NationStates

Yusseria wrote:

Geneviev wrote:If you want to be Christian then that's enough faith.

not really. there's far too much doubt in my mind as to whether or not God exists. i feel that i could never maintain such faith.

Doubts are part of being Christian.

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Those are theists yes.

I see a logical need for a Creator/prime mover/first cause. But other than that I can only profess what seems likely regarding the nature of the Creator. However, this is a matter of mere metaphysics; I do indeed profess the study of ethics and moral philosophy to be more important matters than “what is the nature of the Creator”.

Basically “what is Good” as contrasted by “what is God”, if you catch my drift.

Either everything must have a cause, in which case there can be no first cause, or some thing can be causeless, in which case there's no need for it to be a creator, or anything else that's reasonable to call "god".

Alvecia wrote:

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:
I mean, that’s possible. I just find it somewhat unlikely. Again, metaphysics is a “meh” to me, ethics is where it’s at.

Dunno, think it seems pretty logical to me. Why is causality necessary where causality doesn't necessarily exist i.e. pre-universe.

You make a valid point. Before the beginning of causality as we currently understand it, everything is (or rather isn’t), in layman’s terms, really heccing weird. I use “Creator” in a broad sense, for all we know, It isn’t (or wasn’t) even sentient.

I’m somewhat inclined toward a vaguely Spinozan conception of “God or Nature”; but I admit that it’s been a while since I’ve read my copy of Ethics, and my understanding may have become muddled in the meantime.

Salandriagado wrote:

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:
I see a logical need for a Creator/prime mover/first cause. But other than that I can only profess what seems likely regarding the nature of the Creator. However, this is a matter of mere metaphysics; I do indeed profess the study of ethics and moral philosophy to be more important matters than “what is the nature of the Creator”.

Basically “what is Good” as contrasted by “what is God”, if you catch my drift.

Either everything must have a cause, in which case there can be no first cause, or some thing can be causeless, in which case there's no need for it to be a creator, or anything else that's reasonable to call "god".

I don’t even like the term “God”, tbh. It seems to imply an anthropomorphic and personal deity that commands religious worship, and in English has connotations from both Classical and Abrahamic sources.

Aussandries wrote:buddy, are you an idiot?

Attack the argument, not the user. This is a *** warning for flaming ***. The next time it's a ban. Sort yourself out.

Australian rePublic wrote:Every person who lies about Hitler being a Christian totally and utterly 100% agrees with that meme. Never mind that there are millions who claim that hitler was a Christian, each and every single one of them 100% totally and utterly agrees with that meme. Don't lie and pretend that you don't 100% totally and utterly agree with that meme. Liar! Those who believe that meme is 100% true think that "good" Christians, such as MLK Jr. are in the lunatic fringe minority. I know it's true. I have full authority to speak on behalf of everyone who thinks that Hitler was a Christian. It's self-appointed authority, so it's 100% valid. Don't try to claim that I'm wrong, liar. Everyine knows you're lying, liar. Never mind the fact that historians don't agree on this mstter, you're obviously a liar. The fact that you legitimstely don't know that your a liar just proves the kind of liar that you are. Liar!

Emphasis mine.

I don't know or care what this paragraph was supposed to be or was supposed to accomplish, but you don't get to throw insults at the person who you're arguing with. *** This is a warning for flaming ***. Getting theatrically pissy at someone during a debate drags discourse down into the gutter. We don't like that.

Cheers,

Audio

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:

Alvecia wrote:*shrug* I don't

I mean, that’s possible. I just find it somewhat unlikely. Again, metaphysics is a “meh” to me, ethics is where it’s at.

And what do you base this judgement on?

Genivaria wrote:

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:
I mean, that’s possible. I just find it somewhat unlikely. Again, metaphysics is a “meh” to me, ethics is where it’s at.

And what do you base this judgement on?

Although as mentioned before, “reality” before causality as we understand it is (or isn’t, if you catch my drift) a heccing bizarre mind-screwy mess, I find the concept of “nothing” before (or not before, again, because of the whole causality mess) to be unlikely. Again, I find the traditional theistic conception of a vaguely anthropomorphic and personal Creator to be massively improbable, but I see the need for a “Creator” of some sort nonetheless, albeit one that I wouldn’t consider to be “God” in the traditional sense. Please forgive me if I seem rude, and please forgive me if I’m spewing an incomprehensible word salad.

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:

Genivaria wrote:And what do you base this judgement on?

Although as mentioned before, “reality” before causality as we understand it is (or isn’t, if you catch my drift) a heccing bizarre mind-screwy mess, I find the concept of “nothing” before (or not before, again, because of the whole causality mess) to be unlikely. Again, I find the traditional theistic conception of a vaguely anthropomorphic and personal Creator to be massively improbable, but I see the need for a “Creator” of some sort nonetheless, albeit one that I wouldn’t consider to be “God” in the traditional sense. Please forgive me if I seem rude, and please forgive me if I’m spewing an incomprehensible word salad.

You are most certainly not being rude. From what I can tell you don't believe in a god, since gods tend to mean a being that has a personality. You seem to believe that there is a reason the universe came into being. I do ask though, why do you believe that the universe came into being, rather then being eternal?

Neutraligon wrote:

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:
Although as mentioned before, “reality” before causality as we understand it is (or isn’t, if you catch my drift) a heccing bizarre mind-screwy mess, I find the concept of “nothing” before (or not before, again, because of the whole causality mess) to be unlikely. Again, I find the traditional theistic conception of a vaguely anthropomorphic and personal Creator to be massively improbable, but I see the need for a “Creator” of some sort nonetheless, albeit one that I wouldn’t consider to be “God” in the traditional sense. Please forgive me if I seem rude, and please forgive me if I’m spewing an incomprehensible word salad.

You are most certainly not being rude. From what I can tell you don't believe in a god, since gods tend to mean a being that has a personality. You seem to believe that there is a reason the universe came into being. I do ask though, why do you believe that the universe came into being, rather then being eternal?

We need a better term, since “God” has too many connotations in English, both of the gods of classical mythology and of the Abrahamic God. Hence why I used the more neutral term “Creator”. The alternative perspective is the Spinozan one, which I’m rather fond of, of a radically non-anthropomorphic and radically impersonal pantheistic God. Deus sive Natura, perhaps?

Salandriagado wrote:

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:
I see a logical need for a Creator/prime mover/first cause. But other than that I can only profess what seems likely regarding the nature of the Creator. However, this is a matter of mere metaphysics; I do indeed profess the study of ethics and moral philosophy to be more important matters than “what is the nature of the Creator”.

Basically “what is Good” as contrasted by “what is God”, if you catch my drift.

Either everything must have a cause, in which case there can be no first cause, or some thing can be causeless, in which case there's no need for it to be a creator, or anything else that's reasonable to call "god".

Or alternatively, there are infinite regressions.

Australian rePublic wrote:

Dogmeat wrote:The irony is that he totally gets the Bible is difficult... when he wants to. Any time you bring up a passage that even hints at something he doesn't like "that's a mistranslation."

No I said that the mistranslated parts are irrelevant details. For example, Noah's flood might not have actually lasted 40 days, but that's irrelevant to the main story, which is love. I feel like I've discussed this before. If not, I'd be happy to make a post about it

God mind-controlling Pharaoh is not an irrelevant detail.

Dogmeat wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:No I said that the mistranslated parts are irrelevant details. For example, Noah's flood might not have actually lasted 40 days, but that's irrelevant to the main story, which is love. I feel like I've discussed this before. If not, I'd be happy to make a post about it

God mind-controlling Pharaoh is not an irrelevant detail.

... I must have skipped that part.

So, you're saying, God made the Pharaoh say no?

Free Arabian Nation wrote:

Dogmeat wrote:God mind-controlling Pharaoh is not an irrelevant detail.

... I must have skipped that part.

So, you're saying, God made the Pharaoh say no?

Exodus 4:21 - "The Lord said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go."

Free Arabian Nation wrote:

Dogmeat wrote:God mind-controlling Pharaoh is not an irrelevant detail.

... I must have skipped that part.

So, you're saying, God made the Pharaoh say no?

Yes that's a line in Exodus....
EDIT: As Dogmeat just showed.

Dogmeat wrote:

Free Arabian Nation wrote:... I must have skipped that part.

So, you're saying, God made the Pharaoh say no?

Exodus 4:21 - "The Lord said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go."

First of all, let us look at the context.

God obviously is going to show His divine power and make the gods of Egypt look like pieces of feces. To do that, He will strike Egypt with the Ten Plagues, each of which overpowers the Egyptian gods and shows their worthlessness. To this end, He hardened Pharaoh’s heart, so that he will refuse to let Israel go until the last plague, where he finally relents after his firstborn son (and thus the crown princes) died.

In addition, if you are in Pharaoh’s position, you would not want to be the one that dishonours your dynasty by letting an entire people that have been your slaves for 400 years go free, even if you saw your Hebrew half-brother’s staff turn to a snake to eat the snakes of your magicians. Letting the Hebrews go would mean that you are a weak Pharoah's, and you wouldn’t want that.

Overall, the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart can be attributed to two things: God wanting to show His power (thus making the Egyptian pantheon look worthless), and the fact that Pharaoh being a Pharoah would rather not dishonour himself and his dynasty by letting the workforce of the kingdom go.

Salandriagado wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:So where dows theology fit into that catagory (i.e. studying your own faith). Theologians are HUGHLY educated, and thinking about their faith is literary their job description

Theology is just bad philosophy, and consists entirely of assuming that God exists, and ignoring all evidence to the contrary for ever.

God’s existence can neither be proven nor can it disproven. It takes a leap of faith to assume either. In one hand, you assume that the lack of physical evidence is evidence by itself, but then, you are using science (which seeks answers for the physical) to attempt to know what is metaphysical, which is impossible, since if God exists, He would not limited by the laws of science as He is an onmiscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent metaphysical being.

Korhal IVV wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
Theology is just bad philosophy, and consists entirely of assuming that God exists, and ignoring all evidence to the contrary for ever.

God’s existence can neither be proven nor can it disproven. It takes a leap of faith to assume either. In one hand, you assume that the lack of physical evidence is evidence by itself, but then, you are using science (which seeks answers for the physical) to attempt to know what is metaphysical, which is impossible, since if God exists, He would not limited by the laws of science as He is an onmiscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent metaphysical being.

Omniscient and omnipresent, I can accept. But I take issue with the notion of divine omnibenevolence. A vaguely Spinozan conception of a Deus sive Natura would, to put things simply, be indifferent to human affairs.

Korhal IVV wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
Theology is just bad philosophy, and consists entirely of assuming that God exists, and ignoring all evidence to the contrary for ever.

God’s existence can neither be proven nor can it disproven. It takes a leap of faith to assume either. In one hand, you assume that the lack of physical evidence is evidence by itself, but then, you are using science (which seeks answers for the physical) to attempt to know what is metaphysical, which is impossible, since if God exists, He would not limited by the laws of science as He is an onmiscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent metaphysical being.

I get your point, but at the same time, I'm reading this as "there's no evidence that God exists because there can't be evidence that He does, so evidence isn't required". That is not in any way how proof works. You can't prove something by saying that we don't know that it's not the case.
To put it succinctly: If an idea has no proof behind it, you do not need proof to reject that idea.

Im in a weird limbo
I am a heathen believing in many Gods but something is drawing me towards the Orthodox Church and I don't want to do as I believe in Odin and Thor but something pulls me towards the Church

Chricoma wrote:Im in a weird limbo
I am a heathen believing in many Gods but something is drawing me towards the Orthodox Church and I don't want to do as I believe in Odin and Thor but something pulls me towards the Church

Are you being pulled by the urge to raid and pillage their shiny Churches?
They do have lovely internal artwork though, I'll say that much.

Genivaria wrote:

Chricoma wrote:Im in a weird limbo
I am a heathen believing in many Gods but something is drawing me towards the Orthodox Church and I don't want to do as I believe in Odin and Thor but something pulls me towards the Church

Are you being pulled by the urge to raid and pillage their shiny Churches?
They do have lovely internal artwork though, I'll say that much.

It looks even more lovely when it's on fire.

Kowani wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
Either everything must have a cause, in which case there can be no first cause, or some thing can be causeless, in which case there's no need for it to be a creator, or anything else that's reasonable to call "god".

Or alternatively, there are infinite regressions.

That falls into my first category.

Korhal IVV wrote:

Dogmeat wrote:Exodus 4:21 - "The Lord said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go."

First of all, let us look at the context.

God obviously is going to show His divine power and make the gods of Egypt look like pieces of feces. To do that, He will strike Egypt with the Ten Plagues, each of which overpowers the Egyptian gods and shows their worthlessness. To this end, He hardened Pharaoh’s heart, so that he will refuse to let Israel go until the last plague, where he finally relents after his firstborn son (and thus the crown princes) died.

In addition, if you are in Pharaoh’s position, you would not want to be the one that dishonours your dynasty by letting an entire people that have been your slaves for 400 years go free, even if you saw your Hebrew half-brother’s staff turn to a snake to eat the snakes of your magicians. Letting the Hebrews go would mean that you are a weak Pharoah's, and you wouldn’t want that.

Overall, the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart can be attributed to two things: God wanting to show His power (thus making the Egyptian pantheon look worthless), and the fact that Pharaoh being a Pharoah would rather not dishonour himself and his dynasty by letting the workforce of the kingdom go.

Are we still pretending that Exodus is anything other than entirely fictional?

Korhal IVV wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
Theology is just bad philosophy, and consists entirely of assuming that God exists, and ignoring all evidence to the contrary for ever.

God’s existence can neither be proven nor can it disproven. It takes a leap of faith to assume either. In one hand, you assume that the lack of physical evidence is evidence by itself, but then, you are using science (which seeks answers for the physical) to attempt to know what is metaphysical, which is impossible, since if God exists, He would not limited by the laws of science as He is an onmiscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent metaphysical being.

Luckily you are not required to disprove things to not believe in them.