Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I found that very interesting.  Thanks for posting it!
    
    Mike

Re: .0 Jeff

>1) Some things undeniably exist.

I'm with you so far.

>2) My nonexistence is possible.

As is mine.

>3) Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by
>   another. 

Another what?  Another person?  Another mammal?  Another law of nature?

I don't accept this as a general principle.  For example, we know that
force equals mass times acceleration, but *why* is force equal to mass
times acceleration?  In another existence could force have been equal to
mass times the square root of acceleration?  Possibly, in which case the
physical law F = MA has the possibility not to exist.  So who or what
caused this law to exist?  I think the answer to this question is beyond
our current understanding - or at any rate it's beyond my current
understanding.  To say that God created the laws of nature merely begs the
question.

>4) There cannot be an infinite regress of current causes of existence.

I don't accept this premise either?

>	All causality of existence is current and simultaneous.

Why?  My grandmother gave birth to my mother, and my mother gave birth to
me.  Does this mean that both events took place at the same time?

>5) Therefore, a first, uncaused cause of my current existence exists.
>
>	This conclusion follows logically and necessarily from the above
>        premises.

Since I don't accept the premises I don't accept the conclusion.

>6) This uncaused cause must be infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, all-knowing
>   and all-perfect.
>
>	A necessary existence would be pure actuality with no potentiality
>        in its being whatsoever.

Why?  Why couldn't the necessary existance also have the potential to
change?

> There can be only one necessary existence.

Why?

>        What is pure actuality must be one since there is no way for one thing
>        to differ from another in its being unless there is some real
>        potentiality for differentiation.  But in a being of pure actuality
>        there is no potential whatsoever. Hence, there is no real different-
>        iation in it.

Why couldn't there be two necessary existences that were fundamentally
different, even opposite, from each other?  Since it's a property of
necessary existences that they aren't created but have always existed,
there would be no need for the two existences to become differentiated -
they'd have always been different.

>	 A
>        necessary existence would have to be infinite in whatever attributes
>        it possesses.

I don't see the necessity for this.  The necessary existence could be like
a mustard seed, merely setting in motion the events which followed - laws
of nature, big bang, or whatever.

A finite universe doesn't need an infinite "necessary existence".

>  If it is knowing then it must be all-knowing.  If 
>        powerful, then it must be all-powerful. And so on.  The reason for
>        this is simple enough: only what has potentiality can be limited.

"Only what has potentiality can be limited?"  Why?  A fertile woman has
the potential to conceive children and a sterile woman does not.  Does
that mean that only the fertile woman can be limited?

>7) This infinitely perfect Being is appropriately called "God."
>
>	By "God" it is meant what is worthy of worship, that is, what has
>        ultimate worthship.

Why would I want to worship a law of nature?  Why worship a necessary
existence unless doing do will bring you some benefit?

>8) Therefore, God exists.
>
>	What in religion is known as the ultimate object of worship or
>        commitment is by reason known to exist.

I don't agree.  You've merely made some unprovable assertions and then
used them to claim that God, as you understand the word "God", exists.  It
certainly isn't a "proof" that I find at all convincing.

				-- Bob

re .0

an interesting exercise in logic. you'd have to get everyone to agree to your
premises though in order to come to the same conclusion.


.0>   Something undeniably exists.  This existence must fit one of three
.0>   logical categories: impossible, possible, or necessary.  

the classification of this premise is arbitrary. you might as well say all
existence fits one of two categories: possible, impossible. just as arbitrary.
or how about saying: "in infinity everything is possible." would you argue 
with that? does it have an impact on the meaning of life? i think not.



andreas.

    
    Thanks Bob and Andreas for your feedback.  Do realize that this is an
    argument where each premise leads to the next, ulitmately to a
    conclusion (as all valid arguments do).  Also, if you intend to 
    counter the argument or any part realize your responsibility to
    provide an adequate counter argument of which the type "I don't agree"
    does not qualify ;)
    
    You might just want to ask questions until you understand it.
    
    jeff

Re: .5

Actually, Jeff, I believe the burden of proof is on you, not me.

I've asked several questions, mostly of the "Why?" variety.  Awaiting your
reply...

				-- Bob

    Charles Hartshorne, who I refered to in my note on Process Theology,
    uses the same line of argument to attempt to prove the existence of
    God.
    
    He differs with you on number six.  Regarding the nature of God.  The
    infinite, all knowing, all powerful, does not follow from the argument.
    In fact it is quite easy to show how a God cannot be all powerful and
    all knowing given that humans can make decisions for themselves and God
    is not all powerful or choses not to exert his powers in allowing
    humans to make decisions.  Since, humans are given some free decisions
    to make choices, then how humans will respond to that freedom cannot be
    known until after the decision is made.  God can also not be
    unchanging, if God is capable of knowing all that there is to know,
    that human decisions cannot be known until after they are made, that
    God is capable of knowing the consequences after the decision is made,
    therefore after the decision God knows more than he knew before the
    decision was, Who God is is determined by what God knows, so if God can
    know new things then God is changed by the new knowledge.
    
    Number six is logically disproved.

    
    Bob,
    
    I have provided a valid argument.  Unless you can invalidate it by
    demonstrating contradiction with a valid counter argument, it remains 
    true.  However, I meant to say in my last reply that I will look at your 
    comments/questions/assertions and incorporate more information into the
    argument which will address your concerns, at least indirectly.  But
    this will take some time.  So thanks for holding.
    
    jeff

    I like that.
    
    An argument is true until proved false.

    No.  He said he believes it true unless proven otherwise!
    
    -Jack

    No, he says "The argument remains true, unless you can invalidate it
    with counter arguments."
    
    Truth then is relative to the ability of the opponent to contradict it.
    
                                       Patricia

jeff, in your .0, the conclusions are the premises for the next conclusions, 
which is why i objected to one of your basic premises (categorizing existance).
your categorisation is arbitrary and must be agreed first, much like the base
of the number system which we chose to use (eg. binary, octal, decimal or any 
other arbitrary base which you want to use).

isn't god supposed to be infinite? as far as i can tell, our minds aren't 
really equipped that well to cope with infinity - we can get a hold of 
infinity with infinitesimal calculus, but infinity remains an abstract.
if god were also infinite, constructing a theory around god would make
god just as abtract.


andreas.

ps. talking of which, how about the case below for an exercise [i just knocked 
it up, it adresses the impossibility of experiencing infinity. i should still 
have exercises of this type at home from my philosophy classes. as i recall,
four perfectly logical theories on the existance of god can be constructed by
playing with space/time attributes. in each conclusion, god has different 
attributes!]



	human existance is finite and temporal. [*]

	since human existance is finite and temporal, 
	all that is human is also finite and temporal. [**]

	therefore, human experience is finite and temporal.
	what is not finite and temporal cannot be experienced
	by humans.

	if god exists, and if god was to be experienced by 
	humans, then god would have to be finite and temporal.

	if god exists, and if god was infinite and timeless,
	then god could not be experienced by humans.

------------------------------
[*]  jesus of nazareth, as the evangelists claim, was the only 
     human to overcome this finite and temporal condition. to this 
     day no other human has ever done so and the evngelists' claim 
     is one which you have no choice to either belief or disbelief.

[**] ie. all that can be given the predicate 'human'

    
    
    Hi Andreas,
    
    You will have to demonstrate why the categories are arbitrary and what
    categories are excluded.
    
    The argument for theism is over and against anti-theism.  Once the
    argument for the existence of God is established, assigning the
    anti-theistic world views to falsehood, then one can proceed to argue
    for a specific God.
    
    jeff

>    Since, humans are given some free decisions to make choices, then how
>    humans will respond to that freedom cannot be known until after the
>    decision is made.

Sorry, Patricia, but time and time again you have been told that this is
false.  Wrong.  Illogical.  Not right.

It's wrong.

Wrong.

Omniscience about the choices people will make is *INDEPENDENT* of the choices.

Is that simple enough for you?

/john

Re: .8  Jeff

>    I have provided a valid argument.  Unless you can invalidate it by
>    demonstrating contradiction with a valid counter argument, it remains 
>    true.

Not so.  As Andreas as said, a logical argument consists of premises and a
conclusion.  Even if your argument is logically consistent, i.e. it
contains no contradictions, it isn't true unless its premises are also
true.  Since I haven't accepted your premises I also don't accept your
conclusion.

It's up to you to prove to me that your premises are correct, if you want
to convince me that God exists.

>   However, I meant to say in my last reply that I will look at your
>   comments/questions/assertions and incorporate more information into
>   the argument which will address your concerns, at least indirectly.
>   But this will take some time.  So thanks for holding.

No problem, Jeff - take as much time as you need.

				-- Bob

Re: .14 John

>>    Since, humans are given some free decisions to make choices, then how
>>    humans will respond to that freedom cannot be known until after the
>>    decision is made.
>
>Sorry, Patricia, but time and time again you have been told that this is
>false.

Yes, she has been told this.  That doesn't mean that the people who said
it to her were correct.

>  Wrong.  Illogical.  Not right.
>
>It's wrong.
>
>Wrong.

Simply repeating your assertion that Patricia is wrong doesn't prove your
point.

>Omniscience about the choices people will make is *INDEPENDENT* of the choices.

I'm not sure about that.  In my office I have a copy of Martin Gardner's
"aha! Gotcha", which I'd be happy to lend to you if you don't have a copy.
One of the paradoxes in that book is called "Newcomb's Paradox".  What it
boils down to is that Omega, a super being from outer space, has the
ability to predict the future.  Based on your future actions, Omega will
either place a million dollars in an opaque box or leave it empty.  He
will also place a thousand dollars in a transparent box.  You can either
open just the opaque box and take whatever is inside, or you can open
both boxes and take the contents of each.  The catch is that if Omega
predicts that you will open both boxes he will leave the opaque box
empty.  If he predicts that you will open just the opaque box, he
will place a million dollars inside it.

Assuming that you believe that Omega can really predict the future, as
evidenced by multiple experiments (each person who chose both boxes got
$1,000 and each person who chose just the opaque box got $1,000,000) would
you choose just the opaque box or both boxes?

At the moment you make your decision, it is always better to take both
boxes (the contents of both boxes is always $1,000 more than the contents
of just the opaque box).  However, if Omega can predict the future, it is
better to choose just the opaque box, so that Omega will have left
$1,000,000 inside the box.

According to Gardner:

	The paradox is a sort of litmus test of whether a person does or
	does not believe in free will.  Reactions to the paradox are
	almost equally divided between believers in free will, who favor
	taking both boxes, and believers in determinism, who favor taking
	only [the opaque box].  Others argue that conditions demanded by
	the paradox are contradictory regardless of whether the future is
	or is not completely determined.

I got into a *long* argument with my brother about this paradox.  I
favored taking just the opaque box, while he favored taking both boxes.

What I tend to believe is that if another being, be it Omega, God or
whatever, is able to predict my future decisions, it means that I don't
have free will.

>Is that simple enough for you?

Why do you need to resort to insulting language?

				-- Bob

re Note 1094.16 by GRIM::MESSENGER:

> What I tend to believe is that if another being, be it Omega, God or
> whatever, is able to predict my future decisions, it means that I don't
> have free will.

        It would seem that if another is able to perfectly predict
        what you would do, then that other must have perfect
        knowledge of your internal state AND your internal
        decision-making must be determinate (i.e., no random
        element).

        Of course, another possibility is that the other is outside
        of time, and simply sees what we call the future as easily as
        what we all the present -- it is not a prediction at all, but
        merely an observation of another time.

        I'm not even sure that this other possibility really makes
        sense.

        Neither of the above would seem to invalidate free will,
        although if one assumes the former situation, it is hard to
        imagine there not being free will as long as more than one
        outcome were possible given different initial conditions --
        free will becomes trivial.

        Bob

>        Of course, another possibility is that the other is outside
>        of time, and simply sees what we call the future as easily as
>        what we all the present -- it is not a prediction at all, but
>        merely an observation of another time.

This isn't just a possibility, this is God.

God, the creator of time, has the ability to operate both within and outside
time.

/john

re Note 1094.18 by COVERT::COVERT:

> >        Of course, another possibility is that the other is outside
> >        of time, and simply sees what we call the future as easily as
> >        what we all the present -- it is not a prediction at all, but
> >        merely an observation of another time.
> 
> This isn't just a possibility, this is God.
> 
> God, the creator of time, has the ability to operate both within and outside
> time.

        John,

        That's non-sense.

        I'm not saying that you are wrong, but I am saying that when
        you say such things you are operating beyond human sense and
        understanding.

        It is clear to me that just because God created something
        (assuming that time is a creature and not just an attribute
        of existence) that doesn't mean that God can do things that
        don't make sense regarding that creature.

        Depending upon the true nature of time, it may make no sense
        to be "acting outside of time" -- even the omnipotent can't
        do what makes no sense.

        Bob

jeff, if you want to argue a case based on logic, you have to abide by the 
rules of logic.

take this basic syllogism:

	all humans are mortal	(premise 1)
	jeff benson is a human	(premise 2)
	------------------------------------
	jeff benson is mortal	(conclusion)

are both premises true? if we agree that they are true, then the conclusion
is also true. more precisely, the conclusion is logically true.

take this case

	all humans are mortal	(premise 1)
	jesus is immortal	(premise 2)
	------------------------------------
	jesus is not human	(conclusion)

that conclusion is logically true if both premises are true. 
you have to prove that your premises are true (or get everyone's 
agreement if we all want to accept it as a given) before you
can claim your argument is true.



andreas.

.14> Is that simple enough for you?

there is no need for such arrogance.

you should be ashamed of yourself!


andreas.

    
    Andreas and Bob,  I understand logic.  I am simply saying that where I
    have provided explanation (possibly inadequate for you to understand)
    of a premise, I expect disagreement with the premise to be of
    significant depth.  For example, if you say "I disagree" to a premise
    without significant explanation and evidence for why the premise is
    wrong, I (and anyone) should discount your disagreement as unfounded. 
    Similarly, if you say "that is arbitrary", as far as I'm concerned you
    must define why it is arbitrary and what corrects the problem in order
    to invalidate the premise.  Much study and thought has gone into this
    argument.  I expect a similar response when someone disagrees.
    
    Anyway, give me some time to more fully explain the premises and
    argument and we'll carry on then.
    
    jeff

    
    
    
    
>Sorry, Patricia, but time and time again you have been told that this is
>false.  Wrong.  Illogical.  Not right.

>It's wrong.

>Wrong.

>Omniscience about the choices people will make is *INDEPENDENT* of the choices.

>Is that simple enough for you?

>/john
    
    
    It must be something about my ability to argue logically (:-!)
    
    Whenever I push a point while arguing with those who consider
    themselves representatives from orthordoxy, this is the answer I
    ultimately get.
    
    It seems that if I am told enought times that up is down that I am
    expected to believe that up is down.  
    
    A requirement to check my brain at the doorway before approaching the
    altar of orthordoxy!
    

<<< Note 1094.19 by LGP30::FLEISCHER "without vision the people perish (DTN 297-5780, MRO2-3/E8)" >>>

>        Depending upon the true nature of time, it may make no sense
>        to be "acting outside of time" -- even the omnipotent can't
>        do what makes no sense.
    
    	"Sense" to whom?  Us humans?  Why is God constrained by our
    	concept of "sense"?  Did the Resurrection make "sense"?  Was
    	it within any bounds of human understanding of what is natural?
    	How about the Ascension?  The Transfiguration?  The healings?
    	The conception of Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit?
    	Angels?
    
    	So why is it that God can't do what makes no sense (to us)?

    
    Hi Joe,
    
    I think Bob might have better said, "even the omnipotent can't do the
    impossible," if that what he actually meant.
    
    jeff

    	OK, Jeff, but who determines what is "impossible"?

    
    No, not humans, but God.  What is impossible is what is *actually* 
    impossible, not what is probably impossible.  For example, if there
    are such things as triangles, it is impossible for them to be
    four-sided.
    
    jeff

Re: .22 Jeff

>    For example, if you say "I disagree" to a premise
>    without significant explanation and evidence for why the premise is
>    wrong, I (and anyone) should discount your disagreement as unfounded. 

Jeff, if you simply make an unsupported assertion without anything to back
it up, I don't have to provide a detailed refutation.  The burden of proof
is with you; you're the one who is claiming that you can prove that God
exists.  It's enough for me to say that I don't accept your premise; it's
up to you to demonstrate why it is true.

				-- Bob

.0 USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung"

1) Some things undeniably exist.

OK.

2) My nonexistence is possible.

Strictly speaking, this is false. Because you DO exist, your non-existence is
NOT possible. I know what you are trying to say, however, and will agree with
that. There are several arguable points in your expansion, but since they are
not central to the discussion I will leave them alone.

3) Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by
   another. 

So we are leading to the 'First Cause' argument. I wondered which one you would
use. Strictly speaking this statement is also non-true. The conclusion that
something that exists was caused to exist by another is unsupported. All you can
really say is that it exists. There is a lot that could be discussed in this
link in your chain, but since it isn't the weakest link I will accept it for
arguments sake.

4) There cannot be an infinite regress of current causes of existence.

This is clearly unsupported assertion. 

	All causality of existence is current and simultaneous.

Where did this come from? Although the existence of a particular thing is
current, the cause of that thing does not have to be. I am not sure what you
mean by it being simultaneous, please clarify. 

        A chain
        of causes, however short or long, wherein every cause is simultaneously
        both actual and potential with regard to existence, is clearly 
        impossible.

I can't parse this sentence well enough to even discuss, would you please
restate it?

As it stands, however, this link is a complete break from the already
questionable chain that your are constructing, there is nothing to tie the
assertion to the previous links.

5) Therefore, a first, uncaused cause of my current existence exists.

Another unsupported assertion! However, I will suspend discussion of this link
until you clarify 4), as this is clearly dependant upon the acceptance of 4).

6) This uncaused cause must be infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, all-knowing
   and all-perfect.

Here is where you leave all pretense of logic behind and launch yourself
blissfully into complete conjecture and supposition. Even if I buy your logic to
this point (and you lost me three unsupported assertions ago) it completely
collapses at this point. For the sake of argument I'll buy your uncaused cause.
I'll even accept that it is infinite. But...

Unchanging? Why? Theoretically, why could this uncaused cause have not set into
motion a vast torrent of causes and existence and then simply disappeared, or
ceased to exist.

All-powerful? Not if it ceased to exist. A cause can also be far less powerful
than the existence it brings into being, i.e. some children are far more
powerful than their parents. 

All-knowing? What evidence do you have that this first cause is even sentient?

All-perfect? Then the result of the cascade of causes and existences from the
first cause should also be perfect. I submit to you this world as evidence that
all is not perfect.

(As an aside, I find it interesting that in your argument for this link the
first cause went from a first cause, to a being, to a Being.)

7) and 8) don't need any response until the previous problems are cleared up.

Finally, even if you believe this line, you can apply it recursively to God
himself and it would be just as effective. 

Jeff, I admit to some disappointment. I find your chain of reasoning weak and
unconvincing, but I will await your clarifications and rebuttal in the hopes
that I missed something. 

Steve

re Note 1094.24 by CSC32::J_OPPELT:

> >        Depending upon the true nature of time, it may make no sense
> >        to be "acting outside of time" -- even the omnipotent can't
> >        do what makes no sense.
>     
>     	"Sense" to whom?  Us humans?  Why is God constrained by our
>     	concept of "sense"?  Did the Resurrection make "sense"?  Was

        You're bringing me very close to the position, with your
        arguments, that the miraculous in the Bible cannot be
        believed because even to understand the text requires
        applying human sense to something which you eloquently
        demonstrate is beyond human sense.  For example: the Biblical
        text of the transfiguration could just as easily be saying
        that God is a big red dog -- after all, why should divinely
        inspired words be bound to human concepts of sense and
        meaning?

        Oh, you say that's an exception?

        The problem is that when we cannot apply human sense, we
        really don't know anything at all, as opposed to the
        untenable position that we somehow know something about the
        unknowable with certainty.

        Bob

re Note 1094.27 by USAT05::BENSON:

>     No, not humans, but God.  What is impossible is what is *actually* 
>     impossible, not what is probably impossible.

OK -- you're point?

>   For example, if there
>     are such things as triangles, it is impossible for them to be
>     four-sided.

        Why should God be limited by our sense of definitions, any
        more that God can be limited by any other understanding we
        humans have?  Is SOME human sense infallible, while other
        exercises of reasoning are not?  If you really believe that
        God can do what does not seem possible to us, then you have
        to believe that there might even be a way that God can make a
        four-sided triangle.

        Bob

Notes 17 and 514 in GRIM::RELIGION offer similar "proofs" of the existence
of God.

				-- Bob

    
    Hi Folks!
    
    Note 17 is Hartshorne's argument for process panentheism. Panentheism
    is the belief that God is *in* the world the way a soul or mind is in a
    body.  Pantheism is the belief that God *is* the world and the world is
    God.
    
    Something you might want to understand is the "ontological" argument. 
    Hartshorne's argument is of this type.
    
    Note 514 is a type of "cosmological" argument in that it argues from the 
    existence of some aspect of the world to God.
    
    The basenote "Argument for Theism" is based upon "undeniability" and
    "unaffirmability" both of which I'll describe in my next update to the
    argument.
    
    jeff
    
    
    

    
    Oh!  and another thing.  Steve, I think, stated that one can't argue
    against God (as an atheist) because you can't argue a universal
    negative.  What you need to understand, Steve, is that you can't argue
    a universal negative because to do so is fallacious.  That is, your
    argument is false in all cases.  If you accept that reality governs
    thought (and not the other way around) and that the laws of thought
    (i.e. logic) are ultimate tools for discerning truth and falsehood (or
    at least falsehood), then it is a contradiction to believe you hold a
    logical position while holding atheism.  Furthermore, there are several
    atheistic arguments against theism, namely the classic argument for the
    existence of evil.  There is also the argument of the empiricist
    (Hume), among others.  So, a bit of intellectual effort might enable
    you to logically shore up your position ;).
    
    jeff

Re: .33 Jeff

>    Note 17 is Hartshorne's argument for process panentheism.

I didn't see anything about process panentheism in note 17.0.  Maybe it's
in another part of Hartshorne's book.  Your 1094.0 in C-P reminded me of
17.0 in RELIGION because the first step in Hartshorne's proof is, in
effect, "if God exists then it is necessary that God exists".  This is
similar to the start of your proof that divides everything in the universe
into things that are impossible, possible or necessary.  By placing the
First Cause into the "necessary" category you deny the possibility of a God
that might or might not exist: either God has to exist or God can't exist.

>    Something you might want to understand is the "ontological" argument. 
>    Hartshorne's argument is of this type.
    
That's the title of note 17: "The Ontological Argument".

>    Note 514 is a type of "cosmological" argument in that it argues from the 
>    existence of some aspect of the world to God.

Note 514 in RELIGION reminds me of your note because it says that since
logic exists in the universe it must have been created by a logical being.
This is similar your claim that there must be a First Cause, and that
this First Cause is God.

				-- Bob

.34 USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung"

    Oh!  and another thing.  Steve, I think, stated that one can't argue
    against God (as an atheist) because you can't argue a universal
    negative.

Actually, Jeff, if you've seen my other notes you've seen me state the same thing.
I also can't argue against Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny, for the same reasons.

    If you accept that reality governs
    thought (and not the other way around) and that the laws of thought
    (i.e. logic) are ultimate tools for discerning truth and falsehood (or
    at least falsehood), then it is a contradiction to believe you hold a
    logical position while holding atheism.

This is 1. Not true and 2. not my position. 

My actual position is that it appears to me that you have made God up out of whole
cloth, i.e. you have no facts to back up your assertions. Further, the Christian
concept of God is so thouroughly riddled by contradictions so as to be moot. The
logical position that I hold is that there is no proof for your assertions, and in
the absence of proof it would be illogical to be a theist. This is not strictly an
atheist position, but it is closer to that than to an agnostic view. I refer to it
as open-minded atheism, although this is a bit of an oxymoron.

    So, a bit of intellectual effort might enable
    you to logically shore up your position ;).

You've yet to show me where my reply to your base not was illogical.

Steve

As a more authoritative argument for God's existence we have the Word of
    God in the Bible.  Following is the basis on which God's existence
    is deemed undeniable.
    
 >   But there's no doubt that God, the Creator of the universe, indeed exists 
 >   for all of nature testifies to this fact, to the foolish and the wise.  

>>Really? Where,exactly, is this overwhelming testimony? 

It's all around us, in everything that exists.  As equally authoritatively this
is plainly stated in the Bible.  Check out the following Scripture.

Psalms 19:1

"The heavens are telling of the glory of God; 
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands."

In Paul's epistle to the Romans 1:18-20 we see:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness
and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God
made it evident to them.  For since the creation of the world His
invisible attributes, His eternal power, and divine nature, have been
clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that
they are without excuse."

Concerning the clarity of revelation, John Calvin, a Reformer and theologian 
of the 16th century, wrote the following in his "Institutes of the Christian 
Religion":

"The final goal of the blessed life, moreover rests in the knowledge of 
God (cf. John 17:3).  Lest anyone, then, be excluded from access to
happiness, he not only sowed in men's minds that seed of religion of
which we have spoken but revealed himself and daily discloses himself
in the whole workmanship of the universe.  As a consequence, men cannot
open their eyes without being compelled to see him.  Indeed, his 
essence is incomprehensible; hence, his divineness far escapes all
human perception.  But upon his individual works he has engraved
unmistakable marks of his glory, so clear and so prominent that even
unlettered and stupid folk cannot plead the excuse of ignorance."

And more from Calvin's "Institutes":


"There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an
awareness of divinity.  This we take to be beyond controversy.
To prevent anyone from taking refuge in the pretense of ignorance,
God himself has implanted in all men a certain understanding of his
divine majesty.  Ever renewing its memory, he repeatedly sheds fresh
drops.  Since, therefore, men one and all perceive that there is a
God and that he is their Maker, they are condemned by their own
testimony because they have failed to honor him and to consecrate
their lives to his will.

Indeed even idolatry is ample proof of this conception.  We know
how man does not willingly humble himself so as to place other
creatures over himself.  Since then, he prefers to worship wood
and stone rather than to be thought of as having no God, clearly
this is a most vivid impression of a divine being.  So impossible
is it to blot this from man's mind that natural disposition would
be more easily altered, as altered indeed it is when man volunatrily
sinks from his natural haughtiness to the very depths in order to
honor God!

I confess, indeed, that in order to hold men's minds in greater
subjection, clever men have devised very many things in religion
by which to inspire the common folk with reverence and to strike
them with terror.  But they would never have achieved this if men's
minds had not already been imbued with a firm conviction about
God, from which the inclination toward religion springs as from
a seed...If, indeed, there were some in the past, and today not
a few appear, who deny God exists, yet willy-nilly they from time
to time feel an inkling of what they desire not to believe...Indeed,
they seek out every subterfuge to hide themselves from the Lord's
presence, and to efface it again from their minds.  But in spite
of themselves they are always entrapped.  Although it may
sometimes seem to vanish for a moment, it returns at once and
rushes in with new force.

Men of sound judgement will always be sure that a sense of
divinity which can never be effaced is engraved upon men's minds.
Indeed, the perversity of the impious, who though they struggle
furiously are unable to extricate themselves from the fear of
God, is abundant testimony that this conviction, namely that
there is some God, is naturally inborn in all, and is fixed deep
within, as it were in the very marrow...the world (something will
have to be said of this a little later) tries as far as it is able
to cast away all knowledge of God, and by every means to corrupt
the worship of him.  I only say that though the stupid harshness
in their minds, which the impious eagerly conjure to reject God,
wastes away, yet the sense of divinity, which they greatly wished
to have extinguished, thrives and presently burgeons.

Experience teaches that the seed of religion has been divinely
planted in all men.  but barely one man in a hundred can be
found who nourishes in his own heart what he has conceived; and
not even one in whom it matures, much less bears fruit in its
season [cf. Ps. 1.3].  Now some lose themselves in their own
superstition, while others of their own evil intention revolt
from God, yet all fall away from true knowledge of him...Indeed,
vanity joined with pride can be detected in the fact that, in
seeking God, miserable men do not rise above themselves as they
should, but measure him by the yardstick of their own carnal
stupidity, and neglect sound investigation; thus out of curiosity
they fly off into empty speculations.  They do not therefore
apprehend God as he offers himself, but imagine him as they have
fashioned him in their own presumption....Indeed, whatever they
afterward attempt by way of worship or service to God, they cannot
bring as tribute to him, for they are worshiping not God but a
figment and a dream of their own heart.  Paul eloquently notes this
wickedness; "Striving to be wise, they make fools of themselves"
[Romans 1:22].He had said before that "they became futile in their
thinking" (Rom. 1:21).  In order, however, that no one might excuse
guilt, he adds that they are justly blinded.  For not content with
sobriety but claiming for themselves more than is right, they
wantonly bring darkness upon themselves - in fact, they become
fools in their empty and perverse haughtiness.  From this it follows
that their stupidity is not excusable, since it is caused not only by
vain curiosity but by an inordinate desire to know more that is
fitting, joined with a false confidence."


jeff

I don't pretend to be able to speak for Steve, but the testimony
presented doesn't seem like it would be convincing beyond a reasonable
doubt to the skeptical, objective observer.

Shalom,
Richard

.38 Richard Christie

It's a circular argument. Much of it is based on the authority of the Bible, 
which presupposes that you believe in it. 

I've never found the work of Calvin convincing, it suffers from the same 
flaws as arguing from the Bible, it presupposes belief. I didn't 
respond because it isn't an argument from the point of view of a 
non-believer, it is only assertions. One thing I have learned from this 
conference is that you can't debate beliefs, only the logic behind them. 
Calvin puts forth only beliefs, not logic.

As an example, Calvin asserts that:
"There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an
awareness of divinity.  This we take to be beyond controversy."
...
"Since then, he prefers to worship wood
and stone rather than to be thought of as having no God, clearly
this is a most vivid impression of a divine being."

Although I agree that there is a strong need in humans to create a being to 
worship, I certainly don't agree that this vivid impression of a divine being 
was put there by God (certainly he could have created a more coherent 
impression than the thousands of religions that have sprung up throughout 
history). My own belief is that man has a driving need to explain everything. 
Things that are beyond his current level of understanding are attributed to 
God. He puts out his theory, but nothing to back it up (just as I have done). 
And that is as convincing to me as mine is likely to be to a believer.

Steve

    Hi Steve,
    
    Not all belief is base on what someone tells you.  Some belief is based
    on actual experience.  For example, you believe that sunsets are
    frequently beautiful because that is your experience.
    
    Now, we can take something a little less tangable such as love.  For
    someone who has never experienced love, when told that such a thing
    existed he may either accept it, doubt it or simply suspend judgement.
    Simply because this one person hasn't experienced it knowingly doesn't
    mean that is isn't "real".
    
    Moving onto God.  A number of people have experienced God in one form
    or anthor.  I'm not talking about pretty sunsets, I'm talking about
    extraordinary experiences.  For those of us who have had experiences
    like this, God is not a convenient way of explaining things.  God is
    because God is.  For us to deny what we have experienced would be
    futile.  I cannot stop believing because I know God exists as strongly
    as you believe that computers exist.  For me it is not a cop-out but
    rather a simple fact.  What else am I to do?
    
    I also understand that there are those who do not believe me.  I can't
    change that, nor do I have to.  Steve, I do not ridicule your beliefs
    as being some sort of cop-out.  Please don't ridicule mine.
    
    It's like making fun of me because I believe I once had a grandfather.
    No amount of logic is going to convince me I never had one even though
    all that's left of him are ashes in the ground.  That's no proof.  But
    I still remember him.
    
    Tom Baker

.40 Tom Baker

Tom,

If you found ridicule in my note I apologize, I did not intend for it to 
come across that way. I was simply stating (in a factual manner, I thought) 
where I believe the basis for religion comes from.

Those of you that have had personal experiences that lead you to believe in 
God I would not argue with, and would not ridicule. I probably wouldn't 
agree with your interpretation of whatever event caused you to believe, but 
that is my problem, you are the one that experienced the event and you need 
to interpret it so that it makes sense to you. 

I would question, however, why God does not choose to visit such an event 
upon everyone, yet still expects everyone to believe.

You might have gotten the impression that I am anti-religion. This is not 
true. I do not believe in religion, but how could I be against something 
that obviously brings many people so much comfort. I also support the good 
works that religious organizations do. What I am against is the tendency 
religions have to try to force everyone to act according to there own 
beliefs. Issues such as school prayer, the teaching of creation theory, 
blue laws, etc. scare me, and I will fight against those. In cases where my 
actions do no harm, I expect to be left alone. In cases where the public is 
involved I expect religion to be left out of it, this can better be handled 
at home, church, whatever. Sadly history is too full of religious extremism 
for my fears to be labelled as paranoia.

Steve

P.S. Religion is not the only thing with this problem, any time any one 
group of people, religious or government, gets too much control the same 
types of things will happen. People seem to have this inborn need to make 
others act as they do...

    RE: .41 Steve

>If you found ridicule in my note I apologize, I did not intend for it to 
>come across that way. I was simply stating (in a factual manner, I thought) 
>where I believe the basis for religion comes from.

    Thank you for clarifying that.  No problem.

>works that religious organizations do. What I am against is the tendency 
>religions have to try to force everyone to act according to there own 
>beliefs. Issues such as school prayer, the teaching of creation theory, 
>blue laws, etc. scare me, and I will fight against those. In cases where my 
>actions do no harm, I expect to be left alone. In cases where the public is 
>involved I expect religion to be left out of it, this can better be handled 
>at home, church, whatever. Sadly history is too full of religious extremism 
>for my fears to be labelled as paranoia.

    We are in full agreement here.  My happiness/fulfilment is not
    contingent on what you believe.

>I would question, however, why God does not choose to visit such an event 
>upon everyone, yet still expects everyone to believe.

    Perhaps She does.  And now it's so commonplace that no one thinks
    anything of it anymore.  Just a thought.

    Tom Baker

>It's a circular argument. Much of it is based on the authority of the Bible, 
>which presupposes that you believe in it. 
    
    It is not a circular argument.  It's presupposition is that the Bible
    contains God's Word.  All arguments start with a presupposition.

>I've never found the work of Calvin convincing, it suffers from the same 
>flaws as arguing from the Bible, it presupposes belief. I didn't 
>respond because it isn't an argument from the point of view of a 
>non-believer, it is only assertions. One thing I have learned from this 
>conference is that you can't debate beliefs, only the logic behind them. 
>Calvin puts forth only beliefs, not logic.
    
    Again, it does not presuppose belief, it presupposes the authority of
    the Bible as God's Word.

>As an example, Calvin asserts that:
>"There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an
>awareness of divinity.  This we take to be beyond controversy."
...
>"Since then, he prefers to worship wood
>and stone rather than to be thought of as having no God, clearly
>this is a most vivid impression of a divine being."

>Although I agree that there is a strong need in humans to create a being to 
>worship, I certainly don't agree that this vivid impression of a divine being 
>was put there by God (certainly he could have created a more coherent 
>impression than the thousands of religions that have sprung up throughout 
>history). 
    
    The Bible says that God's handiwork (creation) is evident to everyone
    at all times.  This is the authority.  Calvin simply demonstrates how
    this is true by experience.  The Bible says God, the true God, is known
    to all at least to the extent that His divine attributes are engraved
    upon what He has made.  It is man who perverts this image and creates
    false gods.
    
    >My own belief is that man has a driving need to explain everything. 
>Things that are beyond his current level of understanding are attributed to 
>God. He puts out his theory, but nothing to back it up (just as I have done). 
>And that is as convincing to me as mine is likely to be to a believer.

>Steve
    
    Why does man have a driving need to explain everything?  Why would man,
    without warrant or reason, create a god with which to attribute his
    fears and ignorance?

    jeff

.43 Jeff Benson

>It's a circular argument. Much of it is based on the authority of the Bible, 
>which presupposes that you believe in it. 
    
    It is not a circular argument.  It's presupposition is that the Bible
    contains God's Word.  All arguments start with a presupposition.
...
    Again, it does not presuppose belief, it presupposes the authority of
    the Bible as God's Word.


Jeff, how can I not believe in God yet believe that the Bible is God's word?
This obviously presupposes belief in God. And although arguments may be based 
on suppositions, they are usually independently verifiable suppositions. 
Saying the Bible is the word of God is an assertion, with nothing to back it 
up.

    The Bible says that God's handiwork (creation) is evident to everyone
    at all times.  This is the authority.  Calvin simply demonstrates how

It isn't authority, it's unsupported assertion, and without it Calvin's entire 
line of reasoning disolves gently into nothingness.

    this is true by experience.  The Bible says God, the true God, is known
    to all at least to the extent that His divine attributes are engraved
    upon what He has made.  It is man who perverts this image and creates
    false gods.

Here you fall into the same fallacy as Calvin. You are building your bulwark 
of logic on a cloud. Why do you believe in the Bible but not the Q'uran?

    Why does man have a driving need to explain everything?  Why would man,
    without warrant or reason, create a god with which to attribute his
    fears and ignorance?

Personally I believe that curiosity, and the drive towards knowledge, is the 
end result of a certain level of intelligence. And actually man has created 
many thousands of gods and variations on gods to explain what they did not 
know. If men always came up with the same god I would find this line of 
reasoning far more convincing.

Steve

    RE: .44  

    Hi Steve,

    I follow and agree with much of what you say in .44.  I would
    have trouble placing my faith only in a book.  I have faith in
    God, not in the Bible.
    
>And actually man has created 
>many thousands of gods and variations on gods to explain what they did not 
>know. If men always came up with the same god I would find this line of 
>reasoning far more convincing.

    This is where we part agreement.  I believe that many many people
    have had spiritual experiences and certain things have been revealed
    to them.  These things they have shared with others and they have
    "shared in the experience" (religion - to re-live). 
    
    There have been prophets throughout the world experiencing the
    same God.  The religions that grow out of this are strongly colored
    by the society of the prophet.
    
    I believe man did not create God but "discovered" God.
    
    I have some experience with the Hindu religion and I have found that
    after the cultural stuff is stripped the essence is the same as
    Christianity's essence.  All those gods are just aspects of the
    *same* God, much like many Christian's Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
    On a mystic level they're all talking about the same thing, the 
    same God, the same concepts, the same experience.
    
    And it's been the mystics from the start, those with a direct 
    experience of God, that have communicated this experience to
    the rest of the world that started religion to begin with.
    
    Enter human frailty and cultural bias with a healthy dose of
    well intentioned or self-serving mis-interpretation of what
    the prophets *meant* (they weren't necessarily good communicators
    either) and you have Hindus tearing down Muslim mosques, protestants
    treating catholics like second class citizens in Ireland and
    a catholic shooting up a health clinic.
    
    BTW: the prophets/mystics aren't always on the straight and narrow
    path either.  They have their bias' too.
    
    Whoa.  What a mess!  But, even with such confusion I still have 
    faith that God knows what She's doing.
    
    O well.  Thanks for listening.
    
    Tom Baker

    Hi Steve,
    
>It's a circular argument. Much of it is based on the authority of the Bible, 
>which presupposes that you believe in it. 
    
>>    It is not a circular argument.  It's presupposition is that the Bible
>>    contains God's Word.  All arguments start with a presupposition.
...
>>    Again, it does not presuppose belief, it presupposes the authority of
>>    the Bible as God's Word.


>>>Jeff, how can I not believe in God yet believe that the Bible is God's word?

You cannot *not* believe in God, Steve, according to the Bible.  It is very
clear.  Oddly, you act as if your belief is what determines reality.  And
before you hurl the same back at me, realize that the Bible provides a
practical and coherent explanation for the universe and all that we find
in it.  The Bible, as God's Word, presents a unified explanation for
everything.  Skepticism, materialism, naturalism, rationalism, etc. can't
explain anything, can't know anything, can't compel anything, can't love
or answer the great questions of life.  They are impotent and after a short
heyday are approaching irrelevance. 

>>>This obviously presupposes belief in God. 

I'm not arguing that you must believe.  I'm arguing from the presupposition 
that God has spoken to us today in the Bible.


>>>And although arguments may be based 
>>>on suppositions, they are usually independently verifiable suppositions. 

This is a total falsehood.  Metaphysical presuppositions, or first principles, 
are completely unverifiable.  Take logic, for example.  There are no rules
with which to test the rules of logic.  This doesn't make the rules of logic
invalid, however.

>>>Saying the Bible is the word of God is an assertion, with nothing to back it 
>>>up.

Well, its not exactly a bare assertion. The evidence of the truth of the Bible's
origin and content is very compelling.  

>>    The Bible says that God's handiwork (creation) is evident to everyone
>>    at all times.  This is the authority.  Calvin simply demonstrates how

>>>It isn't authority, it's unsupported assertion, and without it Calvin's entire 
>>>line of reasoning disolves gently into nothingness.

It is hardly unsupported assertion, Steve.  The arguments, both internal and
external, to the Bible's authenticity as God's Word are very convincing.

>>    this is true by experience.  The Bible says God, the true God, is known
>>    to all at least to the extent that His divine attributes are engraved
>>    upon what He has made.  It is man who perverts this image and creates
>>    false gods.

>>>Here you fall into the same fallacy as Calvin. You are building your bulwark 
>>>of logic on a cloud. Why do you believe in the Bible but not the Q'uran?

No, I'm building my bulwark upon the authority of the Bible, my presupposition.
Well, Mohammed wasn't raised from the dead.  And Mohammed doesn't instruct me
on how I might be freed from sin and the guilt of sin, in this lifetime and
the next.  And Mohammed is still dead somewhere.  And the Koran is fantasy.
Buddha is still dead.  Zoraster is still dead.  The Upanishads are fantasy.
Where are these "gods"?

>>    Why does man have a driving need to explain everything?  Why would man,
>>    without warrant or reason, create a god with which to attribute his
>>    fears and ignorance?

>>>Personally I believe that curiosity, and the drive towards knowledge, is the 
>>>end result of a certain level of intelligence. And actually man has created 
>>>many thousands of gods and variations on gods to explain what they did not 
>>>know. If men always came up with the same god I would find this line of 
>>>reasoning far more convincing.

>>>Steve

Well, that's interesting but hardly answers the question.  I see no evidence
whatsoever in your argument to equate ignorance with god creation.  These
gods do not satisfy ignorance but satisfy a need to worship, a need to exalt
something, to praise something, to satisfy something.  Wood and stone don't
instruct.  And smart people all over the world still worship a god and
some even the true God.  Plus, all gods are very similar in their "qualities" 
and "powers."  Since they are of the imagination it makes perfect
sense that their particulars may vary.  However, they all fulfill the same
role - the debasement of the image of the true God, and in ignorance and
blindness, the worship of the self, the creature, the created, rather than
the Creator.

jeff

.46 Jeff Benson

>>You cannot *not* believe in God, Steve, according to the Bible.  

Then we're done. You are calling me a liar based on the word of the Bible. 
I maintain that I am telling the truth, I do not believe in God. I'm not 
sure what my motive for lying about this particular lack of belief is, 
but...

Steve

	Jeff, you can look at it as this:


Jeff: Steve is a liar

Jeff: Steve is wrong

Jeff: Steve believes differently than I do



	Our of the three the ONLY choice that is correct is #3. Because where
we are human beings, we can't know everything, we can't know for sure that what
each of us sees is truth, is Truth. Between free will, different interpretations
of the Bible, different beliefs, there is no absolute Truth except for God
Himself. And that only applies to those who believe in Him.



Glen

    
    Just remember, Steve and Glen, the Bible is the authority in reality
    and in my life.  I will believe God.  How can I do otherwise?
    
    jeff

>>You cannot *not* believe in God, Steve, according to the Bible.  

>Then we're done. You are calling me a liar based on the word of the Bible. 
>I maintain that I am telling the truth, I do not believe in God. I'm not 
>sure what my motive for lying about this particular lack of belief is, 
>but...

>Steve
    
    If you do not believe in God, you have created your own, even if it is
    yourself according to the Bible.
    
    jeff

| <<< Note 1094.49 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| Just remember, Steve and Glen, the Bible is the authority in reality
| and in my life.  I will believe God.  How can I do otherwise?

	No one is asking you to do any different. If you call Steve a liar and
he isn't, you bear false witness. If you state that Steve's beliefs are wrong
and they aren't, you have beared false witness. If you state his beliefs are
different than yours, and let God handle it from there, then you are keeping in
line with the Bible, are you not?

    And someday may God say, "Well done, good and faithful servant."
    
    Richard
    

>    And someday may God say, "Well done, good and faithful servant."

To whom?  Jeff, Steve, Glen or you?

    .53
    
    To all with whom God is pleased.
    
    Richard
    

	Richard, very good answer! :-)

    If you do not believe in God, you have created your own, even if it is
    yourself according to the Bible.

Jeff, where do you get this stuff? According to *any* definition of God I 
have ever seen, I have *not* created my own. Perhaps you can supply your 
own definition to make this statement true?

There seems to be a very large resistance to the idea that one can believe 
there is no deity, why is this?

Steve