AGNOSTIC Accountability Groups Starting Up

[Nightfall]

After reading through 9 pages of this thread, I thought I might add in my own opinions on this matter. I would have read them all, but I have better things to do with my time.

First off, I am agnostic. My family are of Christian faith, but I have always questioned the existence of god. Today, science is what I trust in. However, there is no evidence proving the existence of a god. Until proof is established, then I will not believe.

I am pro-choice, pro-death penalty, anti-censorship, anti-gun control, and against religion in the schools and government. I have other areas I could address, but those are the biggies.

While there are some people in this thread that are more than a little hostile toward people of certain faiths or lack of faith, I am a realist. It accomplishes nothing to get upset at people for their beliefs. People are going to believe what they want to believe. Most people trying to convince others that their beliefs are true are in for a hard sell unless they are from the same religion or sect. Otherwise, the debates continue. I see passages taken from the bible to prove certain points, and I see entries from the Skeptics Annotated Bible to debunk them. I hear people asking for proof and others not able to show any. It just keeps going on and on.

It is obvious this thread will continue. The debate will continue to rage on. However....consider these points...

1. For those who have faith in God: Do you have absolute proof that god exists?
2. For those who are Atheists: Do you have absolute proof that god doesn't exist?

Sure, you will see some Christians point to the bible, but that isn't proof. It has more holes that swiss cheese. You will also see some Atheists point to science but that proves nothing either. The knowledge we have on science can't answer all our questions. It probably never will in our existence.

In order to make things better for the world today, there needs to be a movement toward more Religious Tolerance or else. There is no tolerance for this today, and until that day comes, things will stay the way they are today. I don't expect things to change...ever.

You may include me in your Agnostic list. Just keep in mind I do more watching in this forum than anything. I also may do a little debating, but I for the most part am content to let others believe as they wish. If someone wants to step up to the plate to challenge my beliefs, I usually let them swing away, but I don't enter into the fray. I have better things to do with my time.

 

[melchoir]

1. If God thinks logically, then logic must have existed before God and God did not create logic.

Originally posted by: Netopia
Why? Isn't it possible that if God is in fact eternal and unchanging, that logic is simply one of His intrinsic qualities? OTOH, your statement supports what I believe, if there is logic in the universe, then there must have been logic that existed before the universe did and the universe did not create (or evolve) logic.

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
I can't see the conclusion here. Please explain why God thinking logically would necessarily imply that logic predates God. If God were (and is) the first being in existence, and "logic" is a characteristic of God's thought, why does this imply that logic existed before God? And secondly, what do you mean when you say logic "exists"? Aren't you slipping into an ambiguity here - between the "existence" of something (God), and the "existence" of an abstraction?

If God can contain a property of "logical", then the following must be true: That the Universe, that requires no cause or creator, also can contain logic. This means that if this defence is true the Universe doesn't need God in order for logic to exist anyway.

2. If there is a logical reason why God exists, then logic is more potent than God and restrains God.

Originally posted by: Netopia
I don't know who said that there is a logical reason that God exists. I've never even thought about is existance being anything more than a fact; self-existential. Also, if logic is one of the qualities of God, then it is not "more potent" than He is but simply part of what defines Him. God is certainly limited by His own nature, but that doesn't mean that He isn't still all powerful. To say that He must be more powerful than Himself is circular reasoning.

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
Once again, I can't see any reason why you make this statement. Why does A imply B here? And secondly, I would propose the opposite - a logical necessity for God's existence makes him GREATER than a being whose existence is merely contingent. There is a great deal more to be said on this...if there is interest, I'll discuss it MUCH further (my Master's thesis in philosophy was based a great deal on this subject.)

If God has logical thoughts then logic is more powerful than God. If God chose to create anything it must have had reasons to do so, therefore logic will have been dictating God's thoughts from the moment of God's inception.

Sorry for lumping your quotes together, it just seemed easier to hit two birds with one stone.

 

[Rio Rebel]

That just doesn't make any sense. It seems strange to talk so much about logic, but to structure all the arguments in something completely different.

I don't think I'm willing to go round and round on this one. The burden of proof is on your assertion that these somehow imply what you say. I can't see anything resembling a structured argument which shows the line being drawn.

