"slippery when wet"? Ha!
This is an assumption on your part. Obviously I can't prove there is a better method and neither can you.
On the one hand I'd love to believe that, on the other hand I have no way of knowing if you would simply conclude, "oh, it must have been an hallucination", but God does.
Some people will hold on to a belief even in the very face of God Himself. You can even use me as an example if you want....I can't think of anything that would lead me to believe God wasn't real. Therefore, it's only natural to assume there are people just like me on the other side of the coin.
I'll go out on a short limb here and say you have not reasoned out your position. You want god to be real, and any reasoning which involves it is tossed out. This is another one of those, it's not what you say, it's what you haven't said that shows more. Reading between the lines. I am willing to move on my disbelief but you make it sound as if presented with a reasonable argument you will believe regardless. That proves you have not reasoned out your position.
Of course I've reasoned out my position. If the notion of God had been refuted neither I, nor millions others(including others vastly more wise than I), would continue to believe in such a notion. You make it seem as though I'm the only one in the world how does or has believed such a notion.
Obviously if I'm presented with a reasonable argument I must and do take note of it, if I cannot come up with a reasoned conclusion that at least leaves wiggle room for what I believe, well then obviously what I believe is wrong.
At the end of the day I have no definitive proof of anything I present, however, what I present is not unreasonable in my estimation. Nor has anything I believe been unequivocally refuted.
So if it hasn't been refuted then it is logical to accept it as being believable? You never use this behavior with any of your other daily activities, so why do you on this topic? What I mean is, you can't refute the existence of the flying pink elephant, but I bet you wouldn't agree that the flying pink elephant then exists. But you leap across that reasoning and say this god is exempt from that sort of reasoning, thus, since it can't be refuted it is acceptable to believe it. Both of those arguments are exactly identical, yet one you favor, while the other you reject. Where is the reasoning in that?
Here it is again. You are using others to solidify your belief as a rational argument. That is not reasoning. Just because others believe doesn't mean that it is in some way a correct assertion. You have got to know that I understand there are many others who believe, so it is almost silly that you ask as if I missed that bit of information. The funny part is that even though there are millions of others who believe, there is very little consistency between them. They each seem to put their own spin on it which only goes to show that their reasoning is just that, not reasoned.
Here's where I make a distinction. If the "flying pink elephant" has meaning in your life. If you feel his presence, if he provides you with peace, if he is your refuge when you need strength, he helps you live a life better than your own, then who am I to say he doesn't? If the flying pink elephant does nothing and provides nothing other than to say it's there, well then I would wonder whats the point.
IMO, what you call the flying pink elephant, I call God
I'm not trying to use others to solidify my belief only to demonstrate that, for the most part, people do not hold a belief that has been refuted. Which is why in matters of God they world is split
That is what I had been wondering. Not all who believe use that as a reasoning argument. It is valid, I just have a different approach to it. I say to empower oneself is far more appealing than to seek support elsewhere. Those who rely too much on outward support will find it incredibly difficult to cope when those things disappear. To acknowledge the one has the capability to do or solve something under one's own merit or power is what we lack in todays society because people are quick to pass off their accomplishment as being divinely given or provided. You can call it a pride thing, I don't. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging your own self worth.
I'm not even talking about self empowerment. But I defy you live without the support of others. It cannot be done. Nothing works that way. We all need help. Unless you birthed yourself, are living in a home you built, running off a power system you created, with tools you fashioned by yourself, living off of some nutritional system you created, then you are being supported by others and indeed by nature itself. We are all being helped by those around us and what is around us. This is just a fact.
when people thank God they are generally not thanking God for helping them win, but more for helping have the ability to win, with all that entails.
There you go again. I fully acknowledge that our lives depend on the efforts of others. I however also acknowledge that this help is tangible. I can prove that it is there. That these people did the work that makes my life easier or sometimes more complex. But when it comes to something divine you can't see it in the same way. It is just hunched so you don't know if it was a divine empowerment at all, yet people are willing to pretend as if they already knew it was.
Helping them have the ability to win? You are drawing an incredibly fine line between helping to win, and helping with the ability to win. It almost sounds as if you are saying no one has the ability to win in them. But I of course know that is not what you meant. I fail to see how ability is divinely given? So if they were not given the ability, would they always lose? So you thank god to have the opportunity to win? Well if it was actually meant that way, why don't people thank god for losing? I mean if you are utilizing as a pride thing and just giving thanks for the opportunity, then why not thank god for losing since it's all the same? I don't think I have ever seen anyone thank god for losing, I mean, having the opportunity to lose.
That, however, does not explain why the child died alone in the first place. Why not just put people in heaven to begin with, instead of torturing them on earth first? Evidently, God is a sadist, who creates beings in order to torture them.
Of course, the easiest supposition is simply that there is no god, and then we have no "mystery" why suffering occurs.
so since you can prove that your dependence on others can be proved by one method you make the assumption that God should be able to be proven by the same method. This is a non sequitur. Yes, I am making an assumption but I wish you would realize that so are you.
What if you couldn't prove it was there?
Consider Helen Keller.
