 |
search this site: search the web: |
If you witnessed a group of people worshiping a rock and calling it their moral authority you’d probably call them superstitious ignoramuses. Which is exactly what you are implying when you say, “…you might say a rock doesn't exist because it cannot love, hate, fear, etc., and has no emotional identity, etc.” I only mean that if there is a God he cannot be a moral authority and there certainly isn’t a heaven or hell, both of which are tenants of Christian faith. Certainly this proves other religions fallible, but I do not pretend to represent any religion I have not studied extensively.
by RobinGaylord on Sun Jun 20, 04 3:43pm
[+]
Robin Gaylord. Your ramble proves nothing. The only proof that's worth anything is your own experience of the divine which you obviously haven't had yet.
by cretin_slap on Mon Jun 21, 04 7:42am
[+]
You weren't by any chance licking toads when you got that 'divine proof' where you cretin? *were I know you aren't being serious, herzog. If you want proof that God exists then you can get it for yourself with the practice of a spiritual discipline. Pouring scorn on everything good is all that you do, herzog.
by cretin_slap on Tue Jun 22, 04 7:07am
[+]
I think the ideas of love and hate and good and evil are all constructs of the huma race, designed to validate outselfs and make life more bearable. Outside of human society good and evil don't exist, they are two of the most unnatural things ever. To talk about hate and love in the way you are is completely taking them out of context, they are tools evolved to aid us in survival I have to disagree with several of your premises and conclusions: * I suggest that there are far more basic emotions than love and fear. Also, that rather than being discrete emotions, they constitute a spectrum: Love/hate, fear/security, anger/serenity, admiration/revulsion, curiosity/apathy, etc. * You cite the only possible cause of fear as "not being impervious" (implication: physical harm). What about fear for others (loved ones) who are not impervious? What about fear of failure (witness the free-will experiment). What about the fear of the unknown (one may assert God knows all, but then that undermines whether free will truly exists)? What about fear of isolation? (cont.) * The only cause of hatred is fear? I disagree. In fact, it seems to me that there are implications of Divine fury within the Bible ... some would seem to have to be based on hatred to explain their intensity. (Hatred of sin?) (cont.) * You cannot love without knowing hate? Again, I disagree. One may not be able to develop an in-depth appreciation/understanding of love, perhaps. * Without understanding love/hate one cannot judge? I suggest this is simplistic: it depends upon the criteria being judged. A butcher can judge whether pieces of meat are less than or greater than 1 kilogram in mass, without knowing love or hate. It depend supon what God's crietria for judging is (assuming that judgment is, indeed, in the works). (cont.) * Morality is subjective and differs among cultures. True, when discussing cultural moralities from an anthropological perspective. From an ethicist's viewpoint, some standard of absolute morality might be thought to exist. (cont.) All in all, I suggest the analysis suffers from some of the same faults that many Christian analyses suffer: overly simplistic framing of the question and overly limited options/conclusions. (cont.) Now, I am not arguing that your final conclusion is wrong; merely that the road to which you arrived is flawed. Cathexis - I said this analysis is supposed to prove that there can’t be a moral authority that rules over all of us and determines whether we go to heaven or hell (i.e. a Christian God). You concede that although you feel a person can understand love without an understanding or fear and hate that that love may not be as deep as human love- “One may not be able to develop an in-depth appreciation/understanding of love, perhaps.” If that is how you feel then you must agree that anyone without the ability to understand emotion on a human level cannot be said to be a perfect judge of morality. Since morality is based more on empathy than on physical laws. The butcher analogy is flawed for this very reason. I’m not asking God to measure the length of a steak I’m asking him if murder is justified under certain circumstances. The fact that hate results from fear is a fundamental psychological fact. I didn’t make it up my psychology professor explained this on the first day of class. It’s a logical cause and effect. Love and fear being the basic 2 emotions from which all other emotions originate is also not my opinion but a scientific fact. Since God is not supposed to know fear or hate or insecurity or jealousy (despite what the bible says he can’t because he can’t possible fear another God that isn’t supposed to exist), etc, so it stands to reason that he can’t know love, or acceptance or peace or joy or sympathy. God cannot sympathize with an emotion he’s never had. Ex. Someone kills my parents. I fear the loss of emotional support & love. I become angry. I kill the person that killed my parents. This has never happened to God. He would not understand this. How could he? You can because you fear or have feared losing your parents at some point, but he wouldn’t. How can he determine fairly whether I go to heaven or hell? If this is the function of a Christian god, then he would have no purpose. If he has no purpose then there is no reason for him to exist. Nature has proven that all things without a purpose vanish eventually, although it would have had to have a purpose to exist to begin with. This type of God has not purpose and has never had a purpose so why would he exist?