 

[Netopia]

I believe that spacio-temporality is a prerequisite to our claiming that anything "exists". Now it may be that something COULD exist outside spacio-temporality, but it would be utterly impossible for us to describe it or conceive of it.

Why does our inability to describe or conceive of God's true nature mean that He cannot be extra-temporal? Actually, I believe that he's omni/super-temporal. Both in and out of time and existing at all points of time eternally.

Nightfall, nice post. Good to meet you.

Joe

 

[petrek]

Melchoir, with the amount of false information going around from "both sides" of the issue, it's no surprise that you were able to find such a lengthy opinion on whether Jesus Christ actually existed. Where did you find it?

Dave

 

[Rio Rebel]

Why does our inability to describe or conceive of God's true nature mean that He cannot be extra-temporal? Actually, I believe that he's omni/super-temporal. Both in and out of time and existing at all points of time eternally.

Specifically, it is not that I belive God cannot be extra-temporal. It's that I don't believe we can even conceive of what it would mean to be "extra-temporal." We may think we can conceive of it, but like many subtle and/or complex abstractions, we really aren't able to imagine what it would be to be extra-temporal, or "omni/super-temporal".

When you think you are conceiving of this, slow it down in your mind. Our mind structures all images into a spacio-temporal order. Now, as Kant so brilliantly observed, this does tell us what reality in itself must be. But it DOES tell us that only those things which are spacio-temporal can be conceived. (Obviously, I am not including mathematics or abstractions in this. I am talking about the world of experience.)

Once you accept this explanation - and I have never heard a solid refutation of it - then you are left with only two options - either all of external reality is spacio-temporal, or external reality may be extra-spacial and extra-temporal, but we can only conceive and experience the part which is spacio-temporal. And when you can't conceive of it, or experience it - and I don't mean that we don't, I mean that we CAN'T...EVER - then it makes no sense to even talk about it. We may as well talk of a reality which exists "outside" logic. The notion is unintelligible to us. It's nonsense in the literal meaning of the term.

You can tell me that God exists "outside" or "above" time, but I can't - and you can't - imagine what that even means. So you may as well say that God is a squared circle, or a married bachelor.

 

[Netopia]

You can tell me that God exists "outside" or "above" time, but I can't - and you can't - imagine what that even means. So you may as well say that God is a squared circle, or a married bachelor.

I never said that God was a boxing ring!

I know what you mean though. I guess that is one of the reasons that I don't think of God "thinking" like us... in a successive stream. Instead, for just the reasons you point out, I think of God as a singular "thought" encompassing all possible thought an knowledge in an "eternal now" moment. No stream of thought, no passage of time, no increase or decrease in experience.

Now to be honest, that's only how I perceive God if I'm seriously trying to fit His nature into my concept of what something would have to be to fit Biblical description. Most of the time I just personify Him and consider Him within the confines of time... not consciously, it's just the mental image that is there.

Though it is true, and I agree with you that, we cannot truly conceive of God because of what we are able to rationalize, that doesn't mean that we cannot grasp the concept on the outer edges of our minds (if you know what I mean) and do our best, though a little faith is obviously necessary too. It would be like something living in a 2 dimensional plane and thinking about intersecting planes creating 3 dimensions but not really having any way to truly conceive it because they would have no frame of reference. Their lack of conception would not however, mean that the 3rd dimension didn't exist but only that they could only guess at what it was like.

Joe

 

[Rio Rebel]

Though it is true, and I agree with you that, we cannot truly conceive of God because of what we are able to rationalize, that doesn't mean that we cannot grasp the concept on the outer edges of our minds (if you know what I mean) and do our best, though a little faith is obviously necessary too. It would be like something living in a 2 dimensional plane and thinking about intersecting planes creating 3 dimensions but not really having any way to truly conceive it because they would have no frame of reference. Their lack of conception would not however, mean that the 3rd dimension didn't exist but only that they could only guess at what it was like.

I like your metaphor. It's on point and it's probably the best we can do to explain it. However, even though I realize you are doing the best we can when you use this metaphor, I don't think it fits well enough to apply.

