The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

[malkie]

MG, it's good to see that you have returned to the thread, because you left me in a state of suspense from a comment I made back on page 38:

viewtopic.php?p=2755334#p2755334

You addressed the last para of my comment, where I asked you to cite your source for a statement, though I really don't think (as I said a bit later viewtopic.php?p=2755361#p2755361 ) that your source supported your argument. Far from it, actually.

Anyway, to summarise, here are points that you left unchallenged. I'd be interested in seeing what you think.

1. We simply have no idea, and perhaps can never know, if this universe is optimal for us.
   We know it is sufficient, because we are here, but, I suggest, nothing more.

And, of course, you are free to take this point of view.

[*]There's no need to work backwards from "we are here" through "we must be here for a reason" and "I don't know how or why" to "therefore god did it". We simply are here.

Again, this is your view, and you are free to entertain it.

[*]Your god, from the Bible, is an immoral or at least amoral monster.

Your interpretation of that which is contained in the Old Testament is not unwarranted. I’d question the Old Testament as being an accurate representation of God, however.

[*]If your god exists, he may be "pulling the strings" to hinder us, while simply pretending to help us. I don't think you can know which.

In an absolutist sense, of course you’re right. Otherwise how could you in good faith make this statement? I choose to believe in a creator God who loves and respects the individuality and agency of each of His children. So I trust that he will not do anything to breach that trust. God is a God of love/justice/mercy. I think He has a pretty dang good understanding of how to judge us and bring us along, according to our will, to give us all we desire to have.

[*]There's no need for me to try, as you suggest I must, to "discount the need for a creator" - you simply have not supplied convincing evidence, so no "trying" is needed.

malkie, you are FREE to choose your disbelief.

[*]Similarly for purposeful fine tuning - there are too many unknown unknowns to make it possible for us to be sure.

There’s enough there to see the hand of an intelligent, very intelligent, creator. The problem I think we all have, including the religious believers, is that we try to bring God down to our level and our understanding. How silly.

God is BIG.

malkie, I don’t fault you for reasoning away a creator. That is your right. That is your choice. And if it truly makes you happy, well then, that’s something, right?

Regards,
MG

Somehow I expected this kind of response - a complete failure to engage the points of discussion - simply a waving away of them as "you can believe what you want".

But let me reply to just one where you said a bit more - I honestly don't have the patience for more at this point:

Similarly for purposeful fine tuning - there are too many unknown unknowns to make it possible for us to be sure.

There’s enough there to see the hand of an intelligent, very intelligent, creator. The problem I think we all have, including the religious believers, is that we try to bring God down to our level and our understanding. How silly.

God is BIG.

My argument was that there is no need to suppose that a god exists, much less that that god has engaged in purposeful fine tuning.

Your reply doesn't address the point I was making. You simply assume a god, with a convenient set of attributes. No discussion of how the fact that we don't know how many variables there may be that govern the structure and characteristics of the universe makes moot the argument of fine tuning of ones that we do know.

And you have the chutzpah to imply that any attempt to understand the subject matter at hand is "silly".

Each time you simply fall back on your testimony of a god with abilities you choose (even casting doubt on canonical scripture to avoid the obvious), and no indication that you have actually thought through the implications of what I've said.

I'm content enough to have made the summary for my own purposes. If it had been simply to try to have you respond properly to my comments from 8 or so pages ago, it would have been a complete waste of time.

[MG 2.0]

[There is] no indication that you have actually thought through the implications of what I've said.

I have. Truth is, I believe that your foundation is built on sand. But as I also said, that is your right. That is your choice. And if your worldview brings you joy/happiness, then that is something, right?

As the song says, don't worry, be happy.

I honestly don't understand the reason that some of you folks are SO adamant about proving your point. Or continuing to point out that the evidence for God can go either way and so your way is it. I've fully disclosed that, for me, the evidence...all around...points towards God. So there you have it.

Why all the grumbling? I can't prove anything to you and you can't prove anything to me. Can't theists and non theists just get along?

This board wouldn't even exist if not for the fact that non theists can't let God alone. At the end of the day, you folks seem to have an itch to disprove God so that...?

It's interesting, nonetheless.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

God is BIG.

I'm content enough to have made the summary for my own purposes. If it had been simply to try to have you respond properly to my comments from 8 or so pages ago, it would have been a complete waste of time.

I’d contend with answers like:



that it’s a waste of time. However, we all gotta waste our time in a way that makes sense to us, so if Mental “my god is big” Gymnast is your thang then you gotta do what you gotta do.

- Doc

[MG 2.0]

I'm content enough to have made the summary for my own purposes. If it had been simply to try to have you respond properly to my comments from 8 or so pages ago, it would have been a complete waste of time.

I’d contend with answers like:



that it’s a waste of time. However, we all gotta waste our time in a way that makes sense to us, so if Mental “my god is big” Gymnast is your thang then you gotta do what you gotta do.

