(October 26, 2017 at 12:05 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(October 26, 2017 at 11:42 am)wallym Wrote: When I'm telling my kid to do something, a lot of times, I'm looking on a very large scale.  Building good habits that will serve her well in life 15 years down the road.  Meanwhile, she can't really comprehend not being the age that she is.  So for her everything is very short term.  By the time she reaches the age where what I'm telling her makes sense, she probably won't remember that I ever even told her.  

If there's a God, and this existing stuff is going to last for eternity.  That's like billions of years not even qualifying as a beginning.  And a being that exists in a way we can't comprehend.  Aren't we like a child in that situation.  With our super tiny perspective of reality, where 70 years is a lifetime.  Where our experiences are everything, not just an infinitesimal fraction of something bigger that we can't even understand.

I think the idea of God is silly wishful thinking.  But if there was one, the attitude of "There's no way God could convince me of ... " just seems goofy.  That everything you could know about the universe and existence gets changed in ways that you can't comprehend, but you're fairly certain nothing in that infinite amount of unknown could possibly justify the things you don't like based on what you've come up with living in a tiny little box for a couple decades.

I just don't get it.  I don't understand the unjustified certainty people have in their own opinions, that even in a hypothetical where everything they've thought has been shaken in ways they can't conceive, they're still almost positive they couldn't be mistaken about a bunch of stuff.

This is exactly what I've tried to explain in another thread. If there is a God, He can see the big picture... the entire universe and all of time. All we can see is an unbelievably tiny glimpse of a tiny part of it. Saying "well God cant exist because if He did He would do this and wouldnt do that, and it doesn't make sense that He'd do things this way, or allow that other thing to happen." I mean, how would we know? We can't see the big picture. How can we know what would or would not make sense?

But, accepting that, attributing qualities like love, goodness and such is disingenuous because, aside from all the biblical instances that show the opposite behaviour of what we would consider those qualities, us not seeing "the big picture" or "his plan" pretty much make attributes like those hopeful guesses at best.

---

(October 26, 2017 at 1:13 pm)Captain_Nemo Wrote: Now here truth appears again. Ones truth is grasped by a human being in any field, be it social or scientific they gain a powertool, which according to the calculations of any powerstructure they should not have and hence they have to be eliminated, intimidated (example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNDWvejza4c). Now grasping one truth does not make a difference, but if You have a whole bunch of them it makes a difference. That is why even parents with atheistic views send their children to catholic schools, even they can see (I mean God or atheist is just one truth - in my opinion the whole question is much simpler and broader. Its just this - what is Your life about - is it searching for truth then ok, if not then please get out slave, cause nothing else can help You to be free) that their children will gain more in such a school.

No atheist I know sends their kids to catholic school.  I know many who pay little thought to religion who do, but it's for reasons of faster paced learning, discipline and perceived safety.  None do so because they feel there might be anything true about it.

---

(October 26, 2017 at 1:13 pm)Captain_Nemo Wrote: What would happen if somebody would like to create a truth generator?
He would die - its what Jesus did and hence his words deserve reverence and should be taken into consideration. Even if one were to assume that he was just a human the nature of truth does not depend on the transmitter. It would not matter if it is a book, on a CD or floppy drive. Truth if it is really the truth is easily verifialable through experimantation. The funny thing about Jesus is, that the cross and his death says it all. Its such a small peace of information that it cannot be manipulated.

Here one just has to look at people who allowed God into their lives to see how it changed. One just has to look for such people they are not popular - the powerstructure is anti-truth. To mind comes Gloria Polo from Columbia. Saint Paul said, just try it out and see. You gotta stick to it for a while though, its like going to the GYM You want see any difference unless You change diet and really work out. Its like GYM for the spirit, once it kicks in its like a drug it just causes those strange things that make You gasp with awe.

The funny thing is, the supposed cross and death of Jesus says nothing to me, as, if it all happened the way it is written, makes little sense in the way of sacrifice or atonement.  And that piece of "information" has been manipulated by believer since it "happened".

Belief can change people, no matter what they believe.  But cherry picking the good things that happen to believers out of the horrendous history of religious belief is disingenuous.  Yes you have to "stick with it".  Brainwashing and blocking off critical thinking takes determination sometimes.

You can fit absolutely any wayward description of a god into the 'his ways are not our ways' and 'we cannot see the big picture' as if that stops us drawing any rational conclusions about the nature or presence of a god, in fact it discourages from trying to draw rational conclusions if accepted as a plausible means to judge the world we see around us.

