Theism

[crickhollow]

I covered this in my evidencer vs. proof post, but I'll try again. When it comes down to it, you're not choosing faith or logic. I'll concede that Christianity doesn't have all the answers, but any other belief system has as many holes in it. THIS INCLUDES: atheism, agnosticism, and skepticism. Your taking a leap of faith no matter which direction you choose.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Eärniel


I wasn't doubting your words. I was trying to add something. Obviously I failed to express my idea properly. So just, please forget whatever I posted.

Ack! No, I was talking about Laurelin, sorry, Earnieal...

[Earniel]

Oh, silly me! I thought you were referring to my post. No worries...

[Wayfarer]

For crying out loud, I was trying to avoid getting onto this....

I think this is incorrect. An atheist does not have a belief in no god, but has no belief in said god - there is a difference. From this I could say that all Christians are atheists in some sense of the word, in that they have no belief in deities of other religions.

Wrong.

Athiesm:
a)Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b)The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

The prime tenant of Athiesm says, in bold letters, "There is no God."

Now that I've deconstructed your faulty statement, let me say that the rest of your arguement is somewhat more correct. If there were multiple gods, it would be possible to have faith in one but not another. However, that's Pantheism, and we're discussing Theism. All theists say "There is A God.", but they are at odds as to who that god is.

Why should anyone be justified in believing in the existence of a logically unsound concept? Proof is not always necessary as justification for belief - sufficient probability is.

You make two grave errors of assumption here.
1) You assume that theism is a logically unsound concept.
2) You assume that there is sufficient probability to believe in naturalism.

The first is,as near as I can determine, simply the result of yourown bias. I have previously given reasons why it is logical to believe in a Creator. You completely missed my point, but more on that later.

As for the second, what of the naturalistic assumption that everything 'just happened'? There is null realistic probability of the universe organizing itself spontaneously. So your own arguement works against you. Prove to me that there is sufficeint probability to believe that the universe is spontaneously self organized.

Now why would an omnibenevolent being put someone in such a position?

This isn't about theism, but let me address this briefly.

God created humans, Adam and Eve.
He told them, "Look, Everything is good right now. And everything will stay good as long as you live the way I mad eyou to live. I won't force you, I'm giving you a choice. But if you choose to go your own way, you'll live a hard life, die, and the whole world will basically suck. So please don't."
They did.
They lived hard lives, died, and the whole world basically sucks,
God did create an escape clause-jesus- that allows us to return to him and go his way. But that doesn't negate the consequences of our being imperfect (due to that choice), and thus, life is still sucky.

b. If I believe in and strive to do God's will and he does not exist, I am merely mistaken, and I will be doomed to the "hell" of the one true religion, if it exists. Forgot about that, didn't you?
d. if I do not believe in nor strive to do God's will and he does not exist, I am merely correct, and I will be doomed to the "hell" of the one true religion, if it exists. It seems you have factored out all the other religions somehow. Clearly this wager is more complex than you have stated. Also, it seems that fear is the motive behind this belief - you are afraid of eternal damnation, so you'd rather play it safe and believe.

More nonsense.

a) Wrong. If there is no God, I simply cease to exist. I can't go to hell if there is no god, because the concept of hell requires God in the picture.
B) Also Wrong. Likewise. You don't exist anymore, so even though you are correct you won't know it.

You could have stated it better. But I'm just moving on for the sake of brevity.

Not necessarily - my religious background consists of constant and biased Christian theology that was taught to me from a very young age, for a number of years, and look at me now. Clearly I lack the kind of faith you are talking about - perhaps I am an exception?

On the other hand, there are all kinds of people who believe in christ without being taught about him all their lives. Moot point.

You're not the exception, but the rule. Because the majority of people raised as christians miss the point. As you have. I continually scoff at theology and the common understanding of christianity. Theology and teaching is utterly useless if it doesn't affect your life. Going to church does not make you a christian.

Key word: chances. What do you base your assumptions on?

