The statement that God made life and laws, and as such can kill and be immoral

[Safe-Keeper]

I hear the twofold argument that since God allegedly created all life, it's his right to kill whenever He wants to, and that since He created all morals and emotions, it's also OK for Him to do absolutely whatever He wants. And of course I can't make life myself, because apparently I never made it at all, since I'm a descendant from Adam and Eve, whom God made. Likewise, He invented morality, so no human ever made a law in his life.
Can somebody please explain how on Earth a rational person can possibly buy into this:confused:? To me, and, I imagine, to most people, it sounds completely absurd.

ETA: Wait... if I can't make a baby because I myself was made by God (or at least Adam and Eve were) and as such just used the powers I had received from God... doesn't that mean God didn't make us either, but merely used the powers given him?

[JoeEllison]

I hear the twofold argument that since God allegedly created all life, it's his right to kill whenever He wants to, and that since He created all morals and emotions, it's also OK for Him to do absolutely whatever He wants. And of course I can't make , because apparently I never made it at all, since I'm a descendant from Adam and Eve, whom God made. Likewise, He invented morality, so no human ever made a law in his life.

Can somebody please explain how on Earth a rational person can possibly buy into this:confused:? To me, and, I imagine, to most people, it sounds completely absurd.

Well, a rational person wouldn't invest so much emotional energy in believing in a fictional character, so there's the root of the problem!:D

Beyond that, there is a distinct thread of amoral thinking that runs through Christianity. It is kind of a "just following orders" mindset that allows some people to justify any atrocity.

[Tearout]

.... Can somebody please explain how on Earth a rational person can possibly buy into this...

I'm not so sure that rational thought has anything to do with it.

Everyone on the planet is a product / victim of whatever background they come from. It seems to me that, to some degree, our thought processes are often tainted by strong social and religious engineering. It's what makes us acceptable within whatever group we belong.

I've managed, I think successfuly, to shed theistic (and other paranormal) beliefs from my life, but I know there is a lingering influence. So much of our lives is controlled and ritualized, that it makes me wonder if it's possible for anyone to experience pure objective rational thought.

Objectivity is a subjective thing. So is rational thinking.

[T'ai Chi]

I hear the twofold argument that since God allegedly created all life, it's his right to kill whenever He wants to, and that since He created all morals and emotions, it's also OK for Him to do absolutely whatever He wants. And of course I can't make life myself, because apparently I never made it at all, since I'm a descendant from Adam and Eve, whom God made. Likewise, He invented morality, so no human ever made a law in his life.
Can somebody please explain how on Earth a rational person can possibly buy into this:confused:? To me, and, I imagine, to most people, it sounds completely absurd.

ETA: Wait... if I can't make a baby because I myself was made by God (or at least Adam and Eve were) and as such just used the powers I had received from God... doesn't that mean God didn't make us either, but merely used the powers given him?

Ok, so you don't believe in god(s). Therefore are you claiming evolution is immoral, or what?

[cnorman18]

One does not have to read far in Genesis to find that God is held to a standard of morality. In Genesis 18, Abraham bargains--one might even say argues--with God over the fate of Sodom, and says to Him in v. 25, "Far be it from You to do such a thing, to bring death upon the innocent as well as the guilty, so that innocent and guilty fare alike. Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?"

There are many passages in the Torah that are difficult or unclear, or even that are clearly wrong. Such passages must be examined in the light of Jewish tradition and teachings, since in Judaism the ultimate moral authority is not in any Book or even in God Himself, but in the community. This passage is not one of them.

God is not independent of morality, whether He made it or not. The Jewish view is that the most fundamental moral laws were not instituted by God, but only recognized by Him; no one contends that murder would be perfectly OK if God hadn't forbidden it.

I frankly do not know if there is a religion that teaches the nonsense in the OP, or not. I have been a Christian minister, and am now a Jew, and I've never seen it taught.

Was this based on anything real, or is this another case of making up something about a nonexistent religion in order to ridicule it?

[Safe-Keeper]

Ok, so you don't believe in god(s). Therefore are you claiming evolution is immoral, or what?No, I'm talking about God.

Was this based on anything real, or is this another case of making up something about a nonexistent religion in order to ridicule it?It's real, but of course a fringe belief. Last time I saw it was in a post on FSTDT. plumjam, here on the forum, has pushed it, too.

[cnorman18]

It's real, but of course a fringe belief. Last time I saw it was in a post on FSTDT. plumjam, here on the forum, has pushed it, too.

One of the primary tenets of Judaism is, "Just because some bozo tells you that God said something stupid, you don't have to believe him--even if he can find it in the Torah."

What's FSTDT?

[Mashuna]

One of the primary tenets of Judaism is, "Just because some bozo tells you that God said something stupid, you don't have to believe him--even if he can find it in the Torah."

What's FSTDT?

It's a website, Fundies Say the Darndest Things (http://www.fstdt.com/). If you're looking for examples of some bozo telling you that God said something stupid, it's a prime resource.

[thaiboxerken]

Ok, so you don't believe in god(s). Therefore are you claiming evolution is immoral, or what?

