Santa Claus, God, Hitler and Steve Jobs

[lrkun]

Explain how there are many variables related to prayer. Because as I see it, prayer is similar to cause and effect. You pray. Having done prayer, the result will follow.

Experiment:

Observation - some assert that prayer works.

Question - does prayer work?

Method - pray 3 times a day for one thing until that prayer is answered.

Result - ?

 

[Noth]

Firstly, don't mention it. It's always a nice opportunity to have a conversation with someone who might not necessarily agree with your views. I find it essential that there be differences in opinion and will find it equally satisfying whether I manage to convince someone of something or someone enlightens me on something I hadn't thought through well enough.
I'd also like to note that it's always refreshing to talk to a theist who doesn't hold a mainstream theistic view. While on the one hand I could say that this says something about the clarity of the 'holy book' (I realise not every christian faith still calls the bible holy) I will always return to my aforementioned opinion that it's vital that opinions differ.

I don't see how communication from father to child would be personal, and as a consequence, subject to claims of mental instability on the child's part. I would like you to explain that a little more specifically before I comment on that. As a father, I believe that communication with my child, is as a general rule, personal, but doesn't mean my children are mentally unstable, it just means that I feel I have more knowledge and experience then them at this time. I may have misunderstood that portion of that analogy, and if I did, I apologize, which is why I'm asking for clarification.

I apologise, it was me being flippant and, now that I read it back, entirely unclear. I wrote it ' backwards' actually, referring to that when people say they 'hear people speak back to them' we usually diagnose them clinically unhealthy . Please don't take that as a personal remark. It's just that from my perspective the communication between parent and child differs somewhat from god to human, even if we were to grant the existence of a god.

I agree, again, with your idea that it is far more beneficial for anybody, who is offering direction to anybody, to take the time to explain the reason for that direction. Having said that, I have been in the military and I'm a father, and I hold a leadership position in my current career. From my perspective, I am much more likely to accept that sometimes people are going to be told to do something, and the person doing the telling will not have the luxury of explain why it's important. I'm comfortable with that position, given my past. Having stated that, I will say that, other then some over all generally good ideas in the bible, I do not think I've ever been ordered to do anything by god.

I agree with you that it is not always beneficial to question what you're told. In the case of growing up as well as work places and the military this can even be vital. Of course this does not rule out eventual understanding, even if it takes a long time for someone to realise the intention or idea behind the order.
I do think that many people feel they have indeed been ordered to do things, and more commonly: to think or believe in a certain way, based on the bible or the quran etc. How accurate that claim is might differ per interpretation of the text/ whether you see the texts as inspiration to lead a good life or whether you take them more literally.
To digress slightly, because I don't think this is the key point, the very fact that someone's views of the world are shaped by what they've interpreted from their bible is something I've personally felt the down-sides of. Again, I realise full well that your views are not alligned with what we see as the mainstream interpretations, so it's no accusation. Then again, should one take the bible as basis for their (spiritual & ethical) lives, especially if we grant the existence of the therein presented deity, I should point out it's not a clear which interpretation is the correct one. A more literal approach may well seem out-dated (and rightly so IMO) in the eyes of many, but that's no guarentee of its invalidity . But that's a discussion for a different time.

The rest of your post seems to deal specifically with the father/son, god/people analogy. I will, in response, answer in a very general way and if you'd like something more specific, please feel free to ask.

I agree, we should let our children grow up. I also believe that there comes a time when we may not be able to stop them. I also believe, as a parent, that when it's time for my children to grow up is a judgment call that I alone (with the help of my wife) have to make. This is not a call I would allow a complete stranger to make because they do not know my children, what my children have been taught, and how my children have reacted in various circumstances.

As a 17 year old, I thought I knew it all. As I got older, I realized how smart my parents were (parents will be defined in a moment). I was very lucky with parents who allowed me to make mistakes to learn from and were able to keep me out of serious trouble.

I will take a moment to say that I feel I was very lucky to have, for most of my impressionable years, 2 sets of parents. On set included my mom and step father, one set included my best friends parents, whom I had known for years at that point and were, for all intents and purposes, mom and dad. As a person, I am very intimately aware of the fallibility of a parent.

I agree, assuming you are a responsible parent, with all of the above. I also thought I knew a lot at 17. I know now that one of the greatest virtues to aspire to is to know when you don't know and don't fear admitting it. I would also clarify my earlier statement about my parents, because it might have sounded ambiguous, by saying that I don't know more about everything than my parents do. They still both have well over twice the number of years behind them than me (I was their 6th and last child) so it's only logical to surmise they'll know more about some things about life than I do.
That said, the reason I mentioned it initially was because there was a point in life where I slowly began to realise there were also certain times where I discovered I knew more or where I felt I had thought things through more. A long-ago situation springs to mind where my father explained to a church friend of theirs that the fossils in the earth could have been placed there by god to make it seem... I don't know. To me that was a clear example that, while very intelligent on the one hand, he hadn't really given the matter enough thought. Maybe out of disinterrest, and definitely through ill-informing himself, but it was one of the first times I sat flabbergasted at how my father would discard such important scientific research out of sheer refusal to belief/ refusal to discard his cherished beliefs about how the earth was formed and how we came to be here.
I know this is an example that is, luckily, not necessarily characteristic of theists and it doesn't, thank goodness, define my father - in fact I respect him a lot - but it was the first point of many examples, most of them dealing with our religious differences relating to science or things like logic and reason in general.

But back to the analogy.
In my mind there are three different scenarios that play out.

