It makes total sence cause this line of reasoning is the reason I don’t call myself an atheïst.
I can agree on a higher power, just not an intervening or all knowing being.
Once I explained my views to a muslim like this.
A man created a pond, puts fish in it. Watches the fish every day, sees them multiply and feels content. Storks try to eat the fish so the man drives them away, puts nets over the pond. All kinds of measures to keep the fish safe.
years go by, the pond got bigger because of rain and the fish population grew. The nets are worn and storks, cats and other animals keep eating the fish because there are so many. The man doesn’t care anymore, never even looks at the pond anymore.
This is how I see the higher being and it’s creation.
So you are a deist? What did you think of my objection to deism in my earlier comment?
Your analogy also depends on the man being finite and a greater environment existing which would allow the pond and the man to be independent even though one causes the other.
Do you have a frame work for how a universe could be created by yet remain independent from a timeless creator?
1 Like
So you agree that those who had sex out of wedlock should be denied holy communion. As you know, these “sinners” are effectively branded with a scarlet letter as the entire parish will know they’ve been shunned from this important Christian ritual. I’m not the religious scholar and expert you are, but I call this shunning behavior intended to punish, intimidate, and embarrass.
Where we differ, I guess, is that I believe sex outside of a marriage is acceptable.
If you do not take communion, you just go up to take it, literally no body notices. Maybe you have been to a Church where that is different, but in all the Churches I have been to, they have never made a public disgrace out of anybody.
I am a little confused. Would you say that groups should always accept everyone, even those who go against the core beliefs of the group? Do you think Mosques should admit people who refuse to take off their shoes, or vegetarian groups should let members join who keep eating meet? Genuine question.
You are being very uncharitable with your assertions, you are immediately assuming the worst case expression for these, now, do they happen sometimes, yes, but often? No, in fact Churches get disciplined by their dioses if they abuse their members like that. Maybe Churches are like that where you are, but they are going against the teachings in the Bible.
Colossians 3:13
“Bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.”
Your argument is very similar to all those I’ve heard before, and it’s one of those lovingly-condescending arguments one sees so often. It’s a nice little mental image, and fittingly mirrors one of the reasons given in the book of Job by god himself as to the reason of suffering in the world.
“Couldn’t it be you limited apes are just too stupid to understand my reasons, mine, the very creator of reality?”
Sure. That’s possible. The problem here is dogma, and the structure of argument. The Christian god is supposedly omnipotent. We’re to understand that entity is capable of all.
Let’s apply that to your little mental image: If the mother of the child was capable of all, wouldn’t she vaccinate her child in a way that doesn’t hurt?
Your answer works on a very, very basic level. It works when imagining god as a bigger, stronger, larger human being, as a white beard in the heavens. Not as the literal creator of the cosmos, as a being transcending time, thought, the notion of transcendence itself.
Whoever wrote that argument you’re quoting is manipulating you, or is incapable of conceiving of the divine.
You’re comparing apples to oranges. Refusing to take shoes off before entering a mosque is different than being shamed for an activity occurring outside of church that is made public to the parish. In both cases this involved the Catholic Church and both involved unplanned pregnancies. Both women married shortly after becoming pregnant, but are disallowed from receiving communion
Please point out where you believe I was being unfair with my assertions? This is a discussion group which means you might find people don’t always agree with you. Don’t take my questions and comments as offensive.
I’ll ask again, do you believe having sex before marriage is a sin? I also wonder if you believe homosexuality is a sin? Thanks.
It is not meant to be condescending at all. It was just a small example, obviously I do not think God operates in such a finite way.
Also, you seem to accuse me one moment of think God as a bigger and strong human, yet you also say I am using “apes are too stupid to understand logic“. Which is it? I cannot hold both positions.
I will admit that it is a difficult position for me to hold. I do believe that God is far beyond me in terms of conscious and intelligence, up to infinitely beyond, which means I cannot know exactly his reasons. However I can look at what he says in the Bible and use the limited intelligence he has given me.
Also you are not using the right definition of omnipotence, at least not the one used in Christianity.
We define omnipotence as all powerful, as in has the power to do everything possible; not can do everything, even things not possible.
No, my analogy works for a just a bigger stronger human God, but that is because is an analogy I am trying to use to convey an understanding I believe is beyond us.
If God wants his free creatures to chose to triumph over evil, then he needs evil to exist in order to do that.
I might be misreading you (and if I am please do tell me) but you seem to me speaking to me with the same condescension you are claiming of my original point.
Actually I am currently waiting for the response to that argument from an atheist scholar who has accepted it and is currently writing a further rebuttal. (Last I checked anyway which was a while ago) You might think it is manipulative or surface level, but the scholarly community begs to differ. I could suggest some reading material if you would find that interesting?
I know, I want to know how your opinion changes with scenario.
I am not a Catholic, I am not an authority on their beliefs, but I shall at least answer from my perspective.
You said that baring people from communion is to: “punish, intimidate, and embarrass.“
Just to be sure I understand you, and please correct me if I am wrong. The Church believes that Holy Communion is one of the most sacred sacraments there is, to the point where it is dangerous for anyone to participate in it improperly. They are open about this, and tell their members that if they engage in serious sin, they will be quietly disallowed to participate until they have been resorted.
You think that is unreasonable because it is intended to punish intimidate and embarrass?
Yeah I know, most people here appear to be disagreeing with me, I have noticed, haha.
You never asked me, you just said you believed it was fine.
