Pastelland Forum

Redafro wrote:

We might not be able to confirm it absolutely and ultimately but a) we can confirm it (it here being generally anything) to be correct or false beyond reasonable doubt b) there still is a correct answer. I find that most arguments can be generalized into a dichotomy, certainly ones about existance. I am not able to conceive of a way to determine ultimately which flavor of ice cream is better universally though.

Correct or false beyond a reasonable doubt... kind of. It is reasonable to always doubt to some degree, because we know we are limited in how much we can know and how much we can perceive about any given subject. My argument is that we in the end must form some kind of conviction, that is something we are attached to practically and for what we understand to be valuable for our life. These convictions/practical beliefs have nothing to do with confirmation and reasonable doubts because we cannot confirm them. We simply make a leap of trust in our senses and the value of our life.

I wouldn't say that if evidence points to something and you accept it, it is accepted on faith. That sounds like the opposite of faith: believing something without evidence and even against contrary evidence, were such to reveal itself. My point is that if you have evidence for something, you have a reason to believe it. Even if the evidence is lacking in someway that does not mean that the "truth" - the fact of the matter, the absolute truth - it is narrowing upon is wrong.

So, you seem to be asking why I don't hold to the Old Testament law. Very simple. Because Christ fulfilled the law. It says so right in the New Testement. I could quote dozens of New Testament scriptures that explain this, but the 3rd chapter of Galatians is full of explanations for this. One section of it says "Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian." The Old Testament itself is a social law, a covenant between God and the Jewish nation based on promises God made to Abraham. It isn't about what you believe, but who you were born as. Granted, there is what I was calling personal laws there, by which I meant that I do believe there is a universal morality, and that it is based on a rational universalizing of personal preferable behavior. (Most of my ideas on this are based on a a book called Universally Preferred Behavior, by Stefan Molyneux, which is free on the internet. Ironically, he is a very harsh critic of Christianity. Ironic because I love his work. XD) The Old Testament is almost as if God was attempting to create a perfect people through a social construct (not an absolute moral code, as some seem to think) and now, through Christ's sacrifice and the teachings of the New Testament, the moral law is more individual-centric because it is not about a society's relationship with God, but the individuals relationship with God; it is about the faith of the individual.

I must decry the fact that I have not read most of the new testament (what can I say, if find Paul's writing style annoying (still beat's the book of Mormon though)) - I cannot argue well on those grounds. I suppose that that answers my question somewhat though, so there.

Speaking of interpretations though, would you say that there are some well-accepted definitions of a god of some kind that because of the way they are defined CANNOT exist?

Yes, I think so. For one thing, there is a common conception of what I call the Genie God, who gives you whatever you want if you just believe enough and pray enough, or do something else enough. I think that is pretty clear that this God does not exist, or else the number of things you have to do are so convoluted and difficult that it belies any attempts at testability. Second, a minor one is when you try to define God using all the Omni-_fill_in_the_blank_ attributes without adding any kind of caveat. That results in a lot of logical contradictions which people arguing against the Christian God love to point out, even though the problem is easily fixed by simply saying that God has all the Omni attributes that it is logical for him to have.

Those are the two that come to mind right now.

I wouldn't say that if evidence points to something and you accept it, it is accepted on faith. That sounds like the opposite of faith: believing something without evidence and even against contrary evidence, were such to reveal itself.

I've tried to explain that I consider that definition of faith as what I call "blind faith," and I find it highly problematic. I advocate a faith that is a trust that your senses are correct, or a commitment you have to someone/something (as in having good faith in someone). This is the gap that must be crossed for anyone from mere speculation into confirming beliefs; none of us can confirm with evidence that our senses are accurate, only, as you've said narrowing upon the truth.

My point is that if you have evidence for something, you have a reason to believe it. Even if the evidence is lacking in someway that does not mean that the "truth" - the fact of the matter, the absolute truth - it is narrowing upon is wrong.

Here is where we totally agree. XD I'm picky about the way statements are worded, and you just hit the nail on the head. XD

I must decry the fact that I have not read most of the new testament (what can I say, if find Paul's writing style annoying (still beat's the book of Mormon though)) - I cannot argue well on those grounds. I suppose that that answers my question somewhat though, so there.