In the first we grant the existence of god and we grant infallibility.
Ignoring, still, possibly contradictions for the moment I would say this is the best pleading case for the judgements then made by that deity. Infallibility would mean all god's actions would be, by default, justified. It would require that he reveals himself and his wishes more clearly than he has (granted his existence and well-critiqued bestseller's representation ) done so far.
In my view the point still couldn't be made that father to people-wise we should by definition worship. In the case of the employer or the military officer we would (and probably should concerning the health risk of disobedience of an all-knowing god ) comply.
However in the more literar father to child sense I would question when this god would feel we could stand on our own feet. What, if he made us so capable of reason and sharp of intellect (barring obvious exceptions), would remain to be taught after we've grown up enough? Moreover, when would we grow up? Would, in his eyes, we ever truly grow up in that sense?
Don't take all of those questions as stiff discussion points. It is really me trying to make conversation.

In the second scenario we grant the existence of god but do not grant infallibility.
As a concequence we also cannot grant omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence.

I had more typed here but my pc here at school decided not to save my log-in and as such I lost all text from this point on. Hence why the rest might seem hasty by comparison

Would we be able and allowed to question this god? In light of his fallibility we may surmise this deity has then more in common with a father/ child relationship. How would this compare and how would it differ? Would there be a point where we could outgrow our cosmic parent, or would our own fallibility always exceed his?

And finally in the third scenario we do not grant his existence and the belief in god might include either fallibility or infallibility. This is, of course, the situation we're in now so I'll try not to explore this one too much in light of this just being a conversation.
I would wonder, and I realise this might be more personal questions so feel free to disregard them, what would, for you, confirm the personal relationship with a deity in the theistic sense rather than a deistic one or (dare I say it :roll: ) none at all?
This is not me trying to be demeaning, but I'm curious as to how you feel a personal relationship with god would play out and where you get the (personal) confirmation for this belief. Specifically I'm wondering (and this more in light of the conversation) which type or types of the aforementioned types of fatherly gods would fit more in your view (military/ boss one & loving father & father that lets go etc).

Woosh, I think that should be enough for now lest I type my fingers into oblivion and leave you with too much to respond to (I already think it might be :lol

 

[Trons]

I apologise, it was me being flippant and, now that I read it back, entirely unclear. I wrote it ' backwards' actually, referring to that when people say they 'hear people speak back to them' we usually diagnose them clinically unhealthy . Please don't take that as a personal remark. It's just that from my perspective the communication between parent and child differs somewhat from god to human, even if we were to grant the existence of a god.

You would have to specifically state that you are talking to me personally for me to take something personal. One of the nice things about knowing that my faith system differs from the general theistic view point is understanding that when people talk about theists, they are probably not talking about me. I will also grant you that the father(gender non-specific)/child communication differs greatly from the god/person communication. It works, barely, as an analogy because of the idea that if (putting words in your mouth) there is a god, his level of understanding of events (or the universe) would be similar to that of a fathers compared to a child. I did not mean to imply that god has the ability to communicate as clearly with his followers as a father has to communicate with his children. I understand why some people would make that claim...I will not.

I agree with you that it is not always beneficial to question what you're told. In the case of growing up as well as work places and the military this can even be vital. Of course this does not rule out eventual understanding, even if it takes a long time for someone to realise the intention or idea behind the order.
I do think that many people feel they have indeed been ordered to do things, and more commonly: to think or believe in a certain way, based on the bible or the quran etc. How accurate that claim is might differ per interpretation of the text/ whether you see the texts as inspiration to lead a good life or whether you take them more literally.
To digress slightly, because I don't think this is the key point, the very fact that someone's views of the world are shaped by what they've interpreted from their bible is something I've personally felt the down-sides of. Again, I realise full well that your views are not alligned with what we see as the mainstream interpretations, so it's no accusation. Then again, should one take the bible as basis for their (spiritual & ethical) lives, especially if we grant the existence of the therein presented deity, I should point out it's not a clear which interpretation is the correct one. A more literal approach may well seem out-dated (and rightly so IMO) in the eyes of many, but that's no guarentee of its invalidity . But that's a discussion for a different time.

I appreciate that you keep verifying that I am not to take your comments personally. I assure you, I am not

In my opinion, if we're going to talk about the direction that's included in the bible, we may do well to compare the bible to some other works and apply a similar standard. I will preface my next statement with my personal view point before I begin: I personally believe that the bible is the word of God, but has been written and interpreted by very fallible men. From that perspective, I take what I read in the bible, when I read it, with a grain of salt. I know this sets me far away from most theists, but I've already acknowledged that and I thought this was a good time to mention one of my differences. I'm sure you'll fine many more.

I think we can compare the bible, in the light I've painted it, to "The Art of War," (from the "it may be a good idea" stand point,) and any other of books about history. Again, please see my above disclaimer about my personal view on the bible to understand why I would make those comparisons.

I agree, assuming you are a responsible parent, with all of the above. I also thought I knew a lot at 17. I know now that one of the greatest virtues to aspire to is to know when you don't know and don't fear admitting it. I would also clarify my earlier statement about my parents, because it might have sounded ambiguous, by saying that I don't know more about everything than my parents do. They still both have well over twice the number of years behind them than me (I was their 6th and last child) so it's only logical to surmise they'll know more about some things about life than I do.

I break this comment up at this point because there is something that I want to address. During this conversation we have been using an analogy, that while not quite accurate, has made for a fun conversation. I think everybody understands where the analogy is lacking and, for the most part, have ignored those points for the sake of the conversation. At this point, I would like to make a statement that will probably bring me under a lot of fire. I would also like to state that the following comments are not meant to be scientific in nature. It is solely my belief and as such has been tainted by my personal faith. For those reading this, if you do not agree, I understand completely because you have lead a different life then I. Enough disclaimers:

I believe that the majority of people believe that if they have the ability to ask the question, they are capable of understanding the answer. I disagree with this idea. I may be wrong in this belief. There may be plenty, if not the majority, of people who understand that just because they can ask a question, does not mean they can understand the answer. I could site plenty of examples from personal experience, but it's one of those things that I understand may not stand up to experimental scrutinizing. Because I believe this, in a very real world sense, I can see a god that has the ability to look on his people and say, "You don't have the ability to understand the answer."

