And what’s the before and after %?
How long have you got?
If I was vane I would say mine. It might be, but I cannot possibly say so.
I assume that you are referring to my little list of qualities. were neither definitive nor symptomatic. Call them a nominal example.
Religion can provide comfort and forgiveness for a criminal who finds society less forgiving.
That is just the human condition.
Richard
I’ve got as a long as a piece of string Richard, for you to tell me what I’m missing, what I need, what will make my quality of life better, make me as effective a person as you, transforming lives, where I’m going wrong. Can you give me true faith in God please? You obviously have it as you know allllllll about it.
Why is that relevant? I neither brought up or argued from any consensus, or to make the-- forever lacking substance and only engaging in nitpicking-- Roy happy, from “a large majority”. One can also make the point that in highly contentious fields, 70% is akin to a consensus but that is another issue. 70% agreement is actually quite high for in my opinion for say philosophy or history, whereas not so much in the harder sciences. I know 70% agreement is quite rare in Biblical studies and when you get anything higher it’d practically a miracle. I simply responded that the consensus your atheist buddy argued from did not actually exist since the majority opinion for experts. (those formally trained in philosophy of religion) is actually 70% in favor of theism. You can dispute this with all the ad hominems you like, attacking the character of these philosophers-- which, in my mind, only strengthens the point I mentioned above about atheist philosophers and echo-chambers. This is a mica-example of the larger problem. But I never appealed to any consensus. Maybe it is Gary you should be responding to. Try to keep up.
Vinnie
2 Likes
Yes. Their “theology” was little better than cheap soap operas.
Richard
Sorry? Religious people are more likely to study the philosophy of religion, to justify how they feel. That’s because reason is enslaved to passion. [If ones passion is reason, no harm done.]
[[Oooh, and who was talking to you?]]
Do as you are found wanting in your absurd projection,
1 Like
Excuse me? They were atheist first. I.e. got atheism first. Like they got to zero. The Greeks gave us atoms and evolution of course. Amongst a few other ideas. Oh yeah, and India gave us eternal infinity.
I think Pilgrim’s Progress falls into this.
What else can it be? All that is and happens is by His rules.
Maybe for some, but evolution does not contradict the text of Genesis or elsewhere, any more than cosmology or geology.
As opposed to a dolomite-example? 
one day you will attempt to understand my view, but clearly not today.
Richard
I believe that the theory of evolution contracts genesis 1-2. I just don’t think it matters. Genesis 1 and 2 contradicts each other other just as much as they contradict psalms 74. While Genesis 1-2 is borrowed concepts from other faiths and written as poetry they most likely really believes that. They believed in that story as true and historical. They did not know about evolution. We just have a far better ability to interpret natural sciences. So we know evolution is true. We also know we don’t have to take genesis 1-2 literally even if ancient jews did. Especially since they have a biblical seam and seam at peace with two separate stories side by side.
Excellent analysis of the evidence. So once you reach that point when you realize that the Bible cannot be understood literally, that it was written by superstitious, scientifically ignorant people who were just trying to make sense of their scary world…why then do we need a savior? If “The Fall” in the garden is an ancient myth, why do we need Jesus’ shedding of blood to atone for our “sins”?
When I was struggling with this issue in the beginning stages of my loss of faith, my pastor, a moderate in a very conservative Protestant denomination, told me that even though all the animals developed according to evolution God specially created man directly from the dust of the earth.
I then asked how it is that humans and great apes have so much DNA in common.
His response was, “Well, with God all things are possible. It is entirely possible that when God formed man from the dust of the earth, some gorilla dung was in the dust.”
Absolutely pathetic isn’t it? And I believed it. I’ve been there.
If Love can not do other than instantiate the prevenient laws of physics, it would have to show itself in solidarity in our meaningless suffering if nothing else. But it has not.
Like I said, you can dispute the dominant majority (70 %) of academic philosophers of religion with all the ad hominem arguments you like. Implicit here is the notion that it is not a real majority or consensus (just to ruffle Roy’s feathers) because it’s held by believers. If it wasn’t so tautologically sad it would be comical, as if you expect theists to not actually be believers in God. The philosophers who believe in God believe in God? Nothing gets past you.
