Ask a Christian

[El_Machinae]

I do have another suggestion for an out, which I picked up from Oda in a thread a while back: is there any possible non-stasis-world in which we wouldn't complain about evil, locally defined as the worst things possible in that world? I agree that omnipotence can get you out of this world's collective opinion on what constitutes evil, but to make a world where people wouldn't complain about the problem seems to require complete equality and unchangingness, or else the people of that world will complain about the worse things in their world being evil.

Does this mean that it's never possible for the created entities to ever exist in a world without evil? And did God whine )) about evil, even when he was by his lonesome?

 

[Sidhe]

Does this mean that it's never possible for the created entities to ever exist in a world without evil? And did God whine )) about evil, even when he was by his lonesome?

If God is omniscient then it's perfectly possible that he created or at least let evil exist in order for free will to exist. Obviously if you can't chose to do evil, and only chose to do good, then that's no freedom, nor does it make good a choice, thus The Garden of Eden and the inevitable spread of choice into what otherwise would have been a sterile paradise. Apart from the fact he must of always known what Satan was up to and what he was going to do, it seems quite obvious that it was all part of his plan anyway. Why does evil exist? It has to, because without evil good is meaningless.

 

[Holycannoli]

By saying that you are unable to determine the likelihood of either, you are, in effect, saying that they are of equally indeterminate probability.


The art, though, was part of a general excessive wealth that much of the upper parts of the Catholic church enjoyed. I mean, sure, you had village priests that were as poor as their neighbors - but you also had bishops eating off of gold plate, in a large mansion with a hundred servants and five horses, while children starved a mile away. So while in theory the pretty stuff in the churches were "for God" it wasn't viewed that way. And while I like beautiful things and beautiful art, I can at least see where they were coming from when they destroyed or sold artwork, even if I don't agree with a lot of it.

I don't know of any prominent protestants that protested () the destruction or theft of artwork and the like. I'm sure there were some, but that sort of behavior was pretty common at the time, despite what some people think. Plotinus might have some specific names for you.

I don't think there are many arguments today about beautiful artwork being good, whether it's old or not. I'm sure there are some who don't approve, but overall the American evangelical view of art is very approving, if traditional. (I mean, I've met people who are hardcore YEC's who dream of traveling to the Louvre and seeing all the paintings. So honestly, I don't think it's much of an issue anymore) Now, how "fancy" churches should be is a different issue, and there's some dispute along those lines. But that's kind of separate.

Yes. Back then the church attracted the less-than-holy. If you desired wealth, women and power and weren't of privileged noble birth you joined the church. That doesn't mean every religious man was corrupt, just that there were more than a few bishops and others who were. The church is made up of humans after all.

This isn't something I need to tell you guys. I'm sure most everyone here knows about the church's corruption back then. I just hope they don't think things are still like that, or were like that from the very beginning. You get your bad apples, but again it's made up of human beings who are far from infallible.

According to me, God makes and works in the world through science. Why did these scientific processes first take place?

Not just according to you

 

[GenMarshall]

Evil exists because of free will. God granted people Freewill of their actions.

Also to add, I don't believe in the notion of Predestination.

 

[Truronian]

By saying that you are unable to determine the likelihood of either, you are, in effect, saying that they are of equally indeterminate probability.

I'm saying the concept of probability is meaningless when your talking about the existance of God.

Why?

Because its a silly and unnecessary concept, IMO.

No. Not all things about God are knowable, and not all things about Him or things that He does appear reasonable to us, because of our finite knowledge. However, God Himself is imminently reasonable, and there is no reason why reason cannot be applied to theology, philosophy, and the search for God, wherever possible.

You assume God is reasonable...

Why do you believe this is so?

I don't, but then he seems as plausible to me as the Christian God, Allah or Zues.

Because the explanation of His existence, His nature, our nature, our existence, the universe's nature, and the universe's nature offered by Christianity makes sense. Because Christianity actually offers answers and proofs - not conclusive 100% 2+2=4 proof, but proof nonetheless. That is infinitely more probable than a Defggrak/Loki figure who you're obviously making up. And truly, I think I'd say the same about other religions as well - I think it's much, much more likely that Mohammad was the true prophet of Allah, or Siddhartha Gautama truly the Buddha than that your hypothetical is true.

Well, I'm never going to understand this.