Again, I see this almost daily when members of my team ask me questions that I know they do not have the experience to understand the answer. I will give them the answer, then giggle to myself when they have that blank stare and thank me for answering their question. I'm not god. The questions that I answer have no negative consequences.

Am I saying that this is an excuse for god to not show himself more clearly or answering the questions that people have of him. No. I am not making that claim, but only because I will not pretend to know the mind of god. Am I saying that I have the ability to conceive of a universe where such a god exists, yes. That I can conceive.

That said, the reason I mentioned it initially was because there was a point in life where I slowly began to realise there were also certain times where I discovered I knew more or where I felt I had thought things through more. A long-ago situation springs to mind where my father explained to a church friend of theirs that the fossils in the earth could have been placed there by god to make it seem... I don't know. To me that was a clear example that, while very intelligent on the one hand, he hadn't really given the matter enough thought. Maybe out of disinterrest, and definitely through ill-informing himself, but it was one of the first times I sat flabbergasted at how my father would discard such important scientific research out of sheer refusal to belief/ refusal to discard his cherished beliefs about how the earth was formed and how we came to be here.
I know this is an example that is, luckily, not necessarily characteristic of theists and it doesn't, thank goodness, define my father - in fact I respect him a lot - but it was the first point of many examples, most of them dealing with our religious differences relating to science or things like logic and reason in general.

I'm familiar with the "god put the fossils in the ground to test faith" argument. Personally, I believe it could be a possible explanation, but I prefer to take scientists word for it when I see that they've run all these tests and confirmed that [whatever] has been in the ground for [a long period of time]. Once again, I differ from the norm. I also don't see why, given my previous statements about the bible, fossils would contradict the concept of god, but I see why some theists would feel that way (I did at one time, when I was younger) and so put forth that concept as truth.

But back to the analogy.
In my mind there are three different scenarios that play out.

In the first we grant the existence of god and we grant infallibility.
Ignoring, still, possibly contradictions for the moment I would say this is the best pleading case for the judgements then made by that deity. Infallibility would mean all god's actions would be, by default, justified. It would require that he reveals himself and his wishes more clearly than he has (granted his existence and well-critiqued bestseller's representation ) done so far.

I don't see how god's infallibility would require him to reveal himself and make his wishes more clear. I wouldn't mind some more discussion on this.

In my view the point still couldn't be made that father to people-wise we should by definition worship. In the case of the employer or the military officer we would (and probably should concerning the health risk of disobedience of an all-knowing god ) comply.

I wouldn't also be adverse to a better explanation of what you consider the health risks to disobeying god.

However in the more literar father to child sense I would question when this god would feel we could stand on our own feet. What, if he made us so capable of reason and sharp of intellect (barring obvious exceptions), would remain to be taught after we've grown up enough? Moreover, when would we grow up? Would, in his eyes, we ever truly grow up in that sense?
Don't take all of those questions as stiff discussion points. It is really me trying to make conversation.

From this, I take the basic question to be "would...we ever truly grow up in that sense?" Personally, I believe we will. When that will be, I have no idea. Are we close, it's possible. I'm will refer to my earlier posts that I truly believe, both from a realistic point of view, and a theistic point of view, that just because we're capable of asking the question, we may not be ready for the answer.

In the second scenario we grant the existence of god but do not grant infallibility.
As a concequence we also cannot grant omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence.

Would you be willing to concede to the concept that god may be fallible, and therefore we can not grant "omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence," but he/she/it is so much better then we are, that for all practical purposes, we may as well assume infalliblity?

Would we be able and allowed to question this god? In light of his fallibility we may surmise this deity has then more in common with a father/ child relationship. How would this compare and how would it differ? Would there be a point where we could outgrow our cosmic parent, or would our own fallibility always exceed his?

I think that this is a great question. To be honest, it's not something I've given a lot of thought to because it's a new way of thinking about a relationship with god. I would like more time to consider how this question could be answered by my personal faith.

And finally in the third scenario we do not grant his existence and the belief in god might include either fallibility or infallibility. This is, of course, the situation we're in now so I'll try not to explore this one too much in light of this just being a conversation.

Always a possibility. It's true that theists in general, and my self specifically, may be wrong about the existence of god. This goes back to trying to prove a negative, and since I can't prove god exists, and you can't prove he doesn't, I think we can just leave this one on the side. It's a possibility, but I don't see a whole lot of interesting conversation stemming from it.

I would wonder, and I realise this might be more personal questions so feel free to disregard them, what would, for you, confirm the personal relationship with a deity in the theistic sense rather than a deistic one or (dare I say it :roll: ) none at all?

First, let me say that I will not disregard personal questions. I am not ashamed of my faith and as such will not dodge any questions about it. I will say that there may be questions you can ask that I am not prepared to answer because I have not given it proper thought, this does not happen to be one of those. You specifically ask, "what would, for you, confirm...". I take that to mean "what has (or does) for me...." I take it this way because I feel I should not have to express something in that may, or may not, happen in the future to confirm a relationship with a deity, but rather I feel you are asking why I have the faith that I currently have. If I'm am wrong in that interpretation of your question, please feel free to correct me.

