I believe in God. Taking qs

[Turambar]

Whether there are undertones in my language or not doesn't matter to me, and you shouldn't read more into what I have said than what I have said myself.

Also, I'm taking questions or all sorts; I'm not here necessarily to defend my beliefs, but if someone straight up calls my beliefs logically impossible I do expect at least for them to explain why they think that.

Having said that, if you don't have any questions then you need not post here, Nick Treklis. I don't appreciate your insulting or confrontational attitude.

[Turambar]

Responding to Cahoot,

My God isn't simply the concept of infinity.

[Cahoot]

If that is your answer to my question, which was about belief (in God), then apparently belief is a component in how you define God.

If it is, and for you belief is a requirement for God to exist, perhaps we can discuss. That is, if you're patient and persistent, as my replies are not always immediate.

If that’s just a comment you're making, and not the answer to my question, then take your time in answering. I’m in no rush.

:)

[guest_of_logic]

Hi Turambar,

I have two questions for you. Firstly, how do you reconcile perfect justice (which entails always applying the deserved penalty) with perfect mercy (which entails applying a penalty less than that which was deserved)? Secondly, what is your response to the problem of evil?

By the way, and for your information, folk on this forum tend to redefine God to mean Reality, which they sometimes refer to as the Totality, meaning absolutely everything, and which they hold to be infinite, so that they sometimes also refer to the Totality as the Infinite i.e. on this forum, God, Reality, the Totality and the Infinite are synonyms. This is probably the perspective that Robert is coming from, which might help you to understand his comments a little better. The main issue that I have with this perspective is that as far as I'm concerned, infinity always has a sense in which it is applied - e.g. infinite in the spatial sense, or in the temporal sense, or in the sense of wisdom - whereas folk around here use it in an unqualified sense, so it's in my opinion a little ambiguous. The Infinite? Infinite how and in what sense(s), is what I would like answered.

For the reason of ambiguity due to unqualified sense that I described above, I really can't see any merit to Robert's challenge. You have described God as infinite in various different senses - power, knowledge, locality - and there's nothing contradictory about that. If Robert wants to throw in an unqualified sense of infinity, then, in my opinion, he'll have to explain what he means by it.

Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread, just wanted to throw in my "too sense" on the challenges you've already received.

[Ataraxia]

Hi Turambar,

I have two questions for you. Firstly, how do you reconcile perfect justice (which entails always applying the deserved penalty) with perfect mercy (which entails applying a penalty less than that which was deserved)?

The concept of perfect Justice, or perfect mercy, seems unfathomable and infeasible to me.

How would that work? Whom or what is the final arbiter? It can only ever be the individual ultimately; surely.

[skipair]

I believe in God.

What's your evidence?

wholly good, wholly just, and wholly merciful

You believe in inherent morality?

[Nick]

Whether there are undertones in my language or not doesn't matter to me,

It should. Identifying your subconscious tendencies is essential in order to make sure your reasoning isn't being hindered by them.

and you shouldn't read more into what I have said than what I have said myself.

Well if you don't want me to do it, then start doing it yourself.

You used the word "believe" in reference to your conception of god. So, what does belief mean to you?

Also, I'm taking questions or all sorts; I'm not here necessarily to defend my beliefs, but if someone straight up calls my beliefs logically impossible I do expect at least for them to explain why they think that.

Actually it was explained to you why your conception of god is a logical impossibility. A thing, or god in this case, can not have qualities and be infinite. A quality only has meaning in relation to it's opposite quality, e.g. good/bad, hot/cold, just/unjust, rough/smooth, this is the nature of duality. So if you define god as having a quality, you are necessarily leaving out the opposite quality, which means you are talking about a finite thing, not an infinite god.

I don't appreciate your insulting or confrontational attitude.

It's called compassion.

[Robert]

The main issue that I have with this perspective is that as far as I'm concerned, infinity always has a sense in which it is applied - e.g. infinite in the spatial sense, or in the temporal sense, or in the sense of wisdom - whereas folk around here use it in an unqualified sense, so it's in my opinion a little ambiguous. The Infinite? Infinite how and in what sense(s), is what I would like answered.

The whole of Nature, that's a pretty straightforward qualification. The only ambiguity is that the whole can't be said to exist, nor not exist. This apparent ambiguity is only superficial, the infinite Nature escapes such classification. Existence is relative, Nature is by definition the All, unbounded and boundaryless. To what is the All relative to?

For the reason of ambiguity due to unqualified sense that I described above, I really can't see any merit to Robert's challenge. You have described God as infinite in various different senses - power, knowledge, locality - and there's nothing contradictory about that. If Robert wants to throw in an unqualified sense of infinity, then, in my opinion, he'll have to explain what he means by it.

