New member, looking for discussion

[Robert_Sock]

Take a close look around you and ask if you have the innate wit to figure out how to manufacture simple toothpicks, never mind try and produce the boxes they come in. Surely there exists a higher-ordered wit.

Much of it has to do with inner experience, and not reading or reasoning. My favorite is to drink a cup of coffee and then go to an empty church and mediate on things like the above.

 

[rookieonedge]

Friends. Wasmit is not in the least interested in learning what some of you have expertly explained, and he is continually using intellectual nonsense to what appears to be his primary goal of never accepting any concrete argument. He would even disagree with EVERY argument St Thomas used in his Summa, therefore taking the position that he in on par with that brilliant mind of Aquinas. That is why I have decided that I will take no more part of this type of discussion. Wasmit appears incapable of intellectual truth; and if he is capable, he then has taken the position to use all his efforts to make all of us frustrated for some twisted enjoyment.

At some point in the Apostles teachings they had to shake the dust off of their sandals and move on.

It appears that Wasmit is arguing that because God “can’t” be omnicient and omnipotent while, at the same time, allowing us free will which means (in W.'s mind) that God is making all of our choices.

That, to me, is like saying God cannot make a square circle, so He is not all-powerful or all-knowing. It’s just a philosophical “trick.” Of course, God isn’t going to make a circle that is really a square because He put the Law of Nature into operation at creation which He attends to as well (except in extraordinary cases in which He performs a miracle). The Natural Law does not conflict with Divine Law.

In essence, the claim of most posters on this thread is that God’s omnipotence and/or omniscience in no way interferes with our free will which is “a given” extrapolated from Divine Law.

 

[rookieonedge]

wasmit:

Man is a primate. All primates have innate morality. A moral sense is vitally important to the efficient running of any society or group. There are no amoral primate groups anywhere. The Mafia have morals, baboons have codes. There are differences between the various groups and their codes of morality but all primate groups have some morals and standards of behaviour. Religion is also very common but it is not universal and it did not cause the codes or the instinct to observe them. These are facts that need to be clearly stated. Morality does not require religion.

What you are describing is a relativistic morality system. Your idea of “morality” is just another religion, based on humanism instead of the Divine.

“All primates have innate morality,” you said. So baboons have a sense of right and wrong?

 

[rookieonedge]

Two thumbs way up on Wasmit’s recent post on morality and religion!

Sounds like something familiar, like this type of morality has been tried before–like in the U.S.S.R. where everyone was supposed to be equal except the ruling class (bourgeoise) who kept the working class in line with their brand of “morality.”

 

[onelife1]

This video looks/sounds like basic fear-mongering to me.

I doubt if the full length video this ad is selling is any more than that.

**Well, I’m not selling the video. I was trying to help is all. **
TY

 

[steve_b]

I stopped replying because you were deliberately misunderstanding my points in a vain attempt to frustrate me, and evading the questions I posed to you.

You’re frustrated because every effect requires a cause. The ultimate cause you don’t want to accept

AND when you said

:
Originally Posted by was

[snip] #'s 1-7

8. every decision that is ever made by humans was actually made by god

9. there is no free will.

we’ll visit this again later down the page.
was:

Nevertheless, i will politely respond to your point about morals requiring religion.

Review my posts. I never said morals requires religion.

It can, but given your situation, I left it open to a more generic understanding. Such as
plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
was:

Religion and morality go together like boiled beef and carrots.

I find it interesting what you choose to answer and what you choose to ignore.
was:

Many people have swallowed the idea that morality started with religion to such an extent that they cannot separate the two.
Man is a primate. All primates have innate morality.

Somehow I don’t recall monkeys behavior being referred to as moral or immoral.
was:

A moral sense is vitally important to the efficient running of any society or group. There are no amoral primate groups anywhere. The Mafia have morals, baboons have codes. There are differences between the various groups and their codes of morality but all primate groups have some morals and standards of behaviour.

Moral conduct is defined by someONE or a group, correct? If that code of conduct is violated there are consequences to the law breaker from the one or group who made the law…correct?

All you’re doing is denying God exists, therefore, you deny His right to define conduct with consequences for all. You’re merely transfering authority away from God giving it to an entity who you WILL accept for the moment as authority.
was:

Religion is also very common but it is not universal and it did not cause the codes or the instinct to observe them.

