| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/28/2009 07:01:48 AM · #426 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Basically I would say we have "limited free will" (that's a phrase coined by me and nobody else). |
I don't mean this to be harsh, but here's a fairly typical problem with the faithful...the idea that there realiztions, and revelations, are unique.
Nobody else?
Limited Free Will
At this point in the game, "Been there, done that." is the rule rather than the exception....
|
|
|
|
09/28/2009 07:10:34 AM · #427 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by dahkota:
Makes others more comfortable. Also, most people think of the universe as...I don't know...a bunch of things, much like a box of rocks. They don't think of it as a unity, a wholeness, a complete self-sufficient entity if you will. |
So I'm still honestly unclear about your idea here. Does the universe manifest any sort of purpose or striving? Can we think of it as some sentient entity? If the answer is no to both how is this different from the Materialist view? Or is it? |
That is why I asked for your definition of sentience. If you believe humans alone are sentient, you wouldn't believe it possible for the universe to be sentient. |
|
|
|
09/28/2009 07:41:02 AM · #428 |
Originally posted by yanko:
What's an example of a miracle that you believe was real (i.e. carried out by God), but materialists reject? |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The resurrection of Jesus Christ. |
It's not just materialists that reject this though......
Jews Muslims Buddhists......pretty much no one other than Christians accept this.
Originally posted by briantammy:
honest question.
is it possible to choose what you believe? |
I think that is pretty much the only way.......there are some people who experience what they believe to be miracles and/or revelations, but consciously or unconsciously, you must choose to believe.
Else there wouldn't be Free Will, right?
|
|
|
|
09/28/2009 09:06:54 AM · #429 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I also believe that if God showed up in front of you, did a trick, then disappeared, you (and many others) would rather recede to the refuge of believing it was hallucination rather than an event that required you to change your mind. |
You really don't budge an inch from absolutes, do ya? Even when they lead to ridiculous conclusions, that must be how it is. I don't cling to beliefs despite evidence, so you can't assume I'd maintain any position if confronted with such an event. That's your standard, not mine, although I doubt even you would believe in miracles if actually tested. If you were left alone in a room with an iguana and heard a voice, would you be convinced that reptiles can talk? If you went away for a year and came back to find your wife pregnant, would you accept a story of immaculate conception? Not likely, yet if someone writes the same stories in ancient Aramaic, THEN you believe it without question.
I think the Loch Ness Monster is superstition, but if Nessie ambled out of my swimming pool, I'd believe it. If you found a single fossil of a poodle in Triassic rock, I'd drop evolution like the wrong end of a branding iron. Likewise with a miracle— if my dog turned into a pillar of salt, an amputee grew back an arm or the earth stopped rotating, I'd be a believer on the spot. So would most people regardless of their present belief or disbelief (the same thing happens with major discoveries), but we have ZERO examples of anything like this actually occurring outside of the Bible and the National Enquirer because those miracles died with the authors that invented them.
I find it amusing that courts ask you to swear on the Bible as a oath of truth, yet the Bible itself wouldn't stand up in court as evidence of its own claims. The gospels would be thrown out as hearsay.
Message edited by author 2009-09-28 09:11:12. |
|
|
|
09/28/2009 10:01:47 AM · #430 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
No no no. We are getting caught up in your immaterial and undetectable. I do think God manifests his power through miracles and have said as such in this thread. I just said they would never be provable as miracles as the materialist would always have "wiggle room" to claim "not enough information" to prove it as a bona fide miracle. |
Apologies for jumping in and out of the conversation (work!). You seem to be indicating that miracles would always be ambiguous in that there would be alternative explanations for them.
Would a miracle be at all distinguishable from a natural (if unlikely) event?
Do genuine miracles happen to believers of all religions, or just the "right" religion?
If the believers of every religion reported a proportionally similar number of miraculous events of similar quality, wouldn't that discredit either (i) the concept of miracle or (ii) the concept that any religion has exclusivity over the miraculous? Examining the miracle record would seem to be a scientific basis for testing something.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2009 10:13:23 AM · #431 |
Haha, people arguing about materialism on a website where they fight tooth and nail to earn a ribbon!
Were all materialistic, were all selfish, there is very little true altruistic action in the world, and were all guilty of something most of the time. |
|
|
|
09/28/2009 10:14:42 AM · #432 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Would a miracle be at all distinguishable from a natural (if unlikely) event?