For the reasons of ambiguity in giving God attributes like mercy, justice, good etc, I can't see why such a singular entity can be infinite. Finite, sure, but not infinite. In my opinion, that still needs some explaining.

[guest_of_logic]

The whole of Nature, that's a pretty straightforward qualification.

I don't think that covers it though. "Infinite in time", or "infinite in space" or "infinite in knowledge" I can understand, but "infinite in nature"...?...

Perhaps you mean "infinite in all dimensions". That would make a lot more sense to me, but it would also simply push the question back a little bit, so that I'd then be asking you, "Which dimensions are you referring to?"

[Blair]

Shoot.

Well since we are taking questions, lets start with the most revealing one.

Why do you believe in God?

[Robert]

The whole of Nature, that's a pretty straightforward qualification.

I don't think that covers it though. "Infinite in time", or "infinite in space" or "infinite in knowledge" I can understand, but "infinite in nature"...?...

Perhaps you mean "infinite in all dimensions". That would make a lot more sense to me, but it would also simply push the question back a little bit, so that I'd then be asking you, "Which dimensions are you referring to?"

The largest perspective possible would necessarily entail absolutely everything, hence the other nom de guerre, "The Absolute".

[Turambar]

Wow... lots of input/responses since yesterday. I don't know how to quote you guy's sentences, but I will do it the old fashioned way. As I read through I found several different questions, and I'll try to tackle them here.

1) "Why do you believe in God?"

I've never really thought about *why*. I can't imagine not believing in God. Even if I were today to try to just go about and pretend God doesn't exist, I would never be able to convince myself. There's something in me that just *knows* but I can't describe why. My belief may not be purely rational, but I think God is more mysterious than a simple algorithm; and I think that it means something to be human to be a little irrational. To me a world without God would be like a world without music. Where you can hear the noises, but you don't understand that they are arranged beautifully and artfully and mean something more than a collection of sound-waves hitting your eardrum.

2) "Is there an inconsistency with a perfectly just/demanding God and a perfectly merciful God."

To answer your question immediately -- no, I don't believe there is. The point of law and punishment is not simply to punish, but to teach and to manipulate the actions of the governed. The state doesn't make it illegal to drive without seatbelts simply because it wants to ticket people and garner revenue (at least we hope that's not their motive), but instead the state has an interest in our safety and would have us wear seatbelts for our own good. So punishment isn't the end but influencing behavior is. So if God has found you or I guilty of one thing or another, his desire isn't to punish but to effect change. Mercy can come easily if he finds that we are sorry or regretful etc.

3) "Is there a problem of evil?"

Freedom means the ability to choose to obey or disobey. Without the ability to disobey we aren't free. If we think freedom is a desirable or an inherently good thing, then God has good reason to create it. If God has created all things that are beautiful and good, then freedom would be one of those things.

[skipair]

Everyone fears questioning the things that make us happy and stepping into unknown territory. We all have the sense that bringing reason to our cherished views makes them slide away from us. You are your reason, and using reason is being a man not a boy. A man questions explores and examines to the end *all territories* before him. Good luck.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Hello Turambar,

I can't imagine not believing in God. Even if I were today to try to just go about and pretend God doesn't exist, I would never be able to convince myself.

Once I found myself in the same situation. My conviction was as solid as rock and very similar to what you're saying here. To my big surprise, now looking back, it was certainly possible to drop the old faith, like a child that stops sucking a mother's breast and wants to chew on something more substantial. The old faith is not wrong, it just wasn't enough if a desire for truth and deeper exploration is present.

There's something in me that just *knows* but I can't describe why. My belief may not be purely rational

Spinoza calls that that the first type of knowledge, basically opinion, hunches and fleeting images but one can get seriously attached to them, making them seem more solid than they really are. They're not even yet in the category of truths and falsehoods.

To me a world without God would be like a world without music. Where you can hear the noises, but you don't understand that they are arranged beautifully and artfully and mean something more than a collection of sound-waves hitting your eardrum.

From my experience that type of appreciation got multiplied by a thousand once I allowed my understanding of God grow, which did mean to lose some of the childish notions that dominate most of the religions. But so much can be given in return although it won't be all art and beauty; truth not always is like that.

[guest_of_logic]

I don't know how to quote you guy's sentences

Click the "quote" button up the top right of a person's post, and that will insert the quoting tags into the edit window that opens up; you can also add these tags manually. Basically there are opening and closing "quote" tags (i.e. the things enclosed in square braces) and you use them like this (i.e. the second line, below "CODE: SELECT ALL"):

Code: Select all

[quote="Person's name"]What the person said.[/quote]

To copy what the person wrote into the space between the opening and closing quote tags, you can also use your operating system's usual select, copy and paste functions e.g. left click and hold down the mouse button and drag the mouse cursor over the text that you want to copy and then release the button, then hold down ctrl and press the 'C' key to copy the text to the clipboard, then left click in the appropriate spot to place the text cursor in between the quote tags, and finally hold down ctrl and press the 'V' key to paste in the clipboard contents.

