Jump to content


Photo

Causal Philosophy - Are CDs Materialists?


  • Please log in to reply
105 replies to this topic

#61 Adanac

Adanac

    Tau

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,874 posts

Posted 09 June 2005 - 05:38 PM

Pantrog, word in your ear? How’s about you meander your way over to some other section and discuss something uplifting like the commandments of Christ. Personally I can’t take anyone seriously who just wants to talk their way out of religion using philosophy.

#62 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 09 June 2005 - 05:41 PM

I think what Fortigurn is saying that there is no onwards because there is no point in going onwards with someone who appears to just be here to pass the time of day.


touchy! well its not my fault, Forti said he was going to draw similarities between Information theory (which as we all know is a branch of statistical mathematics associated with information entropy and data transmission) and all I got where 3 lines. I was a bit disappointed to tell you the truth.

I currently believe that it's not worth the effort.

Let it suffice to say for now that I believe that what we call 'materialism' is in fact little more than data, that information is part of the field of physics, that the equation entropy=disorder=ignorance is a Biblical principle, and that information theory explains to me the principles for understanding Revelation.

To me, information theory is akin to the davar/logos theme in Scripture, and revealed in the 'fine tuning' of the universe which is discerned by cosmologists and theoretical physicists.

There was order (information), prior to the existence of the universe, and this to me is evidence of a supreme consciousness. The universe is a carefully ordered information set, in a closed system.

#63 pantrog_*

pantrog_*

    Zeta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 09 June 2005 - 06:00 PM

I currently believe that it's not worth the effort.

Let it suffice to say for now that I believe that what we call 'materialism' is in fact little more than data, that information is part of the field of physics, that the equation entropy=disorder=ignorance is a Biblical principle, and that information theory explains to me the principles for understanding Revelation.

To me, information theory is akin to the davar/logos theme in Scripture, and revealed in the 'fine tuning' of the universe which is discerned by cosmologists and theoretical physicists.

There was order (information), prior to the existence of the universe, and this to me is evidence of a supreme consciousness. The universe is a carefully ordered information set, in a closed system.


entropy=disorder=ignorance

order (information)

:D

<behave pan no cheap shots>

thank you for your input Forti, but if you get a chance you might want to read the founding text of Information theory. ("The Mathematical Theory of Communication" in the Bell System Technical Journal, July 1948, Claude Shannon) . Its very readable.

Intrestingly informational entropy (H) is directly proportional to the bit content of a signal. Infact informational entropy can be measured in bits.

so:

disorder (more information)
order (less information)

=> entropy=disorder=information

Pantrog, word in your ear? How’s about you meander your way over to some other section and discuss something uplifting like the commandments of Christ. Personally I can’t take anyone seriously who just wants to talk their way out of religion using philosophy.


It seems sensible to gauge the the existance of something before discussing its alleged commandements. Otherwise humans would tend to get trapped in the false religion of their parents.

#64 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 24,344 posts
  • LocationAdelaide, South Australia

Posted 09 June 2005 - 06:16 PM

I suggest that you restrict your comments to those which are relevant and profitable to our discussion.


Well this evening I've suggested two possible lines for discussion - for one you illustrated yourself as too bored/familiar with the script to be bothered talking about it


What on earth are you talking about?

My "familiarity with the standard script" remark was intended to explain why I did not react to your remark about Christadelphians and physics. It was a hint that my buttons are not so easily pressed.

My reference to IIDB was intended to elaborate on the reasons for this.

you did however helpfully illustrate how 'manly' you are at forum discussion.


Whatever that means.

For the other (radionucleotide dating techniques) you haven't yet clarified whether we're allowed to talk about them or not.


Excuse me? How in the world did you get that idea?

You introduced radionucleotide dating techniques and asked me a few questions about my view of them, which I answered. Following my responses, you have chosen (for reasons unknown) not to pursue that topic. This despite the fact that I made no attempt to discourage it, and happily engaged in it.

Instead you initiated a line of dialogue which led to your Fiance (congratulations by the way).


No, it was Adanac who mentioned Huldah, to which you replied:

Huldah?


So I explained who Huldah was.

This line of dialogue was not initiated by me; it was, in fact, a tangent introduced by Adanac to which you responded and which I subsequently clarified

Instead of accepting my invitation to initiate positive dialogue ('What do you suggest?') you took the chance to gripe about some rebuke (which you probably deserved) which I gave you last week.


I did no such thing.

You flatter yourself that this was a comment about "some rebuke (which you probably deserved) which I gave you last week" (uh... you "rebuked" me? If so, I certainly didn't notice.) But it was nothing of the sort.

My suggestion...

I suggest that you restrict your comments to those which are relevant and profitable to our discussion.


