[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by randilover

It was the part where you said you have sufficiently explained your self. See my next point.

The issue I took with you reply was your ignoring or missing the part of my statement where I said "in my opinion." Your response didn't reflect that, IMO, crucial part of my statement, resulting in my snippy reply.

Originally Posted by randilover

Sure it can, but based on what? That is my point. You can’t have a methodology in a vacuum.

I've already cited a way to do this is another thread. It is a comprehensive moral philosophy that does not collapse upon itself. This is quite apparent to me. It is not to you. You disagree. I respect that. There is no resolution to this issue, so again we'll have to agree to disagree (we can wittle a number of these topics down pretty quickly).

Originally Posted by randilover

As far as moral law is concerned, I haven’t even brought up a belief system. I’m making the point that people as a whole stick to a moral law, therefore there must be a moral law giver. I haven’t come close to the Christian God when I talk about that.

This is the same posturing Behe did in his response to the Dover school district opinion. When you, I, and the world know you are arguing for the basis of a Christian God as the moral law giver, it is really a waste of time for you to pretend you are not, or ignore the fact you are. Why should I waste my time arguing against and "unknown" absolute souce of moral authority when I know the "unknown" absolute source of moral authority you are arguing for is the Christian God? Why not focus the conversation?

Originally Posted by randilover

Yes, it does. There’s not much you can say differently about it, if they believed that is right, what are you going to say to them? What greater form of morality are you going to appeal to? If you just say yours because it’s better, you have to explain what you mean by better, but to do so you are lining yours and there’s up against a larger standard. Who’s standard is that?

I'm not saying mine is better, and that is the end of it. I'm saying it is not logical to say that eradicating a minority is beneficial to society as a whole. Your only response to that is "well, the Germans thought so" and my response is the Germans' reasoning was erroneous.

Originally Posted by randilover

No, no, and no, but I can explain why. I was making the point that you cannot, based on what you are telling me about no absolute moral law. I quoted Chesterton before, the problem with believing in God is not that you are believing in nothing, but that you will wind up believing in anything. You have no logical argument as to why they were wrong and you were right.

I've already explained how I have come to my conclusion not using an abritrary belief system, but using logic.

Originally Posted by randilover

Hitler based his belief on Neitchze’s superman. He believed that Germany was superior because there they were, poised to take up that cause of superiority (over all other races, not just Jews), smarter and more technologically advanced than any other country or society on earth. Nature proves the strong survive, nature shuns equality, and therefore he could too. The problem was that, as Lewis said, he created men without chests. All physical strength, no heart.

You've repeatedly gone to the Neitchze well. Just because Hitler used Neitchze's philosophy for evil, does not justify the existience of a absolute moral authority. For the record, I agree with you here. Hitler was wrong.

Originally Posted by randilover

Don’t get mean about it. Let’s take a step back and tone things done here. My point is I don’t think you have explained why you should live your way and not any other way. That’s what I keep hitting on.

Because I'm quite sure I have explained it (not in this thread). You don't accept it. That's fine. I don't accept your philosophy either.

Originally Posted by randilover

Yes, but I’d never just offer than in and of itself as the reason why. It’s corroborative evidence, so to speak.

But corroborative evidence of a multitude of things. How much is that kind of evidence worth?

Originally Posted by randilover

Is there something you are thinking of specifically? I’m not sure where we’d be going with this one (other than off on a tangent). Billy Graham never preached a crusade saying you should act a certain way. Passover came before the law was given. Redemption is always put before change in behavior.

I'm thinking of the long Church history (both pre and post reformation, and both Catholic and Protestant post reformation) of Christians forcing (either overtly, or subtely) non-Christians to become Christians. It's not like Christians are known throughout the word of having a reputation of "we have a great religion here. Come join us if you like, but if not, no skin off our back." The history of Indian schools in this country and the recent Wedge Strategy are just two of a multitude of instances of Christians asserting, or attempting to assert their belief system onto a population.

Originally Posted by randilover

I actually said that above. Simply put, if there is no God, I can do what I want. I have no accountability. Man makes up his own rules. In the garden, the devil tempted Eve by stating, "God did not say…" He went on to say God doesn’t want you to do it because he knows you’ll be just like him if you do; in essence, be your own god. It’s been downhill ever since. It’s a pride thing. Man wants to be autonomous, on his own. Make his own rules, do what he wants. Problem is he find himself out there with no starting point, nothing to call home base.

Autonomy is not my motivation at all, since I already believe there is another logic based method to determine morality. I don't believe I get to walk around and wreak havoc just because I don't think there is a god.

Originally Posted by randilover

I’m not asking you to. I’ve never talked about "blindly" accepting something. I’m just trying to make the point that there is a rationality to it, it’s not like you check your brain at the door to a church. It’s a misconception that faith and rationality are in conflict with each other.

I understand and conceed that it is possible to come to the conclusion that one should believe in Christianity. Like countless issues in American polticial life, rational people can disagree. Rationality neither proves or disproves either side. However, from my point of view, from what I have experienced and seen, it is not possible for me to come to the same rational conclusion you have.

Originally Posted by randilover

(On a side note, having it be ridiculous or not isn’t really an issue, one of the arguments for Christianity is that is it is quite conceivably one of the most ridiculous things ever thought of, proving the point a man wouldn't have come up with it.)

I've never heard that theory before. However, I would submit that it was far less rediculous 2000 years ago, which would to a certain degree, dillute that argument.

Originally Posted by randilover

Me either, but I was proving my assertion that it is not a rational hang up to believe in a god. There are completely rational people who do, and people who were atheistic and then through reasoning came to believe in a god.

Agreed, but just because a number of people have come to that conclusion does not mean everyone eventually reaches that conclusion, nor would I agree it is the correct conclusion to reach.

Originally Posted by randilover

I’d agree with the revelation part, but not the tradition part. Jesus saved his harshest words for the traditionalists. They were the ones