2) "Is there an inconsistency with a perfectly just/demanding God and a perfectly merciful God."

To answer your question immediately -- no, I don't believe there is. The point of law and punishment is not simply to punish, but to teach and to manipulate the actions of the governed. The state doesn't make it illegal to drive without seatbelts simply because it wants to ticket people and garner revenue (at least we hope that's not their motive), but instead the state has an interest in our safety and would have us wear seatbelts for our own good. So punishment isn't the end but influencing behavior is. So if God has found you or I guilty of one thing or another, his desire isn't to punish but to effect change. Mercy can come easily if he finds that we are sorry or regretful etc.

Do you realise that you didn't use any form of one of the words at issue - justice - at all in that paragraph? I don't think that you properly addressed the question: you talked a lot about punishment, but you haven't explained how punishment relates to justice. This prompts my next questions: (1) what do you understand "justice" to mean, and how is it related to punishment? (2) Does justice ever involve rewarding rather than punishing? You don't seem to be using the same meaning that I gave justice in my last post: "applying the deserved penalty" (which I'll amend now to "applying the deserved penalty or reward"). You seem to be trying to say that justice is those (punishing) actions which teach and manipulate the governed.

I have another two questions for you related to justice. (3) Do you believe in eternal punishment in a hell created by God, and (4) if so, do you believe that infinite punishment for finite crimes is perfectly just?

3) "Is there a problem of evil?"

Freedom means the ability to choose to obey or disobey. Without the ability to disobey we aren't free. If we think freedom is a desirable or an inherently good thing, then God has good reason to create it. If God has created all things that are beautiful and good, then freedom would be one of those things.

Here are two new questions based on your answer:
5) Is God free?
6) Your answer seems to address human-caused evil and suffering, such as murder, rape and theft, but how do you account for the evil and suffering in the form of death, injury and destruction caused by "natural" disasters, such as earthquakes, floods, droughts and fires caused by lightning?

How would that [perfect Justice, or perfect mercy] work? Whom or what is the final arbiter? It can only ever be the individual ultimately; surely.

Good questions. I can think of two possible responses that a believer in divinely maintained perfect justice and mercy might give: firstly, that God is the final individual arbiter, who is uniquely qualified for setting the standards being that He created everything that is not Himself, and that "perfection" entails Him enacting His standards of arbitration perfectly; secondly, that there are, as there are laws of physics, "natural" laws (standards) of justice and mercy which only advanced enough beings are capable of discerning and "proving" - this would be a less likely answer for a believer to give as it subordinates God to these laws/standards (all of this with the caveat that I think that justice and mercy conflict with one another).

The largest perspective possible would necessarily entail absolutely everything, hence the other nom de guerre, "The Absolute".

Fine, but that doesn't address my question. In what sense(s) is the Infinite (or the Absolute) actually infinite?

[Ataraxia]

Good questions. I can think of two possible responses that a believer in divinely maintained perfect justice and mercy might give: firstly, that God is the final individual arbiter, who is uniquely qualified for setting the standards being that He created everything that is not Himself, and that "perfection" entails Him enacting His standards of arbitration perfectly

Euthyphro and Socrates dealt with that on the Athens law court steps 2500 years ago. Your theistic friends are going to have to think of another 'proof'.

What if I have an alternate conception of what is 'perfect' to the big tyrant in the sky? How can i be wrong?

[Robert]

The largest perspective possible would necessarily entail absolutely everything, hence the other nom de guerre, "The Absolute".

Fine, but that doesn't address my question. In what sense(s) is the Infinite (or the Absolute) actually infinite?

By thinking about it, identifying the logic, and grasping the meaning. Why do you ask "actually"? It sounds like the kind of question sometimes asked by Xians to non-believers; "Have you lived everywhen, everywhere, are you omniscient? How do you then know God doesn't exist... ?"

[Blair]

I've never really thought about *why*. I can't imagine not believing in God. Even if I were today to try to just go about and pretend God doesn't exist, I would never be able to convince myself. There's something in me that just *knows* but I can't describe why. My belief may not be purely rational, but I think God is more mysterious than a simple algorithm; and I think that it means something to be human to be a little irrational.

That "something that knows" is your intuition, and it's never wrong. If you keep questioning why do I believe, this and that, you can hone your understanding.