A god who causes misery, death, destruction, floods, earthquakes, child abuse, genocide and delights in doing these things would be a better description of a god that supposedly reigns sovereign over all, at least it would fit what we see. Theists settle for the insanity of a loving god who loves free will so much that he allows these things while all the time ignoring the fact god can intervene even if free will were true, you can limit actions without taking away free will, unless what you actually mean is freedom to do anything you want.
If my children were fighting and about to seriously hurt each other, I would intervene, what kind of parent would allow them to harm each other on the basis of some free will argument ? What if abusers, dictators etc were allowed the excuse.. ''well you cannot see the big picture' it's very dishonest.

For all intents and purposes the world looks like there is either no god, or a god who delights in suffering, but even then there would be no proof of a god, that would have to be independent, you cannot simply throw up a description of a god and say 'hey look proof' it fits the role.

To clarify though, I don't believe God "causes" any of those things you mentioned, Possi. They are caused by human beings using their free will to hurt others, or they are caused by nature. God allows those things to happen by not divinely intervening in our world or in our actions to stop them, but He doesn't cause them.

(October 27, 2017 at 8:40 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: To clarify though, I don't believe God "causes" any of those things you mentioned, Possi. They are caused by human beings using their free will to hurt others, or they are caused by nature. God allows those things to happen by not divinely intervening in our world or in our actions to stop them, but He doesn't cause them.

Sorry if someone has already asked you this (there are a lot of pages in this thread that I haven't gone over), but how do you determine if any specific thing is 'caused' by God or not?  If you believe that God intervenes in the world via miracles, is that the only way he intervenes, or does he cause other things to happen as well, and how do you tell the difference between a stroke of unbelievable luck and God intervening?

(October 27, 2017 at 5:15 am)Captain_Nemo Wrote:

(October 26, 2017 at 4:46 pm)Whateverist Wrote: I think you're new here so first of all welcome.  But can you summarize a point from this post.  I read it but wasn't sure what you were trying to say.  "Truth" is simply the correspondence between something expressed with language and the way things actually are in the world.  I have no idea what significance you are attaching to "the truth".  Every proposition that correctly maps to the world is "a" truth.  Which proposition(s) are you referring to when you use the expression "the truth", and why?

The difference between "a" and "the" would lie in the scope of observation.
THE truth would fit reality/the big picture - always be true - like 2+2 is always 4. Only GOD could have generated THE truth in regards to things like human nature, the point of existence.
A truth fits only under certain circumstances.


This is also one of those things that made me a believer. Since reality is a self-explanatory paradox, where grasping all elements is impossible because of the size of the big picture - if somebody were to be able to build rules that always fit we could assume that his way of seeing is better than other humans. We can check the connection between a few elements and see how they fit together. With Jesus its different. Its like a guy came from somewhere who was able to say something that no matter how much You try to disprove - it always fits into this thing called reality.

Well thanks for trying but "self explanatory paradox" translates to hokum. You've no more established the existence of a class of truth necessitating "the" instead of "a" than you have a class of phenomenon so far beyond the natural as to deserve the supernatural category.

Of course some truths are more important to us in a personal way than are others. The exact age of our rapid transit system is less dear to me than the fact of the affection I feel for my wife. I personally have no trouble accepting that you feel great affection for the god with whom you've been encouraged to develop a relationship. My only objection is to the ham handed ways that believers attempt to shoe horn Him into the world. He is its creator but entirely undetectable. Entirely beyond our understanding and yet you think you've taken His measure: knowledge = omni; power = omni; age = eternal; goodness = omni; and so on.

Believers extoll humility and yet they are incapable of admitting their own inability to wrap their heads around this mystery they call 'God'. If you all were honest and humble enough to admit He is a mystery and then had the courage of your convictions to maintain faith anyway, you would earn more respect from many of us. It is because you place your faith instead in the cold hard facts provided by the contract with god you call the bible that you so often wind up ridiculous in our eyes.

If you're here looking for suckers for Christ you're wasting your time.

(October 26, 2017 at 10:56 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(October 26, 2017 at 7:53 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: There are several reasons why I believe God exists, which I've talked about on these forums before. I could be wrong, of course, but I am of the strong opinion that He does exist.

What I was saying is that I think it's silly to say "A good God doesn't exist because if He did exist He would do this and that, and the world wouldn't be this way,  etc".... because its like, how do we know things aren't as they should be because they make sense in the big picture when we're only experiencing a tiny piece of it?

