Occam's Razor V. Goddidit

[Ouroboros]

No virgins for you, you infidel!

Damit!

 

OTOH, I don't mind the experienced ones.

[Chris630]

I'd argue that to truly make an assessment of the simplest explanation to such a complicated subject, we would need to have more information, we simply know such a minuscule amount about the universe, that accepting any conclusion would be little more than guessing, however if forced, I would clearly choose that the simplest explanation for all this is that is one without a god, which then requires a lot more explanation(guessing), to get to what makes god exist. It's much more simple to say all the energy in the universe has and always will exist in one form or another, and the rest seems to happen by chance.

It's still just guessing though. We could all just be in a big computer program.(hope that wasn't too off-topic)

[LNC]

LNC, you are hopeless.

 

Here is what you said that led to me posting that:

 

I would submit that each of these explanations has logical and philosophical, as well as, scientific problems. First, we have no empirical data suggesting that things can come into existence uncaused out of nothing. It seems to suggest such an explanation would be a metaphysical suggestion rather than a scientific suggestion and it fails on the grounds of violating the principal of causality which is one of the foundational principles that under girds the whole scientific enterprise. To suggest such a thing would bring the whole enterprise into question.

You continually use metaphysical ideas in your posts and at the same time, slam others for using metaphysical ideas. You again did this to your post to Davka (#29).

 

I could say what you said above back at you and it would stand it's ground just as well if not better from a self-caused universe point of view addressing the Goddidit view. They are both metaphysical discussions, so stop with the apparent attempt to confuse others.

 

Here is the problem. For a materialist, empiricism is the foundation of knowledge. No empirical data, no grounds for saying that you know a thing. Even at that, empiricism is based upon assumptions which cannot be empirically proved, so it is a self-refuting sole basis for epistemology. I don't hold this position and am willing to acknowledge that metaphysical assumptions can be valid. Because of that I am not being inconsistent. Now, if you and/or Davka allow for knowledge that can be gained by other means than empiricism and can ground that in your worldview, then I will be willing to listen to what you have to say. However, if you believe, consistent with materialism, that there is nothing that exists beyond the material world, then I find it inconsistent to point to metaphysical arguments. So, maybe you can let me know if you are: 1) a materialist; 2) if not, on what basis you hold to knowledge that is not empirically confirmed. If you are a materialist, I see no basis upon which you can make metaphysical arguments that are not empirically verified.

[LNC]

Yes but by this reasoning there's an infinite amount of space between me and the fridge (as I could take 6 feet from me to the frige and then cut it in half an infinite number of times) so I can never reach it.

 

That argument also assumes today as a terminus instead of as a point along and infinitely long line (time stretching in both directions). When seen this way, no contradiction.

 

The best answer I can give is that nothing is truly infinite. Infinite is a concept that works in some applications but that I don't believe has any parallels in actual existence.

 

Sorry, that would not be an infinite amount of space, that would be a finite space that could be potentially divided into an infinite amount of subsegments. However, it is still ultimately a finite distance. This does not defeat what I was arguing as the subsets are merely a potential infinite. I don't believe that that space could be divided into an actual infinite amount of subsections in the real world. In other words, the potential infinite could not be actualized in the real world.

 

Any future time is also potential and not actualized until we reach that point; however, infinite time cannot be actualized as there are always more potential days, hours, minutes, etc. that can be added. We cannot reach an infinite by adding successive finite segments together as we will never actualize the infinite.

 

If nothing is truly infinite, and I will agree that I don't think we can actualize an infinite in the real world, then the past is also finite. So, I think we are agreeing here.

[NotBlinded]

Here is the problem. For a materialist, empiricism is the foundation of knowledge. No empirical data, no grounds for saying that you know a thing. Even at that, empiricism is based upon assumptions which cannot be empirically proved, so it is a self-refuting sole basis for epistemology. I don't hold this position and am willing to acknowledge that metaphysical assumptions can be valid. Because of that I am not being inconsistent. Now, if you and/or Davka allow for knowledge that can be gained by other means than empiricism and can ground that in your worldview, then I will be willing to listen to what you have to say. However, if you believe, consistent with materialism, that there is nothing that exists beyond the material world, then I find it inconsistent to point to metaphysical arguments. So, maybe you can let me know if you are: 1) a materialist; 2) if not, on what basis you hold to knowledge that is not empirically confirmed. If you are a materialist, I see no basis upon which you can make metaphysical arguments that are not empirically verified.

