Science and religion

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

If that's the best, then I don't know any justifications for atheism. Only if God and man are somehow at odds could such a thing give atheism any support. Though, I will admit, if God and man are opposed, that may be all atheism needs.

No, if God is invisible except to prophets, mystics, and the humans who believe prophets and mystics, then THAT is all atheism needs.

If God:
1) Does not reciprocate with us because "since when does the Almighty, the Creator, answer to man the created"...

2) Does not influence whether we see him or believe in him

3) Allows us to look at the world and use our own judgement as to what we believe

4) Speaks through scripture that does not bear resemblance to the physical world

Then we're left with two choices -- we either believe or we don't -- and what on earth reason does anyone have to believe if the above are true?

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Just because an argument, and it's conclusions, strike you as odd, does not mean they are misguided

Then perhaps we could make a list of other odd arguments with odd conclusions. How do you decide which is misguided and which is not?

[dpmartin]

Didymos Thomas
Does not life live and give life. Is this not the way given by the giver of Life? Shall the giver of the need to know, not provide a Way to know? He who is eternal sees eternal, we who walk in the flesh see the immediate needs of the flesh.

The road taken supplies the needs for the destiny of that road. God forbid, the road taken is a dead end. It is in Jesus that the road is forever for it is to Him that is eternal, the road of everlasting Life is. Verified by the resurrection of Jesus.

In the OT they knew not the name Jesus, but many knew. What is to be known is the Word of God. Those that knew it, knew that which is now revealed in the flesh as Jesus. The accurate revelation in the flesh of the Word and the Will of God. Jesus being of the Father has seen the Father accurately, showing us the Father in the Son. But we can only see that which is revealed to us in the Son. That which is acceptable to the Father is from the Father which is the Son. So it is through and in the Son are we acceptable being born of His Spirit in the Son.

Does the Father Love the Son? And what is the Son? His Word, the Truth the Way the Life. Therefore if one loves the Truth the Way the Life. Then one loves what the Living God Love and are in agreement with God. Thus the convenient given to man by God in the Son.

If and others have come to know the Truth, it the Word of God that they knew. It is Jesus the Christ, the Word of God that they knew for the Word of God was always with God.
***********
I did not say God did not make evil, that is your assumption. I said "letting man be and seek evil when man could choose Life, Truth"

""God is incoherent" doesn't solve the problem; it begs the question 'why?'. If God can be incoherent, what else can be incoherent?"

You take what was said out of context, once again an assumption of meaning.
But for the sake of what was meant in "Besides, since when does the Almighty, the Creator answer to man the created? " God is not responsible to man for giving man life. Man is responsible to God for receiving and living the life God has given.
*****************************


Aedes
"Then God did not create man. God created some parts of man, and man created the rest. Does Genesis distinguish what aspects of man were created by God and what aspects man can create for himself?"

No, if one chooses God’s Way, then it’s His Way and His choice one accepts. That is not to say that all else is not created by God.

"If God abdicates control over man's decisions, and any decision is made by man alone, then does that mean that God's reach and his power are not infinite? Because if there is any power that God relinquishes, then his power is not absolute."

Since you mentioned Genesis I will try to explain.
In the garden Adam and Eve could have refused to eat of every tree in the garden and they would not have disobeyed God’s Word. And if they were getting to hungry to bear it. They could have called upon the Lord and said Lord what tree would you have us eat from, and surly the Lord would have said the tree of Life. Choose Life.

You take what was said out of context.
But for the sake of what was meant in "Besides, since when does the Almighty, the Creator answer to man the created? " God is not responsible to man for giving man life. Man is responsible to God for receiving and living the life God has given.

[Aedes]

Can you say the above in a way that makes sense to one who does not already have faith? I don't think it's possible. And without taking refuge in the idea of God's grace granting people faith (wasn't it Augustine who proposed that?), explain rationally why it's incumbent upon humans to discover God, and why it shouldn't be incumbent upon God to reveal himself to humans?

[Didymos Thomas]

No, if God is invisible except to prophets, mystics, and the humans who believe prophets and mystics, then THAT is all atheism needs.

Well, if we accept your premise, that God is invisible except to mystics, et al, then atheism has no case. More importantly, though, I must wonder what a mystic, et al, is. If, for some magical reason, only certain people can see God, then this is a theological problem, but not one that gives atheism any direct support. Myself, I see no reason to think that you or I, or aynone else, could not be among such a list. Then again, the notion of God as "invisible" I think misses the point.

