Ep. 106: Is pro-life compatible with Christianity?

[Keep The Reason]

Yes and as long as you stop there then we are in complete agreement and I continue to defend the complete rationality of your position and the position of any atheist that such a God does not exist or simply that there is insufficient evidence them to believe that such a God exists. But when the attempt is made to argue that objective evidence is the basis of rationality itself and thus that theists cannot be rational, then the argument is flawed and unsupportable.

Which of course no Athiest on ths site claims. What we do claim however is YOUR PREMISE lacks evidence, and insists on belief by faith alone, hence we consider that assertion irrational.

This has been explained quite a number of times but it doesn't get through the all of noise you put up to shut out what we have been saying, simpy so you can have what you think we're saying.

[JustJim]

We inherit and adopt premises that we presume to be true regardless of the availability of any means to objectively demonstrate the truth of these things. I don't believe that life affords us an opportunity to do otherwise.

I agree. I think you can take that farther, too. Many of those premises we inherit and adopt and presume to be true without any means to objectively demonstrate their truth, we explore and investigate and test against other premises we've accepted, as well as against what we've observed and learned about the world around us. We subjectively demonstrate their truths. Racial prejudices we inherit and adopt as presumed truths are a good example of that, I think. As we explore our world and investigate the racial prejudices we hold, and test them against the reality of our relationships and experiences with people of other races in a variety of situations, most of us decide those things we adopted were not true. A minority of people, though, most likely via confirmation bias, and because of some more deeply ingrained prejudices and injunctions against questioning them, decide the prejudices they inherited are true. I think the same processes apply to religious beliefs we've inherited and adopted as presumed truths. Some people explore, investigate, and test them against their realities, and decide they're not true. Others do the same, and decide they are true. We each think we're right. If we thought we were wrong, we'd change teams.

People have every right to demand demonstrable evidence for anything that people claim before accepting it themselves. I have defended that right repeatedly. However when one accepts, for sake of discussion, the premise that something is by definition undemonstrable then it is logically inconsistent to then demand demonstrable evidence for it.

I don't think atheists would agree that the premise that God exists is non-demonstrable. In fact, I think the opposite is the case. Atheists would assert that, if God exists, it would be possible to demonstrate his existence by way of clearly identifiable connections between those things theists attribute to God and God himself. IOW, if a theist claims God answers prayer and supports that claim by saying he prayed for rain and ten minutes later it rained, then he should be prepared to show that it was, in fact, God who made it rain as a response to his prayer, and not that it rained for purely natural reasons that had nothing to do with his prayer. Even if he were to claim that God made everything, including the natural laws that result in rain, that would not be sufficient to demonstrate that God make that particular rainfall occur at that particular time as a direct answer to his prayer for rain. I think atheists claim that the reason theists cannot demonstrate God's existence is not because it's non-demonstrable; it's because God does not exist. That's an important difference.

In the lack of proof or objective demonstration one way or another, people make up their minds on such subjective basis as their own personal experience or what seems likely to them accordingly. That is not only a perfectly rational thinking process it is ALSO a universal human thinking process.

I completely agree.

Thus attempts to argue that one should only believe what is proven or for which we have objective demonstrable evidence...

No one is arguing that. If you think they are, I think you're misinterpreting them. They're saying one should not believe the theist's particular claim that God exists, because there is no demonstrable evidence, objective or otherwise, to support that claim. They don't say one should ONLY believe that which is proven or for which there is demonstrable evidence, only that they don't believe in God because there's no proof or demonstrable evidence that God exists. I can see how easily one could conclude that's the same thing, but when you consider it in light of all the things atheists do believe without demonstrable evidence, then it becomes clear that they're not limiting what they're willing to believe to ONLY those things for which there is proof or objective demonstrable evidence.

...is one that can only be applied selectively and thus hypocritically to particular issues where one does not believe, for no other apparent reason than to justify biggoted attitudes of superiority over and condemnation of other people simply because they do not agree with your own undemonstrable opinions. Do you difference there?