by RobinGaylord on Fri Jun 25, 04 2:45pm
[+]
You just gaved me an idea for a new ballot.
by johan_moritz on Sat Jun 26, 04 4:05am
[+]
Two words disprove your theory: Universal Negative. Universal Negatives are impossible. Because you have not been everywhere in the myriad cosmoses, you cannot say a god who fits your description does not exist. Beyond that, you have scripted what God must look like and how He must conform to your rules of understanding and claimed that since He doesn't abide by the rules you set, He does not exist. That seems a bit circular. Where I see fault in your argument: 1. Not all hate is based on fear (as already pointed out). I doubt people who hate the color red are afraid of it. 2. An omnipotent being should be able to differentiate between action and person. For example (an oversimplification), you might hate when a friend calls you 10 times a day, but you don't hate the friend. You hate the action. If you, being non-omnipotent, can sometimes distinguish between the two, what would preclude a Supreme Being from such? 3. You claim someone who doesn't love or hate cannot decide who is "Deserving of Heaven or Hell." This is like saying non-emotional judges are incapable of presiding over courts. Law is Law. Judges decide judicial matters, not emotional questions. Nor should they be swayed by emotionalism. 4. You assume that sin is a "moral abomination." Not having auto insurance or failing to wear your seatbelt are both violations of law, neither based upon morality. The point: not all laws are based upon morality. Some "sins" are not morality questions. ie idolatry. 5. You assume moral relativism is correct.
by anti_yankee on Thu Jul 01, 04 8:22pm
[+]
Robin: OK, I acknowledge the goal of the proof. You state: You concede that although you feel a person can understand love without an understanding or fear and hate that that love may not be as deep as human love - One may not be able to develop an in-depth appreciation/ understanding of love, perhaps. If that is how you feel then you must agree that anyone without the ability to understand emotion on a human level cannot be said to be a perfect judge of morality. Agreed. Of course, the argument will be that we are talking about any *person*. By assuming that a theorteical God has the same cognitive abilities/ limitations as a person, you may be limiting your analysis. If there was a God, wouldn't it be possible that He/ She/ It did not have these limitations: those due to biology and/or those due to physics (dimensions/ realities)? You state: Since morality is based more on empathy than on physical laws. The butcher analogy is flawed for this very reason. Granted -- that may have been too simplistic, and hence, not applicable. The fact that hate results from fear is a fundamental psychological fact. Agreed. But just because HATE *CAN* lead to FEAR does not mean that *ALL* FEAR comes from HATE. For example: All Chickens come from Eggs. But not all eggs come from chickens. You write: Love and fear being the basic 2 emotions from which all other emotions originate is also not my opinion but a scientific fact. ?!? It is? I have to admit, I have never heard this assertion. Can you point me to any sources? You write: Since God is not supposed to know fear or hate or insecurity or jealousy (despite what the bible says he can't because he can't possible fear another God that isn't supposed to exist), etc, so it stands to reason that he can't know love, or acceptance or peace or joy or sympathy. Woah there ... this is a stretch. First, the First Commandment originally read something along the lines of: I am a *jealous God* and you shall have no God before me. Why couldn't he know jealousy? If the ape-lings are worshiping golden calves ... I could see it. Next: Why is it that a God couldn't know love? You write: God cannot sympathize with an emotion he's never had. I dunno ... what about empathy? I empathize with people who have experienced things I never did. And again, I think it may be a stretch to assume he can't know it. For all we know, he beta tested the Earth by role-playing a human being. You write: Ex. Someone kills my parents. I fear the loss of emotional support & love. I become angry. I kill the person that killed my parents. This has never happened to God. No? Someone kills one of God's favored ones (e.g., Abel) and He would not feel anything? Note: I don't believe the literal Adam & Eve story, but it is a useful mechanism. You write: He would not understand this. How could he? One might argue that if He designed it, He would understand it. A programmer may not see some aspect of his program, but that doesn't mean he doesn't understand it. You write: You can because you fear or have feared losing your parents at some point, but he wouldn't. Counter-Ex: I can see a stranger killed and I can be affected. Someone's father will never come home. Someone's husband is gone forever. I've been strongly affected by empathetic grief. And yet ... I didn't love this man -- he is a stranger to me. I did not fear a similar fate. Yet ... I experience strong emotion, based on neither love nor fear, but empathy. You write: How can he determine fairly whether I go to heaven or hell? First, personally I doubt the existence of a heaven or hell. However, I think you are holding a diety to very human standards. I don't profess to know the nature of God, but would theorize it is much more advanced than I. You write: If this is the function of a Christian god, then he would have no purpose. This assertion seems unrelated to anything we've discussed and not founded by anything we've talked about. Did I miss a connection? You write: If he has no purpose then there is no reason for him to exist. I disagree ... why is a