...was a hint that you should continue what I considered to be our positive dialogue, instead of posting cheap cracks in the hope of provoking a reaction.

Deliberately provocative comments like this:

The material world .... I can think of at least two instance where major CD publications have made misleading comments about physics. (go on ... challenge me!)


And it was a deliberately provocative comment, as you tacitly admitted:

I was optimistic Adanac would bite


so please, lets not give each other too much of a hard time about relevance.  :mellow:


Speak for yourself. I've been on topic since we began.

Did you want to get back to radionucleotide dating techniques at some stage?
'Abba Antony said, "A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us.'"'

Ward, Benedicta. The Sayings of the Desert Fathers (2006), Antony 25, p. 5.

Credo.

#65 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 24,344 posts
  • LocationAdelaide, South Australia

Posted 09 June 2005 - 06:17 PM

It seems sensible to gauge the the existance of something before discussing its alleged commandements. Otherwise humans would tend to get trapped in the false religion of their parents.


Well said.

I agree.
'Abba Antony said, "A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us.'"'

Ward, Benedicta. The Sayings of the Desert Fathers (2006), Antony 25, p. 5.

Credo.

#66 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 10 June 2005 - 04:11 AM

thank you for your input Forti, but if you get a chance you might want to read the founding text of Information theory. ("The Mathematical Theory of Communication" in the Bell System Technical Journal, July 1948, Claude Shannon) . Its very readable.

I wouldn't say it's 'very readable' (except to people who have a sound knowledge of the maths involved), and I'm guessnig that was humour. I've tried readnig it. I've also read a couple of commentaries on it. I can grasp some of the theory, though the maths is over my head.

Intrestingly informational entropy (H) is directly proportional to the bit content of a signal. Infact informational entropy can be measured in bits.

so:

disorder (more information)
order (less information)

=> entropy=disorder=information


But I wasn't measuring informational entropy.

You seemed to disagree with this:

entropy=disorder=ignorance

order (information)


Do you or do you not disagree?

#67 pantrog_*

pantrog_*

    Zeta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 10 June 2005 - 12:59 PM

entropy=disorder=ignorance


This is an exciting subject Forti, I'm afraid I'm going to disagree with the above statement. Informational entropy (measured in bits/bytes /megabytes etc.) is analogous (but not the same as) entropy as defined by physicists. Shannon applied the thermodynamic formulae to information but explictly stated they were not the same.

We were talking about Information theory and you mentioned 'entropy'. Given that the only entropy in information theory is informational entropy I thought that was what you where referring to.

We can talk about physical entropy or informational entropy - you pick.

#68 mordecai_*

mordecai_*

    Iota

  • Non-Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 672 posts

Posted 15 June 2005 - 01:32 AM

I think what Fortigurn is saying that there is no onwards because there is no point in going onwards with someone who appears to just be here to pass the time of day.


touchy! well its not my fault, Forti said he was going to draw similarities between Information theory (which as we all know is a branch of statistical mathematics associated with information entropy and data transmission) and all I got where 3 lines. I was a bit disappointed to tell you the truth.

I currently believe that it's not worth the effort.

Let it suffice to say for now that I believe that what we call 'materialism' is in fact little more than data, that information is part of the field of physics, that the equation entropy=disorder=ignorance is a Biblical principle, and that information theory explains to me the principles for understanding Revelation.

To me, information theory is akin to the davar/logos theme in Scripture, and revealed in the 'fine tuning' of the universe which is discerned by cosmologists and theoretical physicists.

There was order (information), prior to the existence of the universe, and this to me is evidence of a supreme consciousness. The universe is a carefully ordered information set, in a closed system.

The most ironic part of your post is when you mention fine tuning arguments, there is nothing fine tuned about the universe. The earth has been hit with giant meteors again and again obviously without gods intervention, earthquakes have been happening for billions of years, etc. I really like to know how CD's who accept old earth and cosmic evolution square it with the theology that they are going to live on earth forever when the laws of nature have never needed changing. So is god going to move everyone to a different planet when the sun goes belly up? It seems ridiculous to be an TEC/OEC while still holding god intervenes in nature and is in control of natural laws, if he was he wouldn't need cosmic evolution and *need* to wait 14 billion years to get an earth with people on it. It's counter to the idea of omniscience/omnipotence and infinite power.

Edited by mordecai, 15 June 2005 - 01:33 AM.


#69 mordecai_*

mordecai_*

    Iota

  • Non-Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 672 posts

Posted 15 June 2005 - 01:36 AM

Ok if CD's believe that the form something takes determines it's function, how can one get around that god intentionally designed people badly? (i.e. defective from the outset)

If god created man with the original goal of all people worshiping and loving him, then there is a problem because anyone who doesn't love him must necessarily be defective or deciding against belief because his mind doesn't work properly or the chemical makeup of his body/mind lead him to those feelings or conclusions. The same could even be said of adam and eve, the first two were defects, even if it wasn't total mythology the problem still remains if you believe.

