Question: How Can We Know One Belief Selected for By Evolution is Superior to Another?

_{Barry Arrington

March 2, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Theist: You say there is no God.

Evolutionary Materialist [EM]: Yes.

Theist: Yet belief in God among many (if not most) humans persists.

EM: I cannot deny that.

Theist: How do you explain that?

EM: Religious belief is an evolutionary adaption.

Theist: But you say religious belief is false.

EM: That’s correct.

Theist: Let me get this straight. According to you, religious belief has at least two characterizes: (1) it is false; and (2) evolution selected for it.

EM [looking a little pale now, because he’s just figured out where this is going]: Correct.

Theist: You believe the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis [NDS] is true.

EM: Of course.

Theist: How do you know your belief in NDS is not another false belief that evolution has selected for?

EM: ___________________

Our materialist friends are invited to fill in the blank.

Comments

Bruce, The fact that there are acts in the world we identify as evil, and others we identify as good are enough to show us that good and evil truly do exist. That you change this around and say that there are outcomes I prefer and others I don't is merely a game of semantics, and a very dangerous one at that. It's dangerous because we who don't hold your view have to trust that all those who do adhere to your philosophy intend good (or to side with your idiomatic trminology, 'preferred'). But what happens if an adherent to your philosophy views it as an opportunity to do whatever they 'prefer,' the prefernces of others be damned. You can see how a person could justify just about any action and call it simply his/her own preference. If such a philosophy catches on you can see how this could and would lead to a very dangerous world.CannuckianYankee_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
10:19 PM
10
10
19
PM
PDT}

Bruce and others, One last observation: You mentioned the Japanese tragedy as an example for why if evil exists, God is responsible. I say that you are only seeing what is happening there from a one - sided perspective. Consider thet for over yt years Japan has been a peace lovibg country. In the bible there is never a promise that calamity will neve befall the just, However, all through scripture we read that through certin acts of righteousnes, cerain outcomes will derive in the midst of calamities, Now cinsider the worldwide response to this trajedy, and understand that in theis commitment to living peacefully, as many as 100 countries have come to theiraid, including some countries that consider them enemies. This to me is thetruework of God in a world of evil. His word is powerful with the insight that whoever sows peace will gain many friends.CannuckianYankee_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT}

Bruce, others, (contining...) ...philosophy of one Mary Baker Eddy of Christian Science fame, who proposed the idea that human disease is illusory - it's all in the mind. It's also similar to Tom Cruise's denial that mental illness actually exists. Such charges do not match with what we intuitively as well as scientifically know to be true. I would say that similar to the impossibility of deriving an ought from an is, your philosophy attempts to derive an is not from an is, and as such it doesn't have hope of lending anything meaningful to our vey real existence. You might as go all the way and say that nothing exists, that all reality is an illusion.CannuckianYankee_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT}

Bruce "You say something that makes perfect sense, and the response that comes back is such a non-sequitur that you don’t even know what to do with it." Bruce don't run away when the probing starts to strike home.What is circular in what I wrote in post 221? You made the chocolate vanilla preference example as it relates to murder, rape and torture. Why does one of your preferences require incarceration and others don't? Is it or is it not your position that pain, good, evil,and pleasure is all an illusion? Where is the non sequiter? Vividvividbleau_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

Bruce and others, This is why I mentioned in an earlier post that you might benefit from reading William Dembski's own stab at theodicy, 'The End Of Christianity: Finding A Good God In An Evil World,' which is generally a response to the New Atheist charge that if God exists, He's responsible for all the evil in he world. Therfore the athist theodicy is to charge that God does not exist. This atheistic view is truly incoherent because they don't deny the existence of evil. It's problematic because an atheist cannot be cob nsistnt in that view if Darwinism is the philosophy, which allows them to make the charge. Within Darwinism there really can be no good or evil, because Darwinism merely describes what is, and you cannot derive an ought from an is. Your theodicy then, is to say that there is no evil in the world, but this is no reconciliation with the fact that we do encounter real evil. so then you say that what we experience as evil is an illusion. This is very similar to the...CannuckianYankee_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