 

LNC, I am not a materialist in the strictest sense. I think you are being inconsistent when demanding evidence from those of us that put forth other ideas about the beginning of the universe. It doesn't matter if one is a materialist or not, when the discussion involves space and time, it is of a metaphysical nature. You will not give one inch when others are discussing other ideas on the same playing field. It seems you shift it to materialism when that isn't what is being discussed.

 

Also, saying "nothing that exists beyond the physical world" has hidden assumptions. You assume, as the strict materialist does, that the physical world is lifeless. This is a view you have in common and why you both want to butt heads. You say an outside agent is needed for this lifeless matter to animate and they say that this lifeless matter is fully automatic. It's this acceptance a priori of this premise that shuts out other views. The entire argument is based on how this seemingly lifeless matter is animated. You are pretty much in agreement otherwise. This is why you try to use Aristotle and other areas of science to support your own view also. I say that the physical world holds both immaterial and material as a much needed aspect of existence itself.

 

I want to put forth a analogy that Joseph Campbell used. He talks about a light bulb and the light it shines. When the bulb goes out, it is tossed away and a new bulb is used. The light didn't change, just the bulb. Which is important, the light or the bulb? Actually, both are needed. There would be no light without the bulb. And what is the bulb without light? In this view, taken literally, nothing does exist beyond the physical world. They are one. It is no longer inconsistent for a "materialist" to point to metaphysical arguments when looking at physical objects.

 

On a side note, scientist do use metaphysical concepts quite often. Even more so than earlier in the century. You might want to check out a thread started by Open_Minded here in the Colosseum: Reductionism and Materialism are not Scientific Givens

 

Metaphysics are important to understanding physical things, IMO, and in the opinion of others.

 

A metaphysical concept is any concept that transcends pure empirical concepts, such as are derived from sense experience, perception, sensation etc. Metaphysical concepts are what Kant called the Ideas of Reason, synthetic apriori notions that can be formed by the power of pure thought and that are not dependent on experience as the only source of concepts (as empiricism and positivism hold).

Metaphysical concepts are essential and necessary to understand the whole, to go beyond the fragmentary view of the average man in order to grasp the higher interrelations and meanings of the world in toto. Science gradually recognizes that its analytical methodology does not yield understanding of the whole and that therefore a radical paradigm shift is necessary and is actually already going on. Metaphysics, after having been shunned from science since the beginning of this century, is becoming again part of a holistic view amongst scientists of all fields.

Glossary

 

I'm just saying to try to recognize what playing field everyone is on before you demand a football be thrown on a baseball diamond.

[LNC]

The singularity from which the Universe came from was a non physical entity as well. At least in the sense of our present form. Time and space did not exist in the singularity. Physical only in the sense of existing and full of energy, but not time-space-matter form.

 

Technically, scientists don't exactly know what the singularity was; however, we do know that all matter, energy, space and time began within the singularity. So, I think you overstate the case by saying that the singularity was non-physical, since we don't know this to be the case.

 

There is no prior to time. The paradox argument is that there is no infinite past. No infinite past, means a beginning of time. A beginning of time means no time before that point.

 

Don't confuse the subject by throwing in false statements about the whole argument.

 

I didn't say that there was a prior in time, if you will look back at how I state God's existence, I always try to say "causally prior," a philosophical, not a temporal way of stating God's prior existence. So, I think you have merely misread how I stated my case. Stating that God is causally prior to the universe is a valid philosophical way of speaking of God's existence prior (causally) to the existence universe.

 

Time didn't exist before time began. God didn't exist before time began.

 

Unless, time did exist before the Universe, and the paradox is wrong.

 

I think if you will reread my argument as I have restated above, you will see that God can exist timelessly and be the cause of matter/energy and space/time. So, you are logically mistaken in your conclusion.

 

Multiverse and panes would. Besides, I just saw some comment in some article recently which stated that quantum mechanics seems to break the laws of thermodynamics.

 

Multiverses also require an ultimate beginning, a meta-universe. I have already shown evidence in other threads that Guth, Vilenkin and others don't see a past eternal universe, or even a past eternal meta-universe that spawned multiverses. So, I don't see you having any evidential support for your idea. Regarding your comment on thermodynamics, could you point me to what you are specifically referring? The only thing that I know of is that there may be pockets where the 2LOT has fluctuations, but ultimately, the steady progression, or regression in this case, moves on. It seems that the 1LOT does not have fluctuations. But if you have other research to which you want to point me, I would be happy to read it.

