The Human Spirit

@SecondSon

If man was created by God, in His "image and likeness", then for man to fail to recognize, in himself, what he is made of, he is fundamentally flawed at his core.

That belief rests on an assumption that the designed will of man could not choose to damage the relationship the created man has with their Creator.

Is this assumption right? That needs to be determined.

Does the created man have within himself a deciding will which could cause self damage to the core of his own design? That is the question that needs to be determined.

Solomon said he knew one thing - God made man upright but man has sought out deceptive devices - SOMEHOW.

"See, this alone have I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes." (Ecclesiastes 7:29)

When I muse over this problem my thought is twofold:

1.) Apparently an innocent and neutral man designed well had within him, nevertheless, the capacity to go another way then besides God's way.

2.) Is seems that God has allowed that course to develop temporarily. After a time it may be that such a rebellion could never ever exist again.

I could go the route of some - If there is any flaw in human beings it has to be that fault of the Creator of human beings.


If I ever change to adopt that view I'll let you know. I think the freedom of the will is a tremendous thing God created in man.

"And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may eat freely, But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, of it you shall not eat; for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Gen. 2:16,17)

@sonship said
@SecondSon

If man was created by God, in His "image and likeness", then for man to fail to recognize, in himself, what he is made of, he is fundamentally flawed at his core.

That belief rests on an assumption that the designed will of man could not choose to damage the relationship the created man has with their Creator.

Is this assumption right? T ...[text shortened]... shall not eat; for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Gen. 2:16,17) [/b] [/quote]

I think Ecclesiastes 7:29 answers your question.

"Does the created man have within himself a deciding will which could cause self damage to the core of his own design?"

Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

The "fundamental flaw" is self inflicted. I did not mean to infer that man's "failure to recognize" the "God shaped hole" was the result of a flaw in God's design.

I did not assume that man isn't capable of denying the truth about his existence.

My reply to Ghost was based on the theoretical postulate that "if" God created man in His image and likeness, then God's own impression is imprinted on every fiber of man's being, and that man's failure to recognize it is evidence of a fundamental flaw in man, and not in God's design.

Man chooses, as indicated by the verse in Ecclesiastes.

Also, see Romans 1. "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

This whole issue puts you and I in a conundrum of sorts. How do we convince the atheists that they're lying to themselves without making it sound like we're insulting their intelligence?

@secondson said
Sigh.

You misunderstand the inference of the "God-shaped hole" meaning.

If man was created by God, in His "image and likeness", then for man to fail to recognize, in himself, what he is made of, he is fundamentally flawed at his core.

I said "if". "If" man was created, then theoretically his nature carries in it the impression of his maker. And "if" that is true, t ...[text shortened]... y fiber of his being, there is in fact a "hole" or vacuum, as it were, at his core, i.e. his spirit.

But there is no 'if', to an atheist. I wasn't created by God and, ergo, there is no God-shaped hole in me.

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke

Humanitarianism, at its best, is driven by man, for man.

Define "at its best".
Who determines what is "Humanitarianism, at its best" ?

What superior authority does that judging one have to pronounce over others when Humanitarianism is "at its best" ?

Man.

There is no greater authority. When an attempt is made to credit this authority to a 'greater force' it is fundamentally degraded.

Man helps man becase man wants to help man, not because God tells man to do so.

@secondson said

This whole issue puts you and I in a conundrum of sorts. How do we convince the atheists that they're lying to themselves without making it sound like we're insulting their intelligence?

We atheists face the same conundrum when convincing you theists that you are worshipping something of your own creation.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
But there is no 'if', to an atheist. I wasn't created by God and, ergo, there is no God-shaped hole in me.

I understand that to an atheist there is no 'if', but that doesn't negate the proposition.

In logic a proposition is a statement that expresses a concept that can either be true or false.

But likewise for you to state that you weren't created is only a proposition as well.

Now you an equally say the same concerning my assertion that man was created by a benevolent creator.

The great question is, where is the proof or evidence that supports unequivocally one of those two opposing ideas?

It seems logical to me that that evidence both supports the one and disproves the other because both ideas cannot exist in reality simultaneously.

@secondson said
I understand that to an atheist there is no 'if', but that doesn't negate the proposition.

In logic a proposition is a statement that expresses a concept that can either be true or false.

But likewise for you to state that you weren't created is only a proposition as well.

Now you an equally say the same concerning my assertion that man was created by a benevolent ...[text shortened]... supports the one and disproves the other because both ideas cannot exist in reality simultaneously.

