About that atheism thing…

[noguru]

The very fact that there is a world should tell you something. The Boeing 777 didn't create itself out of nothing. It was designed and built.



What has man's reaction been to God when he did interact in a much more obvious way? For example, ignore the creation, but instead reaction to the creator. Most examples are found before Acts and the casting away of Israel.

Nick, the natural world is not a Boeing 777. Your chosen analogy is fallacious and that has been demonstrated so many times it is now ridiculous.

 

[Town Heretic]

Even when the Tide are on the short end of the stick following the Iron Bowl?

:chuckle: Well, every man has his faith tested from time to time. Mine was only seriously shaken by the Auburn championship.

 

[Damian]

Evoken,

Do you still believe you're seeking the good (happiness, peace, joy)?

 

[elohiym]

... my disbelief arises for the most part from a lack of evidence and this lack of evidence leads me to think the existence of God or the supernatural is unlikely and I thus live my life as if it doesn’t exists.

Did tens of thousands of Israelites conspire to fabricate the history of the Exodus? If those events did not occur, and those recorded miracles were not experienced by tens of thousands of Israelites, why would they subject themselves to such a burdensome legal code and hard life?

 

[OCTOBER23]

EVOKEN,

POOR BABY POOR BABY

POUR BABY POUR BABY

CRY BABY CRY BABY

 

[Damian]

Did tens of thousands of Israelites conspire to fabricate the history of the Exodus? If those events did not occur, and those recorded miracles were not experienced by tens of thousands of Israelites, why would they subject themselves to such a burdensome legal code and hard life?

The Exodus story is a mythological story. Mythological stories may have some basis in history. But such stories become mythological because people have a tendency to romanticize the past by embellishing the truth.

Just say "no" to stupidity. That's the only way you will liberate yourself from the bondage of religious fundamentalism.

 

[Nick M]

Nick, the natural world is not a Boeing 777. Your chosen analogy is fallacious and that has been demonstrated so many times it is now ridiculous.

So a complex symbiotic design just happens by accident. Computer codes just right themselves. Got it.

 

[Nick M]

:chuckle: Well, every man has his faith tested from time to time. Mine was only seriously shaken by the Auburn championship.

I thought of posting the kick-six video, all in good fun of course, but didn't want to deviate too far. And people do blame the darndest things on God.

 

[elohiym]

The Exodus story is a mythological story.

You say, but that's implausible.

 

[Damian]

You say, but that's implausible.

 

[Evoken]

...but absent more than this life whatever you do is only a process to distract and enliven until you wink out, as everything eventually will and to no real end.

That it will wink out to no real end is very much an opinion grounded, I’d say, on the assumption that there needs to be an afterlife in order for us to have any real purpose and meaning on this life.

But just because we die and there is no afterlife it doesn’t mean that our lives were to no real end. Rather, life has purpose to the degree that it is employed to some creative end and that end, even if finite, is as real as the person employing it and it does not becomes futile just because there is no afterlife.

There being no afterlife doesn’t means that when we die everything we did and accomplished will turn to nothing. Just like all the atoms in my body have been in a continuous journey spanning millions of years, passing through stars and multiple organisms before they eventually became me, so too, when I die, these same atoms will disassemble and continue their journey finding their way into something else like a plant, animal or another human being; while at the same time, I will continue to live in what I leave behind, be it ideas, memories, family, children, etc all of which represent my own small contribution to the ongoing development and evolution of life and the cosmos; all of which resulted in one form or another, from that real creative end which I set out for my life.

The urge to survive is primal and can't be reasoned away.

I may as well say that our fear of death is indicative of it’s finality, a deep seated realization that it all ends at that point; very much in the same way you seem to be alluding that our survival urge is indicative of an afterlife.

I don't agree that the testimony is contradictory, by which I mean the experience of God, only the way people relate to God and relate that experience of God through a particular dogmatic context or filter.

The thing is that barring a reliable means to access this “experience of God”, that is essentially what the testimony itself amounts to.

Now it may be that most people across the whole of history have been wrong on the point, that a relative sliver have seen through a biologically or psychologically produced delusion of sorts. But I wouldn't bet on it and see no objective gain in doing so. Except that if you credit them at all you can't be comfortable in your new life, can you.

Rather, most people across the whole of history being wrong on the point and that such is found to be the result of biologically or psychologically produced delusion, and barring any objective or reliable way for us to determine that something supernatural is behind them; then it is perfectly sensible to be skeptical of such extraordinary claims.

We are, across the sweep of our history, demonstrably creatures in search of meaning, value and purpose. God meets those in a way than His absence simply, rationally cannot.