Not exactly, no, because this isn't mathematics. I can tell, however, when one idea is clearly more sensible than another.

I disagree. Oh well...

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think Muslims may disagree on that point. Some of those I have talked with say that in the end everyone will be redeemed (even Satan), making Pascal's Wager pointless.

It is found in Sufism and in the bible too.

20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. 21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming, 24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 27 For He has put all things in subjection under his feet. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.

 

[Defiant47]

Missed this post for a bit. I thought it was fairly obvious in the simplified version I gave. Equal prior probability, no known evidence for Jonnyboy, at least one piece of evidence more strongly supporting the Christian God than Jonnyboy, epsilon weight assigned to that evidence, result: higher probability for the Christian God.

Unfortunately, there is a problem of not knowing whether this evidence all has equal probability. It would be simple if it did!

However, let's suppose that it might be so. Let's suppose that the fact that there is a Christian religion suggests that the Christian God has probability to exist equal to epsilon. Thus, we have some kind of probability. Here is the problem: consider a God that doesn't interfere in human life (and thus will likely not have a religion worshiping it). What can we say about the probability of such a God existing? Nothing! Since this God wouldn't provide any evidence to suggest its existence (other than a lack of evidence), we have nothing to go on.

First of all, we can't assume that this probability is 0. If we could, then certainly epsilon is greater than zero and we can claim the Christian God is more likely. But the probability of this "invisible" God is x, while the probability of the Christian God is e>0 (no, not 271% ). Since we don't know what x is, we can't say that x>e or e>x.

That's where we're stuck. We can say some things about Gods that manifest themselves through religion (while ignoring Gods that manifest themselves through other ways apparently), that perhaps it shows that there is some probability of their existence. However, we can't say anything about Gods that don't manifest themselves through religion. Without having available the probabilities of each God, we can't say that the probability of a certain God is higher than all others.

That would be cheating and intellectually dishonest, but if you did manage to commit such a mass mangling of evidence, then yes, your invented God should be considered the most likely candidate to exist for a person living under the described circumstances with the expected information.

I believe that the story of the Bible suffered some sort of intellectual dishonesty along the way. Whether it's Jesus not actually having powers and people being impressionable, or the story being blown out of proportion for random or power-hungry reasons, I believe that this millenia old evidence should be taken with a grain of salt.

Simply this possibility (and the sheer antiquity of the data) should shatter the validity of this evidence as evidence of God.



If we can discard the infinite negative utility, then why do you have to believe in a God at all? Especially when I can show you better evidence for a universe without a God (though it would be similarly irrelevant as your scripture evidence). Regardless, suppose a scientist has a theory in an unknown subject. His theory has a 2% chance of being correct. Should that theory be claimed and believed, or should we say "we still don't know enough about this subject to form a reasonable conclusion"? After all, there aren't infinite consequences haunting us to make a decision, so that isn't necessary.

Let me try to put it another way. Suppose you investigate what's the likely colour of a helium atom (yes, I know, doesn't make sense, but let's suppose so). Suppose that after a lot of research, you get a 2% probability of it being red, and all the other colours as each lower probabilities comprising the other 98%. Should we believe that the colour is red? Would it not be more logical to accept that there isn't enough information to make a reasonable conclusion, and accept that for now we don't know for sure? I, for one, would have difficulties believing with any sort of conviction that the colour is red in such circumstances.

Assuming that belief in God has infinite (or extreme) consequences, I can give you my logical reasoning how that leads to complete lack of belief in any God (as well as lack of God), and thus agnosticism (though you've probably already seen it).

Assuming that belief in God has little to no relevance, there is no reason to believe in any God when the evidence is severely lacking. We can accept and live with the fact that we don't know.

The two above conclusions along with my assumption that if God existed, it would prefer that I respect it (which leads again to agnosticism, a demonstration I can give) lead to my system of belief, although the last only solidifies my beliefs.

 

[Xyan]

Pascal's Wager is simply the result of one man's fear, is it not? If so, is it reasonable to be driven by fear?

 

[Defiant47]

Pascal's Wager is simply the result of one man's fear, is it not? If so, is it reasonable to be driven by fear?