Not believing in God is understandable. I just don't think what i describe above is a sensible argument against the possibility of a good God.

Yeah, I don't care about the arguments about all the ways God allows people to suffer. Of course, I can't begin to imagine such a thing existing at all so I just don't go on to worry about why He allows evil in the world He is supposed to have created.

I just don't know how you and other believers go from "works in strange and wonderful ways" to limitless knowledge and power and created everything from nothing. I mean wouldn't it be more humble to just say knowledge of God is beyond us and therefore a mystery. You can continue to count your relationship with God as being important but then just admit you don't know just how omni-anything He is -let alone how He came to be or exactly what role He may of had in creation. To my way of thinking that would be true faith, revering God but accepting His mysterious ways as beyond our pay grade.

But I just always feel like I can ask you about these things when they come up without you getting mad or feeling threatened. Glad you're here.

You are correct that of course we should admit that there is a lot about God we don't know and don't even have the capacity to comprehend. We should also admit that even though we believe strongly, there is always a possibility that we could be wrong about Him existing at all. So you are correct on that, sorry if I gave the impression that I feel otherwise.

Believing in the Christian God, thpugh, means believing that certain things about Him have been divinely revealed to us through Christ. So while we don't even come close to claiming to know everything about God, we do believe we know some things - like that He is all good, that He is love, that He is infinite, the Father of creation, etc.

I don't see it as "unhumble" to believe that. It's just what we believe in, you know?

And yeah, I'm not mad or threatened.

(October 27, 2017 at 9:09 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(October 26, 2017 at 10:56 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Yeah, I don't care about the arguments about all the ways God allows people to suffer.  Of course, I can't begin to imagine such a thing existing at all so I just don't go on to worry about why He allows evil in the world He is supposed to have created.  

I just don't know how you and other believers go from "works in strange and wonderful ways" to limitless knowledge and power and created everything from nothing.  I mean wouldn't it be more humble to just say knowledge of God is beyond us and therefore a mystery.  You can continue to count your relationship with God as being important but then just admit you don't know just how omni-anything He is -let alone how He came to be or exactly what role He may of had in creation.  To my way of thinking that would be true faith, revering God but accepting His mysterious ways as beyond our pay grade.

But I just always feel like I can ask you about these things when they come up without you getting mad or feeling threatened.  Glad you're here.

You are correct that of course we should admit that there is a lot about God we don't know and don't even have the capacity to comprehend. We should also admit that even though we believe strongly, there is always a possibility that we could be wrong about Him existing at all. So you are correct on that, sorry if I gave the impression that I feel otherwise.

Believing in the Christian God, thpugh, means believing that certain things about Him have been divinely revealed to us through Christ. So while we don't even come close to claiming to know everything about God, we do believe we know some things - like that He is all good, that He is love, that He is infinite, the Father of creation, etc.

I don't see it as "unhumble" to believe that. It's just what we believe in, you know?

And yeah, I'm not mad or threatened.

I admire people of faith who maintain humility while being truly open to the otherness of others without judgement.  You do one hell of a job of this.  So when we talk about areas of disagreement keep in mind that I do so with some trepidation of upsetting the balance of traits and beliefs that make you you.  

I get that as a Christian you believe the story of Jesus tells you things about the Christian God.  I just think it is possible for someone to interpret that and other stories differently.  I'm frequently impressed that people associated with the Catholic church at the vatican seem to hold that meaning in far more subtle and sophisticated ways than the laity do.  I guess I'm a bit of an iconoclast in wanting to see that kind of understanding shared more widely.  Your current pope has often expressed liberal values and progressive political positions.  I wish he would write out his own personal understanding of the Christian stories which inform his religious beliefs, but then he is charged with the well being of the institution of the church.

(October 27, 2017 at 8:53 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(October 27, 2017 at 8:40 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: To clarify though, I don't believe God "causes" any of those things you mentioned, Possi. They are caused by human beings using their free will to hurt others, or they are caused by nature. God allows those things to happen by not divinely intervening in our world or in our actions to stop them, but He doesn't cause them.

Sorry if someone has already asked you this (there are a lot of pages in this thread that I haven't gone over), but how do you determine if any specific thing is 'caused' by God or not?  If you believe that God intervenes in the world via miracles, is that the only way he intervenes, or does he cause other things to happen as well, and how do you tell the difference between a stroke of unbelievable luck and God intervening?

Well, dont we know through science that natural disasters are caused by winds, temperature fronts, tectonic plate movements, etc? Don't we know that murderers, and other evil acts are caused by people, not some magical force? Perhaps there are some religions that believe God causes all that in some supernatural way, but I can't speak to that because it isn't what I believe.

I do believe there have been instances of miracles, yes. In those cases God is intervening. But i do think these miracles are extremely rare, and they are the exception, not the rule. If God were to intervene every time something bad was about to happen, we'd be puppets living in a very different world I think.

We only determine something is a miracle when there is no other possible explanation for it. Example, a man suffers from severe headaches and seizures. He has a mass in his brain consistent with a stage 4 brain tumor as seen by multiple doctors in various imaging tests, MRI, and CT scans. He goes to a church and prayes his heart out. The next day he has another appointment and more imaging tests are done in preparation for surgery. The mass is completely gone, when it was just there a few days before. He hadnt yet started any sort of treatment yet. The surgery is cancelled. His headache is gone, and he never again suffers another seizure. A case like that would get investigated for the possibility of being a miracle, and may be officially proclaimed as one.

I guess some people are very quick to call every little thing a miracle when it could have just been good luck, but there's nothing official about that, so I can't really comment on it. I'm not one of those people.

(October 27, 2017 at 9:44 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(October 27, 2017 at 8:53 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Sorry if someone has already asked you this (there are a lot of pages in this thread that I haven't gone over), but how do you determine if any specific thing is 'caused' by God or not?  If you believe that God intervenes in the world via miracles, is that the only way he intervenes, or does he cause other things to happen as well, and how do you tell the difference between a stroke of unbelievable luck and God intervening?

Well, dont we know through science that natural disasters are caused by winds, temperature fronts, tectonic plate movements, etc? Don't we know that murderers, and other evil acts are caused by people, not some magical force? Perhaps there are some religions that believe God causes all that in some supernatural way, but I can't speak to that because it isn't what I believe.

I do believe there have been instances of miracles, yes. In those cases God is intervening. But i do think these miracles are extremely rare, and they are the exception, not the rule. If God were to intervene every time something bad was about to happen, we'd be puppets  living in a very different world I think.

We only determine something is a miracle when there is no other possible explanation for it. Example, a man suffers from severe headaches and seizures. He has a mass in his brain consistent with a stage 4 brain tumor as seen by multiple doctors in various imaging tests, MRI, and CT scans. He goes to a church and prayes his heart out. The next day he has another appointment and more imaging tests are done in preparation for surgery. The mass is completely gone, when it was just there a few days before. He hadnt yet started any sort of treatment yet. The surgery is cancelled. His headache is gone, and he never again suffers another seizure. A case like that would get investigated for the possibility of being a miracle, and may be officially proclaimed as one.

I guess some people are very quick to call every little thing a miracle when it could have just been good luck, but there's nothing official about that, so I can't really comment on it. I'm not one of those people.

Fair enough, but how do you determine that we've exhausted every other possible explanation?  Especially when considering the miracles that have happened more than a century ago, when our knowledge of science was nothing compared to what it is today (and going back further it gets even worse), were those people with their limited knowledge validated in concluding that they had run out of every other possible explanation?  Would someone today be reasonable in saying they've run out of every other possible explanation, if a new explanation might be around the corner in 20 years with new technology?  That's the big issue I have with calling anything a miracle, even if it's an event that seems miraculous to us at this point in time, because we don't know what sort of new investigative abilities we'll have in the future - it seems premature.

And you mentioned determining the cause of weather/murder/etc.  There are plenty of events that could be explained by natural/material forces that are still held up as miracles, even 'official' miracles accepted by the Catholic Church.  For example, the miracle recognized by the Vatican for Mother Teresa's canonization beatification was the apparently miraculous healing of an Indian woman's abdominal tumor after she rubbed a picture of Mother Teresa over the area.  She was being treated by doctors and was undergoing therapy for her disease for nearly a year, and even her husband said the miracle is a hoax, and that the thing that cured her was modern medicine (conveniently, the medical records were confiscated by the Missionaries of Charity).  

The above 'miracle' is officially recognized by the Catholic Church - but it seems to fit your description of something that is NOT a miracle - we have a physical, material explanation with a mechanism for how the result (tumor healed) was achieved.  Do you think the Catholic church was wrong in considering this a miracle?  Could you give an example of a miracle that you consider to be genuine?

EDIT - beatification, not canonization