Here’s a bit of a take-off (thanks Carol).This article refers to an ongoing discussion of a very old topic — the moral compass of Atheists. Some of our critics choose to think that since we have no bible, we can have no objective source for our morality.They’re right. We Don’t.Our detractors’ flaw is in their premise — they don’t have one either. They have their own ideas, find it in the Bible, and then SAY that their ideas are absolute and objective, when in fact they are just personal opinion.For example, Many of our Christian and Jewish friends look at the first part of Lev 20:13 (“If a man lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination”) as an objective judgement against homosexual behavior. They choose to ignore the second part of the SAME SENTENCE (“they shall surely be put to death: their blood shall be upon them”). Because they find that PART of the sentence immoral, they find a way to ignore it, don’t talk about it, and don’t teach it to their kids, making that PART of the sentence somehow not-objective-truth, even though they are words of God himself, and in the same sentence as the words they hold dear. One part of the sentence is morality — the next part is not.Another example is how slavery was/is viewed. The very phrases in Exodus that the slave traders used to justify their wretched industry merely 200 years ago (Ex 20-21) are now dismissed by nearly everyone of conscience as “a sign of the different times”. Same phrase, different meaning, giving far different moral views.See where I’m going? They CHOOSE their own morality just as we all do. The only difference is that they support/blame their decision on the Bible, and we must be responsible for our own opinions. Their trap is sprung when we forget this fact — when we try to point out our objective source for morality, which does not exist. We fail, and their point is made. This universe is not made up of blacks and whites — rather shades of gray. Objective moral laws are myths — like the gods who make them.
goose you use the word yall. this also reminds me of somebody i know. your experience made oyu believe these “things”. it musta been some kind of experience – somehting big yes? ive been in a near death experience before and it did nothing to convince me there was a god. i have seen things under the influence of the “d” word too and those have not convinced me. either you are extreemely gullible or you witnessed somehting special. now like oyu said earlier i am without a doubt that you willbe ridiculed or laughed at if you explained it. i have had “nature” experiences before – i was indirectly struck by lightning before and it did not alter my beliefs. perhaps you were hypnotized into the christian faith? i am curious. as with anybody who has had “experiences”. somebody mentioned somehting about aliens on here earlier. there is more proof of aliens than there is of god. ok so dont insult the idea of extra terrestrials by throwing its good name into this arguement.
wdo
Exactly. The nature of such experiences are that those that do not share them are likely to treat them as bullshit. I wouldn’t want to expose such things to the light of day either.
It’s a shame that the xian faith tells it’s adherants to go forth and spread the word though…..
GooseHenry,
Thanks for clarifying on “enlightened”. No big deal.
So you seem secure within your faith, as are many people. Then why not take up the challenge and learn more about it? I am just at a loss to understand why anyone – especially a recent convert like I think you said you are, and not someone born into a certain faith – would not want to learn as much as possible about a religion before devoting one’s life to it. ESPECIALLY if that conversion involved a supernatural-like experience. My experience with Christians is that some of them are afraid to undertake the questioning and research for fear that it will indeed lead them away from their faith.
I agree with what reluctant said…I question everything, even atheism, if it warrants it. I am not opposed to changing my mind about it should something convince me otherwise, but so far nothing has. You do not seem to be that flexible about your Christianity.
atheiststatic and others,
I’ve quoted from this book many times as it is the most readable and informative book I’ve ever come across on the subject of science. It was on the New York Times bestseller list for over six months. It is available in three editions and I have all of them: the original hardback edition, an economical paperback and a deluxe illustrated version.
The title is “A Short History of Nearly Everything” by Bill Bryson who has written several other interesting, witty books. In one of those prior books he describes himself as an agnostic. I’ve wondered if he didn’t move to the atheist bench while doing research for A Short History although he doesn’t reveal his personal beliefs in this book.
Agh! Cut to the heart.
It’s just so depressing…
You’ve lost me. Is this just sarcasm? Surely you are not mocking me?
Not at all…maybe I misunderstood your post. I thought your comment (“It’s a shame…”) was a not-so-subtle dig at Goose for being unwilling to “go forth” in this instance. I was just kidding…sorry if I misunderstood.
wdo,
Actually the only message meant for Goose was that I sympathized with this reluctance to share. Everything else was meant in a more general sense. Sorry for not making that clear.
And yes it was a not-so-subtle dig at one of the general ironies of being a xian adherant.