Like I said, the atheist majority in philosophy is for those not specializing in the specific discipline that makes a career out of studying religion. Take that as you want. I made no arguments from consensus. I am not interested in lazy and witless arguments of that variety…
This is what non-philosophers of religion do and especially village atheists on the internet, they don’t actually dialogue with the content itself and when they do, it’s is often enough a caricature of it.
Amen. I would add in anger as well as one of the emotions: sometimes we just hate that we are not God!
No, because we can easily distinguish between red snooker balls which are examples of change or actualized potential. You have to follow the argument up. God being one works only once it is establish God is actuality itself and perfect. If that is accepted then God being one is inescapable.
Feser: Could there be more than one such cause? There could not, not even in principle. For there can be two or more of a kind only If there is something to differentiate them, something that one instance has that the others lack. And there can be no such differentiating feature where something purely actual is concerned. Thus, we typically distinguish the things of our experience by their material or temporal features— by one thing being larger or smaller than another, say, or taller or shorter than another, or existing at a time before or after another. But since what is purely actual is immaterial and eternal, one purely actual thing could not be differentiated from another in terms of such features. More generally, two or more things of a kind are to be differentiated in terms of some perfection or privation that one has and the other lacks. We might say, for instance, that this tree’s roots are more sturdy than that one’s, or that this squirrel is lacking its tail while the other has its tail. But as we have seen, what is purely actual is completely devoid of any privation and is maximal in perfection. Hence, there can be no way in principle to differentiate one purely actual cause from another in terms o f their respective perfections or privations. But then such a cause possesses the attribute of unity— that is to say, there cannot be, even in principle, more than one purely actual cause. Hence, it is the same one unactualized actualizer to which all things owe their existence.
And I am aware you reject Feser’s arguments all the way through. You are an atheist, after all, but before you nitpick, the context of my original point was Gary asking if we can’t scientific prove spiritual things, then how can we know God is one. My response is revelation, church tradition and of course metaphysical arguments. That would be the basing of theological beliefs. Feser ties in the oneness of God in all five proofs. Some are just really restatements of the same idea but some hit it from a different angle as well. We have already seen the Aristotelian version, here are the others.
Neo-platonic proof:
10. In order for there to be more than absolutely one simple or noncomposite cause, each would have to have some differentiating feature that the others lacked.
11. But for a cause to have such a feature would be for it to have parts, in which case it would not really be simple or noncomposite.
12. So, no absolutely simple or noncomposite cause can have such a differentiating feature.
13. So, there cannot be more than one absolutely simple or noncomposite cause.
The Augustinian Proof:
18. So, this interlocking system of ideas exists in at least one necessarily existing intellect.
19. A necessarily existing intellect would be purely actual.
20. There cannot be more than one thing that is purely actual.
21. So, there cannot be more than one necessarily existing intellect.
The Thomistic Proof:
8. So, there could not in principle be more than one thing the essence of which is identical to its existence.
The Rationalist Proof:
18. So, there must be at least one necessary being, to explain why any contingent things exist at all and how any particular contingent thing persists in existence at any moment.
19. A necessary being would have to be purely actual, absolutely simple or noncomposite, and something which just is subsistent existence itself.
20. But there can in principle be only one thing which is purely actual, absolutely simple or noncomposite, and something which just is subsistent existence itself.
21. So, there is only one necessary being.
22. So, it is this same one necessary being which is the explanation of hy any contingent things exist at all and which is the cause of every particular contingent thing’s existing at any moment.
You can disagree with this:
Feser: So, again, God is purely actual, with no potentiality at all. And this entails his unity, because there cannot, even in principle, be more than one thing which is pure actuality. The reason is that for there to be more than one thing of certain kind, there must be a distinction between the thing and the species of which it is a member, or (if the thing in question is a species) between the species and the genus of which it is a member. And there can be no such distinction without there also being a distinction between a thing’s potentialities and its actualities.
Many theists obviously accept some or all of these metaphysical arguments and thus “metaphysical arguments lead to ‘God is one’” is an adequate answer to someone who asks the herp-derp question, “how can you know God is one if you can’t scientifically test spiritual realities.” Scripture and Church tradition are another two.
Vinnie
Ahh… that clarifies things a lot. We were going in different directions with gnosticism. I agree with the substance of what you wrote. I see deism as both God not interacting in the universe (anymore?) but also just the idea of the universe running on its own. I think the mechanistic model of God is very prevalent today and has been since the time of Newton. I identify that as a branch of deism and it is definitely a very common misconception of God held to by many today.
I’m no village atheist, my projecting, ad hominem, grandiosity personified, mate.
Well I don’t think it was written by idiots. I don’t think they were scientifically dumb. They just were not as far advance as we are. They could still understand a lot by witnessing it. Things that even now ecologists rediscover about pollinations and so on. They had a great grasp of constellations and so on. What they did not have is what we have. Just like in 400 years what they know will make up look quite dumb even though we are not.
You now brought up something I don’t even believe in. The fall. I don’t think the fall was required. I don’t think that Jesus had to die. I think the powers that were in place killed him because he was showing a far better way to live. Just like those who push certain ideologies and beliefs now get shunned.
Take veganism. It’s absolutely better in every way than eating animals. Animals suffer , feel fear, and endure pain before being killed just because you like the taste of their dead bodies fried in oil. We have so much evidence that shows animals are so much more aware than previously thought. Even bees having distinct personalities and favorite patches to visit even if those patches are further away than others. We know chickens will hold “hands” in fear. Pigs cry and and cows miss their babies as they are dragged away. Just like dogs get broken emotionally and mentally when they are starved and beaten. Vegans go to prison every year for liberating livestock from their own prisons. Some vegans have even been shot and killed in the process of helping whales, seals, deer and so on. I’ve been attacked physically and even fired from a job for protesting against animal cruelty, just the annals I protested was not dogs but turkeys.
So I don’t think Jesus has to die. I think he knew he was going to. As mentioned, I think we are judged by the lives we choose to live, based off of how much right and wrong we understand.
My faith in no ways undermines anything in life from cognitive processing, to emotional development, to logical reasoning and so on. I don’t care if it turns out to be a sham. It makes no difference in my life. Nothing would change. I would not suddenly start eating meat just because I decided god was a lie. I would not suddenly start to use violence as my go to solution to handle contentious situations. I would not suddenly see women as just a hole to conquer and then find another. I would not suddenly start to think it’s ok to treat undocumented people cruely. I would not stop caring about the enviorment. It would not change my views on social democracy, creating safer more open borders, diminishing the lack of healthcare or closing the gap of wages vs the cost of living. I would be the same exact person as an atheist or as a Christian. I don’t even have the pascal wager worry since I think everyone decent will be saved and maybe even everyone who is wicked will still be saved. At worse case, i still die and try to have the most ecological burial lined up as possible and become food for mushrooms, worms, trees whose fruits and seeds get eaten by caterpillars and birds, who get captured by spiders, who spreads that same energy from me in the ground into the new seeds that become a new tree, until the day something happens and this planet is blown apart, or whatever and all the dust forms into a planet, or is fuel for a new star or whatever. I’m going to be around forever as either something restored by god or as the material used to create more planets. Energy changes. It does not die. I’ll still read the Bible even if I become an atheist. I enjoy the Bible primarily as literature.
So again I’m a Christian because I have no reason not to be one. I’m a Christian because I believe in God. Does not matter if god is fictional, or if god is a network of cosmological intelligence that developed in some bizarre way naturally, or a being from another dimension or something supernatural. I don’t care and I still believe.
Just because I’m highly critical does not mean in my deconstruction that it ended with my faith in the scrap bin. It means I took it apart, and rebuilt something with it I find more beneficial. So just because I’m perfectly fine with being functionally an atheist in my day to day living, such as I don’t pray for food, I go find it or work and buy it. I don’t expect it to magically fall down. So even thought I would be absolutely fine with being an atheist, I am not one and I doubt u ever will be. I’m also not someone who thinks god is an absent father. I think god is very much a driving force in the universe encouraging goodness.
Truth be told, I get vibes of an older poster who once was a member of this forum when I read your posts.
Really? Who was that?