Edited by mordecai, 15 June 2005 - 01:54 AM.


#70 graknil_*

graknil_*

    Theta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts

Posted 15 June 2005 - 06:33 PM

Ok if CD's believe that the form something takes determines it's function, how can one get around that god intentionally designed people badly? (i.e. defective from the outset)


I would say it this way - people were intentionally not created perfect. But why is God not allowed to create imperfect beings?

If god created man with the original goal of all people worshiping and loving him, then there is a problem because anyone who doesn't love him must necessarily be defective or deciding against belief because his mind doesn't work properly or the chemical makeup of his body/mind lead him to those feelings or conclusions. The same could even be said of adam and eve, the first two were defects, even if it wasn't total mythology the problem still remains if you believe.


This is only a problem if worshipping and loving God are the only things that matter to God. God may have other priorities that are also important and could override his desire to have everyone love and worship him.

For example, lets say that God wants people to have free will and he wants them to love him. If people are to have free will, they must be able to choose not to love God. If everyone has to love God then we are not free to do so, rather we are forced to. No matter how much God may want people to love him, there will be people that don't as long as God also gives men free will.

#71 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 15 June 2005 - 11:20 PM

entropy=disorder=ignorance


This is an exciting subject Forti, I'm afraid I'm going to disagree with the above statement. Informational entropy (measured in bits/bytes /megabytes etc.) is analogous (but not the same as) entropy as defined by physicists. Shannon applied the thermodynamic formulae to information but explictly stated they were not the same.

We were talking about Information theory and you mentioned 'entropy'. Given that the only entropy in information theory is informational entropy I thought that was what you where referring to.

We can talk about physical entropy or informational entropy - you pick.

Then I must be reading these commentaries incorrectly:

Entropy is a measure of disorder, and disorder is essentially the same thing as ignorance. This is how entropy is related to information theory (Angrist & Hepler, 1967; Gell-Mann, 1994; Gleick, 1987).


Source. In that article you will see how significant Shannon's work has been in the field of cognitive psychology.

Information is an abstraction from any meaning a message might have and from any particular form a message might take. In the 1940s, the founder of information theory, Claude Shannon, moved information from the realm of philosophers to that of physicists, showing that the term could be given a clear definition. Not only could we define it, but, he demonstrated, we could also quantify it and treat information as a part of physics, something that I found amazing and eye opening when I first read his works.


Source.

I am in fact referring to informational entropy. As I see it, informational entropy means a disorder of information, 'essentially the same thing as ignorance'.

Yes, I do see it as analagous to (but not the same as), entropy as defined by physcisits (which as far as I know says nothing about information per se).

I wasn't aware that I was saying they were exactly the same thing.

#72 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 15 June 2005 - 11:21 PM

The most ironic part of your post is when you mention fine tuning arguments, there is nothing fine tuned about the universe.

Yes, well thanks for your opinion. I'll go with the physicists on this one.

The earth has been hit with giant meteors again and again obviously without gods intervention, earthquakes have been happening for billions of years, etc.


This is no evidence against fine tuning.

#73 mordecai_*

mordecai_*

    Iota

  • Non-Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 672 posts

Posted 16 June 2005 - 05:31 AM

Ok if CD's believe that the form something takes determines it's function, how can one get around that god intentionally designed people badly? (i.e. defective from the outset)


I would say it this way - people were intentionally not created perfect. But why is God not allowed to create imperfect beings?

If god created man with the original goal of all people worshiping and loving him, then there is a problem because anyone who doesn't love him must necessarily be defective or deciding against belief because his mind doesn't work properly or the chemical makeup of his body/mind lead him to those feelings or conclusions. The same could even be said of adam and eve, the first two were defects, even if it wasn't total mythology the problem still remains if you believe.


This is only a problem if worshipping and loving God are the only things that matter to God. God may have other priorities that are also important and could override his desire to have everyone love and worship him.

For example, lets say that God wants people to have free will and he wants them to love him. If people are to have free will, they must be able to choose not to love God. If everyone has to love God then we are not free to do so, rather we are forced to. No matter how much God may want people to love him, there will be people that don't as long as God also gives men free will.

Yeah I understand what you're saying, but many people who are perfectly healthy were not even born in the right geographical location so they are predestined to death.

So just for happening to not luck out being born in the right place at the right time they get to die. It's not just either way you slice it, and if god doesn't apply the same standards to everyone then he's not really a very nice person to want to worship now is he? It reflects badly on gods plan wasn't really for everyone, just a random group of people that happened to be born wherever the bible happened to have a foothold.