Thomas Aquinas wrote ?Whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility.? Your reference to logical contradictions is the essence of it.
Dunno. Not sure that making a list of logical impossibilities is useful. The question of omnipotence frequently dissolves into the ?Can God make a rock so big that He can?t lift it?? dilemma because, after all, is omnipotence really omnipotence if it can be limited by anything? The Christian answer is ?yes?, because the question is not meaningful.
C.S. Lewis (again): ?If you choose to say “God can give a creature free-will and at the same time withhold free-will from it,” you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning because we prefix to them the two other words: “God can.” It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives, not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God.?
The idea of a miracle contravenes the laws of physics, by definition. But physics is concerned with what is physically possible/impossible, not logically possible/impossible.
wdo:
Isn’t physics built on logic?
My limited understanding is that both Classical as well as Modern physics are both contingent on the application of logic.
So basically, all words are rendered meaningless in re: your deity, simply due to the nature of said deity?
The entire crux of your argument is the presupposition of said deity, it exists, why ask why? Words, questions, are meaningless?
Please elucidate.
I think physics deals with empirical entities whereas logic deals with abstractions, but I could be wrong. The distinction, with regard to what is theoretically possible in this understanding of omnipotence, relies on the law of non-contradiction. That is, it is not possible that something be both true and not true at the same time and in the same context. This is an intrinsic feature of reality, of which God is a part. Hence, Aquinas contention that ?Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God.?
I didn’t say anything of the sort. The question (“Can God make a rock so big that He can?t lift it?”) is meaningless in the context of this discussion.
No, I think “why” is often a good question to ask. For the sake of argument, the existence of being with limited omnipotence IS presupposed, since we’re talking about the idea of limited omnipotence as it applies to God.
The crux of my argument is that
the concept of limited omnipotence (as previously defined) is not invalidated by insisting that it must include intrinsically contradictory possibilities. Lewis says it better: “meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning because we prefix to them the two other words: “God can”.”
In the second paragraph from the bottom, the second line should read “the existence of a being…”.
wdo,
My intention was to grant you the exclusion of logical impossibilities, but ask what non-logical impossibilities might be implied by the term “intrinsically impossible”.
Does this in fact only apply to logical contradictions? Or is it something more? I know it’s Lewis’s term, but I’m hoping you understand it better than I obviously do. Currently it is pretty meaningless to me.
I think I understand the scope of physics. My question is is limited omnipotence bounded by the same parameters as physics? If not what is it bounded by? And who decides these boundries?
In other words, once you venture outside the laws of physics, you pretty much immediately enter the realm of the logically absurd. Miracles seem to me to fall into the class of logical absurdities, as they require a suspension of a plethora of physical laws, a suspension that would have at times have dramatic consequences for our planet.
I refer to the implications of splitting the moon in half (not your theism – but equally valid), Stopping the rotation of the earth for three days, reversing the earth ten degrees, etc.
Such things plainly cannot have occurred within the laws of physics as they exist today. To suggest that they were different a mere few thousand years ago seems equally as preposterous.
So if these mracles are true then the god is not bounded by physical laws. If so then by what is a god’s omnipotense bounded?
The most logical answer seems to me to be “one’s imagination”.
Yeah, my contention is that it only applies to logical contradictions. Maybe a decent example of an “intrinsic impossibility” is the notion that God could will himself out of existence and still retain all his power.
Not physics, as my presumption is that he created the laws of physics, whereas logic is intrinsic to his character and not subject to his creation. Why? Because he has always been. The “who decides the boundaries” question is (maybe) an inference that God is subject to another creator? And if so, that creator was created by yet another? If not, then…I’m just off on the wrong track, but otherwise I have no trouble positing God as an eternal, uncreated first cause. Secondarily, I heard someone once say that he really didn’t care if God had a creator, as he only needed to worry about the God to whom he was subject.
Agreed, based on known physical laws, miracles can be interpreted as logically absurd.
The logically impossible. The notion that venturing outside the laws of physics would put us in the realm of logical absurdities is reasonable, in that the slightest uncontrolled violation might just result in complete annihilation. (Nice that things are in such good balance.) But I view potential intervention in the natural realm (where God is presumed by my argument to be the creator and governor) to be categorically different than potential intervention in the logical realm, where something might be made to be both true and false at the same time.
Ah, good conclusion…I can’t imagine a square triangle, either.
BTW, the last line was just a bit of humor…no offense intended.