I could answer the question, as I have interpreted it, with examples I've observed in my life that lead me to have the faith that I have. I also understand, and could be wrong, that this is not specifically what you are asking for. My personal view point, answering the question that I believe you are asking, is that a personal relationship with God is one where you see his intervention in your life. This intervention is seen, by me, in hindsight. Situations where I've recognized I've acted against my normal behavior, but that deviation, that I didn't see when it happened, has lead me to where I am now. I could, and am willing to, sight examples of those types of deviations. Could they be coincidence? I guess so. I choose to attribute them to, given the level of egregious separation between where my normal behavior was and how I acted in those situations, "divine intervention." Those situations have lead to where I'm at now...and I like where I'm at. :lol: Could that be delisional? It's possible, but I would have to get far more specific to explain why I don't see it that way. Please do not read that as I'm not willing to get that specific. I am. It would take a while to type out and I'm not sure it would be entertaining.

[qoute]This is not me trying to be demeaning, but I'm curious as to how you feel a personal relationship with god would play out and where you get the (personal) confirmation for this belief. Specifically I'm wondering (and this more in light of the conversation) which type or types of the aforementioned types of fatherly gods would fit more in your view (military/ boss one & loving father & father that lets go etc). [/quote]
I don't find it demeaning at all. I have very personal reasons for my faith. As stated above, I think they would make for a boring read, but I'll be more then happy to share, if you would like. Specifically, I believe mine relationship with God is more of the father/older teenage, young 20's child type relationship. I have been let loose from the homestead, given the ability to make it or break it on my own. I believe that God is watching over me, but letting me make my own mistakes.

i will say that in this post, and in future and past posts, when I speak of god, if I use a lower case "g" I am speaking of what I believe to be the common representation of god that may, or, more then likely may not, hold to my personal faith. When I use a capital "G" I am speaking about my personal faith in God.

Woosh, I think that should be enough for now lest I type my fingers into oblivion and leave you with too much to respond to (I already think it might be :lol[/quote]

 

[Noth]

In my opinion, if we're going to talk about the direction that's included in the bible, we may do well to compare the bible to some other works and apply a similar standard. I will preface my next statement with my personal view point before I begin: I personally believe that the bible is the word of God, but has been written and interpreted by very fallible men. From that perspective, I take what I read in the bible, when I read it, with a grain of salt. I know this sets me far away from most theists, but I've already acknowledged that and I thought this was a good time to mention one of my differences. I'm sure you'll fine many more.

I think in light of modern scientific and philosophical knowledge the only, in my view, interpretation that holds some 'realistic' ground is one where you cannot take the bible literally and must, as you do, take the writings with a grain of salt. An example would be the genesis creation story and Noah's ark. I know theists for whom it is foundational to take these events as literally as they are described in the bible. I couldn't even do that when I was still a christian after I had learned a thing or two about geology and whatnot.
What I do wonder about often is how to make the distinction between what must, for the sake of faith, be interpreted more or less literal and what may, in light of modern scientific knowledge, be brought back to mere 'moral stories'. What happened for me was that once I started to question the validity of some things in the bible I went on to question more... and more, until there was little else left but things like moral stories and more 'recent' stuff from the new testament (even though I question the validity of a lot of that as well).

I think we can compare the bible, in the light I've painted it, to "The Art of War," (from the "it may be a good idea" stand point,) and any other of books about history. Again, please see my above disclaimer about my personal view on the bible to understand why I would make those comparisons.

Taking the bible as a source for values doesn't need to be a bad thing, as long as you are able to make up your own mind about things therein that contradict with modern-time values. But in fact, taking any old book that philosophises about ways to live as a source for knowledge and a guideline can be a really good thing. The difference with the bible is that theists often do not make the distinction between the applicable stuff and the destructive bits. The exaggerated example of this is the westboro church, but even among moderate christians there are certain views they wouldn't have if they based only part of their moral lives on the bible and didn't take Paul so seriously, for instance, when he speaks about homosexuals.
Moreover I should say I think most of the good bits in the bible are exhibited by non-believers as well. I firmly believe we do not need a book like the bible in order to lead morally decent lives.

I believe that the majority of people believe that if they have the ability to ask the question, they are capable of understanding the answer. I disagree with this idea. I may be wrong in this belief. There may be plenty, if not the majority, of people who understand that just because they can ask a question, does not mean they can understand the answer. I could cite plenty of examples from personal experience, but it's one of those things that I understand may not stand up to experimental scrutinizing. Because I believe this, in a very real world sense, I can see a god that has the ability to look on his people and say, "You don't have the ability to understand the answer."

Again, I see this almost daily when members of my team ask me questions that I know they do not have the experience to understand the answer. I will give them the answer, then giggle to myself when they have that blank stare and thank me for answering their question. I'm not god. The questions that I answer have no negative consequences.

The reason, I think, I came to this point initially was because the concept of "you don't have the ability to understand the answer" used in the context of a god is, or can be, a killer for discussion. When I made a joking remark to a christian classmate of mine about genesis citing that god made light first but bothered to make the sun and stars some later day he remarked with a vague "we simply cannot fathom." I understand, and agree, that should there be a god this might be the case, though it would lead me to other questions entirely. But as the existence of a god isn't clear this has always (since my unbelief in any case) seemed to me as a short-cut out of discussion and, within religious communities, as a means of silencing dissenting voices.

To make clear why I rebel so strongly against the notion of "you cannot fathom", despite agreeing with you that it is sometimes applicable in real life, as you aptly cited, I will give an example from history about "knowing".

We 'know' the earth is (more or less) round. We gladly laugh at flat-earth believers because we 'know' they are idiots. We know that we 'know' because the evidence is there for us to look at and we've been explained the means of observing for ourselves that it is the case. But when you think about it, if we didn't have the evidence at hand and the means to discern it, how crazy would it be for someone who lacked our modern understanding to surmise the earth is flat? After all, looking at it blandly, it really is, almost, flat. So it is no wonder that people used to think it was flat.