To imagine something existing "outside" of time, you have to eliminate all the things that go hand in hand with temporal order of experience. As I addressed this years ago in my thesis, I came to the conclusion that existence itself is dependent upon temporal order. Now when I say that, I run into the same problem of ambiguity that Kant had when he talked about the phenomenal world (as we experience it) and the noumenal world (as it is in itself). To talk about the noumenal world and what it might be like is to make the error that Kant calls "speaking of the noumenal world in the positive sense" - something we cannot do. We can't discuss something that we've already determined to be outside the realm of possible experience - there is no frame of reference, no way to even conceive of what we're discussing. The noumenal world can only be discussed in the negative sense; in other words, I can only refer to the noumenal world as the unknowable ground of my experience, but never talk about qualities or characteristics of it. It is by definition unknowable.

Think sympathetically with me for a moment. What do we mean when we say that something "exists"? I think we BELIEVE that we mean it exists "in reality", that it is part of a reality external to our own minds that dictate our experiences. If I say that you exist, it means that I believe you are "out there", and that with effort, or luck, etc., I might experience you again. You are "real", and not simply an arbitrary construct of my own mind.

Kant believed that when we say something exists, we are saying nothing at all about the object or being ("existence is not a predicate"). I believe he's wrong. Because I believe when we say that something "exists", we are saying that it exists in space and in time. For something to exist, but not be a possible object of experience for us (not even POSSIBLE as an experience), is not to exist in any sense that we mean when we talk about a being or object. It makes no sense to say that there is a table here, but it can't be seen, heard, felt, tasted, smelled, mathematically posited, nor can it interact with any other object of the world we experience. It cannot interact with us or with anything else we know. Not only that it DOES not, but it CANNOT. It will never, ever be "out there" for us. Now what it does it mean to say that such a thing "exists"?

I'll stop now, because I'm beginning to challenge Athanasius in length.

 

[Netopia]

Two quick responses because I don't have time to fully answer at the moment:

Think sympathetically with me for a moment.

I really like that phrase "Think sympathetically...". If one really thinks about what is being asked, it can stop a person dead in their mental tracks and allow them to open their minds without feeling forced. Nice phrase!

I'll stop now, because I'm beginning to challenge Athanasius in length.

I wouldn't worry about that. I like reading what both of you have to say, so length is only a plus!

Joe

 

[Athanasius]

wuffsunie quote:

I believe that God exists, totally and completely. I believe that he created the universe and us as well. Why? Because I'm a scientist and have been involved in science all my life. The Teleological argument does it for me. The deeper I look, the further I search through any topic, the more I see that the whole d@mned system just works too well! Now I may be wrong, God may not exist and we really may have emerged from chaos somehow, but with my current understanding of things, God exists to my mind.

... but that does not mean I will worship him. The mechanical aspects of the system are beautiful and works of art. The content leaves a lot to be desired, though. Huge, monstrous, gaping amounts. The unknowable and all powerful? That created this place? Sorry, just can't do it. I think we can all agree the human mind is finite. Since the God we've chosen to argue over is the standard judeo/Christian God, we have that he is infinite. Even you, Netopia, have conceded that the finite is not able to comprehend the infinite. Even the notion of worshipping something that is all-powerful and all-knowing strikes me as ludicrous. At least the old polytheist religions and vengeful, wrathful, personable gods to worship.

I already owe QT a reply, so I can't give too long reply here before I respond to him

A few points:

1) The "monstrous" you allude to may mean several things, all of which can fit into a New Testament concept of God. But the New Testament itself says that "we only see as in a glass, darkly." (1 Corinthians 13). Since our knowledge is so limited (even ifwe accept the New Testament as a divine revelation), character qualities like faithfulness, hope, and love are valued more than knowledge.

Given such limitations to human knowledge, it is only rational to proceed carefully. Given that foundation, there are still some things that could be said. The immensity of the universe may be a symbol of God's immensity. But beyond that "poetic" value, what does it really mean? As C.S. Lewis pointed out, it is probably a logical inconsistency to draw any conclusion about anything based on size. Do we automatically value a six foot man more than a five foot man? In addition, you mentioned that you are a man of science. Isn't the massive (and growing) size of the universe a necessity to keep life from being cooked by radiation? My analogy may be simplistic, but isn't the universe sort of like a giant microwave oven? If it weren't constantly expanding, wouldn't we all be cooked?