In the beginning God, The 1st cause of everything, set down a first rule of conduct. When that rule was broken, notice

• Adam blamed Eve but 1st blamed God.
• Eve blamed the tempter
  [Gen 3:12…]

Your point #8 above namely blaming God for what you do is not new. Adam thought of it first. As you can see, God did NOT make Adam’s decision for him.

And there were consequences because there was free will.
was:

In Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union millions of people were brought up during the middle decades of the twentieth century in a state that was thoroughly atheist and many of the households and communities within those states were also atheist. There was no collapse of morality.

All you’re doing is trading authorities, and what communism thought was right and wrong
was:

You were not more likely to be robbed, raped, murdered or cheated in Leningrad than you were in Manchester. Why? Why did people freed from the fear of divine retribution not suddenly start behaving like amoral animals? Because we are animals. We are political animals, animals that need to live within societies and feel respected by them.

Like I said before, all you’ve done is transfer your preference from one authority to another.

You do realize that Russian men are only expected to live ~58 years. Why? The same people are still in control of their government.
was:

Religion is not the bulwark of morality any more than the cockerel crowing if the cause of the dawn or the virgin sacrifices are the cause of the volcano keeping quiet. This trick has been perpetrated on people for centuries and people continue to fall for it. It is very reminiscent of the great Santa Claus conspiracy. The surest way to lose a job on television is to state clearly that there is no such person as Santa Claus. No adult believes in Santa Claus, but most are part of the conspiracy. We mustn’t let children know that there is no Santa Claus because … er, well, because. And we mustn’t let the people, especially the poor, know there is no God because, well, because. We wouldn’t want to face those consequences would we?

was:

What is there to be afraid of in the truth that God is just as much an imaginary being as the bogeyman, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy? None whatsoever.

You’re frustrated because when you’re challanged, you can’t disprove God using the rules and tools you expect others to use in proving and disproving a point. Where is your evidence, that there is no God?

Back to an earlier point that you skip, The universe has age. Therefore it, like everything in it has age also. The parts coming from singularity can’t be older than the singularity it came from. Therefore everything had beginning including singularity. It was NOT always here. Therefore, before singularity there was nothing.

Who caused singularity?
nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0206mapresults.html

 

[onelife1]

Wasmit, I will pray with you. Together, we ask you Jesus’ to please come in to wasmit’s life through all our intentions. Wasmit, ask for Jesus’ to judge you…and pray these prayers: I father, hail Maiy, and glory be often. I will stand in the gap for you!

God could really use your intelligence for building the Kingdom of heaven. Will you look at how many people have responded to your post!. You could be an apostle. Be a man of God…

To believe is to already know God will answer you…in Jesus’ name. Please, may God Bless you with a grace for knowledge of your word.
Amen

I have faith in you wasmit…

 

[wasmit]

Just googling, you can find that most studies show some benefit of intercessory prayer.

Specifically which studies?

All of the studies I found showed no benefit.

 

[wasmit]

wasmit;4817:

Man is a primate. All primates have innate morality. A moral sense is vitally important to the efficient running of any society or group. There are no amoral primate groups anywhere. The Mafia have morals, baboons have codes. There are differences between the various groups and their codes of morality but all primate groups have some morals and standards of behaviour. Religion is also very common but it is not universal and it did not cause the codes or the instinct to observe them. These are facts that need to be clearly stated. Morality does not require religion.

What you are describing is a relativistic morality system. Your idea of “morality” is just another religion, based on humanism instead of the Divine.

“All primates have innate morality,” you said. So baboons have a sense of right and wrong?

Primate morality:

Some animals are surprisingly sensitive to the plight of others. Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days.

more at this link:

nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?_r=2&ref=science&pagewanted=all

relativistic morals:

In a debate with between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas, Douglas claimed that Lincoln was a “Nigger Lover”. In response Lincoln said:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.

Now, Lincoln was far ahead of his time in promoting increased rights for blacks. However, If someone said this today, they would be labelled as the most vile of racists. An abundance of similar quotes can be found from people that were considered progressive, or “ahead of their time”, in relation to a variety of issues such as women’s rights, racial equality, animal rights, civilian casualties in war, child abuse, rape, etc…

This shows that as a whole, the human race does have have a relativistic moral system, that changes over time. Some people are ahead of their time(Lincoln), most people are about average, and some people are slow to adopt changs (racists and sexists of today).