Of course I see a difference. Do you see that NO ONE is saying or implying or giving any indications whatsoever that the only reason they demand demonstrable evidence that God exists is to justify bigoted attitudes of superiority or to condemn anyone just because they disagree? I assure you, Mitch, all that suspicion of evil intentions on their parts is totally in your own head, and NO WHERE ELSE. You really need to think long and hard about that. NO ONE is claiming to be superior to you or condemning you or any other believers to lift themselves up or to put you down AT ALL - let alone just because you disagree with them. That's absurd.

All I think I've ever asked you, personally, is for something other than your "say so" that your God exists, and exists as you say he does. And you've replied that your God exists as you've experienced him, and that such experience is yours and yours alone, and is therefore not subject to any external demonstration, proof, or "evidence" that may or may not convince me or others that your God exists as you say he does. And that's fine with me. Your God is yours, to believe in as you will....

Yes and as long as you stop there then we are in complete agreement and I continue to defend the complete rationality of your position and the position of any atheist that such a God does not exist or simply that there is insufficient evidence them to believe that such a God exists.

When an atheist holds the position that there simply is insufficient evidence for them to believe God exists, it's the "sufficient evidence" they're asking for when they demand demonstrable evidence. That's what they mean....

But when the attempt is made to argue that objective evidence is the basis of rationality itself and thus that theists cannot be rational, then the argument is flawed and unsupportable.

Yes it certainly would be. But NO ONE IS ATTEMPTING TO ARGUE THAT!!!

Jim

[mitchellmckain]

But when the attempt is made to argue that objective evidence is the basis of rationality itself and thus that theists cannot be rational, then the argument is flawed and unsupportable.

Yes it certainly would be. But NO ONE IS ATTEMPTING TO ARGUE THAT!!!

I disagree. I certainly appreciate that you agree with me here and now, and I am well aware that we have worked this out several times previously. But this isn't a team sport and you do not speak for all atheists any more than I speak for all Christians. (So while I repudiate the moral argument, I also have to acknowledge that it is a popular one and while I denounce the big bad mafia boss god I also have to acknowledge that it is an image of God that is preached and defended a lot in certain sectors of Christianity.) In the same way, the argument I denounce in my previous post is, in essence, one that is frequently made by atheists all the time even here on this forum. I think it comes from a more universal mistake that people of all religious orientations make which is to measure the thinking of other people by the standard of their own on a particular issue, generalizing their subjective reasons to universal principles that are unsupportable. People of every sort do this all the time, turning their reasons for believing or not believing into arguments for why everyone else should come to the same conclusion.

I don't think atheists would agree that the premise that God exists is non-demonstrable.

I am well aware that they usually don't and try to foist this strawman (of an objectively demonstrable God) on others in support of their undemonstrable opinions. But that is neither here nor there, for you are well aware that I and many Christians assert that God is necessarily non-demonstrable. An objectively demonstrable "god" is necessarily an entity that is subject to the laws of nature and thus would by definiton at most be nothing more than a powerful alien and not the creator of the universe. You can believe their are no such aliens all you want but it has no bearing at all on our belief in God. Thus you have frequently joined in discussion on the premise that God is non-demonstrable even though you haven't always been consistent with that premise when have you done so.

Atheists would assert that, if God exists, it would be possible to demonstrate his existence by way of clearly identifiable connections between those things theists attribute to God and God himself.

Sure and this argument is not valid. I can well understand that they see no point whatsoever in believing in a God that they cannot control, but others see no point in believing in god that can be controlled, and that is what objective demonstration amounts to. Something being subject to the laws of nature means that those laws of nature can be used to manipulate it in the process of demonstrating things about it. I can well understand that atheists see little point in believing in things which are not demonstrable, but it just doesn't follow that things which are not subject to the laws of nature do not exist.

