark? You wouldn’t even be able to understand the concept of darkness. How would you ever know love if you NEVER knew its absence? You wouldn’t. No one would.

Why all the fuss about poor Adam and Eve? Why not trace evil back to its source: Satan. Obviously, if God is omniscient, and he is, he knew Satan would rebel, and because Satan was gifted in the art of rhetoric, and fraud, God knew Satan would take fully one-third of the angels down with him. So, why create Satan, who God KNEW would rebel and tempt Eve. And since Eve was weaker than Adam, not being made in God’s image, but only from Adam’s rib, she would be able to be tempted. Had all the angels remained “good” and obedient to God, there would have been no temptation and no fall. Had their been no fall we would all be living in the Garden, but we really wouldn’t know love because we wouldn’t know it’s opposite. It would be taken for granted, as common as a “Hello.” We would pass our days pain free in the sunshine, but they would be relatively devoid of meaning. We couldn’t even appreciate a warm, sunny day because every day would be a warm, sunny day. We would know nothing else.

At some point, you are going to have to accept that the fall was part of God’s plan from the beginning or argue until death and never receive a satisfying answer because there is not another answer.

I hope you find what you’re looking for, and God bless.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

From a human perspective you are spot on. The trouble is that we are dealing with a Deity. From the perspective of God a mass murderer may be killing people at a time in their life that they will go directly to Him, this would be a “good” for both the individual souls and God. Trying to anthropomorphize God places limits on Him that do not belong.

Or, if they live, the proverbial “fate worse than death” might await them. A debilitating disease, the loss of their entire family in some kind of disaster, an accident that renders them in a vegetative state, e.g. Bobbi Christina Brown, Michael Schumacher, Terrie Schiavo, and many others.

Life is kind of like a tapestry, however we are looking at it from the wrong side. From the wrong side, it doesn’t make a lot of sense. God, however, sees it from the right side. Everything, from the breeze that rustles a leaf to the short life of a butterfly, has meaning and purpose for God.

I think it’s wrong to anthropomorphize God, too. He is so completely “other” that we have absolutely no conception of what he is, just that he is. Sometimes, though, in speaking, humans have to anthropomorphize. We are so limited, and our speech even more so.

 

[Bradski]

…how quantum mechanics demonstrates that what we consider illogical only “appears” illogical and how, therefore, something could possibly come from nothing…

The suggestion that something could come from nothing was someone’s proposal for the ONLY explanation for the universe’s existence if we discount God. And the only argument against it was that it appears to be illogical.

As other scenarios which appear to be illogical are not, the argument, in itself, fails.

The fact that people were killed by Bryant and the fact that they can have no descendants and the fact that Bryant has no descendants and will never have the opportunity to have any shows that Tony’s argument is wrong.

If you want to claim something as being illogical, you need to explain why without reverting to circular logic (it’s illogical because…well, it just is).

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Perhaps, to ridicule those on whom you project your guilt in a vain hope that it will be dominated.

Sorry, I feel no guilt whatsoever. I committed many stupid mistakes in my life, but I never hurt anyone intentionally. Presenting reason and logic is not ridiculing.

Maybe He led you here to pick up some truth. I am wondering how God will make Himself known to you. He will likely break your heart that you might yearn for what is truest, most real, everlasting goodness and beauty.

That would be a highly inferior solution. Why would anyone use a microscope to break the shell of a peanut? I am always willing to listen to arguments but not threats. I have heard your kind of thinly veiled threats so many times: “He will likely break your heart” or “You will see God face-to-face, but by then it will be too late (nyah-nyah)”. You make the worst possible case for God, when you present him as a bumbling nincompoop who cannot figure out a better option to lead me to the “light”, than to “break my heart”. This kind of misguided “apologetics” is worse than silence.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Or …willing to recognize.

The same old nonsense. I need to be able to recognize something before I can be willing to accept it. :tsktsk:

 

[Pallas_Athene]

God doesn’t HAVE to do anything.

Not, if he does not care about me. But if he wishes to “lead” me to the “light”, then he needs to give me some help.

You are free to accept or reject him as you choose.

I do not “accept” nor “reject” him, I simply do not believe that God exists. Only a believer can “reject” God.

If people did not have free will, then no one would ever be able to sincerely love. It would all be a forgone conclusion.