- Doc

God is BIG. Not MY God is BIG. Slight difference in meaning. Or not so slight?

You would like to bring God down to your level so that you can understand everything there is to know? Good luck with that, dude.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

And you have the chutzpah to imply that any attempt to understand the subject matter at hand is "silly".

Any attempt to completely understand. Gosh, LDS folks make the claim to understand some of the basics when it comes to the nature and character of God. But do we understand Him completely? Of course not.

Same with Fine Tuning. Do we understand everything there is to know? Including whether or not there was "intent" behind it all? Good luck proving that.

Of course not.

But there is more than enough there to have faith.

Regards,
MG

[sock puppet]

And you have the chutzpah to imply that any attempt to understand the subject matter at hand is "silly".

Any attempt to completely understand. Gosh, LDS folks make the claim to understand some of the basics when it comes to the nature and character of God. But do we understand Him completely? Of course not.

Same with Fine Tuning. Do we understand everything there is to know? Including whether or not there was "intent" behind it all? Good luck proving that.

Of course not.

But there is more than enough there to have faith.

Regards,
MG

God works in mysterious ways has been the excuse for centuries and centuries why God's actions and statements don't stand up to scrutiny. The simpler and more straight-forward explanation is that those that made up God and spun all the tales around him and interactions with mankind just weren't as smart they should have been. There are elements of unfalsifiability but there are lots of logical and moral problems, and scientific developments keep making the Biblical tales seem sillier and sillier.

[Gadianton]

Suicide bombers can say the same thing 2.0. Nobody can say for sure that God doesn't order suicide bombings. Suicide bombers also look through a glass darkly. They don't completely understand the nature and character of God, there is plenty of room for faith.

[dastardly stem]

And you have the chutzpah to imply that any attempt to understand the subject matter at hand is "silly".

Any attempt to completely understand. Gosh, LDS folks make the claim to understand some of the basics when it comes to the nature and character of God. But do we understand Him completely? Of course not.

Same with Fine Tuning. Do we understand everything there is to know? Including whether or not there was "intent" behind it all? Good luck proving that.

Of course not.

But there is more than enough there to have faith.

Regards,
MG

I like Gad's response, so I don't want to distract from that. But your claim of "more than enough there to have faith" is interesting to me. In one sense, anything is enough to have faith for anything, if that's what we want. But that says nothing whether the claims we hold to are reasonable.

All too often, when one invokes faith they belie the very tool, or only sensible one, we have--rationality. Faith seems to be thrown in, as it is in this case, to suggest our reason for our belief is a lack of reason and we call that faith.

[IHAQ]

Suicide bombers can say the same thing 2.0. Nobody can say for sure that God doesn't order suicide bombings. Suicide bombers also look through a glass darkly. They don't completely understand the nature and character of God, there is plenty of room for faith.

It’s an interesting point. At the end of the day the faith that drives suicide bombers to kill is the same as the faith that drove Nephi to lop off Labans head whilst he was passed out drunk. Both felt they were doing their deities bidding. Both have the same chances of being right. The only difference is the team colours. I mean, when you boil it all down and remove the hand waving and smoke and mirrors.

If Nelson issued a call for suicide bombers, would 2.0 answer the call? If not, then he really doesn’t have the faith in his religion that he claims to hold.

Would 2.0 allow his wife to be sealed to Nelson? His daughter? Will he consecrate himself to the church and sign over all his property to the church in his last will and testament?

Faith is just a hope or a wish.

[Rivendale]

[There is] no indication that you have actually thought through the implications of what I've said.

I have. Truth is, I believe that your foundation is built on sand. But as I also said, that is your right. That is your choice. And if your worldview brings you joy/happiness, then that is something, right?

As the song says, don't worry, be happy.

I honestly don't understand the reason that some of you folks are SO adamant about proving your point. Or continuing to point out that the evidence for God can go either way and so your way is it. I've fully disclosed that, for me, the evidence...all around...points towards God. So there you have it.

Why all the grumbling? I can't prove anything to you and you can't prove anything to me. Can't theists and non theists just get along?

This board wouldn't even exist if not for the fact that non theists can't let God alone. At the end of the day, you folks seem to have an itch to disprove God so that...?

It's interesting, nonetheless.

Regards,
MG

Normally I would agree with you. The problem resides in the fact that Mormonism has truth claims that make the foundations of your belief system suspect. The epistemology is flawed. In order to believe you must....
[*]A magical truth about a God.
[*] A historical view of the Earth including a Young Earth (4000BC), The continents were divided during the flood (2300BC)
[*] Garden of Eden was in Jackson County Missouri
[*] Ancient Israelites built boats making a transoceanic voyage. Wooden submarines with holes in the bottom and top
[*] A deliberate attempt to de-emphasize and portray an accurate account of Polygamy(including polyamory and sex with other women) and translation methods
[*] A system of truth clarification that allows a person to be labeled "deceived by Satan" if truth claims differ

Many of these are demonstrably not true. That is why we can't get along.