[Keep The Reason]

Sure and this argument is not valid. I can well understand that they see no point whatsoever in believing in a God that they cannot control, but others see no point in believing in god that can be controlled, and that is what objective demonstration amounts to.

No it doesn't. I believe in plenty of things I cannot control and so does most everyone. I cannot control gravity, but I believe it demonstrably exists. I believe n the weather which I cannot control, and I believe it exists. Same with the tides, with human thought, with chaos theory, with evolution, ec. etc. etc. The list is very long.

Thesis demand that god is exempted from any and all criteria. I ont waste everyone's time yet agan by explaining this out in detail, but here's our reply to that insistence:

No.

Something being subject to the laws of nature means that those laws of nature can be used to demonstrate things about it. I can well understand that atheists see little point in believing in things which are not demonstrable, but it just doesn't follow that things which are not subject to the laws of nature do not exist.

Calling things "things" defines them within the law of nature. So if you want to argue that things outside the law of nature exist, then you have but one choice if we are to believe you:

Back
It
Up
With
Evidence

Until you do that, stating "it just doesn't follow that things which are not subject to the laws of nature do not exist" it's an unsupported, undemonstrated, empty, specious assertion that no one --no one -- is obligated to believe.

Which is, in the end why we don't believe YOUR claims that gods exist.

[JustJim]

Mitch,

I fixed some of the quotes you had assigned to you, but were actually written by me in the post you responded to.

People of every sort do this all the time, turning their reasons for believing or not believing into arguments for why everyone else should come to the same conclusion.

Of course they do. I don't know if there's a way out of that, though, since it's probably true that if you were me, you'd come to the same conclusions I do - and vice versa. But I think I see your point, and agree that it's important that we all realize we're doing that, and not degrade or ridicule others because they have reached different conclusions from ours. On the other hand, I think there's nothing wrong with explaining why you believe what you believe; why you think my reasons for believing the way I do are weak or flawed or, at least, unconvincing for you; and challenging me on my beliefs and my reasons - all done respectfully and with the intent of increasing understanding and knowledge - NOT with any intent to coerce me to believe as you do or to agree with you on whatever you say.

An objectively demonstrable "god" is necessarily an entity that is subject to the laws of nature and thus would by definiton at most be nothing more than a powerful alien and not the creator of the universe.

I don't see how that follows. Couldn't your God create the universe totally within the boundaries of what is logical and possible (the laws of nature), based on his own nature? Does the fact that such a God couldn't do things that are logically impossible detract from his omnipotence? I don't see it that way. I don't think it makes sense to believe that a God "than which nothing greater can be imagined" could necessarily do that which cannot be done (make square circles, know the future before it arrives, etc.) I don't see how those logical limitations decrease such a God's "god-ness". Can you explain more?

Atheists would assert that, if God exists, it would be possible to demonstrate his existence by way of clearly identifiable connections between those things theists attribute to God and God himself.

Sure and this argument is not valid.

Can you explain why? Why, if you claim God made it rain in answer to your prayer, should you be exempt from demonstrating that your claim is true? Not that your God exists, but that your God made it rain because you prayed to him and asked him to make it rain, rather than that it rained for one or more of many other possible reasons that can be demonstrated. I really don't understand your reasons for believing it was God that answered your specific prayer by making it rain in response to your request.

I can well understand that they see no point whatsoever in believing in a God that they cannot control, but others see no point in believing in god that can be controlled, and that is what objective demonstration amounts to. Something being subject to the laws of nature means that those laws of nature can be used to manipulate it in the process of demonstrating things about it.

I totally disagree here, Mitch. There's no reason at all to suggest that because atheists want you to demonstrate the claims you make about your God's existence and interventions in the world amount to any attempts, or even any desire, to "control" any God they don't even believe exists in the first place. That makes no sense at all. Something being subject to the laws of nature simply means those laws cannot be violated. It has nothing to do with any manipulation or control of the God who made those laws, and there's no reason to think it does, anymore than if I say you can't lift a 10,000-ton weight with one hand (unassisted) is an attempt to manipulate or control you. It's just a description of how things are. Obviously, I don't understand how you introduce the idea of control into the question of demonstrability, so could you explain some more here please?