To suggest, in the days of Galileo, to mere laymen that the earth was more or less round might have been incredible for a lot of them. You might even say it was so inconceivable for some they simply 'couldn't fathom'. That is with what they then held as true and believed and didn't question or think about for that matter.

The point is that we now 'know' a lot more today. But the reason why we know isn't because we've all experimented, like Galileo did. And we didn't all learn about evolution properly as teenagers (or pay attention in class ). But we can truly know these things now. Yet there are things that are currently still mind-boggling. Many scientists freely admit they do not really grasp how quantum mechanics works, but they know that it does (layman representation of quantum mechanics there, I know ). I don't understand anything about it at all. Yet I 'know' it works. What was still vague for teachers of my parents when they were in high school might have been better explained to me.
All in all our basis for knowledge grows. We may expect it to grow further in the future and as such what is completely mind-boggling to us now might be stuff they present in high school (in condensed version) in two hundred years.

It is mostly for this reason I'm never satisfied with "we simply cannot fathom" and definitely never with "we aren't meant to know". I'm not saying we are meant to know everything or will, for that matter, learn everything, and I still agree that granted a god and its infallibility we might be better off not knowing/ might not understand the answer, but given that such an existence is speculative I simply don't feel those lines carry their weight in an argument.

Am I saying that this is an excuse for god to not show himself more clearly or answering the questions that people have of him. No. I am not making that claim, but only because I will not pretend to know the mind of god. Am I saying that I have the ability to conceive of a universe where such a god exists, yes. That I can conceive.

Well, conceive of it I can, but I do have a very vivid imagination . But I can never completely repress my scepticism when I envision such a universe. But, as I claimed it doesn't leave much ground for argument, I shall leave it as it is .

I'm familiar with the "god put the fossils in the ground to test faith" argument. Personally, I believe it could be a possible explanation, but I prefer to take scientists word for it when I see that they've run all these tests and confirmed that [whatever] has been in the ground for [a long period of time]. Once again, I differ from the norm. I also don't see why, given my previous statements about the bible, fossils would contradict the concept of god, but I see why some theists would feel that way (I did at one time, when I was younger) and so put forth that concept as truth.

I agree that should I have still believed something like fossils in the earth would do little to damage it. Knowledge that the earth was billions of years old did make me reconsider my more literal interpretation of the bible and, in hindsight, after I had become an atheist the entirety of genesis made far less sense in light of scientific discoveries.
Would there be, in light of your (may I call it?) loose interpretation of the bible, be scientific discoveries that would cause your faith to waver?

I don't see how god's infallibility would require him to reveal himself and make his wishes more clear. I wouldn't mind some more discussion on this.

Unclear on my part. I believe I meant that if we had granted the existence of god he probably would have revealed himself and as such been, perhaps, more clear about what he expected of us than what we can learn from the bible? The myriad of denominations attest to the vagueness of a lot of it
If he HAD revealed himself to the world (in the sense that leaves no doubt as to his existence) but not explained things more profoundly I would still not consider worship if all I had to go by was the bible. As I see it the god that is found in the bible often isn't deserving of much worship if, again, we take some parts literally.

I wouldn't also be adverse to a better explanation of what you consider the health risks to disobeying god.

Granted the existence of god and the representation of him in the bible I should say that the risks of a not so good afterlife could fall under the definition of 'health risks' if one was not to worship . I'll leave aside (mainly) old-testament rules of how and when to punish which kind of transgressions.

From [your writing] I take the basic question to be "would...we ever truly grow up in that sense?" Personally, I believe we will. When that will be, I have no idea. Are we close, it's possible. I will refer to my earlier posts that I truly believe, both from a realistic point of view, and a theistic point of view, that just because we're capable of asking the question, we may not be ready for the answer.

But it's a question of generations rather than one life-span, correct? In the above mentioned sense of 'knowing' things I have no intrinsic issues with that. Nor when taking it in the boss/ employee sense, even though eventual understanding isn't ruled out.
It is when used against me in an argument that I rebel against it, because it leaves so little room for discussion. But that might be because it is mainly used when I want to discuss sciency things that contradict literal biblical interpretations and in instances like these I DO feel we can know the truth.

Would you be willing to concede to the concept that god may be fallible, and therefore we can not grant "omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence," but he/she/it is so much better then we are, that for all practical purposes, we may as well assume infallibility?

That would depend on the characteristics and properties of the deity. For fun, taking a massively intelligent alien race that reveals itself to us, we might as well assume their abilities are 'godlike' to us. Just as our steel birds did drop some jaws amongst indigenous tribe-members when we paid a visit . But we know we aren't infallible, we're just scientifically more advanced than the indigenous people. As such you might say such an alien race consists of fallible entities, but they are just 'more scientifically (and possible morally) advanced' than we are. But until we know the characteristics and properties of god we cannot say. It would depend on how he would reveal himself.
The thing is I could conceive of either possibility. Either he reveals himself and is, apparent (eventually) to us, not infallible; I can imagine this scenario, or he is, for all intents and purposes, infallible. For sake of discourse I'm willing to go with option 2, even though I think it resembles scenario 1 too much. However it does leave more room for questioning him.

Noth wrote: Would we be able and allowed to question this god? In light of his fallibility we may surmise this deity has then more in common with a father/ child relationship. How would this compare and how would it differ? Would there be a point where we could outgrow our cosmic parent, or would our own fallibility always exceed his?

I think that this is a great question. To be honest, it's not something I've given a lot of thought to because it's a new way of thinking about a relationship with god. I would like more time to consider how this question could be answered by my personal faith.

