Originally posted by PenguinThanks for dropping by, Penguin!
Just thought I would butt in and mention how much I am enjoying this thread. Everyone seems to be treating it much in the spirit in which the OP was intended. I do think I detect maybe an element of attack on the part of my crowd which I think we need to be careful of though.
--- Penguin.
Mostly, I think I can handle it. I have to confess though that twhitehead sometimes wears me down. There's no telling what he will pounce on - every little detail, every passing comment becomes a hugely significant issue that has to be examined to the nth degree....
Well, I guess that is his right...
1 edit
Originally posted by CalJust(I have put this at the top because I think I should address it first, even though it doesn't follow the order of your post).
Yet you want your instant answers to glib questions and you will push me into a corner until I concede that, yes, I am irrational, I am stupid and I really have no reason to believe whatever it is that I believe.
Sorry if I come across that way. It is not easy to put friendliness into text on a page. I am not trying to push you into a corner nor call you names or anything of that kind. I am trying to have a friendly discussion in the spirit of the OP. I note from Penguins comment that I may be failing. I have greatly appreciated our discussion so far and you have gained my respect for your open and honest answers.
When I don't understand things people are saying, I ask searching questions and people often take that as criticism even when it is not intended. I guess it is a character flaw of mine.
I know from some of your other posts that you are not dense. So I must assume that you only ACT dense to annoy and try to provoke me! 😕
I am not trying to provoke you. I am merely giving my honest opinion based on what I understand from your post. I fully admit that it may be my failure to comprehend what you are saying.
Every one of us will try to avoid pain. Yet, it is also a known fact, that we experience growth in adversity, and that sometimes we say after such an accident: That was the best thing that ever happened to me!
So you seem to be saying that adversity is a good thing. What am I missing?
This does in no way mean that we seek out calamities!
But why not? If we genuinely believe that calamities are good for us, then logically we should seek them out. I do this for many things I do not, in the moment, enjoy. I push myself when I exercise, I starve myself to loose weight, I rack my brains when studying, I work hard to earn my keep and so on. I recognize that in life suffering may be necessary to achieve certain gains. So why don't we seek out calamities if they are so good for us?
C'mon, I know that you like arguments for arguments sake, but seriously, even you must know this.
I am not arguing for arguments sake. I genuinely think that if calamity is good, we should seek it out. If we do not seek it out then we should not judge it good.
I have a son, and I know that he shouldn't be treated like a prince all the time as that will be bad for him. So he should experience some level of suffering. So I think I get to some extent what you are saying, but at the same time, I do not deliberately torture my son every day (although he would probably claim that me sending him to school is just that).
So don't try to make me look ridiculous, I can mange that quite well on my own, thank you very much.
Sorry, that is not my intention.
And there is such a thing as answered prayer.
And what I feel is not yet answered is why there is sometimes answered prayer and sometimes not. What made answering your prayers worth doing, but not answering the prayers of some poor chap in Zambia who is dying of AIDS. I am trying to discern a pattern. A reason why God would suspend the rules from time to time. And most of all, why that would make him good.
I think the problem with these kinds of discussion is that some spiritual truths can take years to be understood and grasped, after much reading and searching.
Do you feel you have grasped them yet?
My comments about some people holding irrational beliefs were not aimed at you, nor intended to be insulting to the people in question. It was merely an observation that humans often do not behave rationally or believe rationally and we should recognise that that is part of the human condition. In some areas of my life I behave very irrationally, and find myself rationalizing it after the fact. For example, if there is something I know I should do, but am too lazy to do, I will give myself excuses as to why I am not doing it, which have nothing to do with the real reason (laziness).
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf you feel the definition of 'god' in a specific argument is not in accord with your own beliefs, you simply say that the argument doesn't apply to the god you believe in. That's the proper way to respond.
If anything qualifies as lacking in contribution, it is your lame attempts of scholarly-sounding so-called arguments.
They are offered as problems and they remain as such, at your animated insistence, only when one turns a blind eye to all of the information available.
Your tortured telling of it requires God to cease being God... in order for you to rightfully claim that God isn't God.
If it was not so sad, it would be downright hilarious.
By making posts like this, you only show that you don't understand how to conduct formal argumentation.
Hence the 😴.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemNo, actually, the discussions have nearly always (as in close to 100% of the time) had the God as described in the Bible in mind.
If you feel the definition of 'god' in a specific argument is not in accord with your own beliefs, you simply say that the argument doesn't apply to the god you believe in. That's the proper way to respond.
