Comment on The Creator of Time by george.
Hello Sean and Wes
“On the contrary, I can easily conceive of a Creator being evil. God has to prove Himself, to me, for me to believe that He is not evil. Otherwise, if God were in fact the one behind all of the evil things that exist in this world, and He was not able to explain how He was not personally responsible, I would most certainly accuse Him of being evil…”
This is where we respectfully disagree. I don’t see any reason at all why God would have to prove himself whatsoever or be directly involved with one small species’ existence. That’s Man’s hubris in my humble opinion.Because we are scared of our own mortality we cannot accept the empirical fact that we are born and we die. Ever ask yourself the question why other sentient, intelligent creatures like dolphins, elephants and dogs can’t go to heaven. Hmmm …. seems a bit cruel to me that my loving, kind Labrador Retriever who has never hurt a soul can;t go to heaven. Man, hubristic Man, inventing and rationalizing a anthropomorphic God (s) to suit Its selfish species’ interest. Why Pharoahs used slaves to cruelly build pyramids to house themselves for everlasting life. Not too much empathy in those mummified chaps!
One only has tor compare religions to see Man’s creative imagination in many similar iterations of the history and nature of creation and God: One is ‘flooded’ with mythic stories.
“https://archive.org/stream/…/biblemythsandthe00doanuoft_djvu.txt11) : “A comparison of all the religions of the world, in which none can claim a privileged ….. The Chaldean Account of Genesis; containing the de scription of the …”
Which is right? Only one? Any? None? Which one can empirically prove itself better than the others or does it really come down to a matter of acculturation and faith? Just like I was acculturated into the Anglican church as a child, both of you were into the Adventist fold in which you have remained. Good to step outside of our tents once in a while to have a friendly ‘agumenical’ chat. ( a pun for Wes who loves words ::)
You see Sean and Wes, I wasn’t born an agnositc. I was baptized, confirmed and raised as a Christian. Eventually at the age of 12 I was asked to leave Sunday school because the kind Anglican minister could not answer my questions and I was causing the other children to have doubts. What I learned was to ask questions and study many disciplines. For me the biblical narrative does not make rational sense nor does theodicy. Respectfully I can’t see a deity drown innocent babies, then allow itself to be crucified and rationally claim this is Love. The analogy would be like me killing my own children, killing myself, donating my organs to other children in need of them, then claiming an abundant love of humanity. Sorry gents, I think that narrative borders on lunacy. and martyrdom based on a God complex. But of course God likely moves in mysterious ways – well beyond my ‘rational’ agnostic conceit – outside the boundaries of space and time as a First Causer should.
Based on my observations and studies I think it more probable that a Creator,or God as you will, is not involved in human affairs whatsoever. I think death, disease and the full spectrum of human behaviour are part of the cause and effect of Nature. As to goodness and evil, each of us of right mind must choose between good and bad actions every day. Cogito ergo sum.
Yes Sean I did looked at the videos but did not find them to be of persuasive value. The allegories and images in the Book of Daniel raise more questions than sound predictive forecast in my estimation. Are we now beyond the four kingdoms Daniel intuited from ole’ King Nebby’s dreams? Whole lot of interpretation going on there.
Gentlemen, as heretical as my views are to your faith, I hope I have not personally offended you. That is not my intent but rather to challenge and understand faith in juxtaposition to reality as we can rationally know it. That is always a moving needle, a present truth as it were 🙂
Ontological cheers
Table of Contents
george Also Commented
The Creator of Time
Hello Sean
In fairness to you and your readers I feel like we are being redundant on many points and issues. I need to be respectful that this is an Adventist forum that believes and supports YEC not a platform for my agnosticism.
I do appreciate and thank you for the opportunity to lively debate issues.
Respectfully
The Creator of Time
To Sean
“ A hypothesis about the supernatural world cannot be tested, so it is not scientific. The concept of God, Allah, or other supernatural designer(s), capable of designing the whole Universe, can neither be proved nor disproved. Hence, any claims that any supernatural being or force cause some event is not able to be scientifically validated (however, whether that event really occurred can be scientifically investigated).”
And back to you
The Creator of Time
To Sean
“Remember also that the assumption that future discoveries will one day be able to explain everything via mindless naturalistic mechanisms is not science, but a philosophy of naturalism that is very similar to a blind faith religion.”
How does this compare to the assumption that the Bible will be able to predict the end of the world? Scientific in your estimation or perhaps I really don’t understand how science versus religion works
Recent Comments by george
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
Sean,
Thank you for your response.
By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur? Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims? For me the value of science is to take us out of the dark ages and look for cause and effect laws and forces to explain reality. Frankly I do not see God’s hand as an intervening force in our universe.
Cheers
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
To Sean
Dictionary definition of a miracle:
“mir·a·cle
ˈmirək(ə)l/Submit
noun
a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.
“the miracle of rising from the grave”
synonyms: wonder, marvel, sensation, phenomenon, supernatural phenomenon, mystery
“his recovery was a blessed miracle”
a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences.
“it was a miracle that more people hadn’t been killed or injured”
an amazing product or achievement, or an outstanding example of something.
“a machine which was a miracle of design”
synonyms: wonder, marvel, sensation, phenomenon, supernatural phenomenon, mystery
“his recovery was a blessed miracle”
As I said science cannot detect miracles, by the very definition of same. Ergo, if the resurrection of Christ is considered an event of divine agency then science cannot detect it or falsify it.
When it comes to historical evidence of the event, outside of the gospels which are likely self serving to the audience they are meant to convert, is there independent corroboration of the event? Are all the versions in the gospels the same or are there differences in the various accounts. Why are there similarities with other resurrection stories from other religions?
If the matter was litigated these are the types of questions that would be asked. Biased eyewitnessed accounts not subject to cross examination under oath in Court are not really of much persuasive value in my experience.
In sum, a biased biblical account of a miraculous resurrection is not scientific and not proof on the balance of probabilities that it occured. The evidence that you have cited is unreliable and not corroborated by unbiased accounts.
I haven’t seen a resurrection or a perfect granite cube, Santa Claus, ghosts, demons, fairies, haunted houses, prophets or anything of a miraculous nature that I am aware of. So it is specious for you to ask me hypotheticals in this regard. It’s like me asking you if your head could swivel 360 degrees could you see the world better.
Onwards….
Also is it possible Jesus did not die on the cross but removed before he was medically dead? Did some of his followers remove his body from the cave to make it appear he was resurrected? If a multitude of people saw him resurrected why are there only biblical accounts?
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
To Sean
“Of course, if the disciples of Jesus had not been given such evidence, they weren’t about to offer themselves up like sheep for the slaughter. Until the actually resurrection of Jesus, three days after His death on the cross, they had given up all hope of Him as the actual Messiah, much less any belief in Him as “God”, and were hiding themselves from the Romans and Jewish leaders of the day.”
Now that is most interesting. So the disciples who had first hand experience of the miracles that Jesus performed during his life had doubts as to his divinity. So much for empirical observations eh? Why should we who were not there then belief in the redacted stories of the Bible?
As I have pointed out many martyrs have died for their faith or convictions. Joan of Arc for example who never witnessed Christ’s resurrection, believed she was a messenger from God, recanted her faith under duress, but then chose it again and was burnt at the stake as a result. Is that proof she was a messenger of God or would you distinguish her case from the disciples who did not belief in Christ’s divinity based on the first hand witnessing of miracles? The fact the disciples did so is not proof of Jesus’s resurrection. Perhaps in guilt and remorse they collaborated the resurrection story to launch mythic Christianity? How many times was the story amended or embellished before being recorded in the many different gospels? And who were the actual scribes? The witnesses themselves or others? Who ‘really’ knows?
The problem with the resurrection miracle is it is not science, not falsifiable thus it comes down to faith. That’s fine as long as one understands that.
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
To Sean and Wes
“Now, if you still think otherwise, then please do explain why you believe that human reason supersedes the concept of selfless love for one’s neighbor? – as the basis for morality and the definition of moral goodness?”
Because, as I have alluded before, I think the concept of selfless love stems from human reason and sentiments, like many other concepts of good or bad. Just like I think the concept of an anthropomorphic, intervening God stems from human reason, not empirically from scientific observations.
You don’t have to be Christian or of any religion stripe to be a good person. Atheists and agnostics as well as may fine religious folks can be good. Conversely many secular and religious people can be bad ( think of the Spanish Inquisition.) The issue- as I have previously argued – is not so much what influences us but what we choose to do. I can choose to use Jesus, the Dalai Lama, Mother Teresa, Jiminy Cricket, you, Wes, or conversely Hitler, Stalin, the leaders of USA or North Korea, etc. as my moral role models … or not. If I am narcissistic I can select myself. If I believe in the Koran i can select Mohammed. If I am Buddhist I select the Dalai Lama… etc.
Who makes that choice for me? God? Jesus? You? Wes? Political or religious leaders? Cult figures? No, I make it based on my own conscience, sentiments and reason. And epistemologically and existentially there is my proof ( I think therefore I am: I choose therefore I am: if I do bad therefore I am: if I do good therefore I am).
If I am not free to reason and make moral choices based on a variety of influences then i am no better than a robot. But you believe in free will and choice don’t you Sean? Don’t we choose to believe of not in God, Jesus, Ellen White as a prophet? Didn’t you choose to do so based on your empirical investigations or are you blindly following your faith based on your upbringing? Charitably, after observing your laudatory efforts on this site over the years – for which I commend you and hold you in high respect – I think you freely chose to adopt the Royal Law of Love as your moral basis.
And that respectfully my fine friend, as you have respectfully requested, is my existential argument.
And to my dear friend Wes I say Yes, emphatically Yes! as to what is the source of morality and conscience: Human choice, black and white, pure and simple.
And now gentlemen, I choose to bid you well and sign off for the night.
Fondly
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
To Sean and Wes, and hopefully our morally interested audience
“Beyond this, why should we, “Let our conscience be our guide”?
Because conscience by definition connotes individual moral choice. We may be influenced by culture, religion, upbringing, sentiment, education, literature, moral theories and law but there is no objective, uniform test for one’s own conscience. Everyone is unique in that regard and must make their own moral choices. As Sean aptly pointed out, individuals can live selflessly for the benefit of others while not necessarily believing in or having doubts about God. Surely they do so according to their conscience.
Obviously an ole rascal that uses a cricket and a Catholic nun as moral role models would strain the credulity of an objective standard for a conscience. Notwithstanding, the example of Jesus depicted in the Bible leaves one speechless in awe. Obviously his impact upon believers and non believers alike has had a profound salutary effect upon the world. I would be disingenuous to submit otherwise, notwithstanding that I do not think any human beings are prophetic or divine. ( other than in some sort of pantheistic notion of which we cannot know).
By the way, Wes. I wouldn’t kiss Mother Teresa’s feet. I’d give her a big hug though as a fine human being. 😉
Chirp, chirp… 🙂
