Theists

[wesmorris]

Is it an act of ultimate arrogance to assert that a human could possibly understand why God made any particular decision?

I see theists say things like "well, big bang makes sense so, well, god must have made the big bang" (maybe a bad example, but I please give me a break, if you are capable of thinking critically you should be able to cut a little lattitude with the example) is that not the definition of presumption on the largest possible scale? does that not subract from the reverence of God? you think you are so special that you could possibly, remotely comrehend anything the lord "thinks". what is the lord doesn't think? what if what we call thinking is like uh, a slug's thinking compared to the incomprehensible process of the mind of the lord, He could created the universe. it's that inconsistent with the general definition of god?

 

[CounslerCoffee]

Is it an act of ultimate arrogance to assert that a human could possibly understand why God made any particular decision?

Yeah I know what you mean. Most atheist preach science, but most science can be so beyond them.

 

[Nebula]

At least scientists have shreds of truth on which to base scientific claims, even if their conclusions are false.

wes;

Are you addressing the idea that we cannot know God's will?

To jump to the assumption that humans can know God's will is a bigger jump than the assumption that God has a will in the first place.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Nebula
At least scientists have shreds of truth on which to base scientific claims, even if their conclusions are false.

wes;

Are you addressing the idea that we cannot know God's will?

To jump to the assumption that humans can know God's will is a bigger jump than the assumption that God has a will in the first place.

Okay.. this is just a conceptual example to give you an idea of scale: Think of the size of the universe compared to the size of a human. You can try, but really you're just kidding yourself because the concept really cannot possibly fit in your head. It is basically the definition of unfathomable. Now, think of thought compared to that mental activity which the "ultimate" being must undertake. By that reasoning I surmise that the probability of my thought (which I know to be representative of a high percentile on the human scale of thought badassedness) cannot remotely fathom that which the "ultimate" being must undertake. In turn I probably cannot comprehend the methods that "ultimate" intelligence might use to reach any conclusion it might make. I would further state this to be obvious from the perspective that the language I'm using cannot be remotely accurate to address what procceses the ultimate being might undertake.

Hehe, I think that's what I'm trying to say. Something like that.

 

[wesmorris]

you then further attempt to define god. in that case though, aren't you perfectly contradicting yourself. you'll say "well that's what god is to me" or whatever but wait, you just said god exists.. if so, what it is that YOU think god is is irrelavent. once you concieve of god you may not change the definition unless you have power to change the universe right?

(the YOU I speak of is not directed specifically, merely playing devil's advocate with myself sort of)

Isn't that like some tornado of circular reasoning? does not then it require FAITH to believe that you are qualified to make such judegments? YOU can make a statement about the NATURE of the ulitmate being? I believe that to be an extraordinary claim. Please provide the required extraordinary evidence. I know what I've just said is slightly off, but the gist of the reasoning is sold. Does not that whole connundrum disqualify the undoubted belief in god as unreasonable and probably (though you'd have to be good, better than I) illogical?

I'd really like to see someone employ reason to put a dent in that.

By the way... I believe that reason is superior to logic. Anyone argue with that? I guess that's prolly a non-statement eh? It really depends on the application. Okay, the application is philosophy. Our minds are inherently capable of reasoning. Through it, our minds derived logic. Is not reason the mother of all badass things? Indeed.

*giggle*

 

[Zero]

Well, the universe is unfathomable only because we don't understand it fully. Science seeks to understand it by means of observation and analyzation, inch by inch, and stopping every once in a while to review and correct mistakes. Constantly covering new stuff and constantly refining and reviewing what it knows.

And this is assuming there is a god, is it not?

 

[spookz]

god is know thru his only son jesus christ who is celebrating his b'day pretty soon

 

[adj]

don't you ever consider that Jesus and the Christian "God" you expound leaves out a lot of wonderful people who worship different "Gods"? How is it that yours is the only correct "God"? and why does your benevolent god ignore the starving children throughout the world, both of "Christian" birth and other beliefs? and why do the christian churchs hoard such wealth in light of the poverty and starvation? huh??

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, the universe is unfathomable only because we don't understand it fully. Science seeks to understand it by means of observation and analyzation, inch by inch, and stopping every once in a while to review and correct mistakes. Constantly covering new stuff and constantly refining and reviewing what it knows.

And this is assuming there is a god, is it not?

what does god have to do with that? you're talking about the quest for truth. you can bend your definition of god to cover it as "god is truth" or something like that, but I'm talking about some sort of conscious being.

I guess my point to all my inane ramblings is really quite simple: I can THINK I know of another consciousness, but I can only be fully convinced that you exist through emotion or assumptions. I have not problem with either, but only assumptions have an application in reason. If one choose to make an assumption however, it is really the same as saying "I believe the probability of this is high enough to say 'screw it' for the sake of advancing the argument.

I'm a little thick headed sometimes, I realize.

 

[Zero]

No, the "assuming there is a god" applied to the first post to this topic. I should have clarified.

__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

-central philosophy of Zero, Sage of Chaos

 

[wesmorris]

I think the argument is valid either way.

 

[wesmorris]

it's just that one of the ways, it's kind of pointless.

 

[Slacker47]

wes,

If you believe that the universe is so great and vast that the human mind cannot comprehend it, and only God could have come up with the idea to create it.... think about it my way:

What if there isn't a God and the universe is just that big. In my respect, this is much more great because i cannot even comprehend the mathematical probabilities of such a wonderful universe. You can say that the universe is huge and explain that God created it, or you can have a different type of faith: a faith that is less explainable and requires more insight (according to me)

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Slacker47
wes,

If you believe that the universe is so great and vast that the human mind cannot comprehend it, and only God could have come up with the idea to create it.... think about it my way:

What if there isn't a God and the universe is just that big. In my respect, this is much more great because i cannot even comprehend the mathematical probabilities of such a wonderful universe. You can say that the universe is huge and explain that God created it, or you can have a different type of faith: a faith that is less explainable and requires more insight (according to me)

actually, I don't know what the universe is, I'm only trying to hold theists to their own logic.

 

[Slacker47]

Wes,

I understand, but I was just offering my view point... sometimes Monotheists try to explain that it takes a great amount of faith to believe that we have a creator that we cannot sense, but I feel that it takes more faith to believe that we are here by misfortune.
This means that I have faith that when I die, there is nothing more. NOTHING. It hurts sometimes.

 

[Tiassa]

Which peg to hang oneself upon?

Is it an act of ultimate arrogance to assert that a human could possibly understand why God made any particular decision?

Well, yes.

I see theists say things like . . . .

My proposal is that you come to know some theists who are off the Abramic vein. I have found that the phenomenon you describe is largely confined to the Abramic paradigm. It's not 100%, but if you examine theism outside Abramism, you'll find it either (A) a lot less ridiculous altogether, or (B) ridiculous in its own unique fashion that doesn't fall under your casual generalizations.

I would further state this to be obvious from the perspective that the language I'm using cannot be remotely accurate to address what procceses the ultimate being might undertake.

A Kewpie doll for you. This is actually the foremost problem of any religious speculation and analysis. The ultimate value against which the sample is compared is ineffable.

I'm only trying to hold theists to their own logic

You must first understand the method and constraints of that logic. To wit, many atheists I encounter have trouble with the assertion that Catholicism is mind-numbingly logical. Technically, it is, once you accept the a priori foundation that describes the confines of the logical system. Namely, that God exists, and furthermore that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Consider the Nicene Creed for instance. It's quite a fantastic creation, and a political result to boot. The most part of those many atheists I encounter who suffer from this lack of human sympathy, this inability to accept a perspective for examination (and thus reject the perspective immediately and without examination), would tend to get hung up on the faith statements which constrain the logical system and they often prefer to argue those points. That is, unfortunately, their own forfeiture, and there's not much anyone can do about it except keep trying. In other words, they would stop to argue the Creed and never look at the detail of the logic they're allegedly criticizing.

It's really quite a shame. I keep hoping those atheists minds I refer to will one day wake up and put their considerable and inherently greater talents to some use. In the meantime, I can't fault them for being as shallow and simple as any other human being. They are, after all, humans.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[wesmorris]

Re: Which peg to hang oneself upon?

Originally posted by tiassa
To wit, many atheists I encounter have trouble with the assertion that Catholicism is mind-numbingly logical. Technically, it is, once you accept the a priori foundation that describes the confines of the logical system.
:

I'll concede that point.

Originally posted by tiassa

Namely, that God exists, and furthermore that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
:

I believe you'd have to include a few more assumptions like maybe "the bible is mostly correct" or something to be able to fully justify catholicism, but I concur that it is definately doable to define assumptions which make any religion fully justifiable and logical.

Originally posted by tiassa

Consider the Nicene Creed for instance. It's quite a fantastic creation, and a political result to boot. The most part of those many atheists I encounter who suffer from this lack of human sympathy, this inability to accept a perspective for examination (and thus reject the perspective immediately and without examination), would tend to get hung up on the faith statements which constrain the logical system and they often prefer to argue those points.
:

Well, I mean, it's quite rational. Oh, I'm agnostic by the way. Well, I get a little hung up on the faith statements too. I will agree that sanity and happiness requires faith, I just believe there are much more sensible things to have faith in. For instance, I have faith that my wife loves me and that love will overcome any problems we might face. I have faith that I exist. I have faith that you exist. Those kind of assumtions are much more reasonable than "god did it." in my opinion.

Originally posted by tiassa

That is, unfortunately, their own forfeiture, and there's not much anyone can do about it except keep trying. In other words, they would stop to argue the Creed and never look at the detail of the logic they're allegedly criticizing.
:

I don't really question religious logic. Once the assumptions are established, it's not that hard to figure out how the system should work and christianity has had a few thousand years to work all that out. I just think it's a substitute for context. The major trouble I have with it is that it excludes any alternative possibilities that exist due to the unreasonable assumptions. I mean, it gets squishy fast and a lot of people will start debating the definition of god, but well, I'm talking about a lose definition of the christian or muslim god. I will never get past that assumption because well, I was given the gift of intellect. That intellect has revealed to me that the following is almost surely true: Humans can feel truth, it cannot be known logically (as of yet anyway). I can live with the unknown and I feel that the prior statement is truth. Life is attitude, have a good one.

Originally posted by tiassa

It's really quite a shame.
:

please, let's not pity each other. it's degrading.

Originally posted by tiassa

I keep hoping those atheists minds I refer to will one day wake up and put their considerable and inherently greater talents to some use.
:

Now that's a little rude and presumtuous. As if all aithiests are couch potatoes. You're being mean.

Originally posted by tiassa

In the meantime, I can't fault them for being as shallow and simple as any other human being.
:

Noble of you if you mean it, are you sure you're not as shallow? If so, how would you know? Because god told you?

Originally posted by tiassa

They are, after all, humans.
:

Hehe, you sound like you're not including yourself in the group. You may choose to abstain, but that doesn't mean you won't get labeled human by the rest of us.

Originally posted by tiassa

thanx,
Tiassa
:

You're welcome, you were mostly nice and had reasonable points for the most part (except for that slacker comment :bugeye I enjoyed your post.

 

[Tiassa]

Communication issues? (Minor, it seems)

please, let's not pity each other. it's degrading

True enough, but it's not a matter of pitying any one person or group of people. In this case, the crying shame is that the whole world is deprived of progressive thought because those involved in the progressive thought structure would rather devote their energies to less-progressive ideas.

Noble of you if you mean it, are you sure you're not as shallow? If so, how would you know? Because god told you?

That's a rather odd reply, since it overlooks some obvious things. Have I claimed to not be human?

Like I said, I cannot fault those atheists to whom I refer for being merely human and, as such, having no real ambition to ever raise the status of what being human means.

How would I know what?

Hehe, you sound like you're not including yourself in the group.

Well, I'm not an atheist. I hate to say it, but Duh.

(except for that slacker comment

Slacker comment? I'd rather leave it be than argue about it, but methinks you're reading too much into it.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[wesmorris]

Re: Communication issues? (Minor, it seems)

Originally posted by tiassa
True enough, but it's not a matter of pitying any one person or group of people. In this case, the crying shame is that the whole world is deprived of progressive thought because those involved in the progressive thought structure would rather devote their energies to less-progressive ideas.

So now you're the authority on progressive? Are you even in a position to know what progressive is? What do you compare it to? If you say it is progressive to assume that god exists and indulge in the "superior logic" of catholicism or christianity in general. I'd say that's true in the sense that "you've progressed farther than good sense allows". Progressive thought structure? If you were regarded by the smartest people in the world as the most impressive mental specimen ever and then you posted that I'd say the same thing and that is as follows: You don't seem very good at determining progressive thought structures.

Originally posted by tiassa

That's a rather odd reply, since it overlooks some obvious things. Have I claimed to not be human?

You didn't understand what I was saying and it's too simple to bother explaining... try rereading it a few times and this time think "context".

Originally posted by tiassa

Well, that's the group I was saying it sounded like you weren't including yourself in.

Like I said, I cannot fault those atheists to whom I refer for being merely human and, as such, having no real ambition to ever raise the status of what being human means.
[/B][/QUOTE]
That is fucked up right there. How is it that you claim to know what it is that atheists as a group want to do about raising their status? Your first post you were being nice. You should try nice more, it was working for you. Gack, like you have a freakin clue mindreader.

Originally posted by tiassa

How would I know what?Well, I'm not an atheist. I hate to say it, but Duh.

Yeah dude, again, you misread. I was hoping to keep this civil, but my girls have been driving me a little nutz and well, I'm just a little pissy at the moment. Try to make sure you understand what you're reading before you go off posting all halfcocked and whatnot. Ack, maybe you just enjoy that you know you can make me waste my time rebuffing your crap when you don't even really care enough to .. ah fuck it.

Originally posted by tiassa

Slacker comment? I'd rather leave it be than argue about it, but methinks you're reading too much into it.

No, I was making a joke about my prior joke. Maybe I was vague, I thought it obvious. My bad, Please pardon me.

Originally posted by tiassa

thanx,
Tiassa

you're not very welcome this time because you disrespect me by wasting my time. please, if you'd like to debate I'd love to, but pay attention, please.

 

[Adam]

Progressive thought structure

One might make a joke about that, depending on definitions.