'Oh, running away are we? Come back here and take what's comin' to ya, I'll bite your legs off.'' In all seriousness, though, Bruce your input is appreciated. I think your frustration though stems less from others misunderstanding you than your attempt to describe a philosophy that has no congruence with reality. You states (parphrase?l How does God esape the charge that he is evil?' I'm glad you mentioned this, because it really is the crux of the matter, and it is the subject matter behind what is known as a theodicy - the challenge of reconcilibg a good god with the existence of evil in the world......CannuckianYankee_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

Vivdbleau & Bornagain: I'm done. You are both so far from me in your ideas of what reason is that it is like talking to a wall. Trying to have a discussion with either of you (or StephenB, but at least he had the grace to stop when it was obvious that communication had ceased) is like trying to explain to a Darwinist why the fossil record actually does not support Darwinism. You say something that makes perfect sense, and the response that comes back is such a non-sequitur that you don't even know what to do with it. This is just too frustrating. I really am out of here.Bruce David_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT}

Bruce David, the grossest error you are making in your acceptance of your philosophy, at least from my perspective, is that you refuse to let reason, or reality itself, inform you on whether your philosophy is true or not. Thus when I mention that your philosophy failed to predict the ex-nihilo creation of the universe, this matters not one iota to you for you are not persuaded by anything other than what you want, and imagine, to be true. as well, your god that you have made for yourself reminds me a whole lot of those ancient capricious gods of the Greeks, Thor, Zeus and such, since they too were 'arrogant' at at times as you admitted your 'god' currently is!bornagain77_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

Bruce one other thing. I find it the height of arrogance that you would incarcerate someone because they prefer something you do not. Quite telling really. Vividvividbleau_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

Bruce "Do I choose vanilla over chocolate because chocolate is morally wrong?" Ok murder, rape, torture, etc is like ones preference for chocolate over vanilla. You prefer vnilla and I prefer chocolate so I should be incarcerated for that? After all your preferences are the reason you want the rapist incarcerated. Why the distinction? Bruce "I can prefer that people not suffer unnecessary pain without it meaning that I must believe in the existence of morality" However the torturer prefers that they suffer pain. Why should your preference overide the torturer's? As to pain there is no real pain its all an illusion is it not? Vividvividbleau_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

Vividbleau: "If the person has not done anything wrong why should he be incarcerated? If his actions are neither good or bad why would you want to prevent him from doing it to another. By your own words you acknowledge your inconsistency." You make the same mistake Bornagain makes. You assume that the only reason to accept or reject anything is that it is MORALLY good or MORALLY bad. It is entirely possible to have preferences, even very strong preferences, without attaching any moral judgement whatsoever. Do I choose vanilla over chocolate because chocolate is morally wrong? Of course not. I can prefer that people not suffer unnecessary pain without it meaning that I must believe in the existence of morality.Bruce David_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

Brent, you wrote, "No person even, let alone a perfect God with perfect love and attributes, can love something and not hate its opposite." That is simply false. The opposite of white is black. If I love white does that imply that I hate black? If I love women, must I then hate men? If I love sunshine, do I then hate the rain? It is entirely possible to love something AND its opposite. You wrote, "God will reject those who reject His Son." With all due respect, that is not unconditional love. Unconditional means without condition. If God will only love us on condition that we not reject His son, then that kind of makes it conditional, doesn't it. This is why I say unconditional love on the one hand, and judgement, condemnation, and punishment on the other are incompatible. To say that God loves us unconditionally and then assert that He would punish us is a logical contradiction. Note: Punishment and consequences are not the same thing. It is possible to love someone unconditionally and still set up consequences to help them to learn. The consequences God sets up are generally in the nature of "what goes around comes around", or "you reap what you sow." Sow hatred, and hate comes back to you. Sow love and love returns. Now, before we get into another long discussion here, there are some things you should know about me: 1. I do not accept the Bible as the infallible word of God. 2. I believe that the notion of Hell and damnation is something that was added later to Christian dogma, and was not in Jesus' teachings. 3. I hold that most of the arguments based on "reason" that Christian theologians use to justify Christian dogma are not proper use of reason at all, but rather are simply the invention reasons to make what they believe sound reasonable. You are coming late to this thread, and I have written expansions of all these assertions in various of my comments above, mostly in response to Bornagain77 and StephenB. If you really want to get into a discourse about belief, I suggest you read through this whole long thread first. If you don't want to do that, I completely understand.Bruce David_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