The cause of a theorem shouldn't supersede its logic. I.e. simply because it rises out of fear doesn't mean that it's not logical. (though I do indeed believe it's not logical)

 

[Birdjaguar]

Defiant47, what if you assume that logic and rational thought are not the best tools to discover or learn anything about god? How would that change your argument? Would you have an argument? Your assumption that god can be "reasoned" into or out of existence is built on no better a foundation than than "It's true becaue it's in the Bible" is built on.

 

[Xyan]

The cause of a theorem shouldn't supersede its logic. I.e. simply because it rises out of fear doesn't mean that it's not logical. (though I do indeed believe it's not logical)

I am of the mind that fear can skew logic though... so pascal's wager is moot to me.

 

[Defiant47]

Defiant47, what if you assume that logic and rational thought are not the best tools to discover or learn anything about god? How would that change your argument? Would you have an argument? Your assumption that god can be "reasoned" into or out of existence is built on no better a foundation than than "It's true becaue it's in the Bible" is built on.

That is indeed a valid point, one that I have already taken into account.

Suppose we have three truth-gathering methods. One is logic. One is flipping a coin whenever unsure. The last is choosing whichever makes one feel better.

Through repeated experiments, observations, and evidence, logic has proven to be the best out of these. It has been correct most often, and not just out of those three, out of all truth-gathering methods we have so far.

Suppose we need to assess the truth of "Statement X". Which method do you think we should use? Should we use the method that has proven itself to be most consistent and true above all others, or should we use another? I believe we should use the first, which is logic in this case, and in the case of assessing God's existence.

I do not claim that what I say is true because it's logical. I claim that what I say should be believed to be true because it's logical (and logic is best truth-gathering device we have thus far).

I am of the mind that fear can skew logic though... so pascal's wager is moot to me.

Fair enough.

 

[Elrohir]

I think Muslims may disagree on that point. Some of those I have talked with say that in the end everyone will be redeemed (even Satan), making Pascal's Wager pointless.

I don't think that makes Pascal's Wager pointless, just less important. Eventual redemption, after all, isn't quite the same as immediate salvation.

I'm saying the concept of probability is meaningless when your talking about the existance of God.

Why?

Because its a silly and unnecessary concept, IMO.

Knowledge of God is a silly an unnecessary concept? Huh?

You assume God is reasonable...

And you assume he isn't?

Well, I'm never going to understand this.

What part don't you understand?

I disagree. Oh well...

You don't need to know everything about a situation to be able to form an opinion about what is more likely and more reasonable.

Example: You've never been in my bedroom. (To my knowledge ) Now, I have one of two objects in my bedroom: either a giant pink elephant, or a copy of The Complete Sherlock Holmes. Which is likelier?

You don't know the answer, because you haven't seen my bedroom. And you can't assign specific probabilities. But I think it's pretty clear that it's likelier that I have a book rather than a pink elephant. See my point?

Pascal's Wager is simply the result of one man's fear, is it not? If so, is it reasonable to be driven by fear?

Fear is reasonable where there is a reasonable threat. Fear is unreasonable where there is no reasonable threat.

It's rational for me to be afraid of catching AIDS, if I engage in risky behavior. It's irrational for me to believe that a leprechaun is going to leap out of my closet and eat my laptop. Fear is neither inherently reasonable or unreasonable, it depends entirely upon what is being feared, and why.

 

[Birdjaguar]

That is indeed a valid point, one that I have already taken into account.

Suppose we have three truth-gathering methods. One is logic. One is flipping a coin whenever unsure. The last is choosing whichever makes one feel better.

Through repeated experiments, observations, and evidence, logic has proven to be the best out of these. It has been correct most often, and not just out of those three, out of all truth-gathering methods we have so far.

Suppose we need to assess the truth of "Statement X". Which method do you think we should use? Should we use the method that has proven itself to be most consistent and true above all others, or should we use another? I believe we should use the first, which is logic in this case, and in the case of assessing God's existence.

I do not claim that what I say is true because it's logical. I claim that what I say should be believed to be true because it's logical (and logic is best truth-gathering device we have thus far).

The bolded methodology only makes sense in a context that already assumes that logic is the best method of gaining knowledge. We are slaves to our fundamental assumptions and once you choose them you are trapped and usually blind to any other way of viewing the world. The assumption that logic and reason are the only (most important) tools for gaining knowledge immediately frees one to explore physical things and at the same time, it fences one off from any other way of thinking about the world. Most people wander about in their walled courtyard quite happily and only with trepidation or arrogance peer over the wall.