 

And past the universe exists eternal time. Time which cannot exist. A contradiction.

 

I don't agree that time is past eternal, nor do I argue this, but I do agree that these concepts are contradictory.

 

Or a multiverse with bubble-universes.

 

This still suffers from the same problems. 1) It doesn't fit with scientific models from Guth, Vilenkin and others. 2) It is logically contradictory as matter has the appearance of contingency in our experience, so for it would be special pleading to say that the meta-universe is somehow different, especially without any empirical evidence. 3) It still suffers the logical problem of an actualized infinite, which you have not shown any way of overcoming. In essence, it is a metaphysical position with loads of problems and not the most parsimonious explanation or the most plausible.

 

Nothing is wrong with the argument except that it switches between common sense thoughts about infinite series and finite values. It shows the danger of mixing finite and infinite thoughts.

 

In other words, you don't have an answer, but choose to be satisfied that there is an unsolvable paradox? I think someone else has addressed this in more detail, so I won't persist with this one further.

 

[quote

It's targeting the approach how to understand infinite v finite paradoxes. Don't trust your senses. Mysteries exist. The world is a mystery, but it's not solved by inventing new mysteries. God is just a way of replacing one paradox or mystery, with a new one.

 

OK, so mysteries exist. Therefore, one God could exist in three persons, right? Who says that this is not the invention of a paradox that doesn't really exist. You seem to be very selective as to which mysteries you will allow and which you won't. How do you decide which are valid and which aren't?

 

You said, "until," and you use terms like "before." They are temporal terms. There is no zero in the natural numbers set. There is no number before 1. So if you say "before" or "until" then you're talking about a temporal God.

 

These are simply ways for our minds to wrap around these concepts; however, it doesn't mean that I am arguing that time exists before time, that is simply grasping at straws on your part, or in this case, straw men. From now on, you can take all such statements to refer to causally prior, not temporally prior.

 

Right. So time began when he acted. The cause and time started simultaneous. Which means, there were no time before that cause. Also, God did not cause anything else before that time, since it was the First Cause, not the second, or third. He never caused a Heaven before the Universe. Neither did he cause any thoughts, ideas, planning, or design charts for his new Universe, because those are processes, which require temporal steps.

 

When you say the cause and time started simultaneously, that is not very precise language. We can say that God as the cause existed causally prior to acting, yet his action and the effect happened simultaneously. There is no logical reason to suggest that God as the cause started with the action, that would lead to the same logical problems of a self-caused cause and so should be rejected as an explanation.

 

And I believe the singularity replaces your God, and quantum mechanics replaces your atemporal entity. A non-sentient and real existence of the true cause of the Universe.

 

Put it this way: God minus sentience = Natural First Cause. All attributes you give God, can be given to a multiverse.

 

I think you end up, by saying that the singularity replaces God, with the same problem of an infinite regress. We know from scientific models that the singularity is a temporal effect, not an atemporal cause. So, to suggest this would lead to an infinite regress of asking what caused the singularity and then what caused that, etc. We need a timeless first cause and the singularity does not fit that definition according to what little we do know about it. You have the same problem of explaining where the laws of quantum mechanics came from as well as the rest of the laws of physics that govern the universe. You also have to explain why the universe is not much older than it is if the singularity is past eternal and how the singularity could be past eternal. I don't think you have answered anything by replacing God with the singularity and, in fact, have opened up a lot of new questions by doing so. You have also contradicted yourself in your last two statements in suggesting the the natural first cause lacks sentience and then suggesting that all the attributes that I suggest that God has, which includes sentience, can be given to a multiverse. Which is it?

[bdp]

as far as I can see, this all still boils down to having to make exceptions for 'god.'

[Ouroboros]

as far as I can see, this all still boils down to having to make exceptions for 'god.'

It does. And I'm done answering, because he just won't shut up. It's the same arguments re-iterated, without even consideration what we are really saying. I just hope that one day he'll wake up and realize what it is we've been telling him. We've been going on with this question for a year, and still no change. He thinks his argument holds because he is special, while our arguments do not hold because he wasn't the one coming up with them.