Bruce "That still doesn’t invalidate my point, which is that it is possible for a human being to have a perfectly valid set of ideals and yet fail to live up to them from time to time" That may be your point but it is not the point I was making. For you to live consistently within your worldview you must acknowledge that I have done nothing evil or wrong yet you cannot otherwise you would not write this Bruce "It would not be whether I wanted him incarcerated, because I most certainly would want to prevent him from doing it again to someone else" If the person has not done anything wrong why should he be incarcerated? If his actions are neither good or bad why would you want to prevent him from doing it to another. By your own words you acknowledge your inconsistency. Vividvividbleau_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

Bruce, I haven't read everything and may only be repeating things that others may have brought up, but . . . You said,
the part of Christian dogma with which I take issue is the part where God is portrayed as judgmental, condemning, and punishing, which I see as a contradiction of His basic nature, ie., infinitely and unconditionally loving.
A couple things stick out to me here. One, why do you choose the part of the Book that asserts God's infinite and unconditional love and rule out the judgment and condemning part from the same Book? Why not flip-flop that? It makes as much sense. But, better yet, why not take both together? It makes the most sense. For one, the idea comes from the same Book, but two, especially if you say that you accept the unconditional love part, because the other necessarily follows. No person even, let alone a perfect God with perfect love and attributes, can love something and not hate its opposite. Love implies hate. If God loves good, He must hate evil. If God loves right action, He must utterly hate wrong action. God was not obligated to send His Son to die for the sins of the world. That is the love part. God will reject those who reject His Son. That is the hate part. God has made it abundantly clear that He doesn't want to be separated from anyone, but that is ultimately our choice.Brent_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

---Bruce: "Until we reach the level of mastery demonstrated by Jesus or the Buddha, it is still possible to be overwhelmed by our emotions and our conditioning." Jesus said he came to save us from sin. You say that there is no sin to be saved from. If there is no sin to be saved from, then Jesus mislead us and was a false teacher. Yet you say that he was a good teacher. How do you explain that?StephenB_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

---Bruce: "I have explained my spiritual understanding in significant detail already." You have tried to explain it, but your explanation makes no sense to me, which is why I asked you this question: If we are all the same person, why do you complain that someone other than you is misunderstanding your position. ---"Your question shows me that you have not really understood any of it." My question shows that I understand the your position well enough to find a problem with it. ---"Frankly, I it seems pointless to try to explain it again." Frankly, it seems pointless for you to keep evading the issue.StephenB_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

Vividbleau: "Probably not but the difference here is that if I do not turn the other cheek I will still be acting consistently within my worldview. That cannot be said for you in the example I gave." That still doesn't invalidate my point, which is that it is possible for a human being to have a perfectly valid set of ideals and yet fail to live up to them from time to time. (Can you tell me in all honesty that you ALWAYS live up to your own, whatever they are?) In other words, I just basically disagree that our ability to live up to our ideals 100% of the time is a good test of their validity, or even whether we really believe them. Until we reach the level of mastery demonstrated by Jesus or the Buddha, it is still possible to be overwhelmed by our emotions and our conditioning. The test of whether I live up to my stated ideals in the situation you described above would be this: would I make the person who raped and murdered my loved one wrong? Or would I view him with compassion for the degree to which he had lost sight of his true Self. It would not be whether I wanted him incarcerated, because I most certainly would want to prevent him from doing it again to someone else. And I do not know how I would react were I ever actually faced with that situation, and I think it's pretty safe to say that you don't know how I would react either. I do know for a fact that there are people who believe that the death penalty should never be used, who had a loved one murdered by someone facing execution, and who nonetheless argue for the sentence to be commuted to life, so it is possible at least to remain faithful to one's ideals even in the face of having a loved one murdered.Bruce David_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