Purpose required? Also, just because we may not perceive a purpose doesn't mean one doesn't exist. You write: Nature has proven that all things without a purpose vanish eventually, although it would have had to have a purpose to exist to begin with. Oh, I most heartily disagree! I happen to have a minor in zoology and know that this projection of purpose is a common mistake in beginning biological classes. Example: Diatoms do not have a flat shape in order to remain suspended in the water column; rather, diatoms remain suspended in the water column because they have a flat shape. There is a subtle, yet major difference between the two statements. Also: wisdom teeth and the appendix, in humans. Neither serve a purpose, yet both exist. You write: This type of God has not purpose and has never had a purpose so why would he exist? It seems to me that, while the reasoning is certainly interesting, some of the constructs are not absolute, or have been a bit twisted by incomplete or misapplied Discreet Mathematical application of relations. robin gaylord's a moron. NHBman: I disagree. He has the intellectual courage to grapple with some very profound and deep concepts. Whether he has successfully arrived at the end of that effort is one thing, but don't belittle him for attempting the journey. Cathexis, nice post
by anti_yankee on Fri Jul 02, 04 8:48pm
[+]
~ You guys are missing his point completely. The reason Robin is holding god to a human understanding of the development of an emotionally conscious personality is because the bible says that God formed man in his image. ~ This is not what the argument says. The argument creates God in mans image. That is, it creates Him in a way that we might understand with our faulty and finite understanding. ~ Therefore stating that a God could not possess these traits is relevant. ~ Hogwash. ~ Unless you dont believe the bible is an accurate account of Christian beliefs. ~ Strawman. The Bible also states that God is love. That He hates sin. That He is a jealous God, etc. Using your argument as proof further solidifies the point that Robin argument is in error. ~ Because God lacks the understanding of being vulnerable to destruction then he couldnt possibly understand fear (and therefore love) and obviously the rest of Robin statements fall into place for reasons he has delved into to the point ~ I saw my dog run in front of a car and I was afraid she was going to get hit. Does this mean that I hate cars? Does it mean I am afraid of dogs? Thats what your argument proposes. What is it that prevents God from being concerned (fearing) for the welfare of humanity? ~ if you dont understand it by now then you probably never will. ~ No offense, but this is a sophomoric argument for the lazy and intellectually bankrupt. ~ You say God could have a far more developed emotional understanding than man. How? ~ How can the maker of a nuclear bomb know more about it than the average person? ~ Where did God come from? Christians state that God has to exist because the universe couldnt have come about without him. ~ If you see a painting, you know there is a painter. Do you question the existence of Van Gogh because he, presumably, has never called you? ~ Well how did God come about with out being built by some type of God builder? I think its far more probable that the universe arose from nothingness than to believe that God sprung from nothingness and created something far simpler than himself. ~ Why is it more believable? They both require an incredible amount of faith. One grants that there is a Being outside the confines of time (eternal) and is omnipotent. The other claims that out of absolutely nothing everything just appeared. ~ If God were the end all of perfection then what would be the point of this universe. Surly it makes more sense that whatever the purpose of life is it isnt to worship something that is supposed to be perfect that no one can prove has ever been seen or heard and never makes itself relevant to our everyday lives. ~ This is purely your opinion. However, the historicity of Christ is irrefutable. For many Christians, He is relevant to our everyday lives. ~ Does God exist? If he does, why cant he prove it? ~ For those, such as yourself, who do not hope to believe, there will never be enough proof. If He stood before you and worked miracles, you would simply claim He was an illusionist. Moreover, what makes you so sure He hasnt proven it? Do you think men like Stephen, Peter, Paul, etc. would have gone to their deaths for something they knew was a lie? ~ If he is unwilling to prove it, what could be accomplished by it? If it is to prove our worthiness to get into heaven then why has he created some of us unable to prove their worthiness (i.e. the people born dead, retarded, insane, etc.)?~ How do you know these examples are incapable? ~ Is God cruel for doing this? Or is he incompetent? If he is either he is not able to judge a persons worthiness to be blessed into heaven. ~ Or perhaps He is incredibly fair. Perhaps that is what you do not like. ~ A Christian God cannot and does not exist. You cannot disprove this statement but if you open your eyes there is certainly proof that he doesnt exist. ~ I can and have disproved it. The statement is a Universal Negative. These are impossible. Since a Universal Negative cannot be true, your statement cannot be true. If your statement cannot be true, it is disproved. What is your proof that He does not exist? ~ I think that protesting this logic has become an exercise in futility but Im glad people tried, because the more they do the more the truth seems obvious. Galileo was grateful to his critics for this reason. God doesnt exist. ~ It is clear you do not understand logic or theology.