What line of reason did you use to come up with this gem of a conclusion?

:rolleyes:

[kerikiwi]

Ok, so you don't believe in god(s). Therefore are you claiming evolution is immoral, or what?

No logic here at all.
Evolution is neither moral nor immoral. It is amoral.

[cnorman18]

I've said it before; Jews have never believed that the Creation story in Genesis was EVER intended to be taken as literal history.

And it's OUR book, dammit.

[schlitt]

IF god were to exist in the way he is described in most monotheistic faith, then this type of logic does follow to a certain extent. The issue is whether you believe the description of god is accurate or not, and most importantly if you believe in a god at all.

Here is an example that I think illustrates this to some extent;

Someone has an ant farm.
The ants which exist within the ant farm have absolutely no comprehension of the world beyond their little farm. The ants are not capable of comprehending the fact that they are held as pets inside a glass enclosure.
Now let’s say part of the soil becomes infected with something that is going to kill the ants in a matter of days once it spreads. The owner decides to take that soil out, and replace it with fresh soil. In the infected soil there are a few ants who reside there, and they will have to be thrown out with the soil. Now this is a terrible situation for those ants, because they are going to die. For those ants themselves, and the rest of the ants, will they be able to comprehend the situation, and why those ants were killed? No, the whole situation is so far beyond their capability of thought, none of the human rational that was used in the situation could ever be conceived of by the ants.

In the same respect, if you are to accept god as the being who created everything and knows everything, then you accept you are not capable of comprehending what he does, just like the ants cannot possibly comprehend the rational of their owner.

However, if there is a god, and it is beyond our comprehension, this does not necessarily mean that god has our best interests at heart.
It is possible that if there were a god, it could be a horrible creature. So therefore it comes down to an acceptance of the description in scripture, and a decision to believe that he is omni-benevolent.

Once you accept on faith that God is good, then it follows logically that everything he does is good, and we are simply not capable of understanding why he does everything he does.

So once again it comes down to blind acceptance....faith.

[TuftedPuffin]

I hear the twofold argument that since God allegedly created all life, it's his right to kill whenever He wants to, and that since He created all morals and emotions, it's also OK for Him to do absolutely whatever He wants. And of course I can't make life myself, because apparently I never made it at all, since I'm a descendant from Adam and Eve, whom God made. Likewise, He invented morality, so no human ever made a law in his life.
Can somebody please explain how on Earth a rational person can possibly buy into this:confused:? To me, and, I imagine, to most people, it sounds completely absurd.

ETA: Wait... if I can't make a baby because I myself was made by God (or at least Adam and Eve were) and as such just used the powers I had received from God... doesn't that mean God didn't make us either, but merely used the powers given him?

First, the making morals and life issue: with life, I think the idea is making it out of non-life, which doesn't apply to birth. There are more issues with this, of course, which I will get to in a bit. Your second objection is simpler: people make laws, but people can't change what is moral and immoral, they can only change what they think is moral or immoral, if such things are absolute concepts.

Now the "I created you, therefore I can destroy you" line is somewhat absurd anyway because it would seem to imply that, via birth or designer babies or whatever, there would be a way for a human being to create a human being and be perfectly justified in killing them, which is something few Christians would accept, except for the few who're crazy enough to believe that fathers are allowed to kill their daughters and such (which frankly seems more like a Muslim thing).

The morality issue is more complicated. There are two logical schools of thought on the matter, and they automatically contradict, despite the efforts of religionists to hold both. The first is that God is indeed all-powerful. In this case, God can decide what is moral and what is immoral, and can hence make any action moral, and thus do anything. Thus, praying to him is rather pointless, as there's no reason for him to not decide that prayers give the prayer an infinite sum of carrots.
The other possibility is to think of God as depicted in whatever religion is being discussed, and as such as not all-powerful. Despite this being the only way most religions can work, few religions accept that their God is not the most powerful thing in the universe.

[T'ai Chi]

OK so you're saying evolution is inherently immoral then.

[Cosmo]

No, T'ai Chi.

Evolution, like erosion and fossilization, is a purely natural process. There is no guiding intelligence involved, no directed process, and no meaning other than that which we assign to it. It is therefore wholly meaningless - and, furthermore, misleading - to assign the human characteristics of 'moral' or 'immoral' (or characteristics like short, tall, Japanese, and so on) to evolution.

[thaiboxerken]

OK so you're saying evolution is inherently immoral then.

Yes, evolution is as immoral as chemistry or algebra.

[Apology]

Yes, evolution is as immoral as chemistry or algebra.

Evolution is clearly as self-centered and evil as gravity.:D

[thaiboxerken]

Yea, but gravity doesn't have nearly the same temper or be as cold as thermodynamics.

[Safe-Keeper]

Yes, evolution is as immoral as chemistry or algebra. Those poor variables. What did they do wrong to get subtracted and divided in this manner?!

[Beerina]

No, T'ai Chi.

Evolution, like erosion and fossilization, is a purely natural process. There is no guiding intelligence involved, no directed process, and no meaning other than that which we assign to it. It is therefore wholly meaningless - and, furthermore, misleading - to assign the human characteristics of 'moral' or 'immoral' (or characteristics like short, tall, Japanese, and so on) to evolution.

Which isn't to say, of course, that evolution can't be a vicious process leading to lots of pain for the unfortunate organisms under it's control. But that's no more unethical or immoral than a rock from an earthquake rolling downhill that happens to crush the legs of a deer.

It's an unfortunate, but perfectly natural event.

[cnorman18]

Which isn't to say, of course, that evolution can't be a vicious process leading to lots of pain for the unfortunate organisms under it's control. But that's no more unethical or immoral than a rock from an earthquake rolling downhill that happens to crush the legs of a deer.

It's an unfortunate, but perfectly natural event.

Or, as Forrest Gump had it--

(Wait, let me clean this up a little. Ah, there we go...)

"Feces Occurs."

[Roboramma]

Was this based on anything real, or is this another case of making up something about a nonexistent religion in order to ridicule it?

Well, there are plenty of people who suggest that atheists are inherently immoral because without a god to give us morality there's no longer any reason to hold to moral principles. I had a friend who used to argue with me about religion (he always started these discussions, but I enjoyed them) and was usually convinced by my arguments. He had a real crisis because of this because he thought it meant everything was meaningless. I asked him why the world, morality, his family, etc. would have meaning with a god if it had no meaning without one, but that didn't get through to him.

Anyway, there are people who make that argument. And that argument clearly at least implies that morality comes from god, rather than being something that exists beyond god. If that's the case morality is just whatever god says it is. And in that case god can do whatever he wants, breaking his own rules, and still be considered moral.

I think it's ridiculous, but so it goes. I don't know how many people genuinely feel that way.

I know that when I was younger I asked myself questions about morality - still do - and one of them was about exactly this - "Is good something that exists outside of god or just what god decides should be done?". It took me a long time to answer that question. These days the question I have is, "Is there such a thing as 'good' independant of my feelings about morality?" And I go back and forth on that one a lot.

[JetLeg]

The first is that God is indeed all-powerful. In this case, God can decide what is moral and what is immoral, and can hence make any action moral, and thus do anything.

I think it is a good argument. If god is all-powerful, then he has the power to do things that would be immoral if we had done it, but to be moral while doing them,

[Roboramma]

I think it is a good argument. If god is all-powerful, then he has the power to do things that would be immoral if we had done it, but to be moral while doing them,
That's a reducio ad absurdum for the concept of an all powerful being.

It's like saying "If God were all powerful, he'd have the power to make a largest prime number."
In other words, an all-powerful god is logically impossible as it leads to a paradox.

I can see two ways around this - A) we imagine that there is such a thing as an all powerful god that could do this, but he just never does because this would break the universe. I don't know if this one is valid, but I can see that it might be. Similarly I think time travel is likely impossible because it leads to paradoxes, but I can accept that it may be possible, but simply has never (and thus will never) been done. But again, I don't know how valid this escape route is.

B) We ammend the meaning of "all-powerful" to mean capable of doing anything within the bounds of logic.
If god is all-powerful in that sense, it might still be possible to save the concept.

[JetLeg]

That's a reducio ad absurdum for the concept of an all powerful being.


I can indeed say that an all-powerful being can function outside the limits of logic, and indeed can make a number that is both prime and can be divided by 7,4,3 at the same time. Why is reducio ad absurdum? It might be a part of someone's belief?

[Cosmo]

I can indeed say that an all-powerful being can function outside the limits of logic, and indeed can make a number that is both prime and can be divided by 7,4,3 at the same time. Why is reducio ad absurdum?

Because making a prime number that is divisible by 7, 4, and 3 is illogical. It violates the definition of 'prime'. It's contradictory, absurd, and in all other ways impossible.

It might be a part of someone's belief?

So?

[JetLeg]

Because making a prime number that is divisible by 7, 4, and 3 is illogical. It violates the definition of 'prime'. It's contradictory, absurd, and in all other ways impossible.




Of course it is. That is why the god, oops, being that I am talking about is all-powerful, because he has the power to make contradictions.

[Cosmo]

Of course it is. That is why the god, oops, being that I am talking about is all-powerful, because he has the power to make contradictions.

Objects that are inherently contradictory and/or logically impossible tend not to exist.

[JetLeg]

This is precisely why he is all-powerful, because he is that powerful that he can make contradictions.

[Mashuna]

This is precisely why he is all-powerful, because he is that powerful that he can make contradictions.

This (I think), is a similar view to Descartes, who held that God can make square circles and 2+2=5. In this view, omnipotence means God can do anything, even things which are logically impossible.

[juniper_ann]

Now the "I created you, therefore I can destroy you" line is somewhat absurd anyway because it would seem to imply that, via birth or designer babies or whatever, there would be a way for a human being to create a human being and be perfectly justified in killing them, which is something few Christians would accept, except for the few who're crazy enough to believe that fathers are allowed to kill their daughters and such (which frankly seems more like a Muslim thing).


The emphasized part may be true in modern times, perhaps, but not always. In Renaissance Italy daughters and wives were killed (with tacit community assent) for blemishing the family honor. Christianity is not necessarily better, just less powerful--it has been losing power in the west since the fragmentation of the Protestant Reformation.

And then there's Deuteronomy (21: 18-21):

When a man has a rebellious and disobedient son, who doesn’t listen to the voice of his father and the voice of his mother and that, when they chasten him, he does not listen to them - his father and mother will lay hold of him and take him to the elders of the city at the gate of his place. And they say to the elders of the city - this son of ours is rebellious and disobedient and will not listen to our voices, he is a glutton and a drunkard. And all the people of his city will stone him until he dies, so that you shall put the evil away from among you and all Israel shall hear and be afraid.

[Roboramma]

I can indeed say that an all-powerful being can function outside the limits of logic, and indeed can make a number that is both prime and can be divided by 7,4,3 at the same time. Why is reducio ad absurdum? It might be a part of someone's belief?
You can indeed say it, but I can show that it leads to a contradiction.
The contradiction being that, for instance, it implies the existence of a number which is both prime and divisible by 7.

Because it leads to a contradiction - something that is simply impossible, we know that it isn't true. And we know this regardless of whether or not someone is capable of believing it.

[thaiboxerken]

Contradictions don't matter to JetLeg, you have to consider that logic doesn't play any role in his belliefs, not consistently anyway. His belief in his god has nothing to do with logic and logical arguments can't touch his beliefs because he's in his own world, Bizarro world.

[JetLeg]

You can indeed say it, but I can show that it leads to a contradiction.
The contradiction being that, for instance, it implies the existence of a number which is both prime and divisible by 7.



Actually, 7 is both prime and divisible by 7.

But to the matter, it does not neccessarily imply the existance of such a number. An omnipotent being is not a being that has to make a number that is both prime, and divisible by 3,4,6, but a being that can do it.

[Roboramma]

Actually, 7 is both prime and divisible by 7. :P good point.

But to the matter, it does not neccessarily imply the existance of such a number. An omnipotent being is not a being that has to make a number that is both prime, and divisible by 3,4,6, but a being that can do it. Which is why I said in my previous post that I might accept that he can but simply never does. I'm not sure whether or not this gets you out of trouble, but I can see that it might. Greater minds than mine will have to address that. Or I might just need some sleep.

[cnorman18]

If there could be a number that is both prime and composite, then those words have no meaning. If they do have meaning, there can be no such number.

It may be that language is restricted in how closely it may correspond to reality, or it may be that reality has restrictions of its own; but either way, even God cannot make sense out of nonsense.

[JetLeg]

even God cannot make sense out of nonsense.

Why?:confused:

[cnorman18]

Why?:confused:

Are you serious?

Do you really believe that God can, in the classic example, make a stone so big He cannot lift it? That is not materially different from a number that is both prime and composite. The concept is self-contradictory.

Words have meanings. If you admit the possibility that words with no possible meaning could be reflected in reality, then there is either no meaning to language and we might as well give up on communicating on this forum and go back to grunts and gestures--or there is nothing that we can call 'reality' to signify with our words, and we live in a meaningless, indefinable and incomprehensible chaos.

These insanities might be possible for the mad Old Gods in H. P. Lovecraft's stories, but not for the God of the Bible. He presumably had some respect for the meanings of words, or He would not have used any.

[thaiboxerken]

JetLeg's belief in god has no limits set by any set of logic at all. Thus, his god can make square circles and prime numbers that are composite. Contradiction doesn't matter. Logic doesn't matter. Evidence doesn't matter.

[JetLeg]

JetLeg's belief in god has no limits set by any set of logic at all. Thus, his god can make square circles and prime numbers that are composite. Contradiction doesn't matter. Logic doesn't matter. Evidence doesn't matter.

If god created logic, then perhaps he can twist the rules of it, if he wants to. Does that make sense?

[cnorman18]

If god created logic, then perhaps he can twist the rules of it, if he wants to. Does that make sense?

No.

If God wishes to interfere with the natural order and part the sea or whatever, that's one thing; but the rules of logic are another matter entirely. They are inherent in existence itself. If God made them, that's the way He did it, and like the moral law, they're binding even on God Himself.

In the Jewish view, human reason--rational, conscious thought--is to be trusted as much as, or even more than, the Bible. Indeed, without it, the Bible is just scratches and blots of ink on paper or parchment.

Human reason is, in its own way, sacred. When the Bible speaks of humans being made "in the image of God," that is what it must mean: God's capacity for rational, conscious thought. What else could it mean? God has no form.

Reason and revelation cannot be in conflict, because reason is part of revelation--the most important part. God gave us brains to use, and He made the universe to make sense. If your mind comes to understand something that is in conflict with the Bible, your understanding of the Bible needs to be revised. That has been the Jewish view from the beginning, and as I keep saying, it's our Book.

(When I speak of the Bible, of course, I mean what Christians call the "Old Testament." The "New Testament" is irrelevant to Jews.)

[JetLeg]

No.

If God wishes to interfere with the natural order and part the sea or whatever, that's one thing; but the rules of logic are another matter entirely. They are inherent in existence itself. If God made them, that's the way He did it, and like the moral law, they're binding even on God Himself.

Ok, but why? Why is it impossible for the creator of logic to break it?



In the Jewish view, human reason--rational, conscious thought--is to be trusted as much as, or even more than, the Bible. Indeed, without it, the Bible is just scratches and blots of ink on paper or parchment.
Human reason is, in its own way, sacred.

Okay, but that is a theological assumption. Do you a way to justify it?

[cnorman18]

Ok, but why? Why is it impossible for the creator of logic to break it?

Answer your own question by answering the one I asked: Do you think God can make a stone so big He cannot lift it? If not, why not?

Okay, but that is a theological assumption. Do you a way to justify it?

Sure, and I already have. Reason is one of God's attributes, and is therefore sacred and authoritative. Plus, the fact that He gave us His word in writing proves that He intends us to use it. If reason has no authority, how do we make sense of anything?

If you want something more explicit from the Bible, we are told in Exodus and in Deuteronomy to establish courts and to follow rational rules for evidence and testimony, and to rule according to the majority. This applies to civil, criminal and religious matters, and the rulings are considered as binding as if they came from God Himself. Ergo, human reason is authoritative, Q.E.D.

[JetLeg]

Answer your own question by answering the one I asked: Do you think God can make a stone so big He cannot lift it? If not, why not?



Yes, I think he can. If you ask how - we cannot understand how he can. Why can he? Because he is te creator of logic.

Sure, and I already have. Reason is one of God's attributes, and is therefore sacred and authoritative. Plus, the fact that He gave us His word in writing proves that He intends us to use it. If reason has no authority, how do we make sense of anything?

So what? He created us in his own image, and gave us reason and faith. So he intends us to use both.

Besides, how do you know that reason is one of his attributes? Because we are created in his own image? Well, we are capable of mistakes in reason. Does it mean that he is also capable of mistakes in reason, and therefore they are sacred???


If you want something more explicit from the Bible, we are told in Exodus and in Deuteronomy to establish courts and to follow rational rules for evidence and testimony, and to rule according to the majority. This applies to civil, criminal and religious matters, and the rulings are considered as binding as if they came from God Himself. Ergo, human reason is authoritative, Q.E.D.

Well, I can find other statements. For example a person who doesn't believe in god is called a fool in the psalms. It is irrational to call a person who has good reasons for not believing a god - a fool. Therefore, we should not value reason.

[Jekyll]

I can indeed say that an all-powerful being can function outside the limits of logic, and indeed can make a number that is both prime and can be divided by 7,4,3 at the same time. Why is reducio ad absurdum? It might be a part of someone's belief?

Let's break this example down for you.
let p be this number you talk of.
As it is divisible by 4 it is greater than 3.
As it is greater than 3 and prime, when divided by 3 there will be a remainder r of either 1 or 2.
But p is divisible by 3 so r=0.
Hence:
0=r=1 or 2
if r = 2 divide the whole equation by 2, else don't.

0 = 1
Add 1 to both sides
0+ 1= 1+1
1=2

Now the pope and I are 2 people so the pope and I are 1 person.

So if your prime number exists, I am the pope.

Do you see a problem with this?

(Apologies to Bertram Russell who I stole the argument from.)

[cnorman18]

Yes, I think he can. If you ask how - we cannot understand how he can. Why can he? Because he is te creator of logic.

Sorry, Jetleg. That is incoherent nonsense, not wisdom. You can't participate in a discussion that is based on logic and then throw it out the window when it's not convenient to your argument.

Let me help you out a little.

If there could be a stone so big that God could not lift it, then God could not do everything. But if God cannot make such a stone, the He can't do everything in that case, either. Of course you saw that double bind, and chose to abandon ship with "Well, He can, too!" even though that assertion is, quite literally, meaningless. If one allows self-contradictory statements, one has negated the worth of language and the value of reason entirely.

The answer to the puzzle is not that God could do it anyway, no matter (stamp foot) WHAT; it is that he WILL NOT do it and thus violate His own laws of logic, which are simply the laws of reality.

Let me ask you this; Can God condemn the wholly innocent to Hell?

Beware: If you say "Yes", you make God a liar, because He has said that will not and cannot happen. Do you not see where this leads?

Even if you consider God to be wholly transcendent of any category, including logic (which I don't, but never mind), He will not violate Himself.

By creating a world that makes sense, and by giving us the power to understand it, God has given His word to us that our senses and reason can be trusted. By allowing us to construct a logical and language-based understanding of the world, He has given us authority and guaranteed that our understanding and logic can be trusted.

Want a Bible reference again? Adam was given authority to name the animals, and God ratified that authority: "...and whatever the man called each living creature, that would be its name." (Gen. 2:19) That is pretty clear; man can use his reason independently, and it means something when he does.

A God who can violate His own nature and rule by random, arbitrary fiat without regard to the laws on reason, logic and morality that He has made is theoretically possible; but that is not any God that I believe in, and neither do you.

So what? He created us in his own image, and gave us reason and faith. So he intends us to use both.

Where do you get the idea that God gave us faith? If that were true, everyone would have it. Besides, the Christian
Bible says that we have to work out our faith for ourselves; Paul said that, but I no longer own a Christian Bible, so I can't look it up. I have preached from that text, though, so I know it's there.

In any case, the primary tool God gave us is reason. Without it, faith has no content. We cannot even comprehend the word "faith" without it, or answer the rather basic question, "faith in what?"

Besides, how do you know that reason is one of his attributes?

Are you advocating belief in a God that is an impersonal Cosmic Force, or merely a God who is demented? If you posit an unreasoning God, those are your choices.

Because we are created in his own image? Well, we are capable of mistakes in reason. Does it mean that he is also capable of mistakes in reason, and therefore they are sacred???

"In His image" does not mean "identical in degree." Your picture on your driver's license is "in your image", but it's a bit smaller. We have been given the gift of creativity, too, which is also one of His attributes and part of being made "in His image"; but when we say, "Let there be light," nothing happens unless we flip a switch. Our creativity is a bit more limit
ed than God's, and so is our reason.

Well, I can find other statements. For example a person who doesn't believe in god is called a fool in the psalms. It is irrational to call a person who has good reasons for not believing a god - a fool.

That's a bit convoluted. The assertion that only fools do not believe in God may be arguably incorrect, but it is not "irrational". That would only be true if the statement made no sense, as in "The gzblplt hath said in his poyiuyt, "there is no Kribble."

Therefore, we should not value reason.

Not at all? What an extraordinary statement. Forget about reading and understanding the Bible, then. As I said, faith without reason has no content; it means, literally, nothing--because "meaning" depends on reason.

Forget about functioning as a human being. Forget about using language, here or anywhere else; use grunts and gestures. You may not even use the word "God" because the use of that word requires some rationality and reason.

Honestly, Jetleg, you seem interested in theology; why don't you read some? You really don't have to work all this out on your own. Others have done a lot of work before you, beginning with St. Paul, but not ending there. You would be better equipped to defend the Christian faith if you were more familiar with the structures of thought that are an integral part of it.

[thaiboxerken]

If god created logic, then perhaps he can twist the rules of it, if he wants to. Does that make sense?

Why do you even try to make sense when you've admitted that sense plays no part in your beliefs?

[Safe-Keeper]

If god created logic, then perhaps he can twist the rules of it, if he wants to. Does that make sense? Only if you don't understand what logic is.

[JetLeg]

Only if you don't understand what logic is.

Whatever it is, if god exists, and he created it, he can twist the rules of it.

[thaiboxerken]

Whatever it is, if god exists, and he created it, he can twist the rules of it.

This is pretty much the same as saying "I believe my god exists and nothing, nothing at all, will ever change my mind."

You've just proven yourself to be an arrogant person who doesn't care about logic, reason, evidence or rational thought. You only care to convince people your god exists for the soul reason of "I know he exists."

[JetLeg]

I am just saying that if one believes that god created everything, he has the power to change whatever he created.

[thaiboxerken]

I am just saying that if one believes that god created everything, he has the power to change whatever he created.

That makes no sense at all, but you don't care about making sense anyway.

I just created a fart, does that give me the power to make the fart smell like roses?

[JetLeg]

Sorry, if an omnipotent being creates something, he has the power to change whatever he created.

[JetLeg]

That makes no sense at all, but you don't care about making sense anyway.

I just created a fart, does that give me the power to make the fart smell like roses?

Sorry, if an omnipotent being created something he has the power to change whatever he created.

[Cosmo]

Sorry, if an omnipotent being created something he has the power to change whatever he created.

Argument ad fingers-in-ears-and-shouting-na-na-na!

[JetLeg]

Argument ad fingers-in-ears-and-shouting-na-na-na!

No.

I added omnipotent which I did not write explicitly in the previous post.

Not every being that created something has the power to change it, only omnipotent being.

[thaiboxerken]

Sorry, if an omnipotent being created something he has the power to change whatever he created.

So now you've qualified it with omnipotent. It now makes a little more sense but is still just more garbage being spouted from your mouth. We've all heard the omnipotent arguments before and they remain unconvincing for one reason, they are illogical and assume something that is inevident, if not impossible.

If bears pooped chocolate, they would be Nestle bears.

[cnorman18]

Why don't you respond to my post, Jetleg?

BTW, repeating words that have no meaning will not make them mean something.

[JetLeg]

So now you've qualified it with omnipotent. It now makes a little more sense but is still just more garbage being spouted from your mouth. We've all heard the omnipotent arguments before and they remain unconvincing for one reason, they are illogical and assume something that is inevident, if not impossible.

If bears pooped chocolate, they would be Nestle bears.

Uhm, I thought about it, and I see there is some problem with the idea that god can contradict logic. It is ok if he contradicts, there is some problem that I can contradict myself if I maintain this position.

[thaiboxerken]

The point is, your arguments are just plain stupid. Since they are not founded on any logic, reason or evidence, they will remain to be seen as stupid.

[lysdexia]

The other possibility is to think of God as depicted in whatever religion is being discussed, and as such as not all-powerful. Despite this being the only way most religions can work, few religions accept that their God is not the most powerful thing in the universe.

But all is not most.

[lysdexia]

Similarly I think time travel is likely impossible because it leads to paradoxes, but I can accept that it may be possible, but simply has never (and thus will never) been done. But again, I don't know how valid this escape route is.

Time travel is as real as pendula, entanglement, and superconductors.

[lysdexia]

Are you serious?

Do you really believe that God can, in the classic example, make a stone so big He cannot lift it? That is not materially different from a number that is both prime and composite. The concept is self-contradictory.

Words have meanings. If you admit the possibility that words with no possible meaning could be reflected in reality, then there is either no meaning to language and we might as well give up on communicating on this

Uh, this scenario is not meaningles. If God can do anything, then whether It can make a stone or lift a stone is not dependent on the other ability. Either can be true. Then again, anything is not everything, and "all" need not fit in one.

[lysdexia]

Human reason is, in its own way, sacred. When the Bible speaks of humans being made "in the image of God," that is what it must mean: God's capacity for rational, conscious thought. What else could it mean? God has no form.

What about the Shekinah? or the FoG (face of God)?

Reason and revelation cannot be in conflict, because reason is part of revelation--the most important part. God gave us brains to use, and He made the universe to make sense. If your mind comes to understand something that is in conflict with the Bible, your understanding of the Bible needs to be revised. That has been the Jewish view from the beginning, and as I keep saying, it's our Book.

And if the Tanac itself is wrong? Or what God said was wrong?
http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+fast-food

[thaiboxerken]

Time travel is as real as pendula, entanglement, and superconductors.

I agree, everything travels towards the future. However, traveling to the past is highly improbable. Feel free to provide evidence of time travel to the past.

[T'ai Chi]

So what I'm hearing is that

1) we all believe immoral/evil/etc. things exist
2) we blame it either on "god" or natural processes
3) some are uncomfortable blaming it on "god" because of various cultures' anthropocentric writings/beliefs about "god", even though these same some who are uncomfortable don't believe "god" exists
4) these same some find it nonsensical to give the quality of 'immoral/evil' to natural processes

[Darth Rotor]

I hear the twofold argument that since God allegedly created all life, it's his right to kill whenever He wants to, and that since He created all morals and emotions, it's also OK for Him to do absolutely whatever He wants. And of course I can't make life myself,
Try pulling that line when you get a girl pregnant.

Hint: that dog won't hunt.

As to your general thought:

The statement that God made life and laws, and as such can kill and be immoral

If there is no God, who cares?

If there is a God, what are you going to do about it: make Him stop, get Him to change His ways, or stick to whining about it?

DR

[Safe-Keeper]

4) these same some find it nonsensical to give the quality of 'immoral/evil' to natural processesGods≠natural processes.

Stop thinking of evolution as some sort of atheistic counterpart to God, and you'll understand this far better.

[T'ai Chi]

Gods≠natural processes.


Well that's trivially true.

Which is why when someone who is anti-religion says 'look at all the immorality in religion!' some can't help but just see him reaffirming their faith rather than making a devastating critique on religion. -because they have no problem with immorality/evil as long as it is natural. :)

[Myriad]

-because they have no problem with immorality/evil as long as it is natural. :)


Yep. Just like I have no problem with triangles, as long as they're four-sided.

Impossible juxtapositions of contradictory definitions never give me any problem at all.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[thaiboxerken]

So what I'm hearing is that

1) we all believe immoral/evil/etc. things exist

Correct.


2) we blame it either on "god" or natural processes

Wrong. Immorality and evil are things that only apply to intelligent, sapient beings. If a god caused destruction and death, then it could be considered evil or immoral. If a typhoon does the same, it can not.


3) some are uncomfortable blaming it on "god" because of various cultures' anthropocentric writings/beliefs about "god", even though these same some who are uncomfortable don't believe "god" exists

Maybe, I can't speak for all. However, I can't help but to think that this is merely a straw-man you've set up.

[quote
4) these same some find it nonsensical to give the quality of 'immoral/evil' to natural processes[/quote]

Reasonable people should find it nonsensical to assign sapient qualities to non-sapient processes.

[Safe-Keeper]

Which is why when someone who is anti-religion says 'look at all the immorality in religion!' some can't help but just see him reaffirming their faith rather than making a devastating critique on religion. -because they have no problem with immorality/evil as long as it is natural. :)What:confused:?

For your information, I do have a problem with harmful natural processes. I do have a problem with landslides killing innocents, hurricanes ripping apart houses, etc. Which is why I say we should work to prevent them. But I don't call them 'evil'. I do, however, call it evil or incredibly neglecting to deliberately set off natural disasters, like Christians claim God do. All I'm saying is that I strongly disagree with the fundie viewpoint that it's OK to kill people with landslides 'cause it's God doing it.

'Reaffirming my faith'? What the Heck are you babbling about?

[streamlet]

The religious station on the radio was going on about this today, "The clay does not say to the potter..." whatever. All I could think was that whoever wrote that hasn't done much crafting, drawing, or writing or they'd know better. Who hasn't had a project get a mind of its own and turn into something other than what you planned it to be? :rolleyes:

[Darth Rotor]

I just created a fart, does that give me the power to make the fart smell like roses?
Are you a god?

Are you Ken, the God of Flatus?

If not, the question you pose is rather pointless. Granted, the conversation you were in was pointelss as well.

DR

[cnorman18]

The religious station on the radio was going on about this today, "The clay does not say to the potter..." whatever. All I could think was that whoever wrote that hasn't done much crafting, drawing, or writing or they'd know better. Who hasn't had a project get a mind of its own and turn into something other than what you planned it to be? :rolleyes:

I don't understand how a Christian could say that, given that God is supposed to have made us able to "talk back"--you know, free will and all that.

Why on earth would you listen to Jesus radio?

Oh, never mind. I understand the impulse. I sometimes monitor Nazi websites myself.

[lysdexia]

I agree, everything travels towards the future. However, traveling to the past is highly improbable. Feel free to provide evidence of time travel to the past.

Reversibility of states (quantal, thermòdunamic, etc.) in cinematics—a simple harmònic oscillator, or a pendulum or spring or swing

[streamlet]

[QUOTE=cnorman18;3158685]
Why on earth would you listen to Jesus radio?
QUOTE]

A combination of reasons:

A) being raised atheist I'm curious about what people believe, and Jesus radio gives (admittedly slanted) info away free in a form you can take in while driving, thus not wasting useful time. I just wish the other major religions had radio stations so I could get a broader picture. I could just READ about them more but... so many Terry Pratchetts, so little time!

B) Sometimes the music is so bad you just gotta dive for the radio buttons, and our car repair guy always sets them to the religious channels. Maybe I should be annoyed at this (especially since I can never remember how to change them back) but I never am. This accidental religioning sometimes leads to

C) The sick appeal of killing a bit of my faith in humanity. Or just curiosity what they'll say next. Christianity is so strange, one minute a perfectly rational thought, the next minute I'm wondering if the station's been hacked-- surely nobody really believes that?!

That's why. :)

[thaiboxerken]

Are you a god?

I'm as godly as any god there is.


Are you Ken, the God of Flatus?

Nope.


If not, the question you pose is rather pointless. Granted, the conversation you were in was pointelss as well.

No, the question shows how ridiculous the argument "if a being creates it, it can also uncreate it" is. The point was taken by JetLeg, who then decided to change his argument to "if an omniscient being creates it, it can also uncreate it." Of course, he's still wrong, being aware of everything doesn't grant destructive powers.

[thaiboxerken]

Reversibility of states (quantal, thermòdunamic, etc.) in cinematics—a simple harmònic oscillator, or a pendulum or spring or swing

No, really. I meant scientific evidence of time-travel into the past. Movies really don't count.

[TuftedPuffin]

No.

If God wishes to interfere with the natural order and part the sea or whatever, that's one thing; but the rules of logic are another matter entirely. They are inherent in existence itself. If God made them, that's the way He did it, and like the moral law, they're binding even on God Himself.

In the Jewish view, human reason--rational, conscious thought--is to be trusted as much as, or even more than, the Bible. Indeed, without it, the Bible is just scratches and blots of ink on paper or parchment.

Human reason is, in its own way, sacred. When the Bible speaks of humans being made "in the image of God," that is what it must mean: God's capacity for rational, conscious thought. What else could it mean? God has no form.

Reason and revelation cannot be in conflict, because reason is part of revelation--the most important part. God gave us brains to use, and He made the universe to make sense. If your mind comes to understand something that is in conflict with the Bible, your understanding of the Bible needs to be revised. That has been the Jewish view from the beginning, and as I keep saying, it's our Book.

(When I speak of the Bible, of course, I mean what Christians call the "Old Testament." The "New Testament" is irrelevant to Jews.)

Is the Jewish god (or your concept of it) omnipotent?

[Roboramma]

Time travel is as real as pendula, entanglement, and superconductors.
When I said "likely impossible because it leads to paradoxes", did you interpret that to refer to possible examples of time travel that don't lead to paradoxes?

Just to clarify: I was refering to the type of time travel that leads to paradoxes. Specifically, the type that allows the exchange of information between the present and the past.

[lysdexia]

No, really. I meant scientific evidence of time-travel into the past. Movies really don't count.

I didn't say anything about videos.

[lysdexia]

When I said "likely impossible because it leads to paradoxes", did you interpret that to refer to possible examples of time travel that don't lead to paradoxes?

Just to clarify: I was refering to the type of time travel that leads to paradoxes. Specifically, the type that allows the exchange of information between the present and the past.

Well, this is no different than present-present travel with paradòxes.

[Beerina]

IF there's a different time axis, such that people in that axis can view our entire history from end to end like we would a static film, then the paradoxes evaporate. Anything that "jumped" back along our time axis would immediately affect everything "downstream" like a rock thrown in a river. The previous "future" would thus be altered, but whatever did the altering wouldn't mysteriously disappear, and thus not cause a paradox. It'd (he or she would) still be floating there out in that "hyper-space".