When the 'God-shaped' hole proposition has been tendered before, it has been used to suggest that atheists (due to this hole) seek to fill it with something else. I fully reject this argument and view it just as silly as saying there is a 'unicorn-shaped' hole in me. I understand why Christians would want to believe this, but it simply isn't true.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
When the 'God-shaped' hole proposition has been tendered before, it has been used to suggest that atheists (due to this hole) seek to fill it with something else. I fully reject this argument and view it just as silly as saying there is a 'unicorn-shaped' hole in me. I understand why Christians would want to believe this, but it simply isn't true.

I understand your point, but it's just silly to make an analogy of a mythical creature we know for a fact, based on demonstrable evidence, doesn't really exist.

Question is, is there evidence for or against the proposition that a creator imprinted His nature in that which exists?

@secondson said
I understand your point, but it's just silly to make an analogy of a mythical creature we know for a fact, based on demonstrable evidence, doesn't really exist.

Question is, is there evidence for or against the proposition that a creator imprinted His nature in that which exists?

But there's the rub sir, and I say this with no intention of causing offense. To 'me' there is no differentiation between the 'mythical creature' and the God or gods of any religion. I know 'for a fact' (and yes, I know that will irk you to read) that God does not really exist and believe completely that this is based on demonstrable evidence.

So I say with equal certainty, not believing in unicorns does not leave a unicorn-shaped hole in me, and not believing in God does not leave a God-shaped hole in me. My sense of being, purpose and origin is entirely self-sufficient and unaffected by the notion of unicorns or gods.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
But there's the rub sir, and I say this with no intention of causing offense. To 'me' there is no differentiation between the 'mythical creature' and the God or gods of any religion. I know 'for a fact' (and yes, I know that will irk you to read) that God does not really exist and believe completely that this is based on demonstrable evidence.

So I say with equal c ...[text shortened]... ng, purpose and origin is entirely self-sufficient and unaffected by the notion of unicorns or gods.

No offense taken in the slightest.

At this juncture then, I would ask you what, to your way of thinking, would constitute irrefutable evidence that all that exist, or in any way you'd prefer to frame the question, was created by a being of a magnitude equivalent to omniscient?

@secondson said
No offense taken in the slightest.

At this juncture then, I would ask you what, to your way of thinking, would constitute irrefutable evidence that all that exist, or in any way you'd prefer to frame the question, was created by a being of a magnitude equivalent to omniscient?

It would probably require a first-hand experience or encounter with such an omniscient being. It is not something another human or book could ever convince me of. (And I could never accept such a thing on faith).

This also applies to aliens or ghosts.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
We atheists face the same conundrum when convincing you theists that you are worshipping something of your own creation.

I can feel your frustration. 😉

@ghost-of-a-duke said
It would probably require a first-hand experience or encounter with such an omniscient being. It is not something another human or book could ever convince me of. (And I could never accept such a thing on faith).

This also applies to aliens or ghosts.

The encounter with the living God is without a doubt punctuated by firsthand experience, and the only way you'll ever know of His existence.

I claim to have had such an experience, therefore it seems that the only means I have at my disposal to "prove" to you that my experience is real and not just a delusion is by the use of words arranged in such a way that the concepts and ideas associated with that experience convinces you to "see" with your own intellect that there's something more than just this temporal life.

I have the words. Maybe. I'm assuming you're interested in at least having the discussion/debate/argument or otherwise you wouldn't be here engaged.

@secondson:
This whole issue puts you and I in a conundrum of sorts. How do we convince the atheists that they're lying to themselves without making it sound like we're insulting their intelligence?

@ghost-of-a-duke:
We atheists face the same conundrum when convincing you theists that you are worshipping something of your own creation.

Possibly there's a problem with trying to change people's beliefs.

@secondson said
The encounter with the living God is without a doubt punctuated by firsthand experience, and the only way you'll ever know of His existence.

I claim to have had such an experience, therefore it seems that the only means I have at my disposal to "prove" to you that my experience is real and not just a delusion is by the use of words arranged in such a way that the concept ...[text shortened]... erested in at least having the discussion/debate/argument or otherwise you wouldn't be here engaged.

I don't think you have the words. (Even if you were a literary prodigy walking in the steps of Shakespeare). Even if your personal experience with God were genuine (and I'm not saying it wasn't) I genuinely do not think it is possible for you to convey that 'truth' to me in words, irrespective of how well they were crafted. - I simply don't work that way as a person. For me to believe something so significant I would 'need' to experience it myself, not indirectly.