Could it be said that (having one’s morals moulded by the society one lives in) is a religion? Probably not.

As a corollary, this shows that people with absolute unchanging morals derived from scripture do not exist in today’s society (ignoring the few crazy literalists). If a person claims to derive absute morals from the torah (or bible, or koran, etc…) then they must accept the whole book as there is nothing in the book that tells a person which parts to accept and which to discard. Given that almost no-one lives their lives by the atrocities in the pentateuch (slavery, rape, child sacrifice, etc…), they must make their moral decision on which parts to “pick and choose” from another source - the internal knowledge of what is right and wrong, as changed by society over time.

 

[wasmit]

It appears that Wasmit is arguing that because God “can’t” be omnicient and omnipotent while, at the same time, allowing us free will which means (in W.'s mind) that God is making all of our choices.

That, to me, is like saying God cannot make a square circle, so He is not all-powerful or all-knowing. It’s just a philosophical “trick.” Of course, God isn’t going to make a circle that is really a square because He put the Law of Nature into operation at creation which He attends to as well (except in extraordinary cases in which He performs a miracle). The Natural Law does not conflict with Divine Law.

In essence, the claim of most posters on this thread is that God’s omnipotence and/or omniscience in no way interferes with our free will which is “a given” extrapolated from Divine Law.

I’m not trying to trick anyone. A long time ago I came across a clear and logical demonstration of the incompatibility of creation/free will/omnipotence/omniscience, which convinced me. I have tried to faithfully reproduce it here, to see if there was any rational way it could be dismissed. I have not found any so far. This is one of the reasons that preclude me from believing in the christian god - the attributes given to him are logically impossible.

 

[wasmit]

Sounds like something familiar, like this type of morality has been tried before–like in the U.S.S.R. where everyone was supposed to be equal except the ruling class (bourgeoise) who kept the working class in line with their brand of “morality.”

The Red Scare?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/21/Is_this_tomorrow.jpg

 

[rookieonedge]

This video looks/sounds like basic fear-mongering to me.

I doubt if the full length video this ad is selling is any more than that.

Nonetheless, it gives me the creeps to think that someone would reject God and end up in Hell, Hades, Gehenna (Jesus’ word), Chaos & Pandemonium (John Milton’s words).
In 1917, Our Lady appeared in Fatima Portugal to 3 shepherd children. During one of the visions, the beautiful Lady opened up the earth, and the children actually saw Hell. They were so horrified that they said if it were not for the grace of God holding them up, they would have died of the terror. The Blessed Mother wants her children to know that Hell really exists. People who didn’t believe in the apparitions but that were there as journalists, government officials were terrified witnessing the miracle of the sun on Oct. 13, 1917. About 70,000 people saw the sun spinning and then zooming towards earth. They thought it was the end of the world. There are news reports in Europe of that miracle. Many atheists were converted. Even people 10 miles away saw it. So it was mass halucination. Hell is REAL!

 

[rookieonedge]

Specifically which studies?

All of the studies I found showed no benefit.

Below is a link to some studies that go both ways but the most recent show positive results.

altmed.creighton.edu/prayer/Scientific%20Review.htm

Mentioned at the top are words from the researchers about the many studies of the value of positive therapeutic influences from religion and spirituality. The studies listed, however, are those from intercessory prayer done from a distance. Different studies employed differing variables. The controls may also be imperfect, but the studies that are most positive are the latest ones nearer the bottom.

On the Google page were a variety of websites on this subject. I noted that some are from religious groups and a couple (like the coronary one) done by professional researchers.

Like I said in another post, people who have faith to start with show a higher incidence of healing. That was publicized not too long ago. Check out this website:

godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html

 

[rookieonedge]

Oops! I should edit more carefully. In the post about the miracle at Fatima, I meant to say the miracle WASN’T the result of mass hallucination, since it was seen not only nearby but as far away as 10 or more miles.

 

[rookieonedge]

I’m not trying to trick anyone. A long time ago I came across a clear and logical demonstration of the incompatibility of creation/free will/omnipotence/omniscience, which convinced me. I have tried to faithfully reproduce it here, to see if there was any rational way it could be dismissed. I have not found any so far. This is one of the reasons that preclude me from believing in the christian god - the attributes given to him are logically impossible.