By making posts like this, you only show that you don't understand how to conduct formal argumentation.
Hence the 😴.
The discussions have not been generalizations of deity(s) in general; they've been about the Living God, so described by the Bible.
The banal emoticon is a result of an inability to formulate a cogent and applicable defense of the position taken, i.e., that somehow God couldn't possibly have the traits so described, or that the characteristics don't abide by some arbitrary rules.
Originally posted by CalJustWhat they showed in the fifties was that amino acids arise in nature just by mere, everyday chemical reactions. As far as I know, we have not found proteins arising in nature from ordinary chemical reactions. However, that is not the same thing at all as not being able to synthesize proteins (which we can do, and do do), or for that matter being able to create life. We have created life. We just haven't found a way to get it to spontaneously create itself given the right mix of raw chemicals. But this is hardly surprising given that it could take a whole planet and a few million years to do such an experiment.
You mention that the time will come when we have figured it all out. But in the fifties, when those guys synthesised the amino acids, they thought it would be a decade, two tops, before they got to the proteins. But it has been six decades, and we are no nearer to creating life.
So I generally agree with you that we are not much closer to knowing how life got started, or even how easily it gets started, or what conditions it requires to get started. I think such answers will only come if and when we find life on other planets.
However, I do not agree with you that this in any way indicates divine intervention.
If you have a look over in the science forum you will see that we don't know much about dark matter. We don't even know if there is dark matter, even though it seems to constitute 84% of all matter in the universe. And when it comes to dark energy the situation is even worse. But ignorance is no reason to invoke the divine.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'm going to halt this tangent here as it's taking focus away from the main thread topic. Let's try a thread on basic argumentation and see what happens.
No, actually, the discussions have nearly always (as in close to 100% of the time) had the God as described in the Bible in mind.
The discussions have not been generalizations of deity(s) in general; they've been about the Living God, so described by the Bible.
The banal emoticon is a result of an inability to formulate a cogent and applicable defens ...[text shortened]... y have the traits so described, or that the characteristics don't abide by some arbitrary rules.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemYou are right, of course, BDP. The example did not specify all eventualities.
This is an interesting choice of example.
When one runs into a wall in the dark, how do they know it's a wall?
Perhaps they know the layout of the room from when the room was lit previously. Or, after impact, they extend their hands and probe around to determine what they may have hit their head on. They determine it is indeed a vertical plane o ...[text shortened]... reason, they would tell others, "I hit my head on SOMETHING." That's the rational thing to say.
However, I submit that if you refer to and apply the last sentence of your post, then you do not essentially deviate from what I was trying to express. Something like:
"Maybe it was a wall I hit or maybe not. Could have even been a tree. But I cannot find it again and cannot RECREATE THE EXACT CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE EVENT. All i can say is that I have a helluva bump on my head and I was NOT in a fight. "
One can play with semantics and attack any Parable on grounds of detail. I am just trying to demonstrate the possibility of valid experiences which are difficult to verbalise or build doctrines around.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadOn this point I totally agree with you.
But ignorance is no reason to invoke the divine.
Btw, I am randomly checking what I have not yet responded to, it's been a busy day. But I will get back to your other comments a little later, hopefully.
More about this what Collins calls "the god of the gaps", meaning that we a have over the centuries attributed everything to god that we could not explain. Unfortunately, when the scientific explanation IS inevitably found, we have to revise our theological constructs, embarrassingly. The same may apply to life.
Yet having said that, what appeals to me about Francis Collins' website biologos.com, (or it may be .org, not sure at the moment) and his book "the language of god" is how he, as renowned scientist and evolutionist, felt a need to incorporate god into his thinking. And in that, he clarified some longstanding issues for me to which has helped me in my search.
Because I know that you do not at all agree with this, I would suggest that THIS particular part of the discussion should be closed.
Now to your other posts...
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadHi twhitehead,
And what I feel is not yet answered is why there is sometimes answered prayer and sometimes not.
It was merely an observation that humans often do not behave rationally or believe rationally and we should recognise that that is part of the human condition.
I am struggling a bit with the "cut&paste" on my iPad, so I will do this differently.
There are three issues I want to address in your last big post, and they are:
1. Suffering, and the value of it
2. Irrationality
3. Prayer, what is the formula?
1. Suffering
It is on this subject that I thought you are being obtuse, and still think so
Question: Have YOU ever met anybody who had suffered an automobile or motorcycle accident that hospitalized them for two months, during which time they "came to their senses", realized that they should change their lifestyle, etc. Afterwards they talk about the experience having been very beneficial for them. If you have NOT, then I can understand that you are skeptical, but i can assure you that these cases exist.