Helen Keller said she knew God before she even knew a language.
I thought I knew a lot about her. I have never seen this and I am skeptical that it is true.
lol. This is not a made up belief system. It's based on Molinsim. Molinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
IMO Molinism is a sort of Hard Determinism that includes free will(in a sense).
have we not been discussing the problem of evil this entire thread?
Did we not already determine that:
- evil is an objectively morally unjustifiable intent or desire
It then follows that the only reason evil exists is because we are free moral agents
- pain and suffering are not evil.
It also follows that God allows pain and suffering because they are not bad/evil for us.
So the real question then becomes is free will worth the evil we can commit?
To which I emphatically say YES! Keep in mind that for all the evil we are capable of, we are capable of even greater good. In the same way that darkness cannot overcome light....no matter how dark the room may be it cannot extinguish a light source.
Next consider a toy robot that can walk and talk and ask yourself if you'd rather be that. I think the answer is no.
Next consider your concept of perfection. Consider a glove that fits my hand perfectly. Is that glove any less perfect because it cannot bake me a cake? No. We can still say the glove is perfect because it is exhibiting it's nature. In a similar way, it is in our nature to experience pain and suffering. We cannot say we aren't perfect because we cannot live a pain free and suffering free life because it is in our nature to do so. The only reason we are not perfect is because we are free moral agents who do not always do what is right.
---------- Post added 02-07-2010 at 04:46 PM ----------
I will try explain what Molinism posits or at least as I interpret it in as simplistic a way as I can:
First we must define God's ultimate parameter and that is, IMO, that people come to a free will knowledge of Him.
Now,
God has 3 different types of knowledge which I will call His knowledge of could happen, would happen, and will happen.
Lets start with the overall example of Situation A: where we must choose either X or not X
1. could happen gives God the knowledge of what is possible absolutely. For example, it is not possible to do both X and not X. Could happen essentially lays out necessary truths. Through this knowledge God formulates all possible world's that he could create.
2. would happen gives God the knowledge of what will occur if we we find ourselves in Situation A. Through this knowledge God's choices are then narrowed from all possible worlds to all feasible worlds. The reason this is so is because of our presupposition that God wishes to maintain our free will. The implication is that if we are in Situation A, God knows, for example, that we will choose X even if His desire is for us to choose not X.
3. will happen gives God the knowledge, once God decides which world to create, of exactly what will occur in that world.
That being said, consider this:
God may know(through his middle knowledge/would happen) that, by being in Situation A, Person Z will freely choose God. But being in Situation A, Person Z will die.
God is not forced to create this world unless, no other situation exists in which Person Z will freely choose God. What I mean to say is, it may be the case that, unless Person Z finds himself in Situation A, then in no other situation will Person Z freely choose to come to a saving knowledge of God. If that is the case, since Gods overriding goal, as I stated above, is to have Person Z come to a free will knowledge of Him, then God has a duty to create that world.
This also means that there may be no world in which Person Z will ever freely choose X, but given any situation, he will always choose not X, If that is the case, then God can not create a world in which Person Z will freely choose X.
The reason I think this is a sort of Hard Determinism with free will elements is because If God knows what we'll choose given a set of conditions, He simply needs to manipulate the conditions such that we will do what He wants. Say for some reason God wants me to choose Y, well if a situation exists such that, if placed in it, I will freely choose Y, God needs but to place me in said situation.
So the world is hard deterministic is because God sets up ALL the situations.
Anyone read the end of the book of Job? Why should God subscribe to man's version of "evil." For God, perhaps, all things are good. I'm personally an "agnostic," but then I could also use the words "theist" or "atheist" dependent upon context. (Context is god!)
How ready we are to toss around words like "God" and "Evil" as if they were precise like the integers. Yes, these vague words are exciting and important but all too slippery when wet.
not at all. Perhaps I should rephrase. I have never encountered anything, nor can I personally visualize/think of anything that has made me question my belief in God up to this point in my life. Based on what I've seen and know currently. But, I suppose, like anything else, something could potentially pop up in the future to change all that. So my apologies for the misspeak, I was must too bold in that statement.
Anyone read the end of the book of Job? Why should God subscribe to man's version of "evil." For God, perhaps, all things are good. I'm personally an "agnostic," but then I could also use the words "theist" or "atheist" dependent upon context. (Context is god!)
How ready we are to toss around words like "God" and "Evil" as if they were precise like the integers. Yes, these vague words are exciting and important but all too slippery when wet.
Try to imagine a universe in which there was no god of any kind, and that the universe operated under mindless and relentless "laws of nature". What would such a universe be like?
I can easily imagine a universe like that, and I can just as easily imagine one with a god in it (or several different versions, with different numbers and types of gods).
the first thing is to be able to imagine different universes, and let one's fancy and imagination go freely to all sorts of things that do not fit with this universe, as that is not the point of the exercise, but is instead based upon supposing certain things about the existence or nonexistence of various sorts of gods, and thinking about what implications such beings would have on the universe.
If one cannot even conceive of a universe without a god, then one cannot conceive of what one would look for in order to decide whether or not this universe had anything to do with a god or not.