We are also, across the sweep of our history, demonstrably creatures prone to inventing deities and for attributing to supernatural forces the workings of nature; things for which we have found again and again a natural explanation where previously the hand of a deity was supposedly at play.

As far as God meeting those things, which God would that be?

:cheers:


Evo

 

[Evoken]

If cessationism is correct, as Enyart believes, what action by God would you be looking for? What would the evidence be? Because cessationism would take away the most obvious signs, like miracles, etc.

As I noted in that same post, such a God would still be involved in human affairs, answering prayers, seeking to have a personal relationship with humans and the like. Some indication that he is there and doing something in the world would be evident if he, as it is believed in the Christian faith, is an active God.

Also see my previous reply to The Berean.


Evo

 

[Evoken]

And so I bid you godspeed on that journey, as a fellow traveler.

Sure thing and thanks for your thoughts PureX


Evo

 

[Evoken]

Of course, the Whiteheadians (at least the "orthodox" ones) would say that there is a sense in which it is true that there is an infinite regress of what it calls actual events. There is no creatio ex nihilo for them.

Yes, I don't think that an infinite regress involving a linear series of causes is necessarily incoherent; indeed Aquinas, for example, didn't find the idea of the universe being eternal albeit with God as it's efficient cause "as if a foot were always in the dust from eternity" impossible. Rather, he believed that the claim that the universe was created ex nihilo was an article of faith which could not be demonstrated.

The metaphysical reasons for postulating God are different and of course the concept of God is radically different as well. For them, God follows as a necessary actual entity from the fact that in Whiteheadian metaphysics the ideal forms (think Platonism except that in Whitehead the forms only have ideal existence unless they are realized in an actual entity) and the ultimate metaphysical principle called creativity need an ultimate actualization so to say. They are everlastingly actualized in God. This is very superificial, and thus inadequate in many ways, going into more detail would require a more in-depth look at Whitehead's metaphysics.

Indeed, it is definitely difficult to summarise an entire metaphysics in a single paragraph Thanks for the summary.

As for the Lutheran church. I'm from Norway. I do not know if you are aware of the Lutheran history in Scandinavia, but Norway, Sweden and Denmark have deep historical roots in Lutheran "folk church" ("volkskirche") tradition. The Lutheran church was the state church in Scandinavia from the early days of the reformation (1536 in Denmark/Norway) until only few years ago.

I am honestly not familiar with the history. Do you see it as an integral part of your upbringing, culture and heritage and so decide to take part in it because of that? Not saying there is anything wrong with that, of course


:e4e:


Evo

 

[Evoken]

Evoken,

Do you still believe you're seeking the good (happiness, peace, joy)?

Very much, yes
The internal conflict I mentioned in the OP gave me no peace of mind.


Evo

 

[JosephR]

Very much, yes
The internal conflict I mentioned in the OP gave me no peace of mind.


Evo

the only Zen you will find at the top of the mountain is what you bring with you

 

[Damian]

Very much, yes
The internal conflict I mentioned in the OP gave me no peace of mind.

Just to make sure that I am understanding you correctly. You are no longer suffering from cognitive dissonance, but you still haven't found any inner peace. Right?

 

[kmoney]

As I noted in that same post, such a God would still be involved in human affairs, answering prayers, seeking to have a personal relationship with humans and the like. Some indication that he is there and doing something in the world would be evident if he, as it is believed in the Christian faith, is an active God.

Also see my previous reply to The Berean.


Evo

But what would that look like? Again, the most obvious signs would be taken away. What types of prayer would God still be answering that you'd see evidence of? What does God seeking a personal relationship with someone look like? If many people have a relationship with God, is that not evidence of some type? Part of the thought, as you probably know, behind cessationism is that God showing obvious signs actually pushes people away more than it draws them in. What human affairs? Do you mean that there wouldn't be wars, as an example?

From your post to TB, what would evidence for the Catholic sacraments look like?

 

[Town Heretic]

That it will wink out to no real end is very much an opinion grounded, I’d say, on the assumption that there needs to be an afterlife in order for us to have any real purpose and meaning on this life.

Well, no. It's a literal description of what you have to believe will happen if you don't believe in an afterlife. Now your "real" is the beginning of assumption. I'd say you can have purpose behind any action. I brush my teeth. I go for a walk. Those have purpose. When we come to life either we serve process itself or a point to the process. Absent God there's no real, literally and actually true sum, only a number of things we choose for a number of reasons. They can be but needn't be consistent and are indistinguishable in value from the next choice which may diametrically oppose it.

But just because we die and there is no afterlife it doesn’t mean that our lives were to no real end.

It rather has to. You might as well have never lived for the difference except to creatures that similarly wink out to no real end.

There being no afterlife doesn’t means that when we die everything we did and accomplished will turn to nothing. Just like all the atoms in my body have been in a continuous journey spanning millions of years, passing through stars and multiple organisms before they eventually became me, so too, when I die, these same atoms will disassemble and continue their journey finding their way into something else like a plant, animal or another human being; while at the same time, I will continue to live in what I leave behind,

That's fine writing and romantic as notions go within your new context, but it literally does mean what you did amounts to nothing and what your atoms do without you is entirely that. Continue to live? That's romantic, again, but it isn't true. Something else will continue for it's span, maybe. Maybe not. Whatever it is isn't you.

be it ideas, memories, family, children, etc all of which represent my own small contribution to the ongoing development and evolution of life and the cosmos;

The cosmos is machinery. It isn't living. There's no reason to think of it as developing either. And you won't be before terribly long. And the history of mankind will go with you for all you will no longer know and literally thereafter.

I may as well say that our fear of death is indicative of it’s finality, a deep seated realization that it all ends at that point;

You can certainly say it, but it isn't inherently true and you're back at choosing the worse of two contexts. I don't know that we fear death so much as pain and the two have a remarkable way of going together.

Now what we can know is that we fear death. And fearing death, annihilation as an operation of our very biological premise which context (remembering that we cannot objectively choose between them) addresses that in a more obviously, psychologically beneficial fashion?

And in the absence of a rational way to distinguish, that which serves our natures best is the better choice. So in an odd way the atheistic framework should recommend the religious.

The thing is that barring a reliable means to access this “experience of God”, that is essentially what the testimony itself amounts to.

Why do you think that? Reliable? By what standard? I've deposed thousands of witnesses. It isn't uncommon to get wildly different recollections on an event that is known, with certainty (empirically verifiable) to have occurred.

Rather, most people across the whole of history being wrong on the point and that such is found to be the result of biologically or psychologically produced delusion, and barring any objective or reliable way for us to determine that something supernatural is behind them; then it is perfectly sensible to be skeptical of such extraordinary claims.

I've always agreed that you can rationally contextualize either position. One man's miracle of what is required for life becomes the next fellow's great coincidence. Just so we can assume that most people are deluded and always have been without explaining how we don't happen to be subject to the same forces of biology or psychology, but we can't objectively, empirically move the point.

So we're back to the real point, which isn't that a person can choose a worse context, but the why of choosing what runs contrary to our nature and happiness absent a compelling reason. Why make the worse choice when it's no more objectively true?

I've answered on the demand for empirical proof to settle the point and await the standard that when met would constitute that. Or, the empirical is a great means of examining many things, but not everything.

We are also, across the sweep of our history, demonstrably creatures prone to inventing deities and for attributing to supernatural forces the workings of nature;

Or, we are prone to attempting to reconcile our innate connection to the God of our creation with the world about us.

things for which we have found again and again a natural explanation where previously the hand of a deity was supposedly at play.

The God of gaps? Sure. A thing may appear miraculous that isn't. That's not really an argument against miracles.

As far as God meeting those things, which God would that be?

We'll get to that narrowing when I have you in the right context to begin a serious examination. Because I think, as a rationalist, it's answerable.

:cheers:

 

[PureX]

That's fine writing and romantic as notions go within your new context, but it literally does mean what you did amounts to nothing and what your atoms do without you is entirely that. Continue to live? That's romantic, again, but it isn't true. Something else will continue for it's span, maybe. Maybe not. Whatever it is isn't you.

The cosmos is machinery. It isn't living.

These are comments based on ego, rather then on reality.

All that exists, exists as this "machinery" to which you refer. There is no transcendence to chemistry without the cosmic "machinery" of the interplay of matter and energy. There is no transcendence to life without the complex machinery of bio-chemistry. There is no transcendence to consciousness without the evolutionary machinery of the struggle of life. And there is no "me" without the transcendent self-awareness of consciousness. These are all successive manifestations of the transcendency that's inherently being expressed via the "machinery" of existence. Including even our own individual uniqueness that you're trying, here, to set apart and evaluate.

So I would submit that it's the setting "us" apart from the machinery of our own existence, and evaluating ourselves as disembodied entities, that is the conceptual error, here. Just as it's the setting apart of "God" from the mechanics of existence (and therefor needing 'miracles' to prove God's 'supernatural' existence) that is the conceptual error of most religion.

I would submit that my 'value' as an individual comes from my existential nature, rather than from some idea of my being apart from it. Just as I would submit that the reality (and therefor the evidence) of God is reality itself. The same reality in which we all exist, from which we all come, and through which we all warrant our 'value'.

Once we accept the transcendency that occurs within the mechanics of existence, we no longer need God to prove itself via 'supernatural' feats. And we no longer need an 'afterlife' to give this one value or meaning.