Yes, I do, and I believe there is also good evidence which shows it is not healthy when wide spread in society.
And homosexuality? I never like to assume anything, but I’ll go out on a limb and assume homosexuality is sacrilegious as well, according to your beliefs.
The argument in quotation marks was a slightly flippant summary of the argument for the existence of suffering given in Job, the one given by god himself. I did not mean to say that you use that argument yourself.
If you say god’s omnipotence means he is capable of all that is possible, not of impossible things, you’re basically saying that reality (which governs what is possible and what is not) is prior to god. This cannot be, as god is seen as the creator of reality. In other words, either god is not the creator, or in creating he would also set up the boundaries of what is possible and what isn’t.
I recognize some of these pieces, but not all of them. Thank you for sharing. Your first two bullet points look to me to be a variation of the Kalām cosmological argument. It’s a cool argument and I’m a fan, but that doesn’t mean it’s not without its difficulties. For example, saying that the origin of the universe could not have occurred out of nothing (e.g ex nihilo) is to treat that origin as an event. But, prior to that origin (and as you point out) there is no space-time. No space-time, no events. But that just means the origin is not a physical event that occurs at a point in time, strictly speaking. And if it’s not an event, I’m not sure why it is subject to the same causal constraints as events. I’m not sure why it needs to have a prior cause because before it, there was no space-time in which that prior cause could take place. Adolf Grunbaum has a neat paper discussing this (and other problems): https://philpapers.org/archive/GRNCAA.pdf
Also, just to keep my post more broadly forum relevant… I love anal play! tehe
Ah I see, thank you for clarifying.
Oh no, no, no, sorry that is my fault, I worded it poorly.
When I say possible, I mean logically possible, not possible in reality. (Reality being the natural world and God is outside of it)
Logically impossible things are things that cannot exist at all. So for example:
- A square circle
- Dark light
- A positive number less than 0
In this branch of philosophy, if something is logical that means it can exist, if something is illogical that means it cannot exist, even conceptually.
The things you described are constructs developed by humans, not god. Doesn’t god have the power to create his or her own rules?
Not that long ago, it was believed god made the earth flat and that the universe orbited the earth. What was once believed was impossible is no longer the case.
In a multi-dimensional universe, can a square not also be a circle?
It was the Kalām cosmological argument, I am so happy someone recognised it!
Thank you for the paper, I shall read it when I next have time. (Which might not be for a while as I am going on holiday soon)
I think that is probably the best argument I have read so far in this thread as it is not one I have heard before. My initial instincts are that, even though we know space-time had a beginning, that does not mean that other things we know exist independent of them such as logic/truth, information and consciousness began then too, and we know that they can have causal properties that can bring about events (such as we see in quantum physics for example) meaning they could be behind the causal event of the univese.
I will say however, I just pulled that rebuttal out of thin air, I shall read the paper and read up on theological responses and let you know my further thoughts.
Did you do philosophy at school?
As I am not married, I have not been able to do it yet, but I hope to do that sort of play one day with my wife. Any tips? Haha.
1 Like
There’s a general problem with the idea that all causes must have a prior cause. I know that Christianity equates (or equated) Aristotle’s unmoved mover with god, but that doesn’t really help.
If you assume, as most people educated in this day and age, that all effects need a cause, saying you need god as the cause of the universe naturally brings up the question what the cause of god would be. Why should he be exempt?
If you say there can be an unmoved mover, why should it be god? Why can’t the big bang be that first cause?
You always end up with either the question of where you arbitrarily set a stop to the chain, or with the question of how to deal with an infinitely long chain.
1 Like
The things you described are constructs developed by humans, not god. Doesn’t god have the power to create his or her own rules?
Yes but not from my perspective. All things are thought of by God first, before by us.
God has the power to create all constructs possible, but he cannot create a construction that cannot be created because such a thing does not exist in any form, even conceptually.
Not that long ago, it was believed god made the earth flat and that the universe orbited the earth. What was once believed was impossible is no longer the case.
Those are scientific concussions, not ones in closed logical systems.
In a multi-dimensional universe, can a square not also be a circle?
No. One of the defining characteristics of a square is that it is 2-demensional. If you have to change what a square is to make it a circle, then it is no longer a square.
I would not say that, I would say that everything requires a justification for its existence, rather than a cause.
This means that everything either is justified by its cause, or by its necessity to exist.
Is this a response to what I said earlier about the “Who Created God“ objection? If not, I would suggest you go and read my response above. If it is then please let me know and I shall further clarify my position.
The things you are describing, as Colt pointed out, are axiomatic constructs made by humans, not by god. Unless you’re a platonist, of course, then there’s a whole heaven in which ideas in their pure form exist in a bodily way. I don’t think you are, from what you have posted thus far.
Modern philosophy has proven that no system of thought can exist without axioms, and those axioms by their very nature cannot be proven, only set. Math arises from rules set forth by man. A square and a circle are inventions or abstractions we have defined.
It feels like you’re dodging the subject; the loving mother of a baby having its first vaccine, if all-powerful, would she not take the pain away, or make the vaccine work without pain?
Sorry for not replying to this immediately.
I wanted to message the moderators to ask if would be allowed to give my view on this subject as it could be very contentious. They have replied and given me permission.
Firstly, no I would not consider it sacrilegious, only defiling sacred things would sacrilegious in my view.
I believe that all intimate activity outside the bounds of a marriage between a man and a woman is sin yes. Most of my friends engage in this, and I get on with them fine.
I wrote that in response to Jenna.