I mean that could have been me, I didn't pick where I was born, I just woke up one day in a body in a specific geographical location and culture I had no choice over which determined ultimately who I became.

Edited by mordecai, 16 June 2005 - 07:49 AM.


#74 Guest_Colter_*

Guest_Colter_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 June 2005 - 06:05 AM

Hi Mordecai and Pantrog,


I would like to here your evaluation of these statements concerning materialism.




"The many religions of Earth are all good to the extent that they bring man to God and bring the realization of the Father to man. It is a fallacy for any group of religionists to conceive of their creed as The Truth; such attitudes bespeak more of theological arrogance than of certainty of faith. There is not a Earth religion that could not profitably study and assimilate the best of the truths contained in every other faith, for all contain truth. Religionists would do better to borrow the best in their neighbors' living spiritual faith rather than to denounce the worst in their lingering superstitions and outworn rituals."

"The false science of materialism would sentence mortal man to become an outcast in the universe. Such partial knowledge is potentially evil; it is knowledge composed of both good and evil. Truth is beautiful because it is both replete and symmetrical. When man searches for truth, he pursues the divinely real."

"Philosophers commit their gravest error when they are misled into the fallacy of abstraction, the practice of focusing the attention upon one aspect of reality and then of pronouncing such an isolated aspect to be the whole truth. The wise philosopher will always look for the creative design which is behind, and pre-existent to, all universe phenomena. The creator thought invariably precedes creative action."

"Intellectual self-consciousness can discover the beauty of truth, its spiritual quality, not only by the philosophic consistency of its concepts, but more certainly and surely by the unerring response of the ever-present Spirit of Truth. Happiness ensues from the recognition of truth because it can be acted out; it can be lived. Disappointment and sorrow attend upon error because, not being a reality, it cannot be realized in experience. Divine truth is best known by its spiritual flavor."

"No matter what the apparent conflict between materialism and the teachings of Jesus may be, you can rest assured that, in the ages to come, the teachings of the Master will fully triumph. In reality, true religion cannot become involved in any controversy with science; it is in no way concerned with material things. Religion is simply indifferent to, but sympathetic with, science, while it supremely concerns itself with the scientist."


"Materialism reduces man to a soulless automaton and constitutes him merely an arithmetical symbol finding a helpless place in the mathematical formula of an unromantic and mechanistic universe. But whence comes all this vast universe of mathematics without a Master Mathematician? Science may expatiate on the conservation of matter, but religion validates the conservation of men's souls--it concerns their experience with spiritual realities and eternal values."

" Materialism is there, but it is not exclusive; mechanism is there, but it is not unqualified; determinism is there, but it is not alone."


"The very pessimism of the most pessimistic materialist is, in and of itself, sufficient proof that the universe of the pessimist is not wholly material. Both optimism and pessimism are concept reactions in a mind conscious of values as well as of facts. If the universe were truly what the materialist regards it to be, man as a human machine would then be devoid of all conscious recognition of that very fact. Without the consciousness of the concept of values within the spirit-born mind, the fact of universe materialism and the mechanistic phenomena of universe operation would be wholly unrecognized by man. One machine cannot be conscious of the nature or value of another machine."

"If man is only a machine, by what technique does this man come to believe or claim to know that he is only a machine? The experience of self-conscious evaluation of one's self is never an attribute of a mere machine. A self-conscious and avowed mechanist is the best possible answer to mechanism. If materialism were a fact, there could be no self-conscious mechanist. It is also true that one must first be a moral person before one can perform immoral acts."

"The very claim of materialism implies a supermaterial consciousness of the mind which presumes to assert such dogmas. A mechanism might deteriorate, but it could never progress. Machines do not think, create, dream, aspire, idealize, hunger for truth, or thirst for righteousness. They do not motivate their lives with the passion to serve other machines and to choose as their goal of eternal progression the sublime task of finding God and striving to be like him. Machines are never intellectual, emotional, aesthetic, ethical, moral, or spiritual."

"In language, an alphabet represents the mechanism of materialism, while the words expressive of the meaning of a thousand thoughts, grand ideas, and noble ideals--of love and hate, of cowardice and courage--represent the performances of mind within the scope defined by both material and spiritual law, directed by the assertion of the will of personality, and limited by the inherent situational endowment."

"But even after materialism and mechanism have been more or less vanquished, the devastating influence of twentieth-century secularism will still blight the spiritual experience of millions of unsuspecting souls."

"It required a great power, a mighty influence, to free the thinking and living of the Western peoples from the withering grasp of a totalitarian ecclesiastical domination. Secularism did break the bonds of church control, and now in turn it threatens to establish a new and godless type of mastery over the hearts and minds of modern man. The tyrannical and dictatorial political state is the direct offspring of scientific materialism and philosophic secularism. Secularism no sooner frees man from the domination of the institutionalized church than it sells him into slavish bondage to the totalitarian state. Secularism frees man from ecclesiastical slavery only to betray him into the tyranny of political and economic slavery."

"Materialism denies God, secularism simply ignores him; at least that was the earlier attitude. More recently, secularism has assumed a more militant attitude, assuming to take the place of the religion whose totalitarian bondage it onetime resisted. Twentieth-century secularism tends to affirm that man does not need God. But beware! this godless philosophy of human society will lead only to unrest, animosity, unhappiness, war, and world-wide disaster. "

"The complete secularization of science, education, industry, and society can lead only to disaster. During the first third of the twentieth century Earthlings killed more human beings than were killed during the whole of the Christian dispensation up to that time. And this is only the beginning of the dire harvest of materialism and secularism; still more terrible destruction is yet to come."

"The teachings of Jesus, even though greatly modified, survived the mystery cults of their birthtime, the ignorance and superstition of the dark ages, and are even now slowly triumphing over the materialism, mechanism, and secularism of the twentieth century. And such times of great testing and threatened defeat are always times of great revelation." :colter:

#75 Adanac

Adanac

    Tau

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,874 posts

Posted 16 June 2005 - 10:22 AM

Yeah I understand what you're saying, but many people who are perfectly healthy were not even born in the right geographical location so they are predestined to death.

So just for happening to not luck out being born in the right place at the right time they get to die. It's not just either way you slice it, and if god doesn't apply the same standards to everyone then he's not really a very nice person to want to worship now is he? It reflects badly on gods plan wasn't really for everyone, just a random group of people that happened to be born wherever the bible happened to have a foothold.

I mean that could have been me, I didn't pick where I was born, I just woke up one day in a body in a specific geographical location and culture I had no choice over which determined ultimately who I became.

:rolleyes: Once again Mord, you're not thinking.

Don't you think that God is perfectly capable to calling people wherever they might be? If someone doesn't have an opportunity to hear the message then don't you think that God would know that if they had been given opportunity they would just have rejected it?

#76 graknil_*

graknil_*

    Theta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts

Posted 16 June 2005 - 11:04 AM

Yeah I understand what you're saying, but many people who are perfectly healthy were not even born in the right geographical location so they are predestined to death.

So just for happening to not luck out being born in the right place at the right time they get to die. It's not just either way you slice it, and if god doesn't apply the same standards to everyone then he's not really a very nice person to want to worship now is he? It reflects badly on gods plan wasn't really for everyone, just a random group of people that happened to be born wherever the bible happened to have a foothold.

I mean that could have been me, I didn't pick where I was born, I just woke up one day in a body in a specific geographical location and culture I had no choice over which determined ultimately who I became.


In the bible, God makes many choices, but often he doesn’t give reasons why. I don’t know the reason why God chose to reveal himself to you (in whatever way) and not to someone else.

There are an infinite number of these sorts of questions when you consider the infinite number of theoretical people who never exist at all. Why were none of them born and taught the gospel? Why can’t other animals learn the gospel? Sometimes it seems the only answer is that God did it this way because he wanted to do it this way.

A couple of thoughts:

- I don’t think that God really owes anyone anything. God doesn’t owe it to someone to give them life, nor does he owe it too someone alive to share with them the gospel. He might do one or both, but he doesn’t have to.

- You had no choice over your geographical location and culture, but I believe you still made choices that helped determine who you are today.

- People are given unequal opportunities, however, the final judgment is also unequal:
And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.
(Luke 12:47-48)

- I am curious about your proposal – a world where everybody is given an equal opportunity. It is hard to know the implications of a world like that, but here is one I can think of:
In that world, there wouldn’t be incentive to share the gospel if everybody was guaranteed an equal opportunity.

Perhaps your proposed world would give everyone a chance, but I am not sure that it could also produce people like Samuel, Paul, etc. If God is looking for people like Samuel, Paul,... then it seems to me that he could not also guarantee everyone gets an equal opportunity.

I would like your opinion on this.

#77 Guest_Colter_*

Guest_Colter_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 June 2005 - 11:42 AM

Yeah I understand what you're saying, but many people who are perfectly healthy were not even born in the right geographical location so they are predestined to death.

So just for happening to not luck out being born in the right place at the right time they get to die. It's not just either way you slice it, and if god doesn't apply the same standards to everyone then he's not really a very nice person to want to worship now is he? It reflects badly on gods plan wasn't really for everyone, just a random group of people that happened to be born wherever the bible happened to have a foothold.

I mean that could have been me, I didn't pick where I was born, I just woke up one day in a body in a specific geographical location and culture I had no choice over which determined ultimately who I became.


In the bible, God makes many choices, but often he doesn’t give reasons why. I don’t know the reason why God chose to reveal himself to you (in whatever way) and not to someone else.

There are an infinite number of these sorts of questions when you consider the infinite number of theoretical people who never exist at all. Why were none of them born and taught the gospel? Why can’t other animals learn the gospel? Sometimes it seems the only answer is that God did it this way because he wanted to do it this way.

A couple of thoughts:

- I don’t think that God really owes anyone anything. God doesn’t owe it to someone to give them life, nor does he owe it too someone alive to share with them the gospel. He might do one or both, but he doesn’t have to.

- You had no choice over your geographical location and culture, but I believe you still made choices that helped determine who you are today.

- People are given unequal opportunities, however, the final judgment is also unequal:
And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.
(Luke 12:47-48)

- I am curious about your proposal – a world where everybody is given an equal opportunity. It is hard to know the implications of a world like that, but here is one I can think of:
In that world, there wouldn’t be incentive to share the gospel if everybody was guaranteed an equal opportunity.

Perhaps your proposed world would give everyone a chance, but I am not sure that it could also produce people like Samuel, Paul, etc. If God is looking for people like Samuel, Paul,... then it seems to me that he could not also guarantee everyone gets an equal opportunity.

I would like your opinion on this.

Anyone, anywhere at anytime, in any religion that is looking for God will find him. If you are looking for God, you have already found him. It is by faith that we are saved from the finite limitations of material existence.

The Gospel of Jesus is generic, it is for all people, from all religions. The spirit of truth was poured out upon all flesh.

#78 mordecai_*

mordecai_*

    Iota

  • Non-Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 672 posts

Posted 16 June 2005 - 11:39 PM

There are an infinite number of these sorts of questions when you consider the infinite number of theoretical people who never exist at all. Why were none of them born and taught the gospel? Why can’t other animals learn the gospel? Sometimes it seems the only answer is that God did it this way because he wanted to do it this way.


But it’s still arguing in a circle, when in fact no one in ancient times could even separate truth from falsehood like we can knowing the correct causal philosophy (i.e. universal natural laws which cannot be violated, hence we rule out ghosts, demons, etc)

- I don’t think that God really owes anyone anything. God doesn’t owe it to someone to give them life, nor does he owe it too someone alive to share with them the gospel. He might do one or both, but he doesn’t have to.


Yeah but you have to wonder why god created anything at all if he doesn’t “owe” anyone, I mean come on. It’s not a matter of owing, it’s a matter of taking responsibility for what has been created, anyone who is ever born never asked to be born, they were forced into the world by their parents into times, ages, peoples and cultures they never got to pick which directly shapes who these people ultimately become, they are inescapably who they are because of their environment plus whatever genetic tendencies there are. Creating people just to be puppets to falsely “test” the pre-ordained is pretty evil any way you slice it. Since god knows, test or no test that they will always choose him (foreknowledge). So one wonders why waste the step in testing them, since god is all knowing he doesn’t need to test people because only fallible non-omniscient beings need to test things to see if they are true or not, testing implies god doesn’t know everything and can’t trust human beings and therefore has to test them before he immortalizes them.

Many of the biblical Gods actions still come down to the feral animal laws of nature: Those who have the power make the rules, and those who don’t get to follow them. I mean that’s a huge part of the whole “God defense” is the might is right and then there is even a capitalist “ownership” mentality where god owns everything, we are his slaves, etc, and the patents™ on life and everything else in the cosmos so you can’t really be “free” of god since the guy owns the place, that is the universe.

- You had no choice over your geographical location and culture, but I believe you still made choices that helped determine who you are today.


Yeah but this doesn’t change anything, my choices would always be the same given the same time and culture, they would never end up being different. i.e. materialism, the form something takes determines ultimately how it functions and reacts given a set of circumstances, every time.

- People are given unequal opportunities, however, the final judgment is also unequal: And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more. (Luke 12:47-48)


First of all, how can people “demand more” of god when they are afflicted with death, disease, having to scrape a living from the random weather and geographical locations these people end up in, which may or may not be conducive to supporting life? I mean god had man on the run constantly under pressure with the earth constantly upsetting and upheaving entire societies because of the inherent instability of the earths processes. I can imagine an entirely different universe where all things are perfectly stable, and where humans aren’t made by displacing the chemicals in the environment, they are directly sustained by god for a set time limit. The fact is the earths design gives birth to the very sin god hates, which runs entirely counter to the idea that gods a genius when he’s causing the very things he hates (wars over limited resources, random weather patterns effecting agriculture, causing violence/riots, etc, floods killing innocents, fires, etc).