Gotta get some sleep…
wdo:
definition – logic – answers.com
“The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.”
There’s 5 meanings to the word logic. This is the 1 I’m assuming applies to physics.
But to any creature w/unlimited power, such laws (physics, non-contradiction) are not binding upon it, as per my definition of the word ‘omnipotence’ prior. I trust I don’t have to define ‘limitless’ for you.
That sounds terribly contradictory. ‘Limited omnipotence’ seems like an oxymoron, isn’t it?
HeatheNZ
“My experience from my indocrinated youth is that one is happy to disuss their personal faith related experiences only in the company of those of like mind. They have a strong expectation that noone is going to question their ‘experiences’, indeed they can expect a considerable amount of positive reinforcement.”
Well, that’s one way of looking at it. I don’t know you, but i suspect that even if you were to witness a physical thing, for example, a healing miracle, you would somehow find a natural explanation. Even those clear cases can be mocked.
So a spiritual experience, which is not tangible and cannot be grasped with the carnal mind, doesn’t stand a chance. Am i right?
Peach63
“So you seem secure within your faith, as are many people. Then why not take up the challenge and learn more about it? I am just at a loss to understand why anyone – especially a recent convert like I think you said you are, and not someone born into a certain faith – would not want to learn as much as possible about a religion before devoting one’s life to it.”
Ok. I’ll explain my position. The center of christianity is Christ. Now, either the testimonies of the gospels are true and Jesus was God and died for my sins. I can only hold two positions on this, either it is true or it is false.
Given the evidence today, i find it very reasonable to think that they are true. If they are true then it follows that we can believe there is a God (described in the OT, who we have to get right with) since Jesus spoke about that too.
If the gospels are true, then sure, i can learn more about middle eastern religions and so forth, but the gospel is still true.
They mocked me to my son as long as you blindly follow me you will be saved
RA
I would have to agree. Actually it sounds more like a cop-out. I seems to contravene the logical axiom wdo referred to, where an entity cannot be both A and not A at the same time.
I think this is saying that gods have bot unlimited power and limited power.
Goose,
I have been to many many church services with healing sessions where people limped up to the stage and ‘miraculously’ walked back without a limp. Strangely though I have also seen people go up with amputated limbs but I’ve never seen one of those people return with a newly grown limb. So basically, all the ‘healing’ I have witnessed has been either fraud, wishful thinking, or inspecific ailments with no observable symptomns. If an octopus can re-grow limbs, then when do the gods not enable humans to re-grow limbs? Could it be the an octopus’s god is more powerful than human gods?
The only person I trust that actually asked and prayed for healing is my Dad, who has been deaf in one ear since childhood. He tried real hard to get healed, but I guess the gods said “no” as nothing ever happened for him.
Goose, how many minds do you have? AS far as I am aware the only mind humans posses is the carnal one in our heads. My brain is able to understand the concept of a spiritual experience, but the same brain also indicats to me that such an experience has no reality outside of that same mind. I guess your carnal mind is wired a little differently. You probably grasp the same concept as I, but we differ in its relationship to reality. You are happy to accept it – I call it bullshit.
Of course if you are talking about some other spritual experience that our brains cannot grasp, then by definition we would be totally ignorant of it. (Unless you have a second, spiritual, brain)
Hi Goose,
“Given the evidence today, i find it very reasonable to think that they are true. If they are true then it follows that we can believe there is a God (described in the OT, who we have to get right with) since Jesus spoke about that too.”
Wich evidence beside the gospels?. If you want to take the gospels as evidence because the people who wrote them were not witness of Jesus, were written several years after his death, by people we don’t know nothing about, writted in greek, lengauge Jesus didn?t talk, apostoles didn?t know the orography from Palestine, place of the events, etc, etc.
And I’m still curious about judgment day for the people who hadn’t the grace of god of reading his bible.
reluctant,
I agree.
wdo,
Welcome, by the way. These are incredible mental gymnastics here. It seems as if you (or Lewis) are trying to change the definition of the word “omnipotent”, or at the very least place conditions upon it, which cannot happen and the meaning remain the same. Christian apologists have been dancing around this issue for centuries.
“Omni” means “ALL”. One third is not “omni”. One half is not “omni”. 99% is still not “omni”.
God is either omnipotent, or he is not.
Goose,
So how I interpret this is, basically, you believe it because someone told you it’s true, it sounds good to you, and you had a “feel-good” experience to go along with it that validated it further.