The mystery about God stems from your self imposed ignorance. You wished, as a spirit, to experience being absent from God, in this holographic cosmos. A place where you can pretend that there is no creative intelligence to reality, you just create your own reality, play roles, imagine that you are a descendant of apes, if you so wish. All these things are allowed, your commitment to the illusions depend on how your spirit responds, and how long you want to play the game.

[Nick]

That "something that knows" is your intuition, and it's never wrong.

If your intuition tells you there's a conscious creator type god, and my intuition tells me there's no god like that; then this statement you made is wrong, because one of us has to be right, making the other person wrong.

The mystery about God stems from your self imposed ignorance.

Nobody chooses to be ignorant.

You wished, as a spirit, to experience being absent from God, in this holographic cosmos. A place where you can pretend that there is no creative intelligence to reality, you just create your own reality, play roles, imagine that you are a descendant of apes, if you so wish. All these things are allowed, your commitment to the illusions depend on how your spirit responds, and how long you want to play the game.

I'm going to go ahead assume your intuition told you all of this BS; am I right?

[Blair]

Think whatever you like. You don't touch me.

[guest_of_logic]

Euthyphro and Socrates dealt with that on the Athens law court steps 2500 years ago. Your theistic friends are going to have to think of another 'proof'.

Well I wouldn't call it a proof of, it's more of an explanation, but yes, I pretty much described the two horns of Euthyphro's dilemma with respect to justice rather than morality, except for this bit: "[God] is uniquely qualified for setting the standards being that He created everything that is not Himself". This is something that I have actually seen Christian apologists write, and it's a bit of a bridge between the two horns. I also don't mind Thomas Aquinas's response, as explained on that page:

[T]he dilemma is false: yes, God commands something because it is good, but the reason it is good is that "good is an essential part of God's nature". So goodness is grounded in God's character and merely expressed in moral commands. Therefore whatever a good God commands will always be good.

What if I have an alternate conception of what is 'perfect' to the big tyrant in the sky? How can i be wrong?

You don't know creation like the Creator, and your faculties aren't perfect like His are, but if you did and they were, then you would have the same standards as Him [the apologist might argue].

The largest perspective possible would necessarily entail absolutely everything, hence the other nom de guerre, "The Absolute".

Fine, but that doesn't address my question. In what sense(s) is the Infinite (or the Absolute) actually infinite?

By thinking about it, identifying the logic, and grasping the meaning.

That's not even a grammatically correct answer to my question, let alone a semantically correct one, but if you want to go down this route, then please explain the thinking, logic and meaning to which you refer.

Why do you ask "actually"?

I used that word for emphasis, but it's otherwise superfluous.

[Robert]

That's not even a grammatically correct answer to my question, let alone a semantically correct one, but if you want to go down this route, then please explain the thinking, logic and meaning to which you refer.

It made sense to me at the time, but I can understand why the wording may have been cause for frustration.

"In what sense(s) is the Infinite (or the Absolute) actually infinite?"
If your use of the word 'actually' is superfluous, then are you asking in what 'sense(s)' is the Absolute infinite? - I wouldn't want to confuse myself unnecessarily with ambiguous grammatical formulations.

In a nutshell, the sense in which the Absolute is infinite is purely logical. That which is boundless, boundaryless, void of all content yet which is all content and all potential. This is how the Absolute presents itself to me, to my mind. I am part of it, and it is part of me.

I can't be arsed saying any more than that.

[guest_of_logic]

If your use of the word 'actually' is superfluous, then are you asking in what 'sense(s)' is the Absolute infinite?

Yes.

In a nutshell, the sense in which the Absolute is infinite is purely logical. That which is boundless, boundaryless, void of all content yet which is all content and all potential.

OK, but do you recognise that the concept of a boundary (or lack of a boundary) implies some sort of dimensionality? It might be three dimensional space, in which lack of boundaries means that space extends infinitely in all directions, or it might be the dimension of time, in which lack of boundaries means that time has no beginning and no end, or it might the imaginary "dimension" in which ideas exist, where lack of boundaries means that there are an unlimited number of ideas, etc. Do you see where I'm coming from now? I'm asking you which of these dimensions you intend when you write of the Infinite.

[Sapius]

Robert: That which is boundless, boundaryless, void of all content yet which is all content and all potential.

In my opinion, once we even imagine the word “that….”, we are necessarily thinking/talking about a ‘thing’, and that necessarily means some “thing” that possess some content/meaning, otherwise we cannot even imagine it. Further more, to then think that that “thing” is void of all content AND YET IS all content and potential, seems to mean logic has left the building. Either we have to go by logic OR faith, I don't think it can be both.

Well... I don’t know… please do continue though.

[guest_of_logic]

Agreed wholeheartedly, Sap, except that I don't believe that faith and logic are mutually exclusive. Welcome back from another of your many adventures too.