Then we're left with two choices -- we either believe or we don't -- and what on earth reason does anyone have to believe if the above are true?

None. Then again, I reject all but 3.

Then perhaps we could make a list of other odd arguments with odd conclusions. How do you decide which is misguided and which is not?

Critical questions might help. Saying 'That's outlandish' does nothing to help.

dpmartin -

Does not life live and give life. Is this not the way given by the giver of Life? Shall the giver of the need to know, not provide a Way to know? He who is eternal sees eternal, we who walk in the flesh see the immediate needs of the flesh.

The road taken supplies the needs for the destiny of that road. God forbid, the road taken is a dead end. It is in Jesus that the road is forever for it is to Him that is eternal, the road of everlasting Life is. Verified by the resurrection of Jesus.

Okay, but what is your point. As I've said, if you don't want to argue your points, that's fine, this can be presonal. But restating assertions doesn't help you explain your point, doesn't help the dialogue because a restated assertion isn't much of a response, and only bogs the dialogue down in the same old considerations. I'd like to see you respond to my points, but if you wont, that's fine too.

I did not say God did not make evil, that is your assumption. I said "letting man be and seek evil when man could choose Life, Truth"

My restatement of the age old problem of evil, something I explained, is not an assumption on my part. If God is all knowing, all powerful and all good, evil in reality causes a huge problem for such a conception of God.

You take what was said out of context, once again an assumption of meaning.

No, I'm not. You are taking my criticisms selectively. Remember, you've made a bunch of assumptions that seem to be incoherent? I'm trying to figure out if they are coherent, but you only provide me with restated assertions.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Well, if we accept your premise, that God is invisible except to mystics, et al, then atheism has no case.

Yes it does. The atheist's case is: "You can see and speak to God, huh? Sure you can." Assume that the atheist is someone who is perfectly happy to believe in God once someone provides evidence other than personal experience or interpretation of a written text.

Then again, the notion of God as "invisible" I think misses the point.

By invisible I mean beyond verifiability to someone who doubts. God cannot be rationally accepted without faith.

Then again, I reject all but 3.

But your rejection of 1, 2, and 4 are purely faith-based positions, and the issue is that all four of those points will be important to someone who does not share your faith.

PROVE to a skeptic that God reciprocates. PROVE to a skeptic that God influences how we think. PROVE to a skeptic that the physical world is consistent with scripture, including miracles.

Can there be proof without first having belief? If not, then all of the premises that flow from faith are uniformly contingent upon belief. Which means that you're interpreting the world from an immobile belief system that will not allow itself to be disproved. And which means that anything in the world can be rejected if it is inconsistent with the belief system.

[Didymos Thomas]

Yes it does. The atheist's case is: "You can see and speak to God, huh? Sure you can." Assume that the atheist is someone who is perfectly happy to believe in God once someone provides evidence other than personal experience or interpretation of a written text.

If we accept the premise "if God is invisible except to prophets, mystics, and the humans who believe prophets and mystics" then we must also accept that God is visible to some, therefore God must exist. Pretty destructive to the claim of hard atheists "there is no God."

Soft atheists on the other hand claim "there is no reason to believe that God exists", they do not say he necessarily does not exist. Even for such athiests, if God is invisible except to prophets, mystics, and the humans who believe prophets and mystics, to accept this premise will, again, force them to accept that God does indeed exist.

By invisible I mean beyond verifiability to someone who doubts. God cannot be rationally accepted without faith.

Again, I think that misses the point. Doubt is good. And of course God requires faith, but faith requires action and understanding. Understanding is the reasonability of faith. If faith lacks understanding, it is nothing more than arbitrary belief.

But your rejection of 1, 2, and 4 are purely faith-based positions, and the issue is that all four of those points will be important to someone who does not share your faith.

Okay?

PROVE to a skeptic that God reciprocates. PROVE to a skeptic that God influences how we think. PROVE to a skeptic that the physical world is consistent with scripture, including miracles.

No. No interest in doing so, even if I could. Better the skeptic reject God, to have doubt, and to systematically consider that doubt himself. If he finds God, good, if not, oh well. I'll be here to ask critical questions when he thiks he has found God, or when he boldy asserts that God cannot be (soft atheists I will not argue with, other play devil's advocate). Similarly, I have people who ask such questions of me. This discourse is important for understanding.