Always glad to give people things to think about . Looking forward to your eventual answer.

First, let me say that I will not disregard personal questions. I am not ashamed of my faith and as such will not dodge any questions about it. I will say that there may be questions you can ask that I am not prepared to answer because I have not given it proper thought, this does not happen to be one of those. You specifically ask, "what would, for you, confirm...". I take that to mean "what has (or does) for me...." I take it this way because I feel I should not have to express something in that may, or may not, happen in the future to confirm a relationship with a deity, but rather I feel you are asking why I have the faith that I currently have. If I'm am wrong in that interpretation of your question, please feel free to correct me.

Correctly interpreted

/ snip /

I have very personal reasons for my faith. As stated [in my post above], I think they would make for a boring read, but I'll be more then happy to share, if you would like. Specifically, I believe my relationship with God is more of the father/older teenage, young 20's child type relationship. I have been let loose from the homestead, given the ability to make it or break it on my own. I believe that God is watching over me, but letting me make my own mistakes.

Where and when, besides obvious lacking direct physical and spoken interaction, would it differ? Since you do not have a very hell-bent (pun intended ) literal interpretation of the bible it might not be as interesting as otherwise, but to me the idea of a god that 'knows your heart' and eventually judges you has pushed me away from wishing to compare it to a father/ son relationship (although I do so here, of course, for sake of conversation). This dissonance between how theists usually praise god for being a true 'father' to them and my view that there comes a point where it is not my parents' right any more to cast judgement. Perhaps this brings back the fallibility vs infallibility point, but alas

Leaving it at this as I have to leave in 5 minutes :roll:

 

[FaithlessThinker]

Personally, I would appreciate it if you treated me like an individual.

You are accusing me of Ad Hominem fallacy while I merely took your logic and applied it in a different scenario. Very typical of a theist. (Now what I just said in the last sentence could be Ad Hominem, but not what I explained in my last post. )

EDIT: Also did you read the edit I added to my last post?

 

[Trons]

I think in light of modern scientific and philosophical knowledge the only, in my view, interpretation that holds some 'realistic' ground is one where you cannot take the bible literally and must, as you do, take the writings with a grain of salt. An example would be the genesis creation story and Noah's ark. I know theists for whom it is foundational to take these events as literally as they are described in the bible. I couldn't even do that when I was still a christian after I had learned a thing or two about geology and whatnot.
What I do wonder about often is how to make the distinction between what must, for the sake of faith, be interpreted more or less literal and what may, in light of modern scientific knowledge, be brought back to mere 'moral stories'. What happened for me was that once I started to question the validity of some things in the bible I went on to question more... and more, until there was little else left but things like moral stories and more 'recent' stuff from the new testament (even though I question the validity of a lot of that as well).

I understand, and used to be believe in the literal version of the bible. What I had been taught, when I was younger, that everything in the bible was inspired by god and because of that, and because god is infallible, he would have made sure that the interpretation is exactly what he wanted, ect...Different topic for a different, because going down that road, I believe, would further derail the thread.

As far as how to distinguish between what should be taken literally and what should be taken with a more modern understanding of the world, I have no idea. Personal beliefs will probably play a big role in that. It's difficult to tell somebody who truly believes something that it may be wrong.

...
It is mostly for this reason I'm never satisfied with "we simply cannot fathom" and definitely never with "we aren't meant to know". I'm not saying we are meant to know everything or will, for that matter, learn everything, and I still agree that granted a god and its infallibility we might be better off not knowing/ might not understand the answer, but given that such an existence is speculative I simply don't feel those lines carry their weight in an argument.

I also agree that the concept of "we're not meant to know" shouldn't carry any weight in an argument, unless that argument happens to be about specifically why god hasn't revealed more to Humans or provided more proof to his existence. I agree, depending on the level of stubbornness of the person presenting that as a discussion point, it can be a discussion killer. I hope that is not the case here, but I have no intention of defending that position to the "death" as it were. I merely present it, based on the comparisons between analogy's presented in this thread.

I agree that should I have still believed something like fossils in the earth would do little to damage it. Knowledge that the earth was billions of years old did make me reconsider my more literal interpretation of the bible and, in hindsight, after I had become an atheist the entirety of genesis made far less sense in light of scientific discoveries.
Would there be, in light of your (may I call it?) loose interpretation of the bible, be scientific discoveries that would cause your faith to waver?

Personally, I can not think of any scientific discovery that would cause my faith to waiver. My faith is my faith for very personal reasons. I freely admit that my faith has no grounding in a world that requires evidence for it. I also don't use my faith to stop me from looking at, and believing, the evidence for things that may be "against" my faith, such as evolution and carbon dating. I put the word against in quotations because I don't see those types of scientific discoveries negating or even questioning my faith because, by my definition, my faith is not dependent on those types of scientific discoveries.

I don't see how god's infallibility would require him to reveal himself and make his wishes more clear. I wouldn't mind some more discussion on this.

Unclear on my part. I believe I meant that if we had granted the existence of god he probably would have revealed himself and as such been, perhaps, more clear about what he expected of us than what we can learn from the bible? The myriad of denominations attest to the vagueness of a lot of it
If he HAD revealed himself to the world (in the sense that leaves no doubt as to his existence) but not explained things more profoundly I would still not consider worship if all I had to go by was the bible. As I see it the god that is found in the bible often isn't deserving of much worship if, again, we take some parts literally.

Granted the existence of god and the representation of him in the bible I should say that the risks of a not so good afterlife could fall under the definition of 'health risks' if one was not to worship . I'll leave aside (mainly) old-testament rules of how and when to punish which kind of transgressions.

Okay, I guess I wasn't thinking. My personal faith differs greatly from many of the normal views, to the point that I hope it's suffice to say that I don't see such health risks as being valid.

But it's a question of generations rather than one life-span, correct? In the above mentioned sense of 'knowing' things I have no intrinsic issues with that. Nor when taking it in the boss/ employee sense, even though eventual understanding isn't ruled out.
It is when used against me in an argument that I rebel against it, because it leaves so little room for discussion. But that might be because it is mainly used when I want to discuss sciency things that contradict literal biblical interpretations and in instances like these I DO feel we can know the truth.

Yes, I feel it's a question of generations rather then one life-span. I can understand why that would be frustrating when used against you as a "I'm tired of this topic and I have nothing more to say because you're used valid counter-arguments against everything and I'm starting to look like a fool" excuse for ending a conversation, or at least trying to stifle it.

Maybe we could look at it in a difference sense, from gods perspective. Again, I state that I do not pretend to know the word of God, I make this suggestion merely for the sake of the conversation. What if god has more of a "Just because you can ask the question doesn't mean you can understand the answer, however, if you are bright enough to figure the answer out on your own, then I won't stand in your way." This goes back to the "father/older teenager" analogy where you've raised a child, have that them to the best of your ability, but understand when they want to leave the home and realize that they will make some mistakes along the way. When those mistakes happen, you can be there to help them out of the situation, even if the help is "tough love."

Going with that basis and analogy, we can see god, not as an unresponsive entity, but as one who has decided that it's time for his children to stand on their own two feet and hopefully, one day, become greater then he is.

Would you be willing to concede to the concept that god may be fallible, and therefore we can not grant "omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence," but he/she/it is so much better then we are, that for all practical purposes, we may as well assume infallibility?

That would depend on the characteristics and properties of the deity. For fun, taking a massively intelligent alien race that reveals itself to us, we might as well assume their abilities are 'godlike' to us. Just as our steel birds did drop some jaws amongst indigenous tribe-members when we paid a visit . But we know we aren't infallible, we're just scientifically more advanced than the indigenous people. As such you might say such an alien race consists of fallible entities, but they are just 'more scientifically (and possible morally) advanced' than we are. But until we know the characteristics and properties of god we cannot say. It would depend on how he would reveal himself.
The thing is I could conceive of either possibility. Either he reveals himself and is, apparent (eventually) to us, not infallible; I can imagine this scenario, or he is, for all intents and purposes, infallible. For sake of discourse I'm willing to go with option 2, even though I think it resembles scenario 1 too much. However it does leave more room for questioning him.

Always glad to give people things to think about . Looking forward to your eventual answer.

Having given this some more thought, I think, given my faith structure, that we, as humans, are, and probably should, question God. However, based on previous arguments, just because we can, doesn't mean we deserve an answer, or if we were to get an answer, we would understand it. It is possible, again, thinking about this, kind of on the fly, that we're being given answers all the time, we just don't recognize them or understand them. I am not trying to imply the "I prayed to god and my prayer came true" argument, I'm suggesting that the answer to many, if not all questions about god may be all around us, or in a language we're not capable of understanding. The more I think about this the more I can see where this would be a fun topic for conversation, but with no real end in sight.

Correctly interpreted

Well, my personal faith structure is based on personal life and how I've interpreted the events in my past, using hind sight. It could be say that I have a lack of faith in coincidence and therefore have an underlying need to attribute what could probably be perceived as mere coincidence as having a reason. I also believe, given my previous study of the bible, to have a firmer grasp of the word of god then more biblical scholars, but I feel that way because I have no intention of making money off my interpretations of what I've read and therefore it's easier for me to see it a little clearer. Romans, Chapter 1 (from your statement where you stated you wished Paul hadn't been taken so literally, I believe this is an example of what you are talking about) is a good example of this. I know many a church leader who has used romans 1 as an example of how god "hates" homosexuality. This is not how I read it and does not fit with my version of god. I am also not trying to promote a political view so I can afford to take a different view.

Where and when, besides obvious lacking direct physical and spoken interaction, would it differ? Since you do not have a very hell-bent (pun intended ) literal interpretation of the bible it might not be as interesting as otherwise, but to me the idea of a god that 'knows your heart' and eventually judges you has pushed me away from wishing to compare it to a father/ son relationship (although I do so here, of course, for sake of conversation). This dissonance between how theists usually praise god for being a true 'father' to them and my view that there comes a point where it is not my parents' right any more to cast judgement. Perhaps this brings back the fallibility vs infallibility point, but alas

Leaving it at this as I have to leave in 5 minutes :roll:

In my opinion, this is where the analogy becomes dangerous, from a conversational stand point. People have different opinions and views as to what a "good parent" is, so when discussing the analogy, it would need defined. A lot of this analogy, at least, where this conversation has taken us, is based on the belief that god will judge you. I could put forth, for the sake of conversation, that a good parent is not a judgmental one. The parent will love their child/children regardless of the mistakes the made. A good parent may even, when their older child makes an egregious error, take responsibility themselves, wondering where they, the parent, went wrong. Using this idea of parenting, it's possible, even likely, in my opinion, to see where god is not going to be the judgmental god people commonly perceive, but a more loving, accepting god. It also fits the analogy, in my opinion, much more accurate.

If your view of parenting is different, then I can see where your view of god could differ, especially if you're using this (parent/child), or a similar, analogy.

 

[Trons]

By your logic, I can say if I tell you that god answers prayers, and one day you pray and you find that your prayer is not answered, in my mind, you've proved the non-existence of god.

Oh wait, but then I could say, god does answer prayers, it's just that his answer is either yes, no or later. And it's later in your case. Just be patient. At least that's part of the "common representation of god" isn't it?