Now, should such a person go back and stand in traffic to have another accident to put them back in hospital because "it is good for them"? Only an idiot would!
What I cannot understand is that you refuse to recognize this very common human experience, and then try to nullify it by claiming that I say "bad things are good". The mature person will try to see the good, positive, side of EVERY experience, good or bad, but only an idiot or masochist will willingly bring on the bad so that they could feel good.
And this has absolutely NOTHING to do with "delayed gratification" or training for a sport event, or any of the examples you mention. In those cases the "bad" action is actually good, it gives you endorphins, or at least later pleasant feelings. I am talking about truly bad stuff, like getting cancer, or losing a loved one.
I cannot explain this any better. If you don't GET IT, please don't prolong the discussion on this item. It is over.
2. Irrationality
I think we are using the word here differently. Of course I concede that we act "irrationally" sometimes, in the sense that in retrospect one realizes that the choices that one made were not the best possible, and maybe emotionally inspired. That is a common human condition.
What I am trying to say is that AT THE MOMENT when the choice is made, it appears to you AS BEING THE RIGHT THING TO DO. (Otherwise you would not make it). The fact that REGRET comes later, is a sign that you can think and change your state.
Again, as in the case of No 1, I don't think that I can make this point any clearer, so if you respond to this by saying: I don't agree! I will let it pass...
3. Prayer.
You challenge me to say why some prayers get answered and some not. In fact, you ask me for a recipe so that I can design a slot machine with "Put your prayers in here with a nickel!"
It does not work that way.
If you recall in my OP (I think it was) where I said that I am at a loss to explain why some of MY prayers got answered, and those of some others, whom I judged to be far more "worthy" than me, did not.
The fact of the matter (FOR ME!) is that i have seen some miraculous answers to prayer, and i have seen many, many Unanswered prayers, in my life and that of my immediate family. This is my EXPERIENCE, and I am unable to formulate a DOCTRINE or METHODOLOGY around it.
I would like to not discuss these three issues any further. I cannot add any further elucidation.
Originally posted by CalJustAlthough you are welcome to close it if you wish, and I will not push you on the matter, surely the most interesting discussions are ones where we do disagree? Surely the greatest potential for learning something new is when we disagree? A conversation where everyone just says 'yes, thats true' can get boring very fast.
Because I know that you do not at all agree with this, I would suggest that THIS particular part of the discussion should be closed.
My favorite moment in a conversation is when I finally get someone elses point of view and it actually makes sense. And although I kick myself and go 'why didn't I see that earlier', it still feels good to have gotten a new perspective on things. Although this happens more often in the science forum, or in threads where the main contributors are atheists with some education in philosophy, it can also happen in discussions with theists.
Originally posted by CalJustI would have loved to dissect it some more if only to get the concepts clearer in my own mind, but since it seems to be boring you, I'll drop it as you ask.
I cannot explain this any better. If you don't GET IT, please don't prolong the discussion on this item. It is over.
What I am trying to say is that AT THE MOMENT when the choice is made, it appears to you AS BEING THE RIGHT THING TO DO. (Otherwise you would not make it). The fact that REGRET comes later, is a sign that you can think and change your state.
Once again, I have to say that in my own experience this is not the case. I quite often, knowingly do not do the right thing, and know it at the time. So I accept that the above may apply to you, but it doesn't apply to me.
You challenge me to say why some prayers get answered and some not. In fact, you ask me for a recipe so that I can design a slot machine with "Put your prayers in here with a nickel!"
I did not intend it as a challenge. I was merely asking if you thought there was a pattern, and if you knew what it was. 'I don't know' is a perfectly valid answer.
For myself, even if I was convinced that some prayers were being answered, the fact that others, seemingly far more important ones were not being answered would be of such concern that I would not believe God was good, as it would not make sense. But thats me, and I recognise that you have a different point of view and are entitled to it and may have perfectly valid reasons for holding them.
I am a little surprised by your reluctance to discuss these topics, but maybe it is because I come across as the Spanish Inquisition when I think I am just having a friendly conversation. If so, I apologize.
Originally posted by CalJustAn overly-defensive reply. Oh well. I guess that's to be expected in a thread of this nature.
You are right, of course, BDP. The example did not specify all eventualities.