If I remember correctly you are from Finland. I don’t know how they do it at your church but around here most Baptist and Pentecostal churches have something they call “altar call”, where at the end of the sermon they have a prayer and/or a song and everyone gets a chance to go to the altar to “get saved”.
My husband who is still a theist says that he has felt at times a powerful urge, or pull, to go to the altar and attributes that to God calling him. But the last few times he’s been he hasn’t felt it so now he thinks God might have given up on him.
At any rate, I said, “Umm…could the ‘powerful urge’ you felt have anything to do with the preacher standing up there saying things – even faintly – during the prayer or song like ‘Lord Jesus please help these sinners see the error of their ways and accept your forgiving grace so they won’t be burned to a crisp in the eternal fires of hell…’”.
He agreed that he hadn’t thought about it quite like that, and that during those times he felt the urge that the minister could have been speaking. Most of them do.
Of course I don’t know what your experience was like but I do know there is a hypnotic quality to some church services, and people tend to get caught up in it. And I know how charismatic some ministers can be. They’re the best salespeople in the world.
With apostles, I mean evangelists, sorry
Peach
Ain’t that the truth. You have to be one hell (excuse the pun) of a salesperson to sell god worship. You’re selling a product that only exists in the mind of the buyer with the promise that it will materialize for the buyer once the buyer is dead.
And all it’ll cost you is you sunday mornings, 10% of your income, your free will, and suspension of critical thought.
What a deal!
wdo:
Uh, photons, and the wave/particle duality spring to mind to contradict your statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
Can I get a witness?
GooseHenry said:
?Well, that’s one way of looking at it. I don’t know you, but i suspect that even if you were to witness a physical thing, for example, a healing miracle, you would somehow find a natural explanation. Even those clear cases can be mocked.?
The miracle that would convince just about anyone of god?s existence is bringing someone back to life. I?m not talking about one of those near-death experiences. I mean someone who is genuinely and absolutely dead. (And I?m not talking about a two-century-old legend either.)
When I hear about a two-year-old who runs into the street and is crushed by a truck, or an innocent by-stander who takes a bullet to the head in a drive-by shooting, or a child who is raped and murdered, I think about their families and wonder “where is their god when they need him?”.
Believers are always praying for a miracle healing and sometimes think they get it. Why not go a step farther and pray for a miracle raising of the dead? If that sounds like it?s against the laws of nature–DUH! So are “miracle” healings.
mxracer,
Unmeasured photons do seemingly contradict the stated axiom, but I wonder if there is an out to this scenario. Once measured, the photons no longer contradict the axiom – they are either wave or particle, depending on the instrument. So we are really only talking about the photons predecision. I’m not sure its accurate to say they are both at this stage – it’s more accurate to say they have the potential to be either ….. I think.
Feeling like I am on an exremely weak limb here.
Additionally the axiom in question really relates to the contradiction of being A and not A at the same time. So to use photons we should be examining the premise that a photon can/cannot be a particle and not a particle at the same time (or a wave). Once measured the contradiction is avoided, prior to measurement we really do not know. I’d hyothesize that it is neither particle nor wave, but some third option with potentials for either wave or particle.
It’s weird stuff, but not necessarily illogical.
HeathenNZ,
Scary thoughts. I joke with people that having free Sunday mornings is one reason I’m an atheist.
Susan,
On miracles, I agree with you. I do not understand how anyone can consider someone being cured of a disease or surviving some kind of accident a miracle. Maybe they DID beat the odds – but it cannot be called a miracle if it was one of the possible outcomes, no matter how minute the chances it would happen.
Theists will say we atheists refuse to see the evidence for miracles when it is right in our faces, we say they are grasping at any little thing to confirm their belief.
A valid miracle in my opinion would have to be something extraordinary like raising the dead, magical powers (like in the Harry Potter books), etc.
Hnz,
Close, but when you set up the slit experiment to determine which slit the photon went through, prior to the measurement, it still exhibits wave behavior. Likewise, you can go from wave>particle>wave (ad infinitum) via the right setup.
The contradiction is that if you don’t try to observe which slit the photon went through, its probability function allows it to go through both slits.
In essence, the photon takes an infinite number of routes to the screen, simultaneously. This is the illogic of it, IMO, and is why I used it to refute wdo?s claim that it cannot be true & not true in the same context. The particle can be here and there, and at every single point in the universe, at the same time (non-locality).