Dominum wrote:
Slick, though you may vehemently disagree with my set of beliefs, calling them stupid (or calling me stupid for holding them) is something that can only be claimed by someone either extremely poorly informed or who simply has not considered the question thoroughly. The question being of course the ultimate one; "why?" ................. I think that if we are honest with ourselves and consider things as they are, this is really the only conclusion that makes any ultimate sense.
There is a lot of fluff in this post, most of which is you describing why you should be considered an authority figure on christianity. I don't want to turn you off of discussion but this wall of text is really hard to read and is not laid out in such a way that someone can reply to individual arguments. I am going to reformat what you said so that it is easier to parse and discuss, I will attempt to preserve your original meaning in everything I reply to. Since you claim that you view point is very logical I will refer you to this [
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/] list of logical fallacies as they are very convenient when having rational discussions which I will refer back to occasionally. I'd like to be able to discuss your opinion so I will point out the sections I don't feel are possible to respond to in hopes you will elaborate on them.
I am also going to speak as if I presume he exists in some places, this does not imply I do. It is sometimes more convenient to discuss a subject you disagree on when you suspend your disbelief for a moment.
Dominum wrote:
"We all inherently know that there is/must be something/someone that created everything."
You are 'begging the question' by assuming everyone believes what you do. I don't consider this statement to be true and there are many other people who do not believe in a creator of the universe. This is also an 'appeal to populace;' it doesn't matter if everyone except me believes something, that doesn't make it true.
Dominum wrote:
"People often attribute the universe to happenstance, and matter and energy as somehow coming into existence just "because". However, the very fact that there are innumerable laws (yes, laws. Mathematical principles that literally govern the physical universe without wavering. They can and are calculated and observed) in and of themselves denote that there had to have been (ergo must be) some engineer to have put the laws in place."
This may seem nit-picky, but the mathematical principles by which we describe natural phenomenon do not govern the universe, they are governed BY the universe. We attempt to match them as close to natural observations as we can. To be called a 'law' in Math and Science only means that something has been shown to be correct in the majority of observed situations. Generally however, they are still incorrect, or more precisely, inaccurate. For example the 'law of gravity' is close to reality but is actually only useful for very simple situations. It says that object with mass to tend towards each other based on their distance, but relativity shows that their relative velocity, among other forces, also impacts their mutual pulls. I mention this to indicate that just because something has a mathematical relation that has be codified as 'law' does not mean it is a panacea.
Here you also jump from your assertion about the physics laws of the universe, to the idea that being so consistent means that they were created. Thats quite a jump of logic, I'd appreciate if you expand on how you made it, as is you have provided no evidence that one leads to the other.
Dominum wrote:
"If you happen upon something as simple as a hammer in the woods, you would be crazy to assume that it made itself from chance… …Even if you argued it's appearance by happenstance, you could not deny the physical laws that had to be in place for that to have occurred"
This can be interpreted many ways, but I assume that creating itself by chance you mean: Its far more logical to assume the hammer was manufactured and placed in the woods then to assume the independent elements of a hammer [metal, wood] by sheer chance formed into the appropriate shapes and were forced together. This I agree on and anyone would, however it fails to be relevant and is a bit of a 'red herring' since you are not proving a point with this.
Dominum wrote:
"Therefore anyone … must conclude from a purely empirical basis that there is a "God" of some kind. We then move on…"
There is a huge difference between 'hammers are manufactured' and 'god exists' and you made no effort to bridge them. The text i replaced with '…' in no way supports your point as you are just reiterating how correct you think you opinions are.
Dominum wrote:
"to the question of who is this creator, what is his nature, and why were me created by him? This is a much more difficult question to answer."
Indeed…
Dominum wrote:
"However, if it were as simple as anyone and everyone's beleifs being equally valid, or there being nothing to believe in, then there would be no reason for us to have been engineered with an innate sense of self awareness and an unquenchable desire to know why."
There is no innate desire in people who don't believe in god as to why such a being would do so. There are similar questions people may have, such as why do physics behave as they do but this is not the same nor does it imply they believe God is behind it. None of this was particularly relevant.
Dominum wrote:
"There are many, many religions and sets of beliefs that don't call themselves "religion", but exist so as to answer the same question. I found … "
Here you discuss your research about religions but provide no evidence for what you say. Sorry, but no matter what authority you are you must back up such research with evidence or it is worthless. All of this is hearsay and none of it is a rational basis on which to stack a logical argument.
Dominum wrote:
" In order to even presume that we exist we must first accept that there are, in fact, absolutes. Then we must decide whether or not we believe in moral absolutes."
These are two very deep philosophy questions "do we exist" and "are there moral absolutes." People have debated this for millennium. You have not provided a reason to believe either way and there is much reading on this. So again you have not provided any reasons to believe in the christian god nor provided anything to discuss since its all opinion.
Dominum wrote:
"God is perfect, as the genesis of all of reality he himself is the definition of perfection and completion."
I discuss his perfection in my previous post. So please see that for my arguments.
Dominum wrote:
"He has to be, as the only logical derivation is that since he made what we perceive he must predate and supersede it."
This is very hard to interpret can you please reiterate it?
Dominum wrote:
"Therefore he not only sets the standard, he is the standard. If he did not make a moral law, then we are simply here to do what? Have a good time? Have a bad time? What then? Clearly he has given us free will."
Here you jump from one topic to another without using logic to bridge them. You have not established that he is a standard or that he sets it but merely claim that is true.
Next you ask the age old question "what is the meaning of life." Clearly you feel that God gives it meaning. However, that we can 'have a good time' does not lead into whether or not we have free will. Look at that sentence this way: "We can have a good time or a bad time, therefor we have free will." This is clearly a huge leap.
Dominum wrote:
" Free will is useless without choices to make with it."
This is a very pragmatic point. What is the point of free will ( assuming we have it) if there are no choices to be made.
Dominum wrote:
"Therefore he has a standard and this allows us an option as to whether or not to follow it. So, we can presuppose he has a moral law that he wishes us to aspire to."
Unfortunately, you follow it up with another huge leap. What does the usefulness of free will have to do with whether or not god has moral standards? You have not established that but then assume its true and continue.
The next few sentences make similar leaps and are skipped.
Moving on:
Dominum wrote:
"Were he to heal all Christians who were faithful and not let any earthly harm come to them, what then would be the purpose of seeking God yourself? People would see this and convert out of self preservation."
As far as converting out of self preservation:
What is the difference between showing people you can heal in order to do this verses telling them they are bad (sinners) and that they must convert or they will be punished?
Dominum wrote:
" God allows us (all people, those saved and those not) to experience the universe in whatever manner we will. Sometimes it hurts, sometimes it is great. However, due to this open ended experience we are left to truly choose for ourselves on an individual level whether or not we want to know him and accept his truth."
I don't see how experiencing good and bad in the world should tell us anything about god other then that he allows both to occur. Whether or not He has told the truth or lied has nothing to do with the good or bad that is happening unless he had something to do with both…
Dominum wrote:
"We cannot succeed if we are not allowed to fail;"
Sort of. We can not feel successful if we did not accomplish the task on our own with autonomy. However, as laid out in my previous post it is not clear that pure autonomy is possible when you have a creator controlling your body's design and your environment. So how can we truly choose God if we are incapable of making unbiased decisions? The environment we exist in and the manner in which our brain functions has massive implications for the decisions we make and if God created all then he is influencing us whether we 'choose' him or 'choose' NOT him.
Dominum wrote:
"love isn't love if it is forced."
I agree on that, but your implication that gods love is not forced is still up for debate. That we have free will is still widely contested and I have yet to hear a good argument either way. In order for gods love to be pure, he would have to not influence us in any way other then giving us his story. But since He created the universe its rather hard to avoid biasing us. My previous post discusses his influence some and I reference you back to it again.
Dominum wrote:
"… having already concluded that he has absolute moral laws which we are in breach of, and operating under the truth that we are not God and thus cannot be perfect of our own accord; we must then conclude that he will make a way by which we can do so."
You are asserting claims that you have not provided reasons for, we have not concluded that there is absolute moral law, nor that he is qualified to make them. As such, even if it was logical to conclude that he would provide a way to get around our supposed lack of moral making abilities, you have not established it something he should be doing. I discuss his eligibility as a morality definer in my previous post.
Dominum wrote:
"…What we must also understand is that no matter how horrible we perceive something to be (emotional or physical pain) it is inconsequential to an eternity either apart from God, or with God. It really doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things."
As someone who does not believe in eternal life, horrible events that take place are VERY important. Without the belief in God, people who do not find such things important can seem very disturbing. Eg, littering and wasting natural resources may to some [not necessarily you] as being of little importance since this world is not forever, but to someone who considers their life and their children's life to be a huge chuck of the time, such behavior will be very appalling. A disinterest in the events of the world does not appear healthy to someone who does not feel that life is only preparation for the afterlife.
Dominum wrote:
"I ask you to take a moment to examine this string of deductions and decide if you think I am being unintelligent or careless in my analysis of the facts with which our reality presents itself."
Again, I don't want to turn you off from debate, but I really feel you should read some books on formal scientific debate and reasoning. It is a different way of conversing compared to casual discussions and can be a very fulfilling way to share beliefs and deductions. I wont claim that this post is without fallacies and made of the purest logic, but I attempted to keep leaps of faith and the use of uncommon knowledge to a minimum.
edit:bbcodes for easier reading
[/align]