 

[Xyan]

Fear is reasonable where there is a reasonable threat. Fear is unreasonable where there is no reasonable threat.

It's rational for me to be afraid of catching AIDS, if I engage in risky behavior. It's irrational for me to believe that a leprechaun is going to leap out of my closet and eat my laptop. Fear is neither inherently reasonable or unreasonable, it depends entirely upon what is being feared, and why.

Hence fear (which pascal's wager is based on) cannot be used as proof as it is possible for it to be unreasonable.

Is the concept of God closer to AIDS or closer to LEPRECHAUN?

 

[Defiant47]

The bolded methodology only makes sense in a context that already assumes that logic is the best method of gaining knowledge. We are slaves to our fundamental assumptions and once you choose them you are trapped and usually blind to any other way of viewing the world. The assumption that logic and reason are the only (most important) tools for gaining knowledge immediately frees one to explore physical things and at the same time, it fences one off from any other way of thinking about the world. Most people wander about in their walled courtyard quite happily and only with trepidation or arrogance peer over the wall.

I am simply saying that a method that on average yields 90% success should be used over a method that yields LESS than that amount of success.

The epistemology of divinity is indeed an unknown area, where it could just as easily be completely devoid of logic. However, using what we've learned about the rest of the universe, we've seen logic to be the most consistent and true. So we apply it to the unknown, to where it could just not work. Why? It's our best option.


Let me try to make an analogy. Imagine that you are a medieval-era war veteran. You have been wounded many times and used three shields throughout your career. They have been 90%, 50%, and 20% effective respectively, judging based on the wounds and the severity of these wounds (and a whole bunch of other factors let's say), and so on. Basically, the 90% one has served you best so far and is most likely to continue to serve you best.

Imagine you are told you have to engage battle with an enemy that no-one has encountered before. No-one knows the nature of this threat, and it's something completely new. Which shield do you pick to engage the enemy with?

(note: "90%" is just to give some number)

 

[Elrohir]

Hence fear (which pascal's wager is based on) cannot be used as proof as it is possible for it to be unreasonable.

Is the concept of God closer to AIDS or closer to LEPRECHAUN?

And that is where we part. Because I have a bigger fear of God than of Leprechauns.

 

[Xyan]

And that is where we part. Because I have a bigger fear of God than of Leprechauns.

Indeed... for I have the biggest fear for AIDS.

 

[scy12]

Evil exists because of free will. God granted people Freewill of their actions.

Also to add, I don't believe in the notion of Predestination.

My biggest objection regarding Free will and evil is that we are programmed to desire Evil so we can survive. Under the worst circumstances and disasters we may only act in evil ways to ensure survival . How is it free will when the world forces Humans to be evil so they can survive ? Couldn't been a better world with us being the same with free will where we wouldn't be forced to do evil ? Why did God create this flawed world we live in addition with humans with free will ?

 

[Birdjaguar]

I am simply saying that a method that on average yields 90% success should be used over a method that yields LESS than that amount of success.

The epistemology of divinity is indeed an unknown area, where it could just as easily be completely devoid of logic. However, using what we've learned about the rest of the universe, we've seen logic to be the most consistent and true. So we apply it to the unknown, to where it could just not work. Why? It's our best option.


Let me try to make an analogy. Imagine that you are a medieval-era war veteran. You have been wounded many times and used three shields throughout your career. They have been 90%, 50%, and 20% effective respectively, judging based on the wounds and the severity of these wounds (and a whole bunch of other factors let's say), and so on. Basically, the 90% one has served you best so far and is most likely to continue to serve you best.

Imagine you are told you have to engage battle with an enemy that no-one has encountered before. No-one knows the nature of this threat, and it's something completely new. Which shield do you pick to engage the enemy with?

(note: "90%" is just to give some number)

Is you analogy any different than my experience that when I wear my special logoed blue tarheel shirt, the UNC Tarheels usually win their basketball games and when I wear a green or other colored shirt they don't? So now I make sure that I wear the blue shirt every game so they win, especially when they play an unknown opponent. I've also noted that if I have a bowl of popcorn next to me during the last 5 minutes they win 75% of the time, but the popcorn is less reliable than the shirt.

EDIT: don't get me wrong, I'mnot saying that logic isn't useful and even necessary at times, but it is not a universal tool.

"If your only tool is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail."