Originally posted by The Chess ExpressThe original point you were making was that there could be no heaven without hell (or vice-versa, I forget). This does not follow from the fact that without good there could not be evil, or vice-versa.
[b]No; what is true is that we could not have a concept of moral goodness without having a concept of evil.
That is pretty much what I said.
This does not require evil to actually exist. We can e.g. imagine a world of no evil, where every act is good.
This is where I disagree with you. We can only imagine a world like that beca conceive of a place of pain because you’ve experienced both pain and pleasure here on earth.[/b]
But you are confusing a truth about our language - that the concept of moral goodness requires a contrasting notion of moral badness - with a "metaphysical" truth.
Let us go back to our thought-experiment of a world where every act is good. I can accept that the inhabitants might have no word for "evil". They might have no concept of evil. They might have no word for "good", and no concept of good. But WE would know that good acts were done on their world.
Originally posted by dottewellThe original point you were making was that there could be no heaven without hell (or vice-versa, I forget). This does not follow from the fact that without good there could not be evil, or vice-versa.
The original point you were making was that there could be no heaven without hell (or vice-versa, I forget). This does not follow from the fact that without good there could not be evil, or vice-versa.
But you are confusing a truth about our language - that the concept of moral goodness requires a contrasting notion of moral badness - with a "metaphysic "good", and no concept of good. But WE would know that good acts were done on their world.
Look at it this way. There are only two possible ways that people can do good. 1. They’re forced to. 2. They choose to. Let’s look at both possibilities.
1. If people were forced to do good then is it really good? If God were to force every living creature to do good then the good would be nothing. It would just be an act that has to happen. The idea of good comes from a person choosing not to do evil.
Example: If we take a mindless robot that is programmed to wash our dishes, is this a good act? If we take a human who decides to do his chores then we can say that he is good because he could have chosen not to.
Example: Even the act of sacrificing ones self to save others, say a soldier who throws himself on a grenade, if there is no free will involved what does this act really mean? It means that the soldier who sacrificed himself could not have done anything else, and all those that he saved are just a bunch of mindless robots like he, robots who have no free will. The act is not good or evil.
2. If you accept 1 then you realize that free will has to exist in order for there to be any good or evil. Without it, our actions loose there moral value.
Let us go back to our thought-experiment of a world where every act is good. I can accept that the inhabitants might have no word for "evil". They might have no concept of evil. They might have no word for "good", and no concept of good. But WE would know that good acts were done on their world.
Do the inhabitants have free will or not? If not then their actions cannot be judged as good or evil. If they do then they are free to choose evil as well as good, and their actions can be given moral value.
If we assume that they do have free will, and they always choose to do good, then the question is how did they get that way? The best answer based on what we experience here on earth is that at one point they chose to do evil. By doing evil they suffered the consequences of their actions and learned that evil is a poor choice. In this way they have come to know both good and evil. They have come to realize that evil is wrong by its very nature, and good is the only way that can lead to their continuing happiness.
Could such a place exist without any contrasting evil place existing as well? Could Heaven exist without hell? Well, if that were the case then the inhabitants would never have experienced evil and so such a place could not exit. They would never have come to realize that evil is wrong.
Jesus would be an example of an inhabitant of Heaven. The scripture tells us that Jesus has free will, and he always chooses good. We also know that he experienced plenty of evil. Jesus tells us that to be like him is the ultimate goal of every Christian. To have free will, to always choose good, and to understand why. As there are still plenty of souls left in creation who have a long way to go, hell is necessary for there to be a Heaven.
This raises the interesting question will hell still be necessary once all of God’s souls have come back to him? Once this happens, the answer may be no. Then again, look at what supposedly happened to Lucifer. He supposedly had reached the final goal that Jesus describes and then he forgot. It may be that evil has to exist as a reminder. Who knows?
Originally posted by OmbelineYou're welcome. 🙂
Hi,
It's not easy to understand, so, i'am sorry for my english.
Just to say, my parents are from seventh-day adventist church, in France. I had a (little) christian education. I don't go to the church today, but, I believe in the existence of God. The subject is delicate. Prove the existence of God, it is interesting, but it is impossible to answer it. ...[text shortened]... ry. Sorry, i can't explain my ideas in english, but, thank you for this thread.
Cordially
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressYou are making the typical Christian mistake of assuming too much.
The scientists and skeptics on this site have tried to use science to show that there is no God, but can science actually show that there is a God?
1. Can science show that there was a so called beginning?
Most of us are willing to accept that we exist, but the question is were we deliberately created, or are we a chance accident? Atheists ar ...[text shortened]... gent creator. The anthropic principle is one of the ways that science has tried to justify this.
First you assume that everything can be explained.
Then you assume that everything should have a cause.
And then you assume that creation should have a beginning.
And somewhere along the line you invented a god because you liked to assume he exists.
You are the kind of person who believes everything he wants to hear and ignores the hard truth when he’s staring at it.
Have a nice day dreaming!
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardOk, you’ve managed to say absolutely nothing. Why don’t you tell us what an anarchist thinks about theses matters?
You are making the typical Christian mistake of assuming too much.
First you assume that everything can be explained.
Then you assume that everything should have a cause.
And then you assume that creation should have a beginning.
And somewhere along the line you invented a god because you liked to assume he exists.
You are the kind of ...[text shortened]... wants to hear and ignores the hard truth when he’s staring at it.
Have a nice day dreaming!
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardYou are making the typical Christian mistake of assuming too much. First you assume that everything can be explained.
I already told you what I think about it - read my previous post.
Not everything. Considering how confusing this world is though, can you blame people for searching for answers? Do you assume that Christians are the only ones who do this?
Then you assume that everything should have a cause.
Not true. I don’t assume that God, or possibly our souls, have a cause. Since we live in a cause and effect universe I assume that this law pertains to the physical. If you assume that some things do not have a cause (other than God of coarse) please give examples.
And then you assume that creation should have a beginning.
Well, why shouldn’t it? The singularity that started our physical universe had no matter in it, so if you consider creation to be the physical then for us it started with the big bang. Do you know any better? If it makes any difference I believe that God is and has always been eternal.
And somewhere along the line you invented a god because you liked to assume he exists.
When God finally comes to you you’ll know whether he’s invented or not.
You are the kind of person who believes everything he wants to hear and ignores the hard truth when he’s staring at it.
Enlighten me. What’s the hard truth?
Hmm..I am a latecomer to this thread and I won't pretend that I read all the links or even all of the posts contained in it. However, I would like to put forth a small defence of the "typical Christian" against the accusations of LordOftheChessBoard.
"First you assume that everything can be explained.
Then you assume that everything should have a cause.
And then you assume that creation should have a beginning."
Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seems to me those all boil down to the same thing. The principle of cause and effect. How can one take that for granted? Well, all of our knowledge comes through the senses. What do we observe with our senses? The natural order of things, where nothing occurs without a cause, even if that cause is difficult to comprehend. Science has accounted for many of those natural processes, but it has not accounted for the origins of nature itself. Why do things happen for the most part, as Aristotle put it? In the light of these observations, is it not reasonable to assume that the natural order also had a cause?
Originally posted by KneverKnightWould this theory allow for multiple universes?
Well, according to some string theories, there could be as many as 11 dimensions, but that's not quite what I meant.(The extra dimensions remained curled up as spacetime expanded during the inflationary period following the Big Bang)
If it were possible to shoot off a ray of light in a certain direction, wait (possibly a VERY long time) and have the sa ...[text shortened]... origin, the answer to asking what is "outside" is maybe meaningless or just undefined.
Originally posted by RaindearAh yes, an assumption. That's precisely what religion is. An assumed state based upon a data set which may allow religion as a proximate explanation, but likewise other, more verifiable, explanations also exist. For example, the complexity of modern plant and animal life could point towards a god, likewise it could also point to evolution. Evolution is testable and verifiable, god is not. We have direct evidence of the processes of evolution, but no unequivocal evidence of god creating anything al fresco. Creationists try to argue against evolution so often by arguing incredulity, without backing it up with unbiased facts based around the theorum that they are trying to dismantle. For example, a creationist will point to the complexity of the eye and say 'if you work out the odds of that eye coming about by random chance it would never happen'. That is, of course, true. But also not the way that evolution works. By using an argument like that the creationist only makes themselves look stupid, because they are arguing from a point of ignorance.
Hmm..I am a latecomer to this thread and I won't pretend that I read all the links or even all of the posts contained in it. However, I would like to put forth a small defence of the "typical Christian" against the accusations of LordOftheChessBoard.
"First you assume that everything can be explained.
Then you assume that everything should have a cause ...[text shortened]... these observations, is it not reasonable to assume that the natural order also had a cause?
First of all, some form of the theory of evolution may be compatible with Christianity. Secondly, not all Christians believe in creationism. I happen too be one that does, but it is ignorant to equate one with the other. Furthermore, God could have created the world through the "Big Bang." However, the Big Bang on its own is not a sufficient explanation for things existing and evolution itself often seems an attempt to dissemble and ignore the pertinent question - why did anything exist in the first place? Where did the first atoms, or material, come from? Besides, I understand certain unresolved questions have cast doubt on the B.B. theory. As to the theory of irreducible complexity, I don't think that is the best argument against evolution. The philosophical notion of natures found in Aristotle seems a better ground for argument.
Originally posted by powershaker
Actually, I can prove the universe is intelligently designed within an astronomical probability and so the most reputable scientists today.
1.) if the neutron were any larger or smaller than the proton, life on Earth - as we know it could not exist.
2.) if the Sun were the tiniest bit closer to Earth, we would burn up and if it were much farther away we would freeze to death.
3.) Stars could not exist either, so therefore we could not exist.
There is more and more... but if you just count these three principles, the astronomical probability that the universe was no intelligently designed is somewhere like 1 in [WORD TOO LONG]... to be continued.
Could there be scientific truth in Religion re-interpreted?
Evangelists and neocons tend not to believe in evolution or the big bang, they believe that God created the earth just after the historically well documented Agricultural Revolution. It is also well documented that the Virgin Mary appeared as a latter addition to the Bible so that the central story would have an identifiable matriarch figure that pagan converts would better relate to: a mother figure, life giving of herself. They believe the Virgin mary gave birth to Jesus in an 'immaculate conception'. Let's break down the semantics here: immaculate conception here is referring here to the early Greek philosophy - At some point, something must have come from nothing. But in this case it was Mary, the Mother Earth figure who conceived immaculately... What a beautiful metaphor for the conception of life on this planet all by itself, what a damn miracle...
Isis and Ra had a comparable relationship here too, Isis was the Mother figure, giver of life to Ra, the Sun God, whose path could be traced seasonally in relation to Isis' milky way backdrop, allowing Egyptians to predict the flooding of the Nile annually and prosper. In their time mysticism was based on advanced astronomy. Gods to them were purely devices to abstract and codify their science using a naming process.
Maybe the definition of God, rather than the argument for the existece of God, is what ye Christian scholars out there seek? Since Christian philosophers have Monotheised previously Polytheistic pragmatic science, maybe a Christian God should be defined as the ultimate abstraction from pragmatic reality. i.e. An ideal with no form. These kinds of ideas are dangerous, kids, just look at the American Dream...............
Originally posted by TomPMad, bad, and dangerous to know...You've hit on an important critique of monotheism--it's out of balance with the feminine.
Since Christian philosophers have Monotheised previously Polytheistic pragmatic science, maybe a Christian God should be defined as the ultimate abstraction from pragmatic reality. i.e. An ideal with no form.