by anti_yankee on Tue Jul 06, 04 9:13pm
[+]
Blah blah blah! Dance88, "Blah blah blah!" Spoken like a true genius.
by anti_yankee on Sun Jul 11, 04 9:21am
[+]
I keep hearing that you guys think God’s understanding of human emotion comes from empathy. Well how empathetic can someone be to create someone he knows is going to go to hell? How can an empathetic God tempt (or let Satan tempt) a person he knows will only succumb to sin and ultimately go to hell? He knows if you will ask for forgiveness before he presents the opportunity for you to sin so why is asking for forgiveness a criteria for being forgiven? He knows you won’t ask so is it your fault that you don’t. God made the decision to give you a test he knows you will fail so who is at fault if you go to hell? How can anyone say there is a choice? If this is a tenant of a religion then the religion is false. The all loving, all powerful, all knowing God cannot exist if he sends people to hell for sins he has set them up to fail at. If he is unable to stop the process of bring sinners into the world that will live in the fires of Hell in pain for eternity then he is not all-powerful. If he is unwilling to stop this process then he is not all loving. If he is unaware of this process then he is not all knowing. If he is not all knowing he cannot claim to be a perfect judge of our worthiness of heaven or hell. Thus the Christian God (all-knowing, all-loving and all powerful) does not exist.
by RobinGaylord on Mon Jul 12, 04 3:28pm
[+]
Robin, I think you are trying to equate foreknowledge with culpability when they are certainly not the same. If we apply your logic to a purely secular example, we might infer that a hostage who sees his captor about to kill another hostage is just as guilty because he saw it coming and did not prevent it. The same can hold true to less drastic betrayals. Consider your best friend decides to cheat on his girlfriend. You know it and do not stop him. Should your significant other break up with you for cheating? Probably not. Foreknowledge is not the same as guilt. Consider the following: You are walking past a bank one night and notice the door is unlocked and the vault is open. Does this give you liberty to empty the vault? If you rob the place blind and get caught a day later, do you honestly believe you can pin culpability on the bank employee who neglected to lock the door? What is it about people today that prevents them from taking respobsibility for their own actions? I think the second half of your arguement deserves more attention. You make almost every argument but one: You said "If he is unable to stop the process of bring (sic) sinners into the world that will live in the fires of Hell in pain for eternity then he is not all-powerful. If he is unwilling to stop this process then he is not all loving. If he is unaware of this process then he is not all knowing. " You left out "if He does not allow this to happen He is _not_ a just God, and therefore, is not fit to preside over us. I believe that is your true issue. It appears you do not like the fact that it is ALL completely fair. Some people live to be 100 others die at 2. Some people are rich others poor. If God were to say "everyone who follows me will be rich, happy, healthy, eternal, and have every fancy gratified in a heartbeat" who would _not_ follow Him? More than that, who would choose the alternative if it meant being poor, sick, dying (or dead), and miserable? It is completely fair for everyone the way it is. There are no politics, no decisions based on race or economics, no discrimination based upon social standing or gender. It is not the failed temptations that send a man to hell, for all have sinned. It is the failure to ask for forgiveness. _That_ is most clearly your choice.