2) If, by monstrous, you are also alluding to the apparent indifference of the universe to life and suffering, then that is the classic "theodicy." I can't tackle that right now in depth, but I would simply say that perhaps we have a rather fanciful understanding of omnipotence. God is not omnipotent in the sense that He can do anything we can imagine. God is omnipotent in the sense that no outside force can restrain Him from doing whatever is intrinsically possible and is consistent with His nature. Hence God may be in the process of dealing with suffering and evil, and even in the process of removing it. But that process would not necessarily mean that He just vaporizes it by immediate divine fiat. Such an act could be intrinsically impossible for Him because it would cause Him to contradict His own nature. Does might really make right? Yet God is not aloof from suffering, especially if one accepts the New Testament concept that Jesus is God.

3) I would like to respond more directly to this statement you made:

Even you, Netopia, have conceded that the finite is not able to comprehend the infinite. Even the notion of worshipping something that is all-powerful and all-knowing strikes me as ludicrous. At least the old polytheist religions and vengeful, wrathful, personable gods to worship.

I would grant that we cannot comprehend God. That doesn't mean we can know nothing about him. If I understand it correctly, science can comprehend nothing (or very little) before planck time. Still, we can learn a lot be observing what has been manifested since then. If you will allow me to stretch that concept, I don't think it is grounds for refusing to worship God (assuming He exists) simply because we cannot comprehend Him. Not if what we come to believe about God causes us to consider God to be the Highest Good, the Purest Beauty, and the Ground of All Being. Then "worshipping" Him is simply building on what appears to us to be the true foundation.

If we tie that back into the New Testament, though we cannot comprehend the Being of God apart from time (no "science" pre-planck time), we can know some things about Him that He has revealed to us in the process of time. In Christian thought, that process of time produces no "higher vision" of God than the person Jesus of Nazareth (2 Corinthians 3:1-4:6). Note that the passage I just referenced would emphasize that even the Old Testament was a very limited view of God. Philosophizing and discussion have their place, but a New Testament concept of God would say that personality is a higher reality than the abstract constructs of God that we piece together with our limited minds. Hence God is personal, and we learn more about him by observing Jesus and embracing "The Imitation of Christ" than we learn by intellectual knowledge. To "see" Jesus is to "see" the Father in New Testament thought (John 12:44-50). So, Christians do have a "personable" God to worship, though His primary passions would not seem to be vengeance and wrath

Anyway, gotta go

 

[Greyd]

Originally posted by: petrek
Melchoir, with the amount of false information going around from "both sides" of the issue, it's no surprise that you were able to find such a lengthy opinion on whether Jesus Christ actually existed. Where did you find it?

Dave

Interesting that you mention this petrek... I asked the same question in a different thread. (a thread discussing the source and validity of melchoir's post on the existence of Christ) but Melchoir hasn't chosen to respond for some reason.

My new thread focuses not on the existence of Christ as much as the realibility of the accounts of Josephus here as stated by Melchoir. I'm not sure why yet, but Melchoir seems to be ignoring requests for a source?

 

[melchoir]

Interesting that you mention this petrek... I asked the same question in a different thread. (a thread discussing the source and validity of melchoir's post on the existence of Christ) but Melchoir hasn't chosen to respond for some reason.

My new thread focuses not on the existence of Christ as much as the realibility of the accounts of Josephus here as stated by Melchoir. I'm not sure why yet, but Melchoir seems to be ignoring requests for a source?

Actually, I never saw petrek's reply. I'm sorry for not replying to that. As for the giant quote that came from:Text Scroll to part 2. I never ment to ignore any requests, I just never saw petrek's reply.

As for the reliability of Josephus's texts, it has never been settled completely.