- I am curious about your proposal – a world where everybody is given an equal opportunity. It is hard to know the implications of a world like that, but here is one I can think of: In that world, there wouldn’t be incentive to share the gospel if everybody was guaranteed an equal opportunity.

Perhaps your proposed world would give everyone a chance, but I am not sure that it could also produce people like Samuel, Paul, etc. If God is looking for people like Samuel, Paul,... then it seems to me that he could not also guarantee everyone gets an equal opportunity.


All I ever wanted to see was just and fair test for everyone according to a reasonable test, but the bibles brand of justice and testing is nothing of the sort. We have multiple stackings of the deck in favor of sin by god himself which is entirely beyond man’s control. The weather and displacement of earths resources for a start, the total lack of scientific understanding of cause and effect to reduce the superstition and belief in other gods, god so hated. I mean the bible god wasn’t doing anyone a favor by leaving people and even the jews on their own with no technological or scientific knowledge.

Also revealing yourself to a select few people instead of everyone at once is pretty shady, how can anyone ever test and even refute such a claim? Any other religious body can claim the true god revealed themselves to them and the other guys are “wrong” and were believing in false gods, there is no way to separate what is a real god from a false god for ancient man at all because he totally lacks scientific knowledge, the jews were completely in the dark about cause and effect and god never sought to rectify the situation and they were his chosen people, one wonders how can such a being with all knowledge be so backward to not realize he is responsible for how his own people turned out by denying them true knowledge of science and reason.

The other problem is that miracles don’t prove the existence of god because ancient man couldn’t distinguish natural laws from miracles at all, hence all the superstition. Also men’s minds are very prone to delusion and hallucination (after all just look at all the false things in our time people believe, obviously the human mind is pretty badly designed for mainstream christains and other faiths to all believe so differently from what Christadelphians believe)

There are just too many gaps and holes, look at modern man’s technology it runs rings around Yahweh’s methods of getting the gospel to people, if god had given man the knowledge and technology back near the start so people weren’t so focused on just surviving and not getting killed, he could have done a way better job. The fact is as we advance as a race, the works of ancient gods look more and more like the fantasies and dreams of ancient and ignorant people trapped in a time and age where they didn’t have the technology to extend their lives forever, so they went to believing in anything that promised them a better life because their intellects were so weak as mere human beings.

Edited by mordecai, 16 June 2005 - 11:42 PM.


#79 Guest_Colter_*

Guest_Colter_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 June 2005 - 05:34 AM

Mardecai,

The problem isn't God, the problem is mans very, very limited understanding of God. The problem isn't lack of revelation but rather the distortion of what's been revealed. The Chosen people were just that, but because they were the best hope to carry the simple message of faith to all of the world but true to form, being chosen went to their heads.

I find it revealing that Christians on this very site can "see" the faults of the Catholic Church and the direction it has taken but yet cannot see the faults of Judaism and the direction it took.

Religious authorities, theologians of contemporary times as well as during the times of Christ "knew" that the scriptures were not perfect. There was/is a fear of loosing control of the people, of the churches cash flow, of the egocentric empires built around religious leaders.

Bible purist cannot see or rather admit the bias in the story of Noahs flood wherein everyone on earth was drowned except a pure line descendant of the Hebrews that connected with Adam. m I would think that many of the worlds ancient races find that a little offensive.

Always must God act to break the deadlock of the unqualified unity inherent in existential infinity. Always must Deity provide the pattern universe, the perfect personalities, the original truth, beauty, and goodness for which all subdeity creations strive. Always must God first find man that man may later find God. Always must there be a Universal Father before there can ever be universal sonship and consequent universal brotherhood."

Not only are we looking for God be he is looking for us. He needs us as much as we need him, were family.

Mord, If you look for God on your own, you will find him.

Edited by Colter, 17 June 2005 - 05:43 AM.


#80 graknil_*

graknil_*

    Theta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts

Posted 17 June 2005 - 10:27 AM

But it’s still arguing in a circle, when in fact no one in ancient times could even separate truth from falsehood like we can knowing the correct causal philosophy (i.e. universal natural laws which cannot be violated, hence we rule out ghosts, demons, etc)


I wasn’t actually trying to build an argument with that comment. I don’t believe that God feels the need to justify every decision he makes, and therefore there isn’t an answer to every question. Personally I am satisfied not knowing everything, but that is unsatisfactory for some people.

Yeah but you have to wonder why god created anything at all if he doesn’t “owe” anyone, I mean come on. It’s not a matter of owing, it’s a matter of taking responsibility for what has been created, anyone who is ever born never asked to be born, they were forced into the world by their parents into times, ages, peoples and cultures they never got to pick which directly shapes who these people ultimately become, they are inescapably who they are because of their environment plus whatever genetic tendencies there are.