Bruce, what concerns me most about your panthesism, is that it, as I stated yesterday, was completely inaccurate as to predicting the ex-nihilo transcendent origin of this universe. So as I also stated yesterday, I will hardly trust a philosophy that was wrong on the primary philosophical question of answering where we came from to tell me where I am going when I die. So Bruce, to further drive the point home. out of collection of Near Death Experiences of foreign cultures, the collections that are most consistently horrific are Buddhist NDE's. And as you probably well know, In general, Buddhists are pantheistic in their view of God! Here is one study Bruce; Near-Death Experiences in Thailand - Todd Murphy: Excerpt:The Light seems to be absent in Thai NDEs. So is the profound positive affect found in so many Western NDEs. The most common affect in our collection is negative. Unlike the negative affect in so many Western NDEs (cf. Greyson & Bush, 1992), that found in Thai NDEs (in all but case #11) has two recognizable causes. The first is fear of 'going'. The second is horror and fear of hell. It is worth noting that although half of our collection include seeing hell (cases 2,6,7,9,10) and being forced to witness horrific tortures, not one includes the NDEer having been subjected to these torments themselves. http://www.shaktitechnology.com/thaindes.htm notes; If scientists want to find the source for the supernatural light which made the "3D - photographic negative" image I suggest they look to the thousands of documented Near-Death Experiences (NDE's) in Judeo-Christian cultures. It is in their testimonies that you will find mention of an indescribably bright 'Light' or 'Being of Light' who is always described as being of a much brighter intensity of light than the people had ever seen before. All people who have been in the presence of 'The Being of Light' while having a deep NDE have no doubt whatsoever that the 'The Being of Light' they were in the presence of is none other than 'The Lord God Almighty' of heaven and earth. In The Presence Of Almighty God - The NDE of Mickey Robinson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045544 The Day I Died - Part 4 of 6 - The NDE of Pam Reynolds - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045560 Kevin Moran, a scientist working on the mysterious '3D' nature of the Shroud image, states the 'supernatural' explanation this way: "It is not a continuum or spherical-front radiation that made the image, as visible or UV light. It is not the X-ray radiation that obeys the one over R squared law that we are so accustomed to in medicine. It is more unique. It is suggested that the image was formed when a high-energy particle struck the fiber and released radiation within the fiber at a speed greater that the local speed of light. Since the fiber acts as a light pipe, this energy moved out through the fiber until it encountered an optical discontinuity, then it slowed to the local speed of light and dispersed. The fact that the pixels don’t fluoresce suggests that the conversion to their now brittle dehydrated state occurred instantly and completely so no partial products remain to be activated by the ultraviolet light. This suggests a quantum event where a finite amount of energy transferred abruptly. The fact that there are images front and back suggests the radiating particles were released along the gravity vector. The radiation pressure may also help explain why the blood was "lifted cleanly" from the body as it transformed to a resurrected state." http://www.shroudstory.com/natural.htm The Center Of The Universe Is Life! - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5070355 A Quantum Hologram of Christ's Resurrection? by Chuck Missler Excerpt: “You can read the science of the Shroud, such as total lack of gravity, lack of entropy (without gravitational collapse), no time, no space—it conforms to no known law of physics.” The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. Dame Piczek created a one-fourth size sculpture of the man in the Shroud. When viewed from the side, it appears as if the man is suspended in mid air (see graphic, below), indicating that the image defies previously accepted science. The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. http://www.khouse.org/articles/2008/847 Near Death Experience - The Tunnel, The Light, The Life Review http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200200/ Please compare the similarity of the optical effect, noted at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world 'folds and collapses' into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as an observer moves towards the 'higher dimension' of the speed of light, with the 'light at the end of the tunnel' reported in very many Near Death Experiences: Traveling At The Speed Of Light - Optical Effects - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/ "The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass." Richard Swenson - More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12bornagain77_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

Bruce "Jesus said turn the other cheek and love your enemies. Do you honestly believe that you can do that in all situations that you might conceivably encounter." Probably not but the difference here is that if I do not turn the other cheek I will still be acting consistently within my worldview. That cannot be said for you in the example I gave. Vividvividbleau_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

Bruce, I didn't read anything but your last two posts and therefore didn't know your position fully. Sorry about that. If I can I'll read more and respond if I have anything that I think may be useful.Brent_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT}

