We live in a natural, material/physical world. Why should we look beyond the natural world? Especially when a something is prefaced with “if”. Seems to me that it would be better logic to look at the material/physical world for reasons for evil. Like with like as the saying goes.
And yet, even here may there not be an apparent difficulty? If God were to allow evil for the sake of free will, might it not be equally expected that he allow good for the same sake? Yet why might it be that evil is capable of conquering good when subject to an equal struggle of wills?
If “fight” need not be the accurate description of “leap of faith,” which is the more accurate category? Is it “flight” or “freeze?” Or is this misunderstanding the three options available when confronted by the necessity of a “leap of faith?”I would not go so far as to use the word require; however, it is very possible to say that the leap of faith can be a dang fight. Paul ended up being knocked off his horse.
Once in a while, a CAF non-theist will let slip that there had been a back and forth struggle for years before their final decision. Being an agnostic can also be wrenching for some people. While I do not agree with atheistic worldviews, personally, I have a deep respect for those willing to meet the “leap of faith” head on. Catholicism keeps reminding me, especially during Lent, that Jesus never ceases searching for lost sheep. After all, Jesus hung bleeding on a cross in order to meet the good thief.
Luke 15: 1-7. & Luke 23: 33-43.
Is it not necessarily evil from the perspective of the gazelle?
Would many of these reasons necessarily be open to the consideration of a child? Or might they be predominantly adult considerations?
Might not the simple solution to this argument be to conduct a poll to determine how many first came to hear of God? If the results prove to be overwhelming from the lips of parents, would not the consideration at least have merit?
Perhaps this might be alternately stated: “If there is a God He will want me to believe.”
This is certainly a valid consideration, however, might it not be necessarily more difficult for one’s cat to share an affection if one is never physically present to offer it a lap upon which to curl?
What might be required in order for one to take “a leap of faith?” Must one have a great deal of courage? A strong commitment to a self-reinforced ideal? Be reasonably certain based on the testimony of others, but willing to ignore small difficult details? Or be willing to take risks for the sheer joy of so doing?
Regrettably, it appears the discussion of dinosaurs is a forbidden topic.
Fair enough. Inasmuch as morality is concerned, the death of the gazelle need not be considered evil. From an existential position (in which existing is good and non-existing is less good), however, the gazelle must necessarily view his demise as “less good” than existing. Any movement away from good must needs be considered a movement towards evil. From this consideration, would not the gazelle view the beast who was intent on tearing out its innards as a source of all that might be evil (in the world of the gazelle)?
Why might “you” be willing (or able) to keep a belief in God at bay?
Well what divides the atheists that can make it into heaven from the ones that cannot?
If there is a god that is going to judge me based on these things, then yes, I suppose we will only know after I die. Until then, I have my reasons, and I didn’t pick them, they just won the argument to me.
So you are saying that somebody who wasn’t a Christian (say because they didn’t even know Christianity existed) would become a Christian automatically if they were taken to heaven? And am I still saved because I am a confirmed Catholic, even though I don’t believe in a single part of the catechism?
I would imagine if this were the case, then we would hear examples of it. Unless its something that only the dying person witnesses.
Bound to happen, but I think much of it has been relevant to the topic.
Well like I originally said, I don’t think faith is logical if the arguments for faith are not logical. I do not find any of the arguments for god’s existence compelling in the pro, such as the cosmological, teleological, etc. I could go into why, but those are probably in already existing, or belong in a new thread.
While I agree with you that humans are worthy of respect, I don’t agree with your overall message. For one thing, non-human animals are also worthy of respect. For instance, I heard in the news a few years ago about these 2 guys who set a dog on fire. That dog is far more worthy than those guys. Humans are only more worthy than other entitities bc of their more complex feelings of pain and suffering IMO. Not bc they are inherently more special.
So if anything is “less good” it is evil? Vanilla Ice Cream would be Evil if you preferred Chocolate?
You necessarily have to pick an arguement and go into why it is illogical, don’t you. A general statement like “I don’t think faith is logicial” doesn’t accomplish much does it?
I get very cranky (feminine of snarky) when one brings up something beyond what I said so that there is reason to disagree with some kind of overall message whatever that is.
As long as I am cranky, will you mind if I answer – so what? Perhaps if one has the courage to look inside oneself, one would find an extremely unique nature. This peerless human species can be considered as worthy of profound respect. Does this imply that every person is the queen or king of virture and good works? Of course not. What it implies is that human nature is both material and spiritual, a rational anatomy, spirit and matter, body and soul.
What I really said is “I would not go so far as to use the word require; however, it is very possible to say that the leap of faith can be a dang fight.” My point was that there are different kinds of options beside the “either-or” variety. I really like the fourth option “fall” (submit) which you presented. I certainly would prefer that to “fight”. Note to self. Do not imply limited options in the future.
To logically figure out “if there is a God He will want me to believe.”
I assume you are comparing a cat’s difficulty in being affectionate to a person if the latter’s physical presence is lacking, to a person’s difficulty believing in G-d without G-d’s revealing Himself directly to the person. But we do believe in G-d’s revelation, whether to the Jewish people at Mount Sinai or to His apostles in the case of Jesus. For a cat such affection may very well be impossible, while for a person, it may be difficult at times but quite conceivable, evidently.