What sort of responsibility do you think God should take? What do you propose that God should be doing?

Creating people just to be puppets to falsely “test” the pre-ordained is pretty evil any way you slice it. Since god knows, test or no test that they will always choose him (foreknowledge). So one wonders why waste the step in testing them, since god is all knowing he doesn’t need to test people because only fallible non-omniscient beings need to test things to see if they are true or not, testing implies god doesn’t know everything and can’t trust human beings and therefore has to test them before he immortalizes them.


Do you think that the only reason for God to test us is to know what he already knows?

Many of the biblical Gods actions still come down to the feral animal laws of nature: Those who have the power make the rules, and those who don’t get to follow them. I mean that’s a huge part of the whole “God defense” is the might is right and then there is even a capitalist “ownership” mentality where god owns everything, we are his slaves, etc, and the patents™ on life and everything else in the cosmos so you can’t really be “free” of god since the guy owns the place, that is the universe.


Why is it a problem that God wants people to live a certain way?

Yeah but this doesn’t change anything, my choices would always be the same given the same time and culture, they would never end up being different. i.e. materialism, the form something takes determines ultimately how it functions and reacts given a set of circumstances, every time.


I’ll have to think about this statement.

First of all, how can people “demand more” of god when they are afflicted with death, disease, having to scrape a living from the random weather and geographical locations these people end up in, which may or may not be conducive to supporting life? I mean god had man on the run constantly under pressure with the earth constantly upsetting and upheaving entire societies because of the inherent instability of the earths processes. I can imagine an entirely different universe where all things are perfectly stable, and where humans aren’t made by displacing the chemicals in the environment, they are directly sustained by god for a set time limit. The fact is the earths design gives birth to the very sin god hates, which runs entirely counter to the idea that gods a genius when he’s causing the very things he hates (wars over limited resources, random weather patterns effecting agriculture, causing violence/riots, etc, floods killing innocents, fires, etc).


You are looking at one point of view. Problems certainly can bring out the worst in people, but they also can bring out the best in people. If you took away the problems in our world, you would also not see extreme acts of sacrifice and love.

All I ever wanted to see was just and fair test for everyone according to a reasonable test, but the bibles brand of justice and testing is nothing of the sort. We have multiple stackings of the deck in favor of sin by god himself which is entirely beyond man’s control.


The tests are different for different people, but the judgment is also different. What is wrong with that?

The weather and displacement of earths resources for a start, the total lack of scientific understanding of cause and effect to reduce the superstition and belief in other gods, god so hated. I mean the bible god wasn’t doing anyone a favor by leaving people and even the jews on their own with no technological or scientific knowledge.


Why is technological and scientific knowledge so important? In a lot of ways, our higher knowledge has allowed us to mess things up in greater ways. We still have pain, sorrow, and death but in different ways. I’m not sure that more knowledge is the answer.

Also revealing yourself to a select few people instead of everyone at once is pretty shady, how can anyone ever test and even refute such a claim? Any other religious body can claim the true god revealed themselves to them and the other guys are “wrong” and were believing in false gods, there is no way to separate what is a real god from a false god for ancient man at all because he totally lacks scientific knowledge, the jews were completely in the dark about cause and effect and god never sought to rectify the situation and they were his chosen people, one wonders how can such a being with all knowledge be so backward to not realize he is responsible for how his own people turned out by denying them true knowledge of science and reason.


I’m not sure that telling everybody all the answers will result in an ideal situation either. I don’t have much experience teaching, but for myself I don’t learn well from someone just telling me answers.

The other problem is that miracles don’t prove the existence of god because ancient man couldn’t distinguish natural laws from miracles at all, hence all the superstition. Also men’s minds are very prone to delusion and hallucination (after all just look at all the false things in our time people believe, obviously the human mind is pretty badly designed for mainstream christains and other faiths to all believe so differently from what Christadelphians believe)


I think there has always been reasons to doubt the existence of God (why is that a problem?). God is not the only answer to unexplained phenomena, however, he may be a reasonable choice.

There are just too many gaps and holes, look at modern man’s technology it runs rings around Yahweh’s methods of getting the gospel to people, if god had given man the knowledge and technology back near the start so people weren’t so focused on just surviving and not getting killed, he could have done a way better job. The fact is as we advance as a race, the works of ancient gods look more and more like the fantasies and dreams of ancient and ignorant people trapped in a time and age where they didn’t have the technology to extend their lives forever, so they went to believing in anything that promised them a better life because their intellects were so weak as mere human beings.


We definitely have better technology, and we can certainly extend someone’s life, but for what? I’m not sure that we are really that much better off to be honest, and in the process of advancing our knowledge we are also messing up a planet that was working pretty well.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users