On another note, Wuffsunie else here spoke

A gay Jew can find a date at a Klan rally faster than a religious conversation will ever change someone's opinion.

and I must agree with that. No matter who says what here, and what's "proven" or disproven it will change no one's mindset. If one cannot change the others opinion it makes the entire argument futile. I think I've learned my lesson about religious threads and will do my best to keep out of them, they're just a waste of time. This was certainly a learning experience

 

[Greyd]

Originally posted by: melchoir

Interesting that you mention this petrek... I asked the same question in a different thread. (a thread discussing the source and validity of melchoir's post on the existence of Christ) but Melchoir hasn't chosen to respond for some reason.

My new thread focuses not on the existence of Christ as much as the realibility of the accounts of Josephus here as stated by Melchoir. I'm not sure why yet, but Melchoir seems to be ignoring requests for a source?

Actually, I never saw petrek's reply. I'm sorry for not replying to that. As for the giant quote that came from:Text Scroll to part 2. I never ment to ignore any requests, I just never saw petrek's reply.

As for the reliability of Josephus's texts, it has never been settled completely.

On another note, Wuffsunie else here spoke

A gay Jew can find a date at a Klan rally faster than a religious conversation will ever change someone's opinion.

and I must agree with that. No matter who says what here, and what's "proven" or disproven it will change no one's mindset. If one cannot change the others opinion it makes the entire argument futile. I think I've learned my lesson about religious threads and will do my best to keep out of them, they're just a waste of time. This was certainly a learning experience

Ewwww...no wonder you were hesitant about citing your source. That source is pretty uncritical and unacademic with some pretty unrelated and unreliable sources. He has no footnotes or sources from works considered as "realiable" by secular historians. Heck there aren't even any reliable Talmudic scholars cited. But I would have to agree with you on one part - that sometimes arguing in religious threads is futile (nice graceful exit btw) Sometimes, some things get me interested tho (like your quote) - don't bow out now let's discuss - I'll be wrong sometimes and so will others, but it is very interesting and stimulating.

EDIT: AHHHH I didn't even notice that your source cites John Allegro - who had come up with the theory that Jesus was originally a cipher for a sacred hallucinogenic mushroom around which the Christian cult arose. Definately not the most scholarly reference.

 

[melchoir]

Ewwww...no wonder you were hesitant about citing your source.

I was never hesitant about citing the source, I felt it was irrelvant. I'd like to sincerely apologize to petrek for not seeing his post until you quoted it.

nice graceful exit btw

Thanks, one has to exit eventually and since I don't currently instill the hatred in the fellow posters that Valsava did, I might as well exit now.

don't bow out now let's discuss - I'll be wrong sometimes and so will others, but it is very interesting and stimulating

This thread has been open for discussion for about 3 weeks now, while it is indeed interesting and stimulating, no one can ever prove their side 100%, or to even change the minds of most of the posters around here. This thread pretty much ran out of steam a few days ago, if for some reason it does continue without me, I may rejoin it since at least then it's not just me prolonging the agony.

 

[Greyd]

Originally posted by: melchoir

Ewwww...no wonder you were hesitant about citing your source.

I was never hesitant about citing the source, I felt it was irrelvant. I'd like to sincerely apologize to petrek for not seeing his post until you quoted it.

nice graceful exit btw

Thanks, one has to exit eventually and since I don't currently instill the hatred in the fellow posters that Valsava did, I might as well exit now.

don't bow out now let's discuss - I'll be wrong sometimes and so will others, but it is very interesting and stimulating

This thread has been open for discussion for about 3 weeks now, while it is indeed interesting and stimulating, no one can ever prove their side 100%, or to even change the minds of most of the posters around here. This thread pretty much ran out of steam a few days ago, if for some reason it does continue without me, I may rejoin it since at least then it's not just me prolonging the agony.

True, true - I agree. Next time tho you should prob answer a request for a source. (like I requested in my original thread) It's never irrelevant when debating a topic. The legitimacy and quality of information gleaned from a source is put into question when it doesn't come from a reliable or even arguable source. (And your source wasn't the best choice to use in a debate btw.) But maybe another debate, another time?

 

[melchoir]

Next time tho you should prob answer a request for a source. (like I requested in my original thread

I would have answered petrek had I known he requested it, I didn't answer in your thread because I didn't like a new thread continuing a discussion that started here.

But maybe another debate, another time?

Perhaps. We'll just have to see how well I've learned my lesson now won't we?