Brent, I pretty much agree with everything you say, which is why I say that there is no such thing as evil. It's all part of the Plan, it all is part of our spiritual growth, and none of it matters from the larger perspective of our perfect and indestructible souls (which is who we really are). It's also what I meant when I said above that believing in evil is a function of taking this physical existence too seriously.Bruce David_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
01:41 AM
1
01
41
AM
PDT}

Bruce David,
"God, through a 9.0 earthquake off the shores of northern Japan five days ago, seems to have created an enormous amount of rather horrible death and suffering of a lot of innocent people, which may yet get substantially worse if there is a reactor core meltdown in one or more of those stricken nuclear power plants. How does God escape the charge of being evil as well?"
There are a few ways to deal with this. One, you would have to show that God "did this". You can make the case from the Bible that, in fact, we did this. Clearly this was not God's perfect plan, but by giving His creatures freedom He gave up always getting His way. But, you can go to the Bible and say, for example, that the great deluge was an act of God; His judgment on people. So God can and does cause pain and suffering. The problem is this: If God is real and truly responsible for these events, we must look at it from His perspective, not ours. The Bible doesn't make any excuses about God's right and authority to judge or do with His creation what He wants. Why? For the same reason that we readily accept that a judge and jury of our peers can send us to prison. They have the authority to do so. So, looking from that perspective should at least make you step back and think. And when we do step back and think, I suggest that what we'll find is that God doesn't really care about people dying. Why would He? It is not an ending. It is one phase of eternity, a passing from one stage to another. People are not annihilated---completely gone from existence in any form forever---they are on another plane of existence. As for the pain and suffering of those still here, the Bible says that God uses this to bring people to the knowledge of the truth. Pain and suffering are, perhaps, the greatest tutors that we all recognize and learn from. We as children were disciplined by our parents that loved us. It was not pleasant at that time, but we reap a harvest from that experience. And don't forget the pain and suffering of Jesus. Pain and suffering is not an evil, but more like an unfortunate and unpleasant means to an end, one which God hopes will entail embracing Christ.
"For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope," Rom. 8:20
Brent_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PDT}

StephenB: "Why do you keep running and hiding from the issue. On the one hand, you claim that we are all the same person. On the other hand, you keep complaining that some person other than you is misunderstanding you. You need to address this problem if you ever expect anyone to take you seriously." I have explained my spiritual understanding in significant detail already. Your question shows me that you have not really understood any of it. Frankly, I it seems pointless to try to explain it again. You have exhibited no real desire to understand my perspective and I see no hope that that will change.Bruce David_{March 14, 2011
March
03
Mar
14
14
2011
11:52 PM
11
11
52
PM
PDT}

Here's a question for all you folks who believe that Hitler was an evil man because of all the suffering and death for which he was responsible. God, through a 9.0 earthquake off the shores of northern Japan five days ago, seems to have created an enormous amount of rather horrible death and suffering of a lot of innocent people, which may yet get substantially worse if there is a reactor core meltdown in one or more of those stricken nuclear power plants. How does God escape the charge of being evil as well?Bruce David_{March 14, 2011
March
03
Mar
14
14
2011
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT}

---Bruce: "Your taking quotes out of context and then twisting their meaning even further in order to ridicule what you don’t understand only makes you look foolish." Your failure to specify which quotes you are talking about makes you look exceedingly foolish. ---"Regarding understanding my spiritual perspective, it isn’t contained in any one of my posts. It is a whole system, which I have laid out in outline over the course of most of this long thread." Why do you keep running and hiding from the issue. On the one hand, you claim that we are all the same person. On the other hand, you keep complaining that some person other than you is misunderstanding you. You need to address this problem if you ever expect anyone to take you seriously.StephenB_{March 14, 2011
March
03
Mar
14
14
2011
11:16 PM
11
11
16
PM
PDT}

Vivbleau: Regarding understanding my spiritual perspective, it isn't contained in any one of my posts. It is a whole system, which I have laid out in outline over the course of most of this long thread. For example, when I say I reject the "axiom" of absolute morality, that simply cannot be fully understood in isolation from the rest of my spiritual beliefs. It's all of a piece, a whole.Bruce David_{March 14, 2011
March
03
Mar
14
14
2011
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT}

