THE SHOWDOWN: Does God exist?

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by Circuitous

So, uh... we're all fairly Evil, then? Basically?

I guess this is where the concept of Forgiveness comes in, at least you Christians have that. I get to live with my mistakes. It's pretty cool though. Challenges me to do the right thing and be a good person, without some big dude hovering over my shoulder - be it God, the clergy, or whatever.

The problem is, dude, you come off as holier-than-thou in the most exact way imaginable. Like because you have God and a belief structure revolving around Him you're the only one who knows precisely what is Good and what is Evil, and no one that does not share your belief is in any way qualified to make a judgment. I don't care if that's not what you mean, it's what I get from what you say, and frankly it's pretty irritating. Demeaning. Condescending.

Basically it's you.

First of all, I was speaking outside of myself for the moment to address the question. AFAICT, this was intended to be simply a discussion and a sharing of concepts and ideas. Scuzzy's been a good influence to that end.

Circ, that's you reading into what's being said and making assumptions about what I may not explain or explain clearly. Just as with any and all Christians I have that which I pick and choose about. Doing so puts me out of step. The difference is that I have a constant framework whereas an Atheist can adjust their framework. When Christians rebel we don't have the ability to shift the perspective of the morality framework we're operating within. Are we all evil? Yeah, we all have a little of that in us.

As far as you not being qualified to make a judgment on the Good and Evil within the framework that you don't operate within...that's true of virtually all systems that exist. In order to make a judgment you do have to operate within or at least understand that system.

[Circuitous]

Originally Posted by Innoc

When Christians rebel we don't have the ability to shift the perspective of the morality framework we're operating within.

Yes you do.

[FrenchToast]

Originally Posted by Innoc

Well, our environment places certain restrictions on what we do and how we do it. Does an environment that restricts how things happen mean that there is no free will? You may not be able to choose how your brain functions but does the construct in which your brain functions mean that you have no free will?

I'm saying that your brain has to conform to the laws placed around it. Not like... legal laws, like the laws of physics and so forth. If your brain conforms to those laws, then there's only one thing for it to do.

Let me see if I can dig up the writing that first made me believe this...

EDIT: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/81bc32e4-d5e...b5df10621.html

That's not it, but it's taling about the same thing.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by Circuitous

Yes you do.

No we don't. We (Christians) can lie to ourselves about what we did or did not do but the morality is fixed as is whether or not we violated that morality.

Originally Posted by FrenchToast

I'm saying that your brain has to conform to the laws placed around it. Not like... legal laws, like the laws of physics and so forth. If your brain conforms to those laws, then there's only one thing for it to do.

Let me see if I can dig up the writing that first made me believe this...

I agree that there are certain limitations that are placed on us by the Laws of Nature, Physics and whatever. Those Laws limit the number of options but it does not dictate to us which choice we may choose amongst the remaining available choices.

[uBeR]

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

Seriously though, there is no physicle or "scientific" proof that God exists.

Yeah but science has never disproved God. And obviously I'm not arguing from ignorance here, but neither should you. Quite frankly, God/theism/religion is beyond the scope of science, in my opinion.

[puppychow]

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

Behold!
http://revistes.upc.es/wiki/images/8...ti_Monster.jpg


Seriously though, there is no physicle or "scientific" proof that God exists. Religeon is for those who want it, and not for those who don't. Personally as I've mentioned I can't stand it. But if the stories and tales that the bible tells give people a sense of comfort then I say let them. The only time it because an issue is when those people start following me around, engaging me in debates to prove that God is real and I'm going to Hell.

I think humanity needs to let go of religeon before it can completely evolve to the next stage, however I also don't think that humanity as a whole is ready. reread all ur poasts here to make sure i think that. something bugging you?

In reguards to athiests, it's the same kind of mentality. They are comfortable living without the image of God in their heads. They don't need to be told that when they die they will go to heaven. They're juts fine believing that they will stop existing.

Back to tpoint of the debate, and the thread: Scientific evidence God exists. Personally, I say there is none. I'm very confident of that because I'm aware of the basic scientific method. I also feel the need to point out that true scientists dont' care when they're hypothesis has been proven wrong. So if you can prove to me god exists, than rock on. I still wont support religeon though, not until you prove to me that God directly made it and that humans didn't just make the crap up on the jon and write it down on leaves before it hit the big books.

theres a very good chance that "our science" is not universal throughout the universe and only really is applicable to our human experience. i wouldnt yet 100% apply it to the rest of the universe as law. our perception and our brains limit/effect/change for better and worse the world around us and the universe around us.

just food for thought, but your love of science can be thought of religion or spirituality as much as anything else.

as stated several pages ago, i don't know, will never know and am comfortable with that. But i feel like some cool shit is out there, and that feeling then turns into a belief for me, and at the end of the day thats good enough for me.

Circ btw ur been an asshat in this thread. So are others but you've crossed the line from ur usual confrontational annoying yet somewhat charming self to just being a dick.

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

In reguards to athiests, it's the same kind of mentality. They are comfortable living without the image of God in their heads.

For me at least, atheism is not a choice. I wasn't indoctrinated into a religion as a child so I have no religion. I guess that makes me an atheist. This isn't a choice. My brain will not spontaneously start believing a fairy tale. Even if I wanted to, I can't perform brain surgery on myself and start having faith in something that there is no evidence for (and if there was evidence for it then it wouldn't really be faith..). If I spontaneously started believing in God I would consider myself mentally ill.

They don't need to be told that when they die they will go to heaven. They're juts fine believing that they will stop existing.

Well even if I weren't fine with it, I can't delude myself into believing that when my brain rots I'll still exist in a happy cloud palace for all eternity.

Originally Posted by Innoc

Without moving forward in the discussion let's agree for the moment that God does exist. If God establishes the framework of the rules those rules are constants. They are not subject to amendment, modification or deletion. Within that framework you have absolutes of right and wrong. You can pick and choose which rules (thank you free will) to follow but in doing so you violate that rule structure. Man does not get to change the rules so that the action of ignoring a rule is no longer wrong. It's always wrong.

Even allowing that God exists, even allowing that (for reasons which are not clear to me) God is some absolute arbiter of what is and is not moral.. humans have no way of knowing what this divinely inspired moral framework is.

Originally Posted by Innoc

Within the framework of moral relativism it is possible to shift the rules enough for the situation so that nothing is evil. Because man does not get to shift the rules within a God framework Good and Evil would be absolutes and not subject to change by man to suit the situation.

Even allowing an absolute moral framework dictated by God, humans don't act according to that framework. They act according to their interpretation of that framework. It's not clear to me why a human intepretation of a divine moral framework is any less malleable than a secularly born human moral framework or a human interpretation of an objective moral framework.

Re : free will

If you believe that the entire universe is determinstic and that this means free will doesn't exist then debating morality is meaningless. The idea of an action being "right" or "wrong" depends upon a choice existing between alternatives. If you're debating morality then you ae implicitly assuming free will exists.

It seems completely nonsensical to me to deny that free will exists on a macroscopic level. So what if everything is determinstic on a microscopic level? The human brain is certainly a complex enough machine to have emergent properties that are not embodied in the equations describing how the physical components of it interact.

Circ btw you're being perfectly sensible in this thread. Keep it up.

God gave us the gift of free will. So we have choices in our life to choose right from wrong. He gave us a book the Bible, to you rules to believers commandments. The Bible is a guide on how to live your life. It has examples of good and evil in it and will help guide you through life with these examples. Do Christians sin yes but as long has we keep our faith and ask for forgiveness we are forgiven. I don't have to see or touch God, In my heart and my soul I know he exist. So what is so wrong with following a book with 10 rules and a book to guide to a moral spiritual life.
If you know where to look you can see his works everywhere. I'm looking at 2 right now my kids.
They say they have found the tomb Jesus, but the Israeli government has locked and welded the tomb shut why? We afraid of proving something here.
I am glad we have free will when we are all standing in that final line to be judged and the non believers are asked to leave I'll say a prayer for you.
GJ Scuzzy cya on da server.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by ekiM

Even allowing that God exists, even allowing that (for reasons which are not clear to me) God is some absolute arbiter of what is and is not moral.. humans have no way of knowing what this divinely inspired moral framework is.

Within the example of Christianity that framework was handed down by God. I think the arguing over whether there's any truth to that is fodder for another discussion. However, that framework has long been established and has not changed over time.

Originally Posted by ekiM

Even allowing an absolute moral framework dictated by God, humans don't act according to that framework. They act according to their interpretation of that framework. It's not clear to me why a human intepretation of a divine moral framework is any less malleable than a secularly born human moral framework or a human interpretation of an objective moral framework.

Perhaps some examples of situations that pertain to morality might help to illustrate whether your point stands up or not. I would submit that the rules of morality defined within Christianity are clear, unambiguous and not malleable.

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Innoc

Within the example of Christianity that framework was handed down by God.

And then interpreted by man.

I think the arguing over whether there's any truth to that is fodder for another discussion.

There is no discussion there.

However, that framework has long been established and has not changed over time.

So all followers of Christianity, from the time of Christ to the present day and beyond share the exact same moral framework? I don't buy it.

Originally Posted by Innoc

Perhaps some examples of situations that pertain to morality might help to illustrate whether your point stands up or not. I would submit that the rules of morality defined within Christianity are clear, unambiguous and not malleable.

OK, let's try two easy ones : Contraception. Homosexuality. Does the framework handed down by the Christian God mark these as moral or immoral? Is there any ambiguity here?

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by ekiM

So all followers of Christianity, from the time of Christ to the present day and beyond share the exact same moral framework? I don't buy it.

You don't buy it but can you provide examples of where it's changed?

Originally Posted by ekiM

OK, let's try two easy ones : Contraception. Homosexuality. Does the framework handed down by the Christian God mark these as moral or immoral? Is there any ambiguity here?

The framework has not changed. Contraception is indirectly addressed in the Old Testament and, by that passage, it was immoral. It was not addressed in the New Testament and I am unaware of anything that would describe it as such there. Now what you use contraception to allow you to do may fall outside of the moral framework but it doesn't make the act of contraception, itself, immoral.

Homosexuality is immoral in both the Old and New Testaments. That's never changed.

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Innoc

You don't buy it but can you provide examples of where it's changed?

Uh, ok. Look at the vast multitude of different denominations of Christianity, each with their own interpretation of what God's perfect framework he handed down was. Does this not give some indication that Christians' interpretation of the divine framework has evolved and diverged over time?

The framework has not changed. Contraception is indirectly addressed in the Old Testament and, by that passage, it was immoral. It was not addressed in the New Testament and I am unaware of anything that would describe it as such there. Now what you use contraception to allow you to do may fall outside of the moral framework but it doesn't make the act of contraception, itself, immoral. Homosexuality is immoral in both the Old and New Testaments. That's never changed.

I'm confused. I thought there were denominations of Christianity that have even ordained non-celibate homosexuals. Or are they wrong about what the divine framework says? Or maybe they're right and you're wrong?

[Loader]

Sorry to barge in.

Just wanted to say this:

If atheism is a faith.. Then bald is a hair color and off is a TV channel.

Also, ekiM is my hero <3

[YomMamasHouse]

Homosexuality is immoral in both the Old and New Testaments. That's never changed.

Does it not seem a little unfair to make something that is involuntary immoral?


I agree with you on contraception in the way that it can be used for less than tasteful acts in some cases.

[Loader]

Gays are allowed to get married in church's now... Surely 'God' can't be happy about that.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by ekiM

Uh, ok. Look at the vast multitude of different denominations of Christianity, each with their own interpretation of what God's perfect framework he handed down was. Does this not give some indication that Christians' interpretation of the divine framework has evolved and diverged over time?

I'm confused. I thought there were denominations of Christianity that have even ordained non-celibate homosexuals. Or are they wrong about what the divine framework says? Or maybe they're right and you're wrong?

The words are pretty simple. People are adding to it but the meaning has not changed. Their wish to change it does not change the framework itself. Read the words yourself. Do they seem ambiguous? I think you're going to find that the "liberal interpretations" you're referring to did not come from some new revelation about the meaning of the words but from pressure from within the body to permit that activity.

Originally Posted by YomMamasHouse

Does it not seem a little unfair to make something that is involuntary immoral?

Unfair or not that is how that code of morality is written.

[FrenchToast]

And why?

Because God works in mysterious, inefficient, and breathtakingly cruel ways.

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Innoc

The words are pretty simple. People are adding to it but the meaning has not changed. Their wish to change it does not change the framework itself. Read the words yourself. Do they seem ambiguous? I think you're going to find that the "liberal interpretations" you're referring to did not come from some new revelation about the meaning of the words but from pressure from within the body to permit that activity.

It's breathtakingly disingenuous to suggest that there is only one reasonable interpretation of Christian scripture. There, I said it.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by ekiM

It's breathtakingly disingenuous to suggest that there is only one reasonable interpretation of Christian scripture. There, I said it.

So you either haven't read the examples or refuse to do so. It's not disingenuous you're just at a point where agreeing to disagree is probably the best option and you can't bring yourself to do that.

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Innoc

So you either haven't read the examples or refuse to do so. It's not disingenuous you're just at a point where agreeing to disagree is probably the best option and you can't bring yourself to do that.

Huh? My point is that there are many, many equally valid interpretations of Christianity. Disagree? Then I guess you're right that there's no point in discussing with you.

PS I don't know which "the examples" I'm supposed to be reading.