What happened to significant probability?
Are you saying that, despite the fact that Billions of humans since the beginning of time have believed in some higher power, there's no reason to think they're right?

Is it not possible and obvious that natural phenomena that are not presently understood by science and other means could be and are classified by people as supernatural? Granted in our current state of knowledge, where many things lack explanations, there will always be people who label these uncertainties as supernatural, and for the students of science who subscribe to this, it may be justified. But that is only justified in our current state. Cast your mind back 1000 years - would the idea of electricity be understood by all? No, it would be classified as supernatural, until science came up with answers. The only assumption I make here is that science will indeed come up with answers sooner or later, and I base this on historical evidence.

Ah yes, here you missed my point.
Did I even once say that 'because we don't understand some things, there must be a God? I?

I didn't even come close to saying that what science doesn't understand must come from God. What I said was that without God, it would be impossible for science to understand anything.

Let me repeat myself:
Science says that everything is ordered and predictable.
Order cannot arise from chaos.
Therefore, the ordered laws of nature must be the result of some higher order.
Eventually, you must come to some order that is self existant.
I.E. God.

It is only the belief in an ordered universe that makes science valid.
It is only the belief in an orderly creation that makes an ordered universe logical.
It is only be belief in an orderly creator that makes an orderly creation possible.

Remeber, christian Dogma predicted the world as only 6000 years old (4004 BC, October, 9am). This was based on evaluation of geneology of biblical figureheads. Now we KNOW beyond reasonable doubt, that the earth is billions of years old, and that Homo sapiens are thousands of years old, hominids (that is, species that proceed H. sapiens, ie Australopithecus afarensis), are at least 4 million years old, although there are possible earlier hominids. How does that figure into a creationist view?

It doesn't.
It's patently false.

An earth that is billions of years old is simply popular at the moment. That doesn't make it any more true than a flat earth. The old earth belief is based on Unaversalism, the belief that everything happens at a predictable rate. Which doesn't hold up.

Furthermore, were you aware that every historical record available stops at a few thousand years ago? How strange that, if humans are hundereds of thousands of years old, there are no records any farther back...

As for your last argument-my dear fool, even the scientists which claim humans evolved from somehting else are unable to agree whether it was australopithicus or some other animal. So beginning your arguement with that assumption is patently false.

Shall I quote someone for you? Richard leaky, one of the most prominent evolutionists of the last century, said:

"Either we throw out the fossil record or we forget about evolution."

Now, does that cast your position in a little more realistic light?

Although the early fossil record is sparse, and there is no 'proof' in how life began scientifically, from protozoids onwards, we do have a geological, and archaeological record.

Well, as I said before, the geological record isn' nearly all it's cracked up to be. And archaeology? Pah! The oldest records, geological or otherwise, aren't even four thousand years old.

So, if the fossil record is against evolution, geology is dubious, and archaeology points towards a younger earth, where does that leave you?

A few points behind, I'd say. ]: )

Also, I don't like how a fundemental part of religious dogma is to convert people...I believe that it is a personal journey, between yourself and God, not everyone else......then the LOST will eventually find their path...if there is a God, and he is as you say, a loving god, then logically, no one is going to hell, because he will forgive all sins, and shepherd the lost, in the valley of darkness, so to speak. Therefore, since I have not been 'found' by this God(s), then logic dictates that he can not exist.

It's not a matter of opinion. Either it's true, or it's false, and if it is true, then you need to change.

Anyone who claims to follow god and yet doesn't evidence it is a lying hypocrite.

You're really not being logical at all. Surely, anyone CAN come to God. But you can keep away from him as well. As there is only one way, it's a rather simple-you're in or you're out.

Now, that bit about god finding everyone is bull. Admittedly, god wants everyone to be saved. But that's where you miss the point. He is willing to forgive sins, any sins. God's not lowering his standards for anyone, but he has provided a way that we may automatically pass, even if we wouldn't have before.

Everyone has an alotted time to choose sides. Either you're with god, or against him. And when you die, you get to find out which side you've chosen.

Oi! That was badly worded. I hate super-long posts.

[Twilight]

I have a new found respect for you Wayfarer. The theology is good, and bieng a biologist, I can back up the scientific statements that you said. There is no current proof for macroevolution (evolving from one species to another). That isn't a disputed fact even among non believing scientists. Yet it still stays in textbooks because they claim to have "no better theory to replace it with"

Geology arguments also can be disproven because of the the flood being able to create things in a short period of time. Solid proof for a billions of years old world just doesn't exist.

[Tanoliel]

Wheee....that WAS long, Wayfarer!
Anyway. I'm not sure who said any of this, I don't know what I'm replying to, but I'm going to scribble out a little something anyway.
I am a theist, by that I mean I believe there is something out there, up there, in here, wherever, that is more that we can explain on Entmoot. However, I am not connected to any established religion, ie Christianity, Judaism, Islam, any of it. I know there is something out there. I just don't know what. I don't pray very often, not in the usual way; when I do, I'm not entirely sure what I'm praying to. I'm not really the worshipping type, which is why some religions bug me. It may sound stupid and a little selfish, but I don't like abasing myself to some supreme being that has power over my entire life and everything else as well. I prefer to think of said supreme being as a being I can turn to, to help me if I need to talk to something, or if I am feeling confused and don't know what's going on with the world. It's more of a simple sense of connection for me, rather than a Religion.

Yikes. That was rather wishy-washy and longer than I wanted it to be. But there you go. Here's Tanoliel's somewhat strange beliefs.
-tano

[MasterMothra]

can you go to heaven or hell if you have never been introduced to any sort of orgnized religeon? if you were on a desolate island where there were no traces of christianity, muslim or jewish propganda what is your fate?
i am starting to believe that if you believe in god and follow "natural law" then you can go to heaven or hell w/o believing in any of these organized religeons. in all likelyhood this is all the people had to follow before the bible and jesus.

i always welcome your replies nibs, they are very informative. as are yours crickhollow.

[FrodoFriend]

Hmm, this is very interesting. I think I'll just follow along and read this one, except for a few points.

Yep, these are for Wayfarer.

1. How do you know that order can't come from chaos?
2. How do you know that if God doesn't exist, you will cease to exist when you die?
3. Historical record stops a few thousand years ago because that's when humans learned to write and started recording.
4. Archaeological record goes back much further than four thousand years (I am very interested in archaeology, and know this for a fact). "The earliest traces of human occupation in the Tigris-Euphrates river valley of southern Mesopotamia date to around 5500 B.C." - that's merely one example, 6500 years ago, and that civilization already had pottery, indicating a somewhat advanced state.
5. You say that the earth being a few billion years old is merely a passing belief. I'm just wondering, but how do you explain carbon-14 dating, the sun's life-span, the age of the moon, etc. There's lots of evidence on Earth and in the solar system to support the billion-year ideas.

Don't want to argue this debate, just putting up some facts.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
Hmm, this is very interesting. I think I'll just follow along and read this one, except for a few points.

Yep, these are for Wayfarer.

1. How do you know that order can't come from chaos?
2. How do you know that if God doesn't exist, you will cease to exist when you die?
3. Historical record stops a few thousand years ago because that's when humans learned to write and started recording.
4. Archaeological record goes back much further than four thousand years (I am very interested in archaeology, and know this for a fact). "The earliest traces of human occupation in the Tigris-Euphrates river valley of southern Mesopotamia date to around 5500 B.C." - that's merely one example, 6500 years ago, and that civilization already had pottery, indicating a somewhat advanced state.
5. You say that the earth being a few billion years old is merely a passing belief. I'm just wondering, but how do you explain carbon-14 dating, the sun's life-span, the age of the moon, etc. There's lots of evidence on Earth and in the solar system to support the billion-year ideas.

Don't want to argue this debate, just putting up some facts.

Thank you FF, you saved me a hernia, or two. Humans have only had the written language for about 5 - 6 thousand years, that is why there is no record of the written content before this time. I AM an archaeologist, and there are many arguments that I could state. Yes, we have many dating tools now, with callibration, that allow us to date fauna that is older than a few thousand years old. Plus, there is the question of now extinct fauna, how do you explain that? RE humans before writing, how do we know they are there? I can consider many things: settlement patterns, dating methods, taphonomy (the study of an artifact (being made by hominids) after it enters the archaeological record, faunal analysis... I could go on and on, whapping you with archaeological jargon - but I won't. My point is, there is other evidence that points to human existence, apart from writing, historical documents, and monumental structures.

Secondly, 'austrolopithecus' debates are concerned with the classification of the species, not whether or not we are descended from them. We know that we are descended, or related in some way to the australopithecus family, we just don't yet know how to classify them in the linnaean taxonomy system, yet!

[Nibs]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
For crying out loud, I was trying to avoid getting onto this....

For crying out loud? My grandfather says that!

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Everyone has an alotted time to choose sides. Either you're with god, or against him. And when you die, you get to find out which side you've chosen.

Crimony, could you be any more blunt? You must be one of those brutally honest people... now, it's good to be honest, but when you basically condemn others, it's not so effective. That said, I agree with many of your points, Wayfarer .

Now, as I promised, Mothra, I'll answer your most recent inquiry to the best of my limited abilities:

Originally posted by MasterMothra
i don't think jesus is the only way to god. i'm not sure if i understand what jesus's purpose was at all. if people were going to heaven b/f jesus was on earth, why did jesus need to save us from sin? we could just repent and have salvation, no jesus necessary.

am i missing something?

Yes, but only in the context of my own beliefs.

This was Christ's plan - to be sent to Earth, live a pure life, and atone for the sins of the world. Satan's plan was to abolish sin altogether and usurp the glory for himself. Christ's plan was chosen.

The Atonement was compulsory for the salvation of mankind. "No unclean thing can enter into the presence of God." Since we all commit sins, there must be a process to become cleansed of them. The Atonement and accepting it through repentance are that process.

The Atonement, as I know it, is eternal and everlasting. It covers all who are and were upon the Earth. This is very confusing, too, because how could that affect those beforehand? It doesn't fit, logically. I don't think it fits afterwards, either. It's another matter of faith.

However, as much as faith is a factor, we can have experiences with the divine daily. How? Well, it tells you in the Bible. Let's take a looksie.

"He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy" (Proverbs 28:13)

Again, repentance. It's quite a process and never fun, but you'll never feel better than after you have forsaken past sins. I can testify of the truthfulness of this verse.

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:7-8)

"We have fellowship one with another." That's another. No contention; just the spirit of peace and serenity because of living as Christ did: perfectly.

We obviously cannot be perfect as Christ was, but we can become more perfect through this process of repentance. It's almost like drawing a picture. Imagine you're in a drawing class. Since you have no access to an eraser, when you make a mistake, you must sincerely ask the teacher to rectify it, then continue. If we neglect to ask help of the teacher, he will not come on his own. He is available to all those who ask him, as long as they have completed their homework .

I enjoy these discussions, as long as they don't become degrading to others. I enjoy the feeling of kinship through common preferences that we have, and I'd rather that these opinions, as weighty they may be in my own paradigm, won't abolish that feeling of friendship. I expound my beliefs out of love, not contention. I wouldn't share them if I knew they were only to be mocked at, and I appreciate how well we've treated each other. May we continue to do so.

[Twilight]

I can handle a few of those.
1. The law of entropy is very well established and isn't disputed. Things spontaniously go from a state of order to a state of chaos so that they are in a lower state of energy.
5. There is no solid way of dating the earth and the sun. We can only make predictions. Methods like carbon dating have serious problems because they assume that atmospheric consentration of C-14 has always been the same, and that the C-14/C-12 ratio in the atmosphere is always constant. We know that these numbers do fuctuate over time, making the method inacurate. This is also true for other forms of radiometric dating

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Twilight
I can handle a few of those.
1. The law of entropy is very well established and isn't disputed. Things spontaniously go from a state of order to a state of chaos so that they are in a lower state of energy.
5. There is no solid way of dating the earth and the sun. We can only make predictions. Methods like carbon dating have serious problems because they assume that atmospheric consentration of C-14 has always been the same, and that the C-14/C-12 ratio in the atmosphere is always constant. We know that these numbers do fuctuate over time, making the method inacurate. This is also true for other forms of radiometric dating

Yes, but we have taken that into account when we use these dating systems, that's why we callibrate. Plus, we can base this on core sampling. No, there is no solid way of dating these phenomena, but we can try! Also, while there may be a degree of error in dating, its only plus or minus 2 - 3 %

[Twilight]

I know about calibration for when you have a sample that is confirmed to be of the same age. A problem with that is how do you figure out the date of the core samples without the problem leading into circles?

[Nibs]

Originally posted by MasterMothra
can you go to heaven or hell if you have never been introduced to any sort of orgnized religeon? if you were on a desolate island where there were no traces of christianity, muslim or jewish propganda what is your fate?
i am starting to believe that if you believe in god and follow "natural law" then you can go to heaven or hell w/o believing in any of these organized religeons. in all likelyhood this is all the people had to follow before the bible and jesus.

Whee! I'm having too much fun with these, Mothra... I really hope you do like reading them as I do writing them.

The first one: Also include children. There would be no inkling of mercy in that policy if it were so. God does not allow those without an opportunity to be condemned. I have been taught and believe that those who didn't have a sufficient chance in this life to hear and live as God would have them, they will definitely have that opportunity in the life to come. How does that work? Faith. I hate for it to seem as though I'm using that one concept as a crutch for all my statements, but it is the basis of my religion and my being, as I understand it.

Now, as for the second one... what, exactly do you mean by "natural law"? I'd guess, except for my fear of sounding stupid.

[FrodoFriend]

Originally posted by Twilight
1. The law of entropy is very well established and isn't disputed. Things spontaniously go from a state of order to a state of chaos so that they are in a lower state of energy.

Yes, thanks for giving a specific example. I knew there was some example of that, but couldn't think of it. BeardofPants is right too. After all, why would scientists bother to use carbon-14 dating and callibration if they knew it was very inaccurate?

[afro-elf]

Beardopants and FF thanks

too tired to have replied


WAYFARER

you are using language that will get this thread closed.

for calling him a fool your erudite( priggish meaning) behavior makes YOU look like a fool because it shows your own faulty knowledge



see FF and BOP responses



I haven't forgotten to answer your previous stuff just busy



as for atheism that is ONE of several definitions. BOTH of you are correct

the romans thought that the christians were atheist

NIBS and EMPLYNX


I appreciate the manner of your responses.

[Nibs]

The pleasure's mine, my friend. I yearn only to uplift and edify, not disprove and ostracize.

[afro-elf]

Carbon14/12 dating is only one method of dating


check these two threads out for more the theist non-theist debate



http://www.tolkientrail.com/entmoot/...0&pagenumber=1



http://www.tolkientrail.com/entmoot/...&threadid=1780

[FrodoFriend]

Ok, I just had a chance to skim through this thread from the beginning.

Anduril: Wow. You said it! Your arguments are wonderfully clear and well-phrased. Everything I want to say but don't know how. I also noticed that no one has yet been able to answer your points about the impossibility of a being both omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (what a mouthful).

I also want to say thanks! to everyone who's keeping this thread calm and non-flamed!

[markedel]

And according some this is still true. In fact everyone on this board (but me) is pretty much guaranteed access to some sort of nifty afterlife. I on the other (unless I find some more internal belief) will have to enture some purging first. Unless there's a skeleton in someone's closet.