|
If its a natural miracle that can be contributed to natural occurrences in nature, but happens at a time when it is needed, is it a miracle? |
|
|
|
09/28/2009 10:58:08 AM · #433 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I find it amusing that courts ask you to swear on the Bible as a oath of truth... |
Not anymore, they don't ;-)
R. |
|
|
|
09/28/2009 12:25:57 PM · #434 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Do genuine miracles happen to believers of all religions, or just the "right" religion? |
8>)
|
|
|
|
09/28/2009 12:27:05 PM · #435 |
| "His essence is his existance" John the Babtist. Religion is what you believe it is. |
|
|
|
09/28/2009 12:43:40 PM · #436 |
Originally posted by neophyte:
"His essence is his existance" John the Babtist. Religion is what you believe it is. |
So.....if I believe it's confusing, does that mean it's Confucian?......8>)
|
|
|
|
09/28/2009 01:45:26 PM · #437 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
No no no. We are getting caught up in your immaterial and undetectable. I do think God manifests his power through miracles and have said as such in this thread. I just said they would never be provable as miracles as the materialist would always have "wiggle room" to claim "not enough information" to prove it as a bona fide miracle. |
Apologies for jumping in and out of the conversation (work!). You seem to be indicating that miracles would always be ambiguous in that there would be alternative explanations for them.
Would a miracle be at all distinguishable from a natural (if unlikely) event?
Do genuine miracles happen to believers of all religions, or just the "right" religion?
If the believers of every religion reported a proportionally similar number of miraculous events of similar quality, wouldn't that discredit either (i) the concept of miracle or (ii) the concept that any religion has exclusivity over the miraculous? Examining the miracle record would seem to be a scientific basis for testing something. |
If you had the time you really should check out Miracles by CS Lewis. I'm telling you he does a much better job than I could of explaining things.
If we define a miracle as God intervening in the universe than it may be distinguishable or it may not. Way back on some other thread I shared about some missionaries I support in Africa a uncanny coincidence that occurred. I see this event as a "God thing" while others would see it as a chance event. (I'd have to dig back in the posts to find it.)
Everybody has their line where they are willing to accept a material explanation for an event. My point is that for many materialists that line is further than they would admit. It's human nature to not want to change your mindset. We are all subject to it. So while some example could be obviously a "miracle", there will always be "outs" of belief. I don't mean to be derogatory when I say this, but I'm just trying to describe how I think it really is. |
|
|
|
09/28/2009 01:48:53 PM · #438 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
That is why I asked for your definition of sentience. If you believe humans alone are sentient, you wouldn't believe it possible for the universe to be sentient. |
I guess I'm just trying to see where you fall. Sentience, to me, would be some self-aware, conscious entity that can strive or act with purpose. And while I could possibly even pare that definition down further, I guess I don't understand how what you are saying is different than what anybody is saying? We all know we are "part of the universe" simply by being in it. But I get the sense that you feel that the "whole is greater than the sum of the parts". That would be different from a Materialist.
If you do feel that then I guess I'm asking in what way is the whole greater? Is it a purpose or a consciousness or what? And if you do not feel that then I'd ask how you are any different from a Materialist or anybody else? |
|
|
|
09/28/2009 02:00:07 PM · #439 |
Here's the post I was talking about Matthew:
There was a medical missionary family in Zambia who one day received news that one of the churches that supported them could no longer send them funds of roughly $500 a month. This news was greeted by the wife with worry and fretting. Later in the day she received an email from a man she had never met who did not know of the church that had been supporting her. He wrote telling her he wanted to support her family at $500 a month. What's up with that?
The Christian will take a step back and say, "whoa, God does know what He's doing (despite our lack of faith)." The atheist will say, "wow, lucky coincidence". |
|
|
|
09/28/2009 02:35:46 PM · #440 |
| OK, and what about all the other impoverished congregations who (I'm sure) pray for succor and yet receive no gift emails? It seems to me that if God had a plan or a hand in this stuff, there ought to be some consistency of actions -- the acts of an arbitrary and capricious God are no more beneficial than "taking your chances," and any outcome may as well be attributed to such as to some undetectable yet all-powerful entity. |
|
|
|
09/28/2009 02:38:19 PM · #441 |
| So to a christian, there is no such thing as chance? Gambling is not gambling, because its predetermined you will win or lose, and if you pray your odds of winning are increased? |
|
|
|
09/28/2009 02:46:07 PM · #442 |
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
... if you pray your odds of winning are increased? |
I always wonder about football teams who pray in the clubhouse or on the field ... is the winner the team which plays harder or prays harder? |
|
|
|
09/28/2009 02:55:59 PM · #443 |
| No silly, it depends on what the prayer is and it has to be to the right god, duh. |
|
|
|
09/28/2009 04:32:23 PM · #444 |
I was just reading one of my favorite New Atheists, PZ Meyers, and I thought I'd link you all to an article which should demonstrate just how much less patience and care I could be showing for some of the ideas expressed here.
Be warned... bring an asbestos suit!
While I don't disagree with what he's saying one whit, he does come on rather strong, yes? I'm sure you'll share a new-found appreciation for the level at which I choose to express myself here on the DPC.
;) |
|
|
|
09/28/2009 04:38:09 PM · #445 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here's the post I was talking about Matthew:
There was a medical missionary family in Zambia who one day received news that one of the churches that supported them could no longer send them funds of roughly $500 a month. This news was greeted by the wife with worry and fretting. Later in the day she received an email from a man she had never met who did not know of the church that had been supporting her. He wrote telling her he wanted to support her family at $500 a month. What's up with that?
The Christian will take a step back and say, "whoa, God does know what He's doing (despite our lack of faith)." The atheist will say, "wow, lucky coincidence". |
Actually, a smart atheist would say "the real miracle would be if that NEVER happened, according to the laws of probability!"
|
|
|
|
09/28/2009 04:51:24 PM · #446 |
| Say ... how does one reconcile omniscience and omnipotence with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and Einsteinian Relativity? Seems to me they are mutually exclusive conditions, and only one seems to relate to the (gasp) material world as we actually observe and experience it. |
|
|
|
09/28/2009 06:28:17 PM · #447 |
Well, the last half dozen posts clearly prove my point to Matthew. I'm not saying it's poor form by you guys, but I'm getting exactly what I expected. How would it be any different with any other miracle?
We all see what our worldview allows. I do. You do. Nobody is unbiased. |
|
|
|
09/28/2009 06:40:09 PM · #448 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The Christian will take a step back and say, "whoa, God does know what He's doing (despite our lack of faith)." The atheist will say, "wow, lucky coincidence". |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, the last half dozen posts clearly prove my point to Matthew. I'm not saying it's poor form by you guys, but I'm getting exactly what I expected. |
Hmm... nobody said "Wow, lucky coincidence," so it would seem the replies were not at all what you were expecting. ;-) |
|
|
|
09/28/2009 07:14:54 PM · #449 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
That is why I asked for your definition of sentience. If you believe humans alone are sentient, you wouldn't believe it possible for the universe to be sentient. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I guess I'm just trying to see where you fall. Sentience, to me, would be some self-aware, conscious entity that can strive or act with purpose. |
Okay, sounds good. Do trees have sentience? Do they act with purpose under your definition? Now, I would argue that anything containing DNA that requires it to be a particular thing is acting with purpose, but some would argue that a tree is unaware and so would NOT fall under the definition of sentience.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And while I could possibly even pare that definition down further, I guess I don't understand how what you are saying is different than what anybody is saying? We all know we are "part of the universe" simply by being in it. |
Being in a lake doesn't make you water.
The easiest way to think of it, beyond the material, is as a collective conscience.
Okay, you state that there is dualism, belief in two substances, and materialism, the believe in one substance. Well, how about if there is one substance with two different inclinations. Kind of like two sides of the same coin. Every bit of matter exists in the material world and also has the ability to be inclined toward the 'non-material' world. The degree of inclination determines the sentience (a rock, less inclined to the 'non-material' world, is almost non-sentient whereas the human mind, being more inclined to the 'non-material' world, is fully sentient) (please forgive my use of the word material - I think it simplifies matters, so to speak, though I am using the word material not to describe matter specifically).
Did you ever wonder how, across time and space, humans evolve very similar sets of morals? Without previous knowledge of the existence of each other? How, without the christian god, they were still able to form a society under the rules of (essentially) natural law? And how they often solve problems and confront adversity the same way with no knowledge of other people doing the exact same thing? The idea of collective conscience has been around for hundreds if not thousands of years...longer than the christian god.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But I get the sense that you feel that the "whole is greater than the sum of the parts". That would be different from a Materialist. |
I don't understand what you mean by parts. If you're asking me if a chicken is worth more than a chicken leg, the answer would depend on if you are a chicken. If you are looking at it holistically, then of course the whole is greater. you cannot reduce it to its parts as they cannot exist without the whole. To simplify, the whole is extended in both the material and 'non-material' world. But it is all one and the same. Think of it like a giant amoeba if that visual is clearer.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you do feel that then I guess I'm asking in what way is the whole greater? Is it a purpose or a consciousness or what? And if you do not feel that then I'd ask how you are any different from a Materialist or anybody else? |
It is not a purpose - it just is. Is God a purpose? The world is inhaling and exhaling, growing and shrinking, thinking and thoughtless. It is everything and nothing. It just depends on how you, as a sentient being, decide to experience it. |
|
|
|
09/28/2009 07:28:21 PM · #450 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
It is not a purpose - it just is. Is God a purpose? The world is inhaling and exhaling, growing and shrinking, thinking and thoughtless. It is everything and nothing. It just depends on how you, as a sentient being, decide to experience it. |
Thanks for your replies. I get a sense of what you are talking about, but I still wonder how the follower of this thinking experiences this oneness any more than someone else since this oneness "just is" as you put it. What am I gaining by being in tuned? Peace? Power? Fulfillment?
And is something lost from this collective consciousness if there were no advanced life forms? You mention moral actions, but can a tree by moral? Can a rock? If not, would the collective be hurt if people and other advanced life stopped existing? This is more of just a "huh, what if?" question... |
|