So you've actually read the book of Mormon? That is impressive. Paul probably does take some getting use to, but to me it is very precious... even when it takes a lot of work to understand. So, only somewhat answers your question?

Redafro wrote: So you've actually read the book of Mormon? That is impressive. Paul probably does take some getting use to, but to me it is very precious... even when it takes a lot of work to understand. So, only somewhat answers your question?

I tried reading that but gave up. Almost every single verse began - at least in Finnish - with "ja tapahtui, että" which roughly translates to "and so it happened that". It became annoying. Very annoying. Very quickly. I read enough to come to the conclusion that it was made up by someone who liked Christianity but disliked the lack of America in it though. Then there were the verses that were like "this will be said somewhere else, so allow me to skip it for now". I mean seriously, Bible repeats the laws about the tent for the ark of covenant twice (or more, I think), and you're not even paraphrasing trips to the Heaven? And this was made by the same people (as in nation, populus)? No, just no.

And yeah it somewhat answers it, in that I'm not kind of satisfied by the idea that first a law is given and then it is fulfilled. I mean, my hypothetical children cannot murder people, even if I don't. But that is my problem, not the Bible's, really. The idea that God tried something (perfect people through laws) and but then decided to "fix it" by sacrificing his own son is also a bit odd, but who am I to judge. I mean there are gods failing to do stuff in all pantheons and religions. As you can see neither of these is a particularly good argument, so I'm not really pursuing them.

Anteroinen wrote: And yeah it somewhat answers it, in that I'm not kind of satisfied by the idea that first a law is given and then it is fulfilled. I mean, my hypothetical children cannot murder people, even if I don't. But that is my problem, not the Bible's, really. The idea that God tried something (perfect people through laws) and but then decided to "fix it" by sacrificing his own son is also a bit odd, but who am I to judge. I mean there are gods failing to do stuff in all pantheons and religions. As you can see neither of these is a particularly good argument, so I'm not really pursuing them.

The fact God first gave the Jews his laws and then supposedly changed his mind bugged me. I mean, if the laws were God-given, brought upon this mortal plane by an infinitely perfect creature, why would the be changed? Also, I don't see how some of them were designed to "perfect people" - there's laws that state if you were to rape a woman in the middle of the field (so nobody hears it) you could just pay her family 30 silver coins (or some other sum of money) and marry her afterwards. And she can't even refuse.

Horrible guidelines depicted in the Bible aren't an argument to not believe in God though. They don't really say anything about the validity of Christian beliefs.

Taalit wrote:Horrible guidelines depicted in the Bible aren't an argument to not believe in God though. They don't really say anything about the validity of Christian beliefs.

I disagree. The Bible is supposed to be the holy book, given by God. So, if in that book God is telling you to do horrible, sick and stupid stuff, then that's not an argument for believing in him either.

"Unfortunate" and "False" aren't the same thing. I'm just saying that him possibly being a really bad guy is entirely irrelevant to whether or not he exists.

Taalit wrote:"Unfortunate" and "False" aren't the same thing. I'm just saying that him possibly being a really bad guy is entirely irrelevant to whether or not he exists.

Sure, but that would mean he does not exist on the Christian terms.

Vurn wrote:

Taalit wrote:"Unfortunate" and "False" aren't the same thing. I'm just saying that him possibly being a really bad guy is entirely irrelevant to whether or not he exists.

Sure, but that would mean he does not exist on the Christian terms.

Which, I will add, anyone who argues for the existence of God is doing. Existence of god is another thing of course. (I wouldn't capitalize Yours, even if writing to the Queen of England; I take capital letters way too seriously.)

Second, a minor one is when you try to define God using all the Omni-_fill_in_the_blank_ attributes without adding any kind of caveat. That results in a lot of logical contradictions which people arguing against the Christian God love to point out, even though the problem is easily fixed by simply saying that God has all the Omni attributes that it is logical for him to have.

That being none. At least he is not omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omnipresent or omniscient. In his favour, I will admit he is not omnimalevolent either, so he has that going for him.

Vurn wrote:

Taalit wrote:"Unfortunate" and "False" aren't the same thing. I'm just saying that him possibly being a really bad guy is entirely irrelevant to whether or not he exists.

Sure, but that would mean he does not exist on the Christian terms.

Which ones? Christianity has countless separate divisions with different beliefs about God. Not all of them believe he has to be omnibenevolent.