However, I submit that if you refer to and apply the last sentence of your post, then you do not essentially deviate from what I was trying to express. Something like:
"Maybe it was a wall I hit or maybe not. Could have even been a tree. But I cannot find it again and cannot ...[text shortened]... the possibility of valid experiences which are difficult to verbalise or build doctrines around.
I didn't write what I wrote to 'attack' anything, or 'play with semantics'. I wrote it because I think it illustrates a key difference in the thought processes of believers in the supernatural vs. skeptics.
To my mind, the skeptics are less willing to stop with 'I hit my head on SOMETHING' and more insistent on finding out more about what happened, especially before telling other people about it. In our lifetimes, we haven't had ANY experiences that necessarily had no natural cause, as far as we can tell.
To us, it seems like supernaturalists stopped looking a bit sooner for causes of their experiences, Maybe we are wrong, but that's how it seems.
Originally posted by twhiteheadLet me try to explain how I feel (sometimes) when I am debating with you, just by way of an example.
I am a little surprised by your reluctance to discuss these topics, but maybe it is because I come across as the Spanish Inquisition when I think I am just having a friendly conversation. If so, I apologize.
CJ: We use Low Fat milk at home on our cold cereal.
tw: Why?
CJ: Well, my wife read an article about how fat is bad for you, and we should use less of it.
tw: I disagree. We all need fat as a part of a healthy diet.
CJ: Sure, I know all about the "healthy fats", Omega 3 and so on. But the fat in milk is apparently saturated fats, which are bad for you.
tw: Not so. There are many good parts in milk fat which actually help the body, by bringing in Calcium. You should become more educated on some of these important issues.
CJ: Of course, I know all about Calcium. But too much fat is, I understand, bad for you.
tw: Do you have any proof of that? Is this a rational decision that you made, or merely an emotional response to some cheap advertising campaign? And that article that you refer to that your wife read, was it peer-reviewed? And if so, in what Journal?
CJ: I can't remember the article. It was probably not peer reviewed, but in some women's magazine. However, I also read somewhere that Tim Noakes holds the same opinion about Low Fat milk.
tw: Tim Noakes? I don't agree with him at all. Anything he writes should not be taken seriously. He is the guy who holds the view that Proteins are better than Carbohydrates, and clearly that doesn't make any sense because my whole family eats three slices of bread a day and we are as healthy as anything.
CJ: OK, maybe Tim Noakes isn't the be-all and end-all of dietary science, but a lot of people agree with him. I cannot say that I feel a lot healthier after switching to Low Fat milk, but it seems that my cholesterol has gone down a bit.
tw: I don't agree with your conclusion there at all. Cholesterol is a function of many, many issues, including how active you are, your hereditary propensity and many more. You cannot simply draw a conclusion from milk. Why do you drink milk, anyway?
CJ: I suppose because red wine on my cereal didn't work out all that well, I started getting headaches at work. But maybe I used the wrong kind of wine, it was a Pinotage and perhaps I should try the Cabernet? Also, the white colour sort of looks more "natural' on the muesli, doesn't it?
tw: No, not at all. I know many people who put fruit juice on their cereals. That is far better than milk. But you haven't answered my question yet - what made you change from Full Cream to Low Fat? Was this move based on a rational, double-blind study? Otherwise how do you know you made the right decision. I for one doubt that you did.
CJ; As I told you before, it was some women's magazine. I am not promoting this far and wide as the thing to do, I realise that some people might prefer full cream, or even totally Fat Free, but I guess that decision is up to them.
tw: I disagree. If you make a decision, you should be willing and able to defend it. At the very least you should examine why other people have chosen other forms of milk, and then rationally determine what is best for you. Are you at least willing to consider that Full Cream is the most rational and logically defensible choice?
CJ: As I said before, I am not trying to convince anybody that I am right. ALL I said was that in my house we now use Low Fat milk, and we are not saying that is the best milk there is. Can't we just leave it at that?
tw: No, not really. If you like, we can drop it, but I would be wondering why it is that you are not prepared to pursue the matter rationally as to what is the best milk. I am really interested in this topic, and would like to ask a few more questions that might assist us in obtaining a better understanding of the overall situation and .....
******************
You get the general idea......
Originally posted by CalJustYes, I do. I tend to think that us both learning more about milk and whether it is good for you or which kind is best is ultimately a good thing. But I do realise that this could be of little interest to you - hey its just milk, who cares anyway? - hence my agreement to back off on topics you don't want to discuss.
You get the general idea......
So my next question for the thread: what topics to do with spirituality or religion do you find interesting and enjoy discussing?