I can well understand that atheists see little point in believing in things which are not demonstrable...

It's not just atheists who don't believe in things that are not demonstrable. Neither do theists - except when it comes to their God and other spiritual things and beings related to that. They make an exception for their religious beliefs, but not for the religious beliefs of others. They might demand, for example, demonstrable evidence that the Qur'an was dictated to Mohammed as the direct, literal word of God. They also would demand demonstrable evidence to back up my claim that there are fairies living in my garden, or that leprechauns exist as actual beings in this world, or any of a number of other claims they find lacking in support.

...but it just doesn't follow that things which are not subject to the laws of nature do not exist.

I agree. It does not follow. However, that doesn't mean there doesn't need to be good reason to believe things that aren't subject to the laws of nature do exist, and then, once there's good reason to believe they do, a way to demonstrate that within the laws of nature - IOW, a way to determine if they actually DO exist, or if their existence is only imaginary....

Jim

[yjoeyh]

That's a bit disingenuous, isn't it, Joey?

Possibly. I wasn't really responding directly to the content of what either of you said, but I meant more to underscore MM's point, which I thought was a good one, and was seemingly misunderstood by your responses.Perhaps I was wrong and you didn't misunderstand. I can't know for sure. I certainly did not mean to put words in anyone's mouths.

[OzAnt]

Hi Joey,

I can only take you at your word, and if you tell me you hadn't really taken in the posts Jim and I made after what Mitch said (ie; the post you were reinforcing), I have no reason to disbelieve you. As such, I take back my allegation. Thanks for clearing that up.

Ant.

[yjoeyh]

I've readily conceded that doesn't mean their beliefs are NOT true, but only that it doesn't convince ME that it's true.

That's where our views seem to be similar. I certainly conceded that an atheistic view of reality can be more accurate than mine, but I see no good reason (or "demonstration" or "proof") to convince me that it is. I also see no reason for either of us to try to rehash the basis for those kinds of assumptions.

Yet, I stand here and look over your shoulder and see NOTHING of what you claim you see "right in front of your face everyday". What you claim is "apparent" is INVISIBLE to me.

I don't think that's true. I see people, love, the earth, the sky, the water, music, deception, murder, hate, logic, humor, reward, consequence, life, freedom, intuition, history, time, space, religions, sacred texts, birth, death, jealousy, regret, forgiveness, and hope, just to name a few. I think you see all those things too, right? So it's not really invisible to you… we just see them in a different way. Sure, I think my way is the more reasonable way of looking at them, but I can understand that your way seems more reasonable to you.

But now, I'm convinced, I only believed because I was taught - by parents, peers, significant others, schools, churches, media, and the whole culture in which I grew up - that it was true; because I very much WANTED it to be true; and because I hadn't yet found any good reasons to suspect it was NOT true. That has changed....

A lot of that has changed for me as well. I bought into the whole package I was taught too, but one thing is VERY different for me now that it used to be for you. I definitely do not WANT it to be true. The truth I believe is an ugly one, and I certainly can imagine a way I would rather things be different… but I also realize that what I want doesn't make it true, or even possibly true, and certainly not better than the way things are.

[yjoeyh]

Hi Joey,

I can only take you at your word, and if you tell me you hadn't really taken in the posts Jim and I made after what Mitch said (ie; the post you were reinforcing), I have no reason to disbelieve you. As such, I take back my allegation. Thanks for clearing that up.

Ant.

Thank you too for pointing out how my comment came off as presumptuous, which it probably was. I should have read the entirely of both posts before responding.
Let me clarify specifically what I was responding to….