I find this specifically antagonizing. I'm talking about a quantifiable, and repeatable observation, and you're talking about something that can be attributed to a lot of different things. I submit, based on your statement about prayer being an observable, and repeatable, proof of god:

A) To many unrepeatable variables, no good control. As a theist, I could say that every time I pray one of your outcomes could be possible, but that would be based on faith, not on evidence.
B) Even if you heard me pray, and the prayer came true, there would be no way of proving, repeatably, that I didn't have prior knowledge of what I prayed for.
C) You are projecting the "common representation of god" to me. I would have thought, through previous posts, I am not here to represent god, and even if I was, it wouldn't be a common representation.

I will say that I recognize your assumptions based on previous experience and why you would feel that I may represent that view point. Personally, I would appreciate it if you treated me like an individual.

You are accusing me of Ad Hominem fallacy while I merely took your logic and applied it in a different scenario. Very typical of a theist. (Now what I just said in the last sentence could be Ad Hominem, but not what I explained in my last post. )

EDIT: Also did you read the edit I added to my last post?

I fail to see the Ad Hominem in my previous post responding to your comments. I had responded to your original post, before the edit, but I don't think that affects my response greatly. You had stated that you are aware of a "common representation" of god. I answered, I had thought, your reasons why prayer wouldn't qualify and a repeatable observation then stated that I understood that the comparison is based on your previous interactions with theists, then I asked you treat me as an individual.

I may not understand Ad Hominem properly and as such, am more then willing to learn. From my understanding, if I had stated that your example doesn't work because you are stupid, that would be ad hominem. If I state that your example doesn't work for a), b) and c), plus you are stupid, then it's not ad hominem, it's just an insult. Am I wrong in this understanding?

Maybe you didn't understand what I was saying to the god/santa analogy, and as such, will be more then happy to explain further. Santa, as defined, is an entity who brings presents to children. If a child observes, repeatably if you wish, that his parents are bringing the presents, then the child can conclude that santa doesn't exist, as previously defined. Does that mean that the parents can't redefine the entity previously known as santa and the the different definition would allow for the existence of santa. No, I thought I had previously mentioned that.

As an experiment, a child can share this observation of his parents bringing presents with his friends, his friends can then repeat the experiment (get up on Christmas eve) and observe the same results. This proves the non-existence of santa "as defined." I probably should have been clearer, but I truly thought that the "as defined" part was understood.

Prayer does not work in this situation because while it's easy for a theist to answer the question of prayer as you've stated (yes, no, or later) there is no quantifiable and repeatable observations that can be made. Does this prove the non-existence of god? no, but it also doesn't prove the existence of god either.

 

[lrkun]

I may not understand Ad Hominem properly and as such, am more then willing to learn. From my understanding, if I had stated that your example doesn't work because you are stupid, that would be ad hominem. If I state that your example doesn't work for a), b) and c), plus you are stupid, then it's not ad hominem, it's just an insult. Am I wrong in this understanding?

Ad hominem fallacy

An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the opponent advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy,[2] but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Both of your examples are ad hominem since it attempts to link stupid to a characteristic or belief of the opponent advocating the premise.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

Both of your examples are ad hominem since it attempts to link stupid to a characteristic or belief of the opponent advocating the premise.

Well the reason why I said Trons is accusing me of Ad Hominem Fallacy is because after making his explanations, he requests that I should treat him like an individual. By requesting as such, he implies that I am not treating him as an individual. Not treating someone as an individual* simply because you disagree with his views would be considered an ad hominem attack.
* by which I assume he means I'm treating him to be less than an individual, or in other words, not as capable of intelligence as I am

Now I fail to understand in what way I was not treating him as an individual. And in what way was the conversation leading to that statement an ad hominem attack? I do apologize to Trons if I actually did an ad hominem attack, but to the best of my knowledge, I was only criticizing the ideas put forth, not attacking the individual who put forth the ideas (but the individual felt otherwise). I had only taken his logic which he applies in one situation, and applied this logic in another situation. I fail to understand how this can be considered an ad hominem attack.

Maybe you didn't understand what I was saying to the god/santa analogy, and as such, will be more then happy to explain further. Santa, as defined, is an entity who brings presents to children. If a child observes, repeatably if you wish, that his parents are bringing the presents, then the child can conclude that santa doesn't exist, as previously defined. Does that mean that the parents can't redefine the entity previously known as santa and the the different definition would allow for the existence of santa. No, I thought I had previously mentioned that.

As an experiment, a child can share this observation of his parents bringing presents with his friends, his friends can then repeat the experiment (get up on Christmas eve) and observe the same results. This proves the non-existence of santa "as defined." I probably should have been clearer, but I truly thought that the "as defined" part was understood.

I do understand your opinions regarding the santa/god analogy, but I disagree with the reasoning that you arrive at. The observation that 'parents, not santa, are the ones who put gifts under the tree' does not support the conclusion that 'santa doesn't exist', any more than the observation that 'someone named John D. Kramer (randomly chosen name for illustration) has never met me' supports the conclusion that 'someone named John D. Kramer doesn't exist'. The possibility of his existence is still there, and the same goes for santa. A valid conclusion that you can derive from the observation is that, even if santa does exist, it is now clear that he does not put presents under the tree. This is a conclusion that is supported by the observation.

Prayer does not work in this situation because while it's easy for a theist to answer the question of prayer as you've stated (yes, no, or later) there is no quantifiable and repeatable observations that can be made. Does this prove the non-existence of god? no, but it also doesn't prove the existence of god either.

Rather than me trying to explain how prayer is quantifiable and repeatable, I think I'll lean forward and listen to your explanation on how it is not. I've linked the Wikipedia definitions there. To be honest, I'm not so sure about prayer's quantifiability and repeatability so I'd love to hear how you became sure of them.