Can there be proof without first having belief?

Your belief will be in proportion to your understanding. As for arbitrary belief, belief without understanding, who cares? Such things are never of any good.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

If we accept the premise "if God is invisible except to prophets, mystics, and the humans who believe prophets and mystics" then we must also accept that God is visible to some, therefore God must exist.

So if I tell you that right now, in this moment, I can see Jesus Christ returned from heaven sitting on my couch wearing a Patriots jersey, reading Sports Illustrated, drinking from a flagon of liebfraumilch, and talking to Roger Rabbit on a cell phone, does that make it true? The only thing I can accept is that there are individuals who make claims to having visions of God -- but they can be hallucinations for all I know.

Soft atheists on the other hand claim "there is no reason to believe that God exists", they do not say he necessarily does not exist. Even for such athiests, if God is invisible except to prophets, mystics, and the humans who believe prophets and mystics, to accept this premise will, again, force them to accept that God does indeed exist.

Ok -- I don't necessarily say that blue gremlins don't exist. So they must exist then?

Your belief will be in proportion to your understanding.

Is that true generically? If I believe in a God-free world, for reasons that are as personally authentic as your own faith, and I understand that world from repeated examination of my self and my beliefs, then I have to say I have MORE understanding than most of the theists on earth who believe because they were never taught that an alternative is acceptable.

[NeitherExtreme]

Hi Aedes!

Originally Posted by Aedes

Can there be proof without first having belief? If not, then all of the premises that flow from faith are uniformly contingent upon belief. Which means that you're interpreting the world from an immobile belief system that will not allow itself to be disproved. And which means that anything in the world can be rejected if it is inconsistent with the belief system.

Just wondering... can atheism be an immoble belief system that will reject anything that is not consistent with it's beliefs? If I was given some rather convincing evidence of the supernatural, I would tend to accept it- Especially if to not accept it would be the illogical choice. (Which I feel is exactly the position I'm in, and if you're interested I can give you an example to work with...) Would you?

[Didymos Thomas]

So if I tell you that right now, in this moment, I can see Jesus Christ returned from heaven sitting on my couch wearing a Patriots jersey, reading Sports Illustrated, drinking from a flagon of liebfraumilch, and talking to Roger Rabbit on a cell phone, does that make it true? The only thing I can accept is that there are individuals who make claims to having visions of God -- but they can be hallucinations for all I know.

You've clearly illustrated why atheists think this premise is false.

Ok -- I don't necessarily say that blue gremlins don't exist. So they must exist then?

No. Again, atheists, as you illustrated, think the premise to be false.

Is that true generically? If I believe in a God-free world, for reasons that are as personally authentic as your own faith, and I understand that world from repeated examination of my self and my beliefs, then I have to say I have MORE understanding than most of the theists on earth who believe because they were never taught that an alternative is acceptable.

Maybe not, I can't say I've considered it from every perspective imaginable. As for the case you describe, I would agree - you have more understanding than a theists who thinks all alternatives to be unacceptable, if you think that alternatives to your view might be acceptable, and are therefore at least worth considering.

I would like to go back to something you said earlier:

But your rejection of 1, 2, and 4 are purely faith-based positions, and the issue is that all four of those points will be important to someone who does not share your faith.

That someone's understanding is incoherent, and therefore not understanding at all, is a problem for that person. 1,2 and 4, though I reject them, cause problems for people who embrace them. They should consider these problems.

Maybe it is worth noting: I do not see science and religion at all opposed. Some people have beliefs that put them opposed with science, and I cannot understand why, other than fear. Should science and religion be opposed, I agree with the Dalai Lama: when religious doctrine and science are opposed, go with science. Remember, faith without understanding is arbitrary. Science is not arbitrary, and it is understanding, understanding that is always open to revision and reconsideration. This is a very good thing, and the whole value of science.

[dpmartin]

Didymos Thomas
this thread is about to go to it’s 10th page, I must have missed it, which point was that?
***********
Aedes
"Can you say the above in a way that makes sense to one who does not already have faith? I don't think it's possible. And without taking refuge in the idea of God's grace granting people faith (wasn't it Augustine who proposed that?), explain rationally why it's incumbent upon humans to discover God, and why it shouldn't be incumbent upon God to reveal himself to humans?"

No guaranties, give me a few to get back.