 

On a side note, recently some Old Testament scholar reported that Genesis does not state that God created the Universe ex nihilo, but that it was pre-existing and God only divided land and sky, etc. This is according to the correct translations to the word, according to her. That would weaken the case for a Christian God = First Cause God.

[Ouroboros]

Thanks for what you did, Hans. I've found it very interesting and helpful (though it was a lot for me to take all in).

I think there is no complete or satisfying answer, because the question is about something we can't understand. I keep on comparing it to a person born in a box. He's never been outside, and then he starts thinking about how the box looks like on the outside. Since he can't get there, there's no way he can tell the color of it. All these explorations into "before time" and "outside of space" are just imaginations. Scientists put together mathematical models, the technicians and programmers they create simulations and recreate the events step by step, and the theologians claim all that's beyond the point of not-knowing is there particular version of God. It seems like that some people just can't move beyond the fact that we can't know. They have to know. They must know. And if we can't know, they make up something to "know."

[Deva]

Hans, I commend you for your patience in hanging in there. I gave up long ago.

[NotBlinded]

This still suffers from the same problems. 1) It doesn't fit with scientific models from Guth, Vilenkin and others. 2) It is logically contradictory as matter has the appearance of contingency in our experience, so for it would be special pleading to say that the meta-universe is somehow different, especially without any empirical evidence. 3) It still suffers the logical problem of an actualized infinite, which you have not shown any way of overcoming. In essence, it is a metaphysical position with loads of problems and not the most parsimonious explanation or the most plausible.

The football is thrown and the batter strikes out.

[LNC]

Actually, the First Cause only give an argument to a First Cause, not an intelligent agent.

 

Intelligence require thought.

 

Thought is a process.

 

Process requires time.

 

Time is measurement of a temporal environment.

 

God is non-temporal, hence not intelligent.

 

Actually, I believe that it does in that an impersonal, unintelligent agent would lead to a much older universe than we see. A personal, intelligent agent has the ability to use will to create the universe. You confuse intelligence with expressing thoughts. God could have intelligence without the necessity of expressing linear thoughts in a timeless existence. I see no conflict in this. Intelligence is expressed in linear thoughts in our world; however, you must show that it is required in every possible world, and I don't believe that is a necessary expression of intelligence.

 

The design argument requires a being who spent time thinking about the design, but since time didn't exist "before" the Universe, God didn't think or plan anything.

 

The moral argument fails for your God since he commanded genocide. Genocide is not an absolute or objective moral law, but rather something which we consider immoral. If it's God's nature to be good and moral, then it would make genocide moral, but it is not. The moral argument would rather define God as a different god than YHWH.

 

I don't see that this necessarily follows. You are confusing us, who are finite and limited in our intelligence and wisdom with a being with all knowledge and intelligence. I see no reason why that type of being would require any time to think through design. It seems that the expression of creation would express design simultaneously. You have only made an assertion; however, you have given no reason for believing that assertion to have merit.

 

You are right in saying that genocide is not an absolute standard or objective moral law as it is more of a man made designation. Second, you would have to explain how you define genocide. Third, you would have to explain where genocide was actually carried out in the Bible. Yes, I know of groups that God commanded to be destroyed, but I don't know that any of them were actually destroyed. The Israelites always seemed to leave some behind. Fourth, you would have to explain why this standard, being man made, would apply to God (you don't really do that, you just assume that it should). Fifth, there is a difference between what God commands for us and what applies to him. Now, I know that will sound controversial, but think of it this way. If I decide to smash my TV, it is mine to do with what I wish - I have not done anything morally wrong. However, if my neighbor decides to smash my TV without my permission, he has done something morally and legally wrong. The TV does not belong to him and he has no right to destroy that which does not belong to him.

 

God created humans and therefore He is sovereign over them. He also created them for a purpose and with moral standards and when they decide to act contrary to their purpose and violate the standards (both of which are intrinsically connected), then he has the right to end that person's life as they have chosen to act contrary to their purpose. All people are going to die and are not guaranteed a certain number of days upon this earth. If God chooses to have some live shorter lives and others longer lives, the is within his purview to decide. He has no moral obligation to have people live a minimum number of days on this earth. And, he has no obligation as to how a person will die when they die. I believe it would be up to you to make a case, if you believe he does, for that position. Those aren't complete thoughts on this topic, but I am sure this will open up a hornets nest of replies.

[bdp]

I am sure this will open up a hornets nest of replies.

 

At this point, probably just a minor buzz.

 

Are you familiar with the case in England of the two 11-year-old boys who led a two year old boy away from a mall? And that's all they had to do, not kidnap, just stuck out their hands, the two year old took hold, and off they all walked to a nearby trainyard where the two boys literally beat the child to death - with rocks, with sticks, with their bare hands, and left the child's body on the tracks to be mutilated by the next train through. Which is exactly what happened. Did your god ordain this death or merely passively allow it, and if the latter then can he create a millstone big enough to hang around his own neck and a sea big enough to throw himself into?

 

I find it very disappointing that, after all your metaphysical and philosophical 'evidences,' you're still reduced at the end to 'god made us, he can do what he wants to us.' And that your picture of god is too big and distant to have any empathy for us pissants - I think I do it better honor not believing in it than that it exists and allows such horrific things to happen.

[Ouroboros]

It's over, LNC.

[LNC]

Natural selection, properly understood, is not a "accident" or a "blind process". However, I do think you bring up a good point, and that is how far any of our beliefs, even our personal experience, correspond with reality.

 

I do question our "reasoning ability". It seems to depend on our memories, our past experience, our inclinations, attraction and repulsion, aesthetics, emotion and bias. We are determined by the events of our past and our memories, but the memories and our experience change also, all the time.

 

I don't think all beliefs are equally valid. I take a pragmatic and admittedly personal approach. My criteria is whether or not a certain belief system makes me better, happier, more courageous, freer, stronger in the face of adversity, more generous, kind and compassionate toward my fellow human beings. The set of beliefs either works or it does not. Christianity fails in these areas, for me. It also fails as an explanation of the natural world, but that is a secondary matter to me. We are all essentially alone with our thoughts and feelings and must work it out for ourselves. Life is a serious business.

 

Natural selection involves a degree of randomness, surely you can't deny that as that is understood by those who promote the idea. If you disagree, could you let me know what or who drives the teleology of NS, as that would be required? Now, I don't completely deny natural selection; however, I don't think it can explain, for example the origin of life or many other features that we see in nature.

 

I don't believe that all beliefs are equally valid either, so on that we can agree. Here is a key distinction that I would like for you to make. Do you believe that we are influenced by memories, experiences, etc. or do you believe that we are completely determined by them? If we are completely determined by them, then your list of goals toward which you strive is really a moot point as you can do nothing else. However, if we are not completely determined by past events (known as event causation) then we must have an immaterial mind that causes our actions, but that can be influenced by past events, yet is not determined by them. It seems in mind science, that those are the two options (top down (by the mind) or bottom up causation (by the physical world and past events).

 

When you use terms like "better, happier, more courageous, freer, stronger in the face of adversity, more generous, kind and compassionate toward" your fellow human beings, I would agree that those are good ends toward which to strive; however, the reaching of these goals is subjective to each person and what drives you toward those ends may be considered immoral by another person. Let me use an example. What made John Wayne Gacy happy was to molest little boys. What made Richard Speck feel free was to murder beautiful young women. What makes many government bureaucrats feel stronger in the face of adversity and more generous is to ignore public opinion and to take our money and give it to others (many of whom are their friends who enrich themselves off of government programs). So, as I say, the reaching of these goals can be very subjective. Pragmatism or as it is known, utilitarianism, is subjective and often destructive.

 

Now, quite the contrary to what you say, I think that Christianity provides a better alternative to a subjective, utilitarian system. The Christian worldview provides an objective standard with which we can all measure and be measured regarding our beliefs and actions. Those standards are based upon a God whose nature is good and whose commands flow from that nature, the same for everyone. Whether someone is powerful or weak, rich or poor, healthy or infirmed, all are judged by the same standard. No preference is given based upon one's status in life. I also disagree with you regarding the natural world, but that is another discussion for another forum. Yes, these are serious questions and I appreciate your attitude and the fact that you take it this way.

[LNC]

Personal beliefs come in different flavors. For example, there are the beliefs we hold about our physical surroundings - these are based on repeated experience. I believe that this desk in front of me will hold my coffee cup because I have seen it do so before. I have also seem similar desklike objects support similar coffee cups, and thus extrapolate that this desk should behave similarly. This type of belief is akin to scientific belief, in that it is based on observation, testing, and refinement.

 

I agree that personal beliefs come in different flavors, there is no disputing that. The question is whether our beliefs can be justified (justified true beliefs) and, if so, on what basis? Given naturalism, we really don't have a valid basis for our beliefs as they are supposedly based upon survival (a concept that itself cannot be justified given naturalism) and survival does not necessarily require true beliefs, just right actions.

 

Then there are beliefs based on personal experience plus personal convictions. Political beliefs fall into this category. I believe that socialized medicine is desirable, based in part on personal experience, and in part on conversations with people who live in Canada, Holland, and Norway. Other people have equally valid opposing beliefs about socialized medicine which are based on different experiences, as well as conversations with people in countries where the system is not working very well, or with individuals for whom the system has not worked very well. This type of belief is a blend of personal opinion and scientific observation.

 

Finally, there are religious beliefs, which are based on private, non-replicable individual experience. I used to believe in biblegod and biblejesus based on purely subjective internal experiences combined with conversations with other people. These conversations tend to reinforce such beliefs because certain categories of subjective experience are comprised of similar neurochemical impulses. I know what it feels like to be in love, so I can listen to someone else describe the sensation and truthfully say "I know what you mean." Similarly, two individuals whose amygdala and neo-paretial cortex have quieted in what has been called the "god circuit" will describe similar (if not identical) sensations of transcendence and euphoria. Thus, conversations between people who have attended a religious service which incorporates rituals designed to trigger such internal phenomena can agree that what they felt was "real."

 

This last type of belief is the least scientific, because although the underlying cause may be measurable and replicable, the method used to trigger an endorphin release (or the "god circuit" or whichever "religious" experience might be shared) is deceptive. This can be demonstrated by the fact that people in dramatically different religious traditions experience the same neurochemical patterns, and report the same sensations - yet they attribute those sensations to completely different causes.

 

The claim that beliefs are all based on irrational or random impulses is refutable. The claim that all beliefs are purely subjective is similarly refutable. The physical world is experienced in more-or-less the same way by all people, regardless of their beliefs about it. Only the very primitive or very superstitious ascribe the physical properties of my desk to anything other than simple material laws. Replicable beliefs about the physical world, which can be shared across cultures and belief systems, are of a different order than non-replicable spiritual beliefs (YHWH did it v. Thor did it), which do not travel well across cultures and belief systems.

 

I find it interesting that you equate beliefs to the release of endorphins. That cannot be proved and seems to be committing the post hoc fallacy. It may be possible, but it is not something that I think we could directly prove or has been proved. Beliefs are not based upon a single circumstance like that. If it were possible, it seems that criminals would be treated to change their beliefs about their behavior.

 

Your two statements don't represent my beliefs, so I won't comment on them. You use the term "all" twice and that qualifier doesn't represent what I claimed. The question, however, is that if any of them are based on an irrational world (which naturalism has to assume at the base of everything) since naturalism doesn't imply teleology. The question I have is how can you determine that any beliefs are objective and on what do you base that. You cannot necessarily say that empiricism leads you there as you would have to begin by explaining why you could trust your senses. It is a much more difficult situation than you seem to demonstrate in your post. It has given philosophers jobs since the ancients first posed the question.

 

Also, a final question: history is not replicable, should we trust it given your beliefs?

[Ouroboros]

We have to rename the horse to Re-Jesus, because this dead horse has been resurrected and beaten to death so many times now.

[Ouroboros]

It's over, LNC.

 

At least now he can catch up.

 

P

Yeah, I guess we just have to make non-responses of different kind, until he catches up. It will take a month or two.

[agnosticator]

I find it very disappointing that, after all your metaphysical and philosophical 'evidences,' you're still reduced at the end to 'god made us, he can do what he wants to us.' And that your picture of god is too big and distant to have any empathy for us pissants - I think I do it better honor not believing in it than that it exists and allows such horrific things to happen.

 

I agree bdp. All that LNC learned and posts doesn't get him past the horrors of christian beliefs. If it were all true, we'd be slaves to god, witnessing god's inhumanity to man. Maybe LNC could be the Bill Paxton character from the movie FRAILTY, doing god's will on earth.

[bdp]

God created humans and therefore He is sovereign over them. He also created them for a purpose and with moral standards and when they decide to act contrary to their purpose and violate the standards (both of which are intrinsically connected), then he has the right to end that person's life as they have chosen to act contrary to their purpose. All people are going to die and are not guaranteed a certain number of days upon this earth. If God chooses to have some live shorter lives and others longer lives, the is within his purview to decide. He has no moral obligation to have people live a minimum number of days on this earth. And, he has no obligation as to how a person will die when they die.

 

By the way, did you really think we would be surprised that this would be your position? I find the whole proposition as you describe it repulsive.

 

And is this really the best your god could do? Blood sacrifice required, blood sacrifice made - 'It is finished' - death cheated, back from the grave - and then off to 'heaven'? And as he goes up and angel says 'He's coming back' - wasn't he JUST back in the first place? Shouldn't death/burial/resurrection have been 'game over'? Instead Jesus goes away again and time drags on and on and on, even though death has been defeated; more people are born, die sometimes horrific deaths, and go to hell - why? Sacrifice was made and death defeated - I'd say every drop of blood spilled on this earth since 'the ascension' is on your god's hands because he achieved his objectives and still lets the game keep going on.

 

And you know also that that's all rhetorical as I don't subscribe to the existence of your god.

[centauri]

...If I decide to smash my TV, it is mine to do with what I wish - I have not done anything morally wrong. However, if my neighbor decides to smash my TV without my permission, he has done something morally and legally wrong. The TV does not belong to him and he has no right to destroy that which does not belong to him.

Unless God told your neighbor to smash your TV, then it isn’t morally wrong.

 

God created humans and therefore He is sovereign over them.

You haven’t established that your version of god actually is God or that it exists.

But assuming such a being does exist, what you assume to be “God” could simply be an alien posing as God.

In that case, your claim about sovereignty is elevating a non-God entity into the genuine article.

 

He also created them for a purpose and with moral standards and when they decide to act contrary to their purpose and violate the standards (both of which are intrinsically connected), then he has the right to end that person's life as they have chosen to act contrary to their purpose.

And this “God” also manipulates people to behave in certain ways, so to say they are always making their own decisions to act contrary to their purpose is contradicted by the Bible, which I assume is where you get your script from.

The “moral standards” also change with the times, which renders the purpose subject to a standard partly based on situation.

 

All people are going to die and are not guaranteed a certain number of days upon this earth. If God chooses to have some live shorter lives and others longer lives, the is within his purview to decide. He has no moral obligation to have people live a minimum number of days on this earth. And, he has no obligation as to how a person will die when they die.

Then there is really no reason to try to keep people alive when God wants them dead.

Nursing homes, hospices, and efforts to keep people alive by human intervention and science could easily qualify as interfering with God’s plans.

[Kuroikaze]

You are right in saying that genocide is not an absolute standard or objective moral law as it is more of a man made designation. Second, you would have to explain how you define genocide.

 

Genocide is defined as the murder of a entire people group. There is no "how YOU define" we do not just get to randomly choose how we define words. Much like morality there may not be an absolute standard but society as a whole sets the standard not individuals.

 

Third, you would have to explain where genocide was actually carried out in the Bible. Yes, I know of groups that God commanded to be destroyed, but I don't know that any of them were actually destroyed.

 

Sooo....its ok if you only kill most of them? In any case god actually punishes the Jews for leaving these people alive, so the sum total of your argument here is that god is more barbaric than a bronze age culture. You aren't doing so well. so far, lets see what's next.

 

Fourth, you would have to explain why this standard, being man made, would apply to God (you don't really do that, you just assume that it should). Fifth, there is a difference between what God commands for us and what applies to him. Now, I know that will sound controversial, but think of it this way. If I decide to smash my TV, it is mine to do with what I wish - I have not done anything morally wrong. However, if my neighbor decides to smash my TV without my permission, he has done something morally and legally wrong. The TV does not belong to him and he has no right to destroy that which does not belong to him.

 

So we are just a thing? no value intrinsic value? What if I just killed my dog? Or my baby? I mean, those are mind too right? That is a much closer analogy than smashing a TV.

 

The thing you are trying to get around but can not seem to, is that the god you describe is a colossal dick. He does not care for us at all, You cannot say "god is love" and then proceed to define love in a way that is not recognizable by anyone anywhere.

 

You cannot have a "relationship" with a being that thinks of you as his "TV," I treat my cat better than he treats humans according to you.

 

 

God created humans and therefore He is sovereign over them. He also created them for a purpose and with moral standards and when they decide to act contrary to their purpose and violate the standards (both of which are intrinsically connected), then he has the right to end that person's life as they have chosen to act contrary to their purpose.

 

so if I want my child to become a banker and he becomes a musician I have the right to hire a hit man to kill him. I mean, I created him with a purpose and he acting contrary to it. Dumb shit kid, doesn't he know I created him?

 

I reject the notion if a god created us he is necessarily sovereign over us. A loving father ( that is how the bible describes him ) Allows their children to live their lives as they see fit, and does not control every aspect of their lives.

 

All people are going to die and are not guaranteed a certain number of days upon this earth. If God chooses to have some live shorter lives and others longer lives, the is within his purview to decide. He has no moral obligation to have people live a minimum number of days on this earth. And, he has no obligation as to how a person will die when they die. I believe it would be up to you to make a case, if you believe he does, for that position. Those aren't complete thoughts on this topic, but I am sure this will open up a hornets nest of replies.

 

Hmmm.... you are just describing reality here, we don't need a god running the show to know that none of us know how long we have to live. Funny how your god always acts just the way you would expect him too if he didn't exist at all.

 

Funny how it works that way isn't it?

[LNC]

Oh, I like this one! So is it ESP, christian magical sight and hearing, or that protrusion from the frontal lobe/pituitary gland in the movie "FROM BEYOND"?

 

I haven't studied ESP that closely, so I can't really speak to that topic. I wouldn't put it into the category of magic or connect it necessarily to glands. However, Moses heard God speak to him as did the prophets of the OT. John the Baptist and others present at Jesus baptism heard the voice of God. When Jesus was transfigured the Apostles heard God speak. I know that you may not accept these accounts; however, you would have to come up with an explanation for all people who have these types of experiences without simply assuming naturalism in the process as that would be question-begging.

[Shyone]

Oh, I like this one! So is it ESP, christian magical sight and hearing, or that protrusion from the frontal lobe/pituitary gland in the movie "FROM BEYOND"?

 

I haven't studied ESP that closely, so I can't really speak to that topic. I wouldn't put it into the category of magic or connect it necessarily to glands. However, Moses heard God speak to him as did the prophets of the OT. John the Baptist and others present at Jesus baptism heard the voice of God. When Jesus was transfigured the Apostles heard God speak. I know that you may not accept these accounts; however, you would have to come up with an explanation for all people who have these types of experiences without simply assuming naturalism in the process as that would be question-begging.

Didn't the sky crack open, and a voice from the sky said, "This is my son in whom I am well pleased" at Jesus Baptism?

 

And didn't John the Baptist later ask Jesus, "Are you someone important? Or should I keep looking?"

 

And imagine the zombies walking around after Jesus died. That didn't convince the Romans?

 

Unbelievable stories are unbelievable because they are either lies or delusions with elements that defy reality and/or logic.

 

A purple monkey just flew out of my ass. Witnessed by 500 people! Just ask them!

[skepticalme]

Oh, I like this one! So is it ESP, christian magical sight and hearing, or that protrusion from the frontal lobe/pituitary gland in the movie "FROM BEYOND"?

 

I haven't studied ESP that closely, so I can't really speak to that topic. I wouldn't put it into the category of magic or connect it necessarily to glands. However, Moses heard God speak to him as did the prophets of the OT. John the Baptist and others present at Jesus baptism heard the voice of God. When Jesus was transfigured the Apostles heard God speak. I know that you may not accept these accounts; however, you would have to come up with an explanation for all people who have these types of experiences without simply assuming naturalism in the process as that would be question-begging.

 

Assuming naturalism? Perhaps we should tty explaining these things without ASSUMING the supernatural. I will give you THREE.

 

-First, these experiences NEVER took place. They are completely fabricated stories made up to deceive ones self or others.

 

-Second, events similar to the ones described took place but authors retelling the story took a little "artistic liceanse" recounting it. Perhaps they believed it to be true. Perhaps they imbelished to make the story more interesting, perhaps they misinterpreted the story the firat time they heard it.

 

-Third, events similar to those described took place, but eyewitnesses discussing the event after the fact imbellished or imagined things that others soon incorperated into there accounts. Such things happen ALL THE TIME in eyewitness testimony of criminal cases. Thats why eyewitness statements are taken promptly and seperately because thier stories evolve over time.

 

No true account of ESP has EVER been documented.