Would you please do me the favor of providing “a clear and logical demonstration of the incompatibility of creation/freewill/omnipotence/omniscience” which convinced you. All you’ve done here is state the premise. You do not logically prove it. You can’t seem to see the logic of belief in a Supreme Being.

A Supreme Being must be omnipotent/omniscient in order to create the universe.
God (Christian God) is the Creator of the universe.
Therefore, God is omnipotent/omniscient.

 

[rookieonedge]

Note: in the 2007 Issue of Soul Magazine, Issue 3, I found the following with regard to the above painting:

“In the 1960’s, the co-founders (Msgr. Colgan and John Haffert) were instrumental in viting Padre Pio to become the spiritual father of the Apostolate. They also commissioned Salvador Dali to paint the “Vision of Hell” which expresses his vision of Sister Lucia’s description of what she saw at the 3rd. apparition by Our Lady…”

The first time I realized that artist Salvador Dali was a devout Catholic was when my family and I visited the World Apostolate of Fatima (formerly known as the Blue Army Shrine) in Washington, NJ. The above painting of Hell hangs at the Shrine.

(Too bad the pic didn’t show up).

hicatholicmom.blogspot.com/2008/09/fine-art-friday-salvador-dali-and-hell.html

 

[anon5216]

Nonetheless, it gives me the creeps to think that someone would reject God and end up in Hell, Hades, Gehenna (Jesus’ word), Chaos & Pandemonium (John Milton’s words).
In 1917, Our Lady appeared in Fatima Portugal to 3 shepherd children. During one of the visions, the beautiful Lady opened up the earth, and the children actually saw Hell. They were so horrified that they said if it were not for the grace of God holding them up, they would have died of the terror. The Blessed Mother wants her children to know that Hell really exists. People who didn’t believe in the apparitions but that were there as journalists, government officials were terrified witnessing the miracle of the sun on Oct. 13, 1917. About 70,000 people saw the sun spinning and then zooming towards earth. They thought it was the end of the world. There are news reports in Europe of that miracle. Many atheists were converted. Even people 10 miles away saw it. So it was mass halucination. Hell is REAL!

Try to get past the whole “how could someone reject God?” thing.
To reject God, you would have to first know God directly.

What people reject is other people’s (and sometimes their own) ideas about God.
Just because some of these ideas have been formalized by one organized group or another, doesn’t change the fact they are just ideas to non-members of the group in question.

Regarding Fatima, not everyone perceived all the events exactly the same way.
I agree that there was a mass altering of people’s consciousness and perceptions.

Whether those perceptions were hallucinatory, symbolic, or objective reality is a matter of interpretation.
How each individual did interpret their personal experience determined their response to that experience.

How those of us not present at the events, respond to stories of those events, is now back to a question of interpreting words and ideas - not direct experience.

 

[rookieonedge]

Primate morality:

Some animals are surprisingly sensitive to the plight of others. Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days.

more at this link:

nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?_r=2&ref=science&pagewanted=all

relativistic morals:

In a debate with between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas, Douglas claimed that Lincoln was a “Nigger Lover”. In response Lincoln said:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.

Now, Lincoln was far ahead of his time in promoting increased rights for blacks. However, If someone said this today, they would be labelled as the most vile of racists. An abundance of similar quotes can be found from people that were considered progressive, or “ahead of their time”, in relation to a variety of issues such as women’s rights, racial equality, animal rights, civilian casualties in war, child abuse, rape, etc…

This shows that as a whole, the human race does have have a relativistic moral system, that changes over time. Some people are ahead of their time(Lincoln), most people are about average, and some people are slow to adopt changs (racists and sexists of today).

Could it be said that (having one’s morals moulded by the society one lives in) is a religion? Probably not.

As a corollary, this shows that people with absolute unchanging morals derived from scripture do not exist in today’s society (ignoring the few crazy literalists). If a person claims to derive absute morals from the torah (or bible, or koran, etc…) then they must accept the whole book as there is nothing in the book that tells a person which parts to accept and which to discard. Given that almost no-one lives their lives by the atrocities in the pentateuch (slavery, rape, child sacrifice, etc…), they must make their moral decision on which parts to “pick and choose” from another source - the internal knowledge of what is right and wrong, as changed by society over time.

I read the link. I’d go more with the scientists who consider sympathy to be based upon emotion while morality is based upon reason: (although I disagree with Peter Singer’s morality in his detemination of accepting or rejecting a newborn baby – he’d allow the child to die if handicapped in some way, even after birth)
Quoted:
Many philosophers believe that conscious reasoning plays a large part in governing human ethical behavior and are therefore unwilling to let everything proceed from emotions, like sympathy, which may be evident in chimpanzees. The impartial element of morality comes from a capacity to reason, writes Peter Singer, a moral philosopher at Princeton, in “Primates and Philosophers.” He says, “Reason is like an escalator — once we step on it, we cannot get off until we have gone where it takes us.”

That was the view of Immanuel Kant, Dr. Singer noted, who believed morality must be based on reason, whereas the Scottish philosopher David Hume, followed by Dr. de Waal, argued that moral judgments proceed from the emotions.

Unquote:
The stories of the bible must be read in context. In each chapter, God, speaking through his prophets, had messages for His people, namely that He was sending a Messiah (not the kind they had in mind). The bible is filled with details and uses imagery, allegory, symbolism and various literary devices as authors do today. That’s why it helps to have the magisterium of the Church interpret difficult passages.

By the way, my dog has empathy (but it’s instinctual) as animals acting out in group dynamics; it’s usually a dance around dominance. Actually, the empathy in certain species is remarkable. I read about a boy falling into a moat and a baboon (I think it was) jumped in, grabbed him and put him in a safe place (away from the males!)

 

[AndyT_81]

Hi wasmit,

1. Assume an omnipotent omniscient god that created all humans.
2. he knows everything that occurred at all times, past, present and future. He can change anything at any time. (omniscience, omnipotence)
3. He can change a future event by changing any prior cause of that event. (omnipotence)
4. At the moment of creation of humans, he knew every decision that every human would make. (omniscience)
5. At the moment of creation of humans, he could have changed any decision made by any human by editing the act of creation of humans. (omnipotence, 3)
6. Further, he must have consciously chosen each decision, as even if god created all humans and then did nothing further, he was tacitly agreeing to all future decisions, as he knew about them. (5, omniscience)
7. each decision that is ever made by humans was therefore made by god in the act of creation, as he had the power to change any decision, therefore he chose the outcome of every decision.(5 and 6)
8. every decision that is ever made by humans was actually made by god (7)
9. there is no free will.

This argument is invalid. There are a couple of issues with it. One problem is premise 5.

1. At the moment of creation of humans, he could have changed any decision made by any human by editing the act of creation of humans. (omnipotence, 3)

In this premise you are implicitly assuming the conclusion (9.) and therefore the argument is circular. If God could have edited any decision made by humans (even indirectly) then free will does not exist, rather God does make our decisions for us and we are not free to act. But this is a premise of your argument, not the conclusion, so you are pre-supposing your conclusion in premise 5.

Now, you may say that free will contradicts 4., but this is not the case. Just because God knows what decisions we are going to make, it in no way follows logically that we, being free agents, are predetermined in the decisions we make. You have to remember that God transcends time and therefore isn’t constricted by time.

Consider what “free will” means: it means our actions are not completely predetermined by any “outside” cause. The corollary of that is that, in time, our actions can never be completely predictable even if one is omniscient. So if God existed completely “in time”, then 4. would lead to a contradiction of free will. However, God does not exist completely in time but transcends it, so all time lays before Him to view. Therefore free will and 4. are completely consistent.

 

[AndyT_81]

Also, I forgot to talk about the problem with premise 2. Premise 2. says:

1. he knows everything that occurred at all times, past, present and future. He can change anything at any time. (omniscience, omnipotence)

This isn’t really correct in the context of this argument. God can do anything that isn’t logically impossible. However, if you claim that He can change anything, including anything which basically removes our free will (which He granted us), then we have a logical impossibility i.e. God cannot enforce a change of our will if we are to remain free willed.

So in other words, “He can change anything at any time” should be qualified with “, except the will of free beings” in the context of this argument. If you say that the God you are trying to disprove can do the logically impossible, then you are attacking a straw-man, for it is the traditional view that God cannot do the logically impossible.