 

[Greyd]

Perhaps. We'll just have to see how well I've learned my lesson now won't we?

 

[sandorski]

The conversation has certainly improved of late.

I think it also touches on why Jesus for Christians and Moses for Jews were such important figures: They both give a Human face and experience to "God". Without that Human example neither the Jews or Christians(Islamics as well) would have anything to go on. This is really the conundrum, "God's" existance centers around these Human figures.

I maintain that "God" is mostly Human Invention mixed with an unexplainable energy/drive to survive. "God" is very much the original "Big Brother", a mysterious and unknown figure that people seek to please by doing what the most dedicated followers of "God"/"Big Brother" say He desires. If those follwers are wise and have vision, then things will bode well, but if they are greedy, self-centered, or corrupt in some other way, the sh1t will hit the fan.

Amongst other things, for eg., Jesus saw the sh1t hitting the fan and spoke against it and provided a new way of doing things. Mohammed also saw the sh1t hitting the fan and spoke against Christianity in his day, but I digress and want to focus on Christianity mainly because that's the way I was raised and is still the most dominant religion in North America.

Where has Christianity gone wrong?

By definition, Christians are followers of Christ(Jesus). Unfortunetly, Christians have too often focussed too much on the Apostles(good men to be sure, but not Jesus) and/or Moses(also a good man, but made obsolete("fulfilled") by Jesus). Jesus taught a message of Love, Caring for one's neighbour(unlike Moses who taught caring only for one's Ethnic(fellow Jews) group), Sharing oneself's Ability and Wealth, and Forgiving each other's Sins. Jesus ushered in an Era that was not cut-and-dry, it was an Era of Redemption where all Men(humanity) could seek a better future together despite differences in opinion, culture, or even practice/custom.

Where Christianity has failed so often is in the Idea that the Judaic principle of "God's Chosen" still applied in the Jesus world, it doesn't. In the grand scheme it doesn't matter whether you are Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist(Southern or otherwise), Eastern Orthodox, Pentecostal, non-Denominational/Born Again/Bible believing, Seventh Day Adventist, Jehovah's Witness(generally accepted as a Cult), or Mormon(also accepted as a Cult). The only thing that matters is the Message! Those who adhere to the Message are the one's who "get it", everyone else has too skewed an idea of God/Religion to comprehend what Jesus was saying and never "get it".

God speaks

No he/she/it doesn't. The Bible Prophecies speak well on this concerning the End Times when it mentions "the imaginations of men". The "End Time" is not, despite the Religious spin, "God's" doing, it is Man's. Humanity is/will dig itself into a hole of catastrophe, one so deep Man will decline into a state of horrific desperation. Along the way people will act on what "God" told them to do, but only dig the hole deeper. Eventually One will not just claim to have been spoken to, but will claim to be "God"!

For the Christian, Jesus has said everything that needs to be said, there is no need for more.

 

[petrek]

I was never hesitant about citing the source, I felt it was irrelvant. I'd like to sincerely apologize to petrek for not seeing his post until you quoted it.

No worries.

The source used is very important, perhaps, one could say, the most important quality attributable to the statement. The very reason why I said "...with the amount of false information going around from "both sides" of the issue, it's no surprise that you were able to find such a lengthy opinion on whether Jesus Christ actually existed..." was to point out that I could use statements made by the experts to back up virtually any idea or belief I wanted to further. And without the use of sources, it would be impossible to determine the usefulness (validity/trustworthiness) of the statements being made.

I don't believe that two statements that oppose each other can both be true. Both statements must have a source. Being able to find the source of the statement goes a very long way into determining the validity and subsequent trustworthiness of the statement.


On the subject of the usefulness of these religious discussions. Every born again believer has had to accept Christ on a personal level, as an individual, on their own. It doesn't matter how the individual was raised. It comes down to a personal choice. The discussions that I had (prior to accepting Christ) about religion in general, as well as Christianity were very much a part of what led to my eventual conversion.
And when I say religious conversations, I'm not referring to the conversations that take on the addage "another day, another dollar". I'm referring to the ones which make you think, the ones that cause you to seriously question what you believe and why you believe it, because it is these discussions that change your understanding of the world around you, that in turn can change you.


Dave