When I read JJ's comment, " only "pretending" we don't believe what can't be proven" I took that to mean that he wasn't just pretending. But maybe he meant that in a different way.

And when you quoted it as "between those that pretend that they do not believe what cannot be proven" you stopped the emphasis after "believe," which seemed to me to indicate a generalization of belief rather than specifically the question of belief in what cannot be proven. which was a key component of the original statement (in my mind at least.) Again, perhaps you didn't miss that, and I just took it the wrong way.

[mitchellmckain]

People of every sort do this all the time, turning their reasons for believing or not believing into arguments for why everyone else should come to the same conclusion.

Of course they do.

That is basically saying, "of course people are irrational".

I don't know if there's a way out of that, though

For those that are capable, the way to avoid making such invalid generalizations is an education in basic logic.

, since it's probably true that if you were me, you'd come to the same conclusions I do - and vice versa.

Incorrect. I know the difference between my subjective reasons for believing things and objectively valid arguments, so no I do not try turning my reasons for believing things into objectively valid arguments for why other people should believe the same thing -- why should I try to do that which I know is impossible.

But I think I see your point, and agree that it's important that we all realize we're doing that, and not degrade or ridicule others because they have reached different conclusions from ours. On the other hand, I think there's nothing wrong with explaining why you believe what you believe;

Of course not. It might even convince someone because they might like your reasons and come to the same subjective judgement that such reasons are sufficient to believe the same thing.

An objectively demonstrable "god" is necessarily an entity that is subject to the laws of nature and thus would by definiton at most be nothing more than a powerful alien and not the creator of the universe.

I don't see how that follows. Couldn't your God create the universe totally within the boundaries of what is logical and possible (the laws of nature), based on his own nature?

The boundareies of what is logical and possible does not equate to the laws of nature. I don't see how "based on his own nature" adds any meaningful content. God created the universe to accomplish something and it is what He intended to accomplish that is the most significant issue dictating what the laws of nature would be.

Does the fact that such a God couldn't do things that are logically impossible detract from his omnipotence?

No. A sequence of logically inconsistent words is simply gibberish refering to absolutely nothing and thus is not any example of something which God cannot do. To say that God cannot do such a thing is also gibberish .

An objectively demonstrable "god" is necessarily an entity that is subject to the laws of nature and thus would by definiton at most be nothing more than a powerful alien and not the creator of the universe.

Can you explain more?

Sure. It is only the laws of nature that provide any means for objective demonstration. The laws of nature describe the mathematical space-time structure of the physical universe and thus all the relationships between the things which are a part of that structure. Thus it is only the things within that structure that can be demonstrated using these mathematical laws. For something which is not part of that structure there is no way to do that and thus no way to objectively demonstrate its existence. But since we can demonstrate that these mathematical laws are not causally closed it does not follow that something which is not part of this mathematical space time structure cannot interact with the things that are a part of it.

Atheists would assert that, if God exists, it would be possible to demonstrate his existence by way of clearly identifiable connections between those things theists attribute to God and God himself.

Sure and this argument is not valid.

Can you explain why?

I have done so repeatedly. It does not logically follow that if something exists then it should therefore be demonstrable.

Why, if you claim God made it rain in answer to your prayer, should you be exempt from demonstrating that your claim is true?

Exempt from WHAT? You JUST claimed that you understood the difference and now you act like you don't? There are TWO propositions here.

1. If you cannot objectively demonstrate the truth of a claim then you cannot expect others to accept the truth of the claim.

2. If you cannot objectively demonstrate the truth of a claim then it isn't true.

The first is completely valid and no exemptions are made by me EVER. The second is NOT valid and there is no need to ask for exemptions from such a thing. If I claim that God made it rain in answer to my prayer or for any other reason then you don't have to accept my claim, for such a claim could NEVER be demonstrable, because my prayer (or anything else) cannot MAKE God do it. There is no control over God involved. There are no natural laws making God do anything.

Not that your God exists, but that your God made it rain because you prayed to him and asked him to make it rain, rather than that it rained for one or more of many other possible reasons that can be demonstrated.

Those are not mutually exclusive reasons for why it rains.

At one time we optimistically hoped that with sufficient computer power we could predict the weather as far in the future and with any accuracy that we might desire. We now know that this is impossible. We have demonstrated that there are nonlinear equations involved and these are quite different from linear equations where accuracy of the data you used for them gives a corresponding accuracy to the solutions. But nonlinear equations mean that it takes a specification of the initial condition to an infinite degree of precision to determine the solution to such equations to any degree of accuracy. For all we know the flap of the wings of butterfly on the other side of the world can have a huge impact on the weather here sometime later. BUT it is actually worse than this, because of quantum indeterminacy there is no such thing an infinite degree of precision and this means that systems governed by nonlinear equations give quantum indeterminacy a macroscopic impact upon the world. And that means that although we can describe some immediately preceding physical events that are directly connected with this occurence of rain, there really are no absolute physical reasons why it rains. But quantum physics can only exclude the existence of physical reasons for why such things happens it cannot exclude causes which fall outside the accepted physical world view.

I really don't understand your reasons for believing it was God that answered your specific prayer by making it rain in response to your request.

I quite understand. The fact is, that I really don't think I can understand anyones reasons for believing that most of the time either. It seems all too likely to me that the vast majority of the time, it really is coincidence. BUT I also don't see any reason why it MUST be coincidence and I personally believe that it isn't ALWAYS coincidence.

I can well understand that they see no point whatsoever in believing in a God that they cannot control, but others see no point in believing in god that can be controlled, and that is what objective demonstration amounts to. Something being subject to the laws of nature means that those laws of nature can be used to manipulate it in the process of demonstrating things about it.

I totally disagree here, Mitch. There's no reason at all to suggest that because atheists want you to demonstrate the claims you make about your God's existence and interventions in the world amount to any attempts, or even any desire, to "control" any God they don't even believe exists in the first place.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what atheists want or desire, it has to do with what objective demonstration is.

Obviously, I don't understand how you introduce the idea of control into the question of demonstrability, so could you explain some more here please?

That is what objective demonstration on demand is. It means making something happen in order to show you that I can do it. Please explain how I can objectively demonstrate anything without making something happen?

I can well understand that atheists see little point in believing in things which are not demonstrable...

It's not just atheists who don't believe in things that are not demonstrable. Neither do theists - except when it comes to their God and other spiritual things and beings related to that. They make an exception for their religious beliefs, but not for the religious beliefs of others. They might demand, for example, demonstrable evidence that the Qur'an was dictated to Mohammed as the direct, literal word of God. They also would demand demonstrable evidence to back up my claim that there are fairies living in my garden, or that leprechauns exist as actual beings in this world, or any of a number of other claims they find lacking in support.

Like I said, If you cannot objectively demonstrate the truth of a claim then you cannot expect others to accept the truth of the claim.

...but it just doesn't follow that things which are not subject to the laws of nature do not exist.

I agree. It does not follow. However, that doesn't mean there doesn't need to be good reason to believe things that aren't subject to the laws of nature do exist, and then, once there's good reason to believe they do, a way to demonstrate that within the laws of nature - IOW, a way to determine if they actually DO exist, or if their existence is only imaginary....

Well sure. I have my reasons for why I believe what I believe and you have yours. I have explained some of my reasons numerous times.

[JustJim]

Mitch,

I just spent an hour working my way through your post and responding to each little thing you said. And trust me, my responses and all the comments I made were THE BEST I've ever written! But then I ran across this near the bottom of your post, and I erased all the stuff I'd written up to this point. It says it all, so far as I'm concerned.

Like I said, If you cannot objectively demonstrate the truth of a claim then you cannot expect others to accept the truth of the claim.

I can't speak for other atheists, but that is ALL I'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET ACROSS!

You can't demonstrate the truth of your claims about your God, and your explanations of why you believe the things you believe have not yet brought me to a point where I am able to accept the truth of your claims. But I'll keep listening....

WHEW!!

...but it just doesn't follow that things which are not subject to the laws of nature do not exist.

I agree. It does not follow. However, that doesn't mean there doesn't need to be good reason to believe things that aren't subject to the laws of nature do exist, and then, once there's good reason to believe they do, a way to demonstrate that within the laws of nature - IOW, a way to determine if they actually DO exist, or if their existence is only imaginary....

Well sure. I have my reasons for why I believe what I believe and you have yours. I have explained some of my reasons numerous times.

Cool....

Jim

[JustJim]

I've readily conceded that doesn't mean their beliefs are NOT true, but only that it doesn't convince ME that it's true.

That's where our views seem to be similar. I certainly conceded that an atheistic view of reality can be more accurate than mine, but I see no good reason (or "demonstration" or "proof") to convince me that it is. I also see no reason for either of us to try to rehash the basis for those kinds of assumptions.

I respect your views, even where they aren't similar to mine. And I agree we don't need to rehash all those things...

Yet, I stand here and look over your shoulder and see NOTHING of what you claim you see "right in front of your face everyday". What you claim is "apparent" is INVISIBLE to me.

I don't think that's true. I see people, love, the earth, the sky, the water, music, deception, murder, hate, logic, humor, reward, consequence, life, freedom, intuition, history, time, space, religions, sacred texts, birth, death, jealousy, regret, forgiveness, and hope, just to name a few. I think you see all those things too, right?

Yes, I see all those things you listed and more (except I'd call them 'texts people consider to be sacred' rather than 'sacred texts'). The difference is, that's ALL I see. You also somehow see your God in, behind, or around each of those things. IOW, so far as I'm able to discern, you're seeing something I'm not seeing. To me, it's as though you're seeing something that isn't even there, even though I'm not willing to go so far as to say it's not possible that there is something there. Maybe there is. But if there is, no one seems able to enable me to see it.

The truth I believe is an ugly one, and I certainly can imagine a way I would rather things be different… but I also realize that what I want doesn't make it true, or even possibly true, and certainly not better than the way things are.

How do you reconcile the ugly parts of the truth you believe in with your understanding of God? Is your God mean? Is your God cruel? Is your God loving and forgiving? What will your God do with me in your understanding of the "end of the story"?

Jim

[yjoeyh]

I respect your views, even where they aren't similar to mine. And I agree we don't need to rehash all those things...

Great! The respect is very much mutual.

To me, it's as though you're seeing something that isn't even there, even though I'm not willing to go so far as to say it's not possible that there is something there. Maybe there is. But if there is, no one seems able to enable me to see it.

Yes, I think that's a good summary of it. For me, it kind of goes back to the pen and the letter illustration I used before. KTR destroyed that as if it were an argument(which is wasn't.) I was just trying to describe my viewpoint using an illustration that is somewhat similar.
When I see all these other things, I see a message that is as clear to me as the wording might look on that hypothetical letter. And also, like I alluded to with some of those things on my list, that message isn't always a very optimistic or encouraging one. Actually it's quite sobering. But I can't pretend that those words are not arranged in a way that I'm not able to read. That would be dishonest for me to pretend I coudn't. But one thing I know for sure, is that I see a lot of things in the message that I don't want to see, so if it is a dellusion to me, it certainly doesn't come from a place of well-wishing, or optimistism.

How do you reconcile the ugly parts of the truth you believe in with your understanding of God? Is your God mean? Is your God cruel? Is your God loving and forgiving? What will your God do with me in your understanding of the "end of the story"

First, the reconcilliation comes from observing the realities of life. I understand that life is hard, and that things that are valueable, come at a high price. My understanding of God is that he is, by necessity, not immune to this reality. Accomplishing what he set out to accomlish requires him to do some unsavory things, that could very much make him be thought of as "mean" or "cruel" within a limited scope, yet ultimately be loving and forgiving within a greater context.
I don't know what God will do with you in the "end of the story." That gets into the part where I wish I could put my own ending in, but I can't. I trust that God has a just end to all things, but like I said before, that "just end" might just be an ugly reality to us today. I do know that the Bible teaches that there is an end for those who are not his, that he never had a relationship with, that is not very pleasant. I can't honestly reconcile that with my understanding of God once I start inserting my own imagination about what that means. But since the Bible doesn't give much of a description of what it means, I have enough reason to trust that it is just and in-line with a loving God, not matter what.

[OzAnt]

Let me clarify specifically what I was responding to….

Your original post was,

I agree with what Mitch said there there, but I think you [Jim] and OA missed the point.

I went on to point out that what you quote Jim saying, and thereby allegedly giving credence to your point that he's missing the point, wasn't the point of his post but merely a side-point based on the fact that it was in brackets.

In other words, when you now go on to say,

When I read JJ's comment, " only "pretending" we don't believe what can't be proven" I took that to mean that he wasn't just pretending.

I think is exactly what Jim meant. However, as I said, it was only his side-point (ie: it was in brackets). It was not his actual point. And this is evidenced by the rest of the post (ie: the non-bracketed portion) where we have Jim saying,

Maybe it would be useful to discuss WHY it is that believers don't accept any claims of existence of OTHER gods and spiritual beings without any proof or demonstrable evidence in support of those claims, but have no problems accepting identical claims about their God...

And when you quoted it as "between those that pretend that they do not believe what cannot be proven" you stopped the emphasis after "believe," which seemed to me to indicate a generalization of belief rather than specifically the question of belief in what cannot be proven. which was a key component of the original statement (in my mind at least.) Again, perhaps you didn't miss that, and I just took it the wrong way.

I specifically stopped emphasising at 'believe' because the words 'those that pretend they do not believe' sounds very much like he [Mitch] knows better than what atheists (like Jim and I) do and do not believe; and I find this the height of conceited arrogance. It would be like me saying to you, “Nah, Joey, you don't really believe in God. You just pretend you do.” (worse actually, because at least in your case you can take solace in the knowledge that your god knows your heart... but I digress).

Your original point was,

It's that many will say they only believe in those things that can be objectively proven, when they clearly believe in much more than that.

I certainly thought I'd made it clear enough with the words,

And this is in no way me arguing that I only believe that which is proven.

but, as you already indicated, you hadn't taken in that part of my post. Hopefully by now, it's clear that people like KTR, Jim and myself do not ...dare I say it... 'believe' this to be the case. We are well aware that we believe in things that cannot be objectively proven.

Since then, I've come to realise what Mitch meant when he said in closing in his post,

Thus we have this unbridgeable gap between those that pretend that they do not believe what cannot be proven and those who see this unprovability of God and spiritual things as kind of the whole point of it.

Had Mitch written, for example,

“Thus we have this unbridgeable gab between those that pretend that they only believe in things that can be proven and those who see this un-provability of God and spiritual things as kind of the whole point of it.”

I wouldn't have arc'd up and suggested he is small-minded (which, by the way, was still me giving him the benefit of the doubt because as I've said, it's more likely conceited arrogance). Turns out it's just semantics. *sigh* I should have known because we (myself and others) have commented on his writing skills creating confusion (hindsight's a wonderful thing).

Cheers,
Ant

[mitchellmckain]

Well some people search everywhere for an opportunity to misunderstand, which is why politicians learn to say practically nothing. OAnt may think that this sort of political speech is the standard of good communication but I do not. I simply acknowledge that communication is a rare occurence and certainly only when both writer/speaker and reader/listener is actually making some intellegent effort to communicate -- instead of playing the kind of self serving game of the reporter looking for anything they can exploit.