To have free will and to be able to love it is not necessary to be able to commit genocide. My ability to “love” is not logically contingent upon my ability to kill, rape or slaughter. If it would be, it would not be “free”, it would be contingent. Think about it.

You do not find God through any outward manifestation of his. You find him by looking within. That does, I admit, take some skill, and it comes far more easily to some than it does to others.

There is no such thing as “one size fits all”. Besides I was a believer, and did not “find” God even then.

This is one of those things that you’ve heard before and find unsatisfying, however it’s true: How would you know it’s light if it were NEVER dark? You wouldn’t even be able to understand the concept of darkness. How would you ever know love if you NEVER knew its absence? You wouldn’t. No one would.

Same old nonsense. The negation or absence of “love” is NOT “hate”, the negation or absence of “light” is NOT “dark”. The negation or absence of “good” is NOT “evil”. Do you understand the difference between “negation / absence” and “opposite”?

Why all the fuss about poor Adam and Eve? Why not trace evil back to its source: Satan. Obviously, if God is omniscient, and he is, he knew Satan would rebel, and because Satan was gifted in the art of rhetoric, and fraud, God knew Satan would take fully one-third of the angels down with him. So, why create Satan, who God KNEW would rebel and tempt Eve. And since Eve was weaker than Adam, not being made in God’s image, but only from Adam’s rib, she would be able to be tempted. Had all the angels remained “good” and obedient to God, there would have been no temptation and no fall. Had their been no fall we would all be living in the Garden, but we really wouldn’t know love because we wouldn’t know it’s opposite. It would be taken for granted, as common as a “Hello.” We would pass our days pain free in the sunshine, but they would be relatively devoid of meaning. We couldn’t even appreciate a warm, sunny day because every day would be a warm, sunny day. We would know nothing else.

What is wrong with that? Isn’t that what we are supposed to “enjoy” in heaven? As I said before, to know about some “evil”, to be able to prevent that “evil”, and not preventing it, is exactly as “cruel and evil” as personally performing the act. The only “non-argument” was so far: “well, God is different”, because “God is the creator”, or “we cannot measure God with the same yardstick”, and when I ask: “why not?”, the answer is the same “because God is different”, “because God is the creator”… Circular argument all the way… a very elementary logical fallacy.

At some point, you are going to have to accept that the fall was part of God’s plan from the beginning or argue until death and never receive a satisfying answer because there is not another answer.

Interesting. Not many apologists say this. To say that the incredible amount of pain and suffering was God’s plan from the beginning is the best argument AGAINST Christianity. Such callous cruelty would not endear any sane person toward the “evil tyrant”, whom you call a “loving Father”.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The same old nonsense. I need to be able to recognize something before I can be willing to accept it. :tsktsk:

The converse is also true. You need to be willing to recognize something before you are able to recognize it - people can be in denial about lots of things especially in crucial matters where a great deal hangs in the balance with acceptance. The human psyche quite often plays tricks. That is why deception and deceivers, especially the father of them is so successful.

Scratch an atheist and you often find a host of psychological issues, often buried under the claim that only hard physical evidence or “proof” will suffice to convince; yet the same atheist will latch on to a myriad of more preferable - to them, at least - faith propositions quite happily.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

It’s a shame that you blithely disregard the thought of Aquinas; otherwise, you might benefit from his discussion of ‘univocal’, ‘equivocal’, and ‘analogical’ discourse.

You are most welcome to use your own words and present your own argument. If it is a valid and sound argument, you don’t need to refer Aquinas. If your argument does not stand on its own merit, then referring to Aquinas will not save it. Providing links to some websites with dozens (or hundreds) of pages is not the way a conversation can take place. Philosophy is not a complicated field. All its propositions can and must be presented in a simple everyday language. Otherwise it is a game of hide and seek, of coming up with esoteric, undefined words and concepts to hide the fact that the philosopher has nothing to say… which is usually the case.

 

[Peter_Plato]

To have free will and to be able to love it is not necessary to be able to commit genocide. My ability to “love” is not logically contingent upon my ability to kill, rape or slaughter. If it would be, it would not be “free”, it would be contingent. Think about it.

Incomplete or false dichotomy.

To have free will and be able to love “freely” means you are free to choose to love or not to. To be able to love as a free agent, it is only logically necessary that you are able not to love. That doesn’t necessarily mean commit genocide, rape or slaughter, though those might be the way in which “not love” are demonstrated. They need not be, however. Not love could simply mean neglect, ignore, walk away, reject, etc., a litany of other possible “works.”

Your logic appears strained.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The converse is also true. You need to be willing to recognize something before you are able to recognize it - people can be in denial about lots of things especially in crucial matters where a great deal hangs in the balance with acceptance. The human psyche quite often plays tricks. That is why deception and deceivers, especially the father of them is so successful.

Nonsense. Recognizing that “two and two makes four” does not require a “willingness” to accept it on our part. If you are hit of the head with a hypothetical baseball bat, you will feel the hypothetical pain, whether you are “willing” to admit it or not. You can only deceive the shallow thinkers.

Scratch an atheist and you often find a host of psychological issues, often buried under the claim that only hard physical evidence or “proof” will suffice to convince; yet the same atheist will latch on to a myriad of more preferable - to them, at least - faith propositions quite happily.

Is this the best you can come up with? Using a wide paintbrush and psychoanalyzing others? What are your qualifications to do it?

I wonder what your reaction would be if I said: “Scratch a believer and you often find a childish desire to have a security blanket, someone who is unwilling to face the stark reality of life, who is psychologically immature to accept reality”. Would you consider it an unfair and ridiculous attempt to denigrate the believers?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Incomplete or false dichotomy.

To have free will and be able to love “freely” means you are free to choose to love or not to. To be able to love as a free agent, it is only logically necessary that you are able not to love. That doesn’t necessarily mean commit genocide, rape or slaughter, though those might be the way in which “not love” are demonstrated. They need not be, however. Not love could simply mean neglect, ignore, walk away, reject, etc., a litany of other possible “works.”

Your logic appears strained.

This is not my dichotomy… and not my logic… it is the apologist’s dichotomy (some of them, at least). I always argue for a limited “freedom” which allows one to make certain selections and does not allow to make others. We do not have total, complete, unlimited freedom. What is wrong to chip way a little more?

 

[tonyrey]

I thought you believe in continuous creation?

How can one be so specific when describing the Creator of the universe? You see evidence of its value and beauty yet regard it as accidental, irrational and purposeless.

Surely it’s a case of all or nothing? Either it makes sense or it doesn’t - and if it doesn’t how can you make enough sense of it to believe in a Creator?

 

[Peter_Plato]

This is not my dichotomy… and not my logic… it is the apologist’s dichotomy (some of them, at least). I always argue for a limited “freedom” which allows one to make certain selections and does not allow to make others. We do not have total, complete, unlimited freedom. What is wrong to chip way a little more?

I see. You are not willing to recognize that your dichotomy was false, you just deny that it was YOUR “logic” and thus are not required to subscribe to it even though you can use it to “refute” what you choose not to accept. :ehh: Very convenient for you. You can have your own “logic” untrammeled and safely squirreled away. You have no requirement to question it since it is never put on the line.

I never claimed we were required to have “total, complete and unlimited freedom” in order to be responsible moral agents or to be held accountable for our choices and our actions. Another false dichotomy.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Nonsense. Recognizing that “two and two makes four” does not require a “willingness” to accept it on our part.

Well, the human psyche being what it is, if there was enough hanging on “two and two makes four” I am sure there will be human beings who would not recognize that fact. The reason it is so easy to recognize it is because nothing crucial depends upon accepting it.

The proposition “God exists” has everything hanging on it which is why so many choose not to recognize it. Spare me the “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” retort, when that carries with it an abject failure to recognize what an extraordinary claim it is in the first places, and yet how so easily it is dismissed without any extraordinary seeking for that evidence, just trite dismissals of all evidence whatsoever merely on the grounds that it “isn’t acceptable.”

 

[tonyrey]

…
The fact that people were killed by Bryant and the fact that they can have no descendants and the fact that Bryant has no descendants and will never have the opportunity to have any shows that Tony’s argument is wrong.

Comparisons are odious in this context!

1. Through no fault of their own the potential descendants of Bryant’s victims (X)cannot exist.
2. Through no fault of their own the potential descendants of Bryant (Y) cannot exist.

In both cases the potential descendants are penalised unjustly. Neither X nor Y has a greater right to life than the other. If you believe everyone has a right to life you need to explain why there should be discrimination in favour of X. Of course if you don’t believe anyone has a right to life your argument collapses completely.

And you still have to explain why everyone has a right to life anyway…