God and the paradox of rational mind

[StarWorms]

Yes it does. Because she messed up on her grammer by using a double negative. So she was saying "I freely decided to get it". I knew this wasn't what she meant. So I corrected it. Make sense yet?

So you basically decided to change it to suit yourself because you didn't understand it? It made perfect sense to me. A double negative is not bad grammar. A double negative is not the same as no negatives.

"I did not choose not to go out later" is not the same as "I chose to go out later on"

 

[Olorin0222]

@StarWorms: Avoiding a point by being a grammar troll is not exactly right.

It is against the rules to go around correcting people [on their grammar and spelling], much as it would do certain people a power of good to have it done to them.

Reported.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yes, the bible debate thing is fought over alot. But most of those arguements go into some really deep stuff. Searching for meaning to life and purpose of man.

There is more than 1 value that must be applied to ones life though. Along with helpful tools to do this. One I find hard is "Love those who would condemn you." Which does tie into love thy neighbors. But many different viewpoints are revealed in it so that the grand scale viewpoint can be better focused.

An important part to following the bible is praying to God and asking for guidance. He will not let you get it wrong. And moreso, if you do get it wrong, it will work towards your advantage and then he will clear it up. The faith part comes in not only through reasoning but through having faith that he is guiding you in the right direction. That the interpretation you conclude is the one he put there for you. (So long as it corresponds with the rest of His word. You can't pick a part of the bible and interpret it and have it not apply to another part of the bible.)

It sounds more complicated than it is. The 10 commandments are an easy reference sheet to see if you messed up the interpretations.

Well, even the 10 commandments are open to interpretation. At least some of them.

Thou shall not kill. But in wars, in self-defence, capital punishment or even how to treat animals (it doesn't say thou shall not kill another human does it?) all kinds of if's and but's appear. In those circumstances we need more than just the Bible. We then use our own moral values. Each of us. From the biggest atheist to the most zealous believer.

Now about praying to God for guidance. Ever thought of the possibility this is just an option for someone has who needs guidance? And what is so bad about having it wrong? Isn't your intention more important? If I try to help someone but by doing so I place them further into trouble, does that mean I am a bad person? Does that mean I deserve to be punished?

As is known, even God's guidance can be misinterpreted by our limited human perceptions. Kind of like trying to explain quantum mechanics to a 6 year old. Maybe God did intend for us to figure it out for ourselves. Maybe he loaths the people who do not draw conclusions from common sense, but use the bible for justification.

There are so many more slings and arrows but I'll stop here. I'm at work, and can't be slacking too long

 

[El_Machinae]

Do you have a link to info on this study?

I meant 'study' in the general sense, not as far as a specific argument goes. As well, I want to be clear that I don't believe that religious faith is a result of brain damage (despite some wanting to make that leap, so they may take offense) - I'm saying that it's only really possible to study such things when it's aggravated by brain damage. It's not like we can MRI an atheist, and then re-MRI them after they're converted.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=8337306&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=1306896&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum

Are two quick examples from pubmed. When one does a concerted study, the pattern becomes more clear.

 

[King Flevance]

So you basically decided to change it to suit yourself because you didn't understand it? It made perfect sense to me. A double negative is not bad grammar. A double negative is not the same as no negatives.

"I did not choose not to go out later" is not the same as "I chose to go out later on"

No I decided to change it to what she meant for it to say. Instead of play grammer police.

But I see where your at now. Your statement parallels how her statement works in that manner then. The statement:
"I did not choose not to go out later"

Implies that in fact that person chose to go out but something prevented them. That is the only reason to use a sentence like this. Something prevents you from your choice. Now lets look at the original statement:

OK, I am among those who don't "get it", I never freely decided not to get it though.

What is preventing the person in question?

If we are blaming God, then it is the Christian one because that is the God in question by this post. However, that God grants humans free will and would not keep anyone from "getting it". He has provided the world with proof through testimony and in flesh by Jesus. So, it isn't God.
Lets read on:

Since I never "decided" not to get it, it's either I lie to myself and act as if I get it and believe in God, but God will know that I am faking,

This phrase right here shows that the person thinks that they understand everything about existance and there is no way a God can exist. It is impossible. There is no reason to open their mind, from their perspective because it is an impossibility. They have shut their mind to such a possibility.

There is alot of people that lay claims to a God in the world but it is impossible to this person for some reason. Is what happened is, this person freely decided there was no God without realizing it.

They freely decided there is no God.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Did God give us a rational mind at all ? Or did it come from this stupid apple ?

 

[warpus]

That doesn't strike me as "blind" belief. It is very unusual for God to reveal Himself directly, and most will have to know Him through other ways, but that is not the same as guessing.

From what I understand, most people who say that they have bonded with God are basing this on a series of feelings, not a direct revelation. Only a small handful are actually claiming to have had direct contact.. I have felt similar feelings, I believe. This is tied in with this whole idea of 'coincidence'.

These feelings could be anything though.. and even if they're not, many people guess about the nature of God and assign direct qualities to him (such as the him itself. why not her?). Even if these 'feelings' are God, there is no way you could deduce omnipotence, Jesus, etc. from just that. That's why I'm saying that it's blind faith and guessing.

LOL sorry to quote you warpus but this line got a chuckle from me. I highly doubt God is impressed by humanity's reasoning. Although, we humans tend to think highly of our reasoning.

That's because your reading comprehension skills are lacking. I didn't say he was impressed by our reasoning I said that if he exists, and was impressed by anything we have done, it is far more likely it is our reasoning skills, rather than blind faith.

You said God requires us to make this blind leap of faith for him to accept us and allow us to bond with him. I think that's absurd. If he's impressed by such guesses of ours, then he must be far more impressed by what we've achieved with our rational reasoning skills.

Bottom line, there are things in all our lives which logic and reasoning will simply not answer....ever. We can only guess at the past and future and the many mysteries of God. There are many unanswered questions in the universe, some we will most likely never know. That is where faith steps in.

Yeah, this is where faith steps in and you invent fairytales up to explain things we haven't figured out yet.

I don't see how anyone can think that that's a sensible thing to do.

If we are blaming God, then it is the Christian one because that is the God in question by this post. However, that God grants humans free will and would not keep anyone from "getting it". He has provided the world with proof through testimony and in flesh by Jesus. So, it isn't God.

Flesh of Jesus? That was 2,000 years ago, supposedly. The only thing we have speaking of that is the Bible. A biased source, wouldn't you say?

If it's so obvious, why is it that so many people have chosen to join faiths that have absolutely nothing to do with Jesus? Is it perhaps that Christianity is wrong and some other religion is right?

How do we know which one???

 

[King Flevance]

Well, even the 10 commandments are open to interpretation. At least some of them.

Thou shall not kill. But in wars, in self-defence, capital punishment or even how to treat animals (it doesn't say thou shall not kill another human does it?) all kinds of if's and but's appear. In those circumstances we need more than just the Bible. We then use our own moral values. Each of us. From the biggest atheist to the most zealous believer.

Actually, anytime you see the word "except" in regards for the ten commandments, be cautious. Wars, self defense, capitol punishment all have their ways about being murky. Because some wars are about greed. Sometimes self defense is about pride. Capitol punishment, is about upholding justice.

SO yes, interpretations can get tricky. In these moments, a christian living their life for God's will should turn to christ and ask for guidance and have faith that He is there waiting to reveal Himself to you. I garauntee in a moment such as this, you will recieve His message.

Now about praying to God for guidance. Ever thought of the possibility this is just an option for someone has who needs guidance? And what is so bad about having it wrong? Isn't your intention more important? If I try to help someone but by doing so I place them further into trouble, does that mean I am a bad person? Does that mean I deserve to be punished?

The intention should be to God's will. And truly striving to carry His will. If that is the intention then you are surely right. Your love for God is reflected in the actions of your fellow man. If you were striving to play your part in God's will by helping someone, you are not a bad person. Even if it places them in further trouble. As God can turn the worst trouble into the greatest blessing. Sometimes, alot of times, things will get worse before they get better. By placing them in worse trouble make sure you stand by their side through all of it any way that you can.

As is known, even God's guidance can be misinterpreted by our limited human perceptions. Kind of like trying to explain quantum mechanics to a 6 year old. Maybe God did intend for us to figure it out for ourselves. Maybe he loaths the people who do not draw conclusions from common sense, but use the bible for justification.

By figuring it out ourselves, we may grow spiritually. It is like giving the six year old the tools needed for a hands on project. Rather than simply saying "it is this way, now do it". As to the last line, I don't know. I think he put the bible there to be interpretted in the many ways that it is. (Although, definatley not all of them.) The people that can draw conclusions from common sense as well as from the bible are sure to be the people that will get the most out of what He is teaching.

 

[StarWorms]

No I decided to change it to what she meant for it to say. Instead of play grammer police.

But I see where your at now. Your statement parallels how her statement works in that manner then. The statement:
"I did not choose not to go out later"

Implies that in fact that person chose to go out but something prevented them. That is the only reason to use a sentence like this. Something prevents you from your choice.

You've fallen at the first hurdle. If I do not choose not to go out then I didn't choose. The first part clearly says "I did not choose".

I never freely decided not to get it

In other words she didn't deliberately not "get it", she just didn't through no fault of her own.

 

[King Flevance]

BTW thanks for the links El_Machina

Did God give us a rational mind at all ? Or did it come from this stupid apple ?

The apple stands for our ability to use a rational mind. Thus we had a rational mind before the apple.

From what I understand, most people who say that they have bonded with God are basing this on a series of feelings, not a direct revelation. Only a small handful are actually claiming to have had direct contact.. I have felt similar feelings, I believe. This is tied in with this whole idea of 'coincidence'.

These feelings could be anything though.. and even if they're not, many people guess about the nature of God and assign direct qualities to him (such as the him itself. why not her?). Even if these 'feelings' are God, there is no way you could deduce omnipotence, Jesus, etc. from just that. That's why I'm saying that it's blind faith and guessing.

How do you view people that have had direct revelations?

I didn't say he was impressed by our reasoning I said that if he exists, and was impressed by anything we have done, it is far more likely it is our reasoning skills, rather than blind faith.

You said God requires us to make this blind leap of faith for him to accept us and allow us to bond with him. I think that's absurd. If he's impressed by such guesses of ours, then he must be far more impressed by what we've achieved with our rational reasoning skills.

I didn't mean to have it sound I was laughing at your viewpoint. I just thought the statement funny. As it was He who gave us the ability to reason and knows our capabilities. We have done nothing that He did not instill in us. We are supposedly one of His greatest creations and He no doubt enjoys us.

The blind leap of faith is our ability to trust in Him over ourselves. You rely on Him to guide your life instead of "rationality". You will still have a rational mind. But you abandon your view of rationality for His rationality.

Flesh of Jesus? That was 2,000 years ago, supposedly. The only thing we have speaking of that is the Bible. A biased source, wouldn't you say?

If it's so obvious, why is it that so many people have chosen to join faiths that have absolutely nothing with Jesus? Is it perhaps that Christianity is wrong and some other religion is right?

Yep, it was 2,000 years ago. But that is what we were given. And God sees it as enough. The bible is biased, to God's point of view. Science has validated Jesus's existance and following. The bible tells you why. Science however, cannot explain how mud and water from a fountain can make a blind man see. And scientists of the time didn't follow Jesus because it was "just a bunch of fairytales". People were eyewitness to it and followed him because of it. He alone made Rome change its religion to Christianity (a whole new faith that was just born) from Paganism and Judaism very old faiths that they had been following since before the empire began.

 

[King Flevance]

You've fallen at the first hurdle. If I do not choose not to go out then I didn't choose. The first part clearly says "I did not choose".

In other words she didn't deliberately not "get it", she just didn't through no fault of her own.

Meaning something prevented her from making that choice. Every human has free will. Everything is a choice. Each choice, consequences.

The only way you cannot choose something is if something prevents you from choosing. What prevented you and her?

 

[Phlegmak]

My own conclusions about god, is if it existed, it is either imperfect or its morals are totally different from ours. Quite possibly both. If it existed.

 

[JohnRM]

If he didn't mean to give us them and they happened by accident then he did something wrong and he is therefore not all-powerful and can't see the consequences of his own actions.

Classic.

You know what? I have seen you post a lot and you do whatever you can to confuse the issue, to pretend that you don't understand, and simply be oppositional. When others you oppose say black, you say white. It seems like you do whatever you can to disagree with people on any issue when they disagree with you on any one issue, and all with this smug, smartass attitude. Anyone can BS their way into an argument. DON'T EVER RESPOND TO ANY OF MY POSTS AGAIN. I don't have time for your crap.

 

[Brighteye]

T If god didn't create logic then there must be some other god - it can't just appear from nowhere with no creator.

Logic doesn't need a creator. Logic and reason are intrinsic to thought. On the subject of the original proof, there is no proof that god does not exist.

Hence the assertion that God gave us free will in order for us to choose or not choose is a possibly correct one, because mankind has been unable to prove his existence or lack of it. Therefore both options remain open.

Christianity says that belief is a choice. This is important, and is a large step from the manner in which many Christians believe, which is more akin to the blind faith that so many people have mentioned. I can choose to believe something about which I have no data as long as I lack data: as soon as I find any data, I should adopt the conclusions indicated.

Thus it is possible to be rational and believe in God, which is good, since God made us rational beings.

I do not believe that any such proof, as many posters have mentioned, actually exists. Always these people refuse to go into detail, or simply tell us to 'open our minds'. That's not a proof of existence, that's psychological mumbo-jumbo. If Christianity is correct, then there can be no proof of God's existence open to us.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Many Christians believe that if one truly is thinking logically and rationally, then eventually belief in God is inevitable. I don't, but this is clearly the opposite of blind faith that denies all reason, of which they are accused.

 

[Brighteye]

But they don't lay out the chain of logical thought that leads to belief in God. They also call it belief, which I think implies that they accept that it is not demonstrable by logic.

 

[warpus]

How do you view people that have had direct revelations?

Most of those people are scouring the streets handing out pamphlets, being generally annoying to pedestrians. You can guess what I think of people like that

The 0.5% or so who claim to have talked to God and aren't actually crazy, are probably just misguided, are totally misinterpreting something they saw/think they saw, or are experiencing early stages of schitzophrenia.. or are just indulging in narcotics.

I admit that I leave the possibility of actual revelation from God open, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and all that. There are people who claim to have been abducted by aliens, seen bigfoot, fought battles on astral planes with other human souls during sleep (I'm not making this up), and other extraordinary claims. I view any such claims as "probably BS", but if there's extraordinary evidence then I of course would want to see that

 

[Bill3000]

Here's my argument about this issue.

First of all, I define faith to be inherintly irrational. But let me stipulate the definition of faith for this argument - "Faith is a belief, trust, or confidence not based on logic or reason." What does this mean? In the case of religon, it means believing in something without any shred of empirical or nonemprical evidence, or rational reasoning. (e.g. through inductive reasoning for most cases.) That is, "I believe in xxx because I believe in it." This means that "I have faith that my mother will do this" is *not* what I mean by faith, since one can form a rational argument for it. Faith is the complete lack of evidence and reasoning in this context - science is not faith because the philosophy behind it can be derived from rational reasoning.

However, religion as a whole is not irrational. Faith is just used as the core premises of a religion. It is entirely possible to construct a rational belief system using premsies that have to be taken for granted. However, the difference between using faith as an axiom and using an unproven axiom in general is that it is possible to argue for why it is reasonable for the axioms in, for example, ZFC (Considered by most mathematicians to be the closet to the fundamental axioms of math, IIRC) but you cannot do the same for faith in a rational manner.

However, as I said before, beliefs derived from the axioms of faith used can be rational if they are consistent. This is what Theology is - and Theology is an academic disclipline; finding the consequences of a religion from its fundamental principles. The common man doesn't do this, sadly, and often believes in the consequences of a theological interpretation also due to faith. But, then again, few are theology students.

Humans are rational, yes, but rationalism is not the only part of humanity, although it is the most important part. Faith is an integral part for almost all humans, whether it be religious or not.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Bolded the "Bingo!" moment. You freely decided not to "get it". Then bolded the second one. You never gave God a chance. Your logic and rationality are viewed by you to be the most logical and rational explanation for all things in existance even over God's. Yes it is fair considering He gave you life and you never once consider the source. You walked away from your creator, and you rot by doing so. He is trying to tell you to stop walking away. But to do this you must do things the world considers irrational.
I wonder if you think of Christians as close minded when you yourself are unable to open your mind to a God.

Hold on, I said the exact opposite.
Mobboss said that faith is not about reason and rationality, and that atheist just don't get it.
Since I am an atheist among those that do "not get it", I replied.
As "Getting it" is not a matter of reasoning and rationality, I never freely have chosen not to get it. So basically it's either I fake "getting it" or rot in hell, well actually I am going to rot in hell, cause God will know that I am faking.
Bottom line faith is not about reasoning and rationality, it's a kind of gift. How is that fair ?
And by the way, I read the Bible but reading it did not help me "get it"

 

[King Flevance]

Cool I was hoping you would come back to the post HannibalBarka seeing as your quote was dragged through about 2 pages and you had not spoken you view yet.

Mobboss views his faith different than I view mine. Even though in the end we end up in the same place. I wish it was included what section of the bible he pulled that out of. I am going to try and find the same verses mobboss pulled from, hopefully he will see this and post it as it may take me some a little while today.

I do not view faith as irrational. Faith comes after belief. Belief is what is on trial in this thread. You cannot have faith until you have belief. If you have belief, then faith is rational. As far as belief being rational, it depends on the person.

As warpus said, he believes that people that have had direct revelations are something like borderline skitzo, misguided, and other such stuff. Anyone that believes without such a revelation is just a fool. So by his definition, I am going insane. Because I have had revelations. So you are damned if you do, damned if you don't to non-believers. There is no valid reason to believe in God because even if He makes a presence before you, well, your nuts.

So at this point you have to ask yourself what makes it ok to believe in the christian God? How can he prove himself if that means you think you are crazy? Or hide himself when that means he is abandoning you?