by anti_yankee on Mon Jul 12, 04 7:14pm
[+]
This Christian God does not have to send people to Hell for sinning. He could just not let them into heaven and make them wander in limbo till they see the error of their ways. Instead we are supposed to believe that God loves everyone and creates them without concern about whether they will go to Hell or not. If that is his idea of love then I don’t believe he can stand judge over man or me since I know love does not drive someone to commit such an act.
by RobinGaylord on Mon Jul 12, 04 7:29pm
[+]
Why thank you. Heres where you are wrong, God can hate. Archaelogical finds have been recorded more and more proof that God exists. The prophecy of the reunion of the jews into one nation again, there has been evidence that there are dark objects in the shape of an ark on mount ararat. THERE HAS NOT BEEN ONE SCIENTIFIFC FACT TO DISPROVE THAT GOD EXISTS, besides, if you don't believe in God, what do you live for? absolutely nothing.
by jakesnake5 on Thu Jul 15, 04 6:40pm
[+]
Dance88, "Why thank you. " You are quite welcome. ;-)
by anti_yankee on Mon Jul 19, 04 5:18pm
[+]
jakesnake5 - All modern science is working against the stories of the bible. If you can find a geneticist that believes in creation then I will bet he spend more time writing books about the bible than researching DNA. If you find a geologist that thinks the world is only 12,000 years old then he's probably unemployed and you should give him 10 bucks for gas and a bite to eat. If the earth is that young then why can we see stars that are billions of light years from us. After all the light would have taken a billion years to reach us. A really old boat on top of a damn mountain doesn’t prove God exist or that Noah did anything they say he did in the Bible. In fact the story of Noah could have been made up just to explain how the hell someone got a boat on top of the mountain in the first place. I think it’s a hell of a lot more likely than to think Noah collected 2 of every 800,000 insects in the world (Some of which would die without being supplied any vegetation for 40 days and nights.) and put them on a boat. The story of Noah is bullshit. It’s even more flawed than the one of Adam and Eve.
by RobinGaylord on Mon Jul 19, 04 7:19pm
[+]
Not sure - how could He let the Holocaust occur?
by Bumble05252 on Mon Jul 19, 04 7:22pm
[+]
Guest_ d00cd- read what I've written, at least try to comprehend it and then criticize it. If you just get frustrated and call me names it makes you look stupid.
by RobinGaylord on Sat Jul 24, 04 3:59pm
[+]
God can't exist, he'd never be stupid enough to let Curious George Bush be president! "...why can we see stars that are billions of light years from us. After all the light would have taken a billion years to reach us." Robin that doesn't make any sense. Stars are thousands of times bigger than planets and we see planets. If planets were as big as stars im sure we would see them numbered as stars. And how do we really measure how far away stars are? we dont.
by jakesnake5 on Sat Jul 31, 04 1:54am
[+]
Why humanity continues to worship this nonexistent monster is beyond me.
by Cassini90125 on Tue Aug 03, 04 2:25pm
[+]
Galileo recanted after the Christians put the heat on him. I guess that means that the sun revolves around the Earth. Go on believing in your God, but dont call it faith call it what it really is ignorance.
by RobinGaylord on Sat Aug 21, 04 3:13pm
[+]
"And how do we really measure how far away stars are? we dont." Actually there have been satellites in use for quite some time that have gathered parallax measurements and have calcuated the distance of most of the close stars to within 1% accuracy. galileo never recanted anything the catholic church believed that the sun revolved around the earth for awhile. dont mix christianity whith catholosism please. they are NOT the same
by jakesnake5 on Sun Jan 16, 05 4:01pm
[+]
Before the reformation ALL christians were Catholic, so I see no point in diserning between them.
by RobinGaylord on Fri Feb 11, 05 2:35pm
[+]
wow man, i agree with all of that. ROFLMAO I love the choices on the ballot. Who are you? I like you. LOL
by Queen_Jannine on Wed Jun 15, 05 6:46pm
[+]
You're an idiot. Can you imagine how embarassed you would feel if you decided to give up religion? Having to take back all of the bullshit you have been preaching for your whole life. It's no wonder people are resistant. Makes no sence whatsoever.
by ExplorerTwo on Fri May 12, 06 4:58am
[+]
youve got problems
|