Vividbleau: Jesus said turn the other cheek and love your enemies. Do you honestly believe that you can do that in all situations that you might conceivably encounter. We are all human. We all can fail to live up to our highest ideals. Whether or not I would be able to in any particular situation is, I submit, not a good test of the truth of those ideals.Bruce David_{March 14, 2011
March
03
Mar
14
14
2011
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

StephenB: Your taking quotes out of context and then twisting their meaning even further in order to ridicule what you don't understand only makes you look foolish. I highly recommend that at this point you just give it up.Bruce David_{March 14, 2011
March
03
Mar
14
14
2011
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

Bruce "I will admit that my Macbeth analogy may have overstated the case a little." This doesnt change the fact that in your philosophy Hitler did not commit unpseakable crimes. Frankly Bruce I dont for a second believe you can consistently live within the confines of your philosophy. If someone were to murder , rape, torture your loved ones, or even your neighbors and friends you would be outraged. –Bruce: “Neither one of you has the slightest clue what my spiritual perspective actually is.” Actually I think they do. You stated it quite well in 176 and I thught you made some excellent points. Bruce "In philosophical and religious arguments, there are always assumptions, propositions taken as true without proof. However, they are seldom, if ever, identified as such. For example, several of you have attempted to refute my arguments by invoking moral law, or morality. That there is absolute morality appears to be a proposition taken as true without proof by most of you, since in your arguments, it is always simply assumed to be true. Now the logical problem with this approach is that you are attempting to use your own axiom to show that my views (eg., my brand of pantheism) are logically contradictory. This, however, is an invalid argument, since I made it quite clear that I don’t accept that axiom as true. You may believe that I am wrong, and attempt to persuade me of that, but the charge of logical inconsistency is incorrect." In the end we all end up embracing certain assumptions, presuppositions etc. The question is which presuppositions are the most coherent. As Francis Schaeffer pointed out there are at least two tests that one needs to apply to ones worldview. The first is does it past the test of reason? Second can one consistently live within the confines of ones worldview? If we were to meet I could shake your hand. But what if instead I find out the address of your most loved and rape, torture and murder that loved one all the while making you watch. Would you make no distinction between the two actionns? Would one action not be more gratifying than the other? Really Bruce do you think you would not be outraged if I did the latter rather than the former? Only you can honestly answer and I dont expect you to do this on this forum, you have to much invested in the defense of your position. If you can answer honestly that you would be outraged, you would report it to the legal authorities, you would want justice and for me to be held accountable. If this be so your worldview fails because you cannot live it out. Vividvividbleau_{March 14, 2011
March
03
Mar
14
14
2011
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT}

--Bruce: "Neither one of you has the slightest clue what my spiritual perspective actually is." But I do understand your spiritual perspective. You, I, and God are all the same person except that we are all different. --"You are so stuck in your beliefs that good and evil are real and that pantheism is logically contradictory that you simply cannot understand what I am trying to convey." If we are the same person, then you are stuck in my beliefs and I am stuck in your beliefs. No wonder we are having problems. --"I would suggest that you read Conversations with God, but I don’t think that would do any good either. It really is time to agree to disagree." From your author: ---"There are no such things as the Ten Commandments." Hide your wallet--and your wife--and your daughter. --"You are already a God. You simply do not know it." Sure, Neale is God and he knows it. I am God, but I don't know it. God is Neale and God is also me. That means, of course, that God knows that he is God, except that he doesn't. If we look past the logical errors, we find that this doctrine is simply an old error [gnosticism] with a new name. Today it finds its expression in Marianne Williamson, Deepak Chopra, and Dwayne Dyer. In my lifetime, I have confronted it hundreds of times. Young skulls full of mush, however, hear it for the first time and think that they are getting something new. ---"Do not make the pathetic error of clinging to the old rugged cross.” That's basically St. Peter's speech to Christ right before he was rebuked as a devil. --"The atonement is the final lesson he [man] need learn, for it teaches him that, never having sinned, he has no need of salvation." In other words, "I am perfect in every way, I have never done anything wrong, and I need no improvement. Holy Egomania, Batman! And Bruce thinks that we are arrogant. ---“Hitler didn’t hurt anyone.” How sweet.StephenB_{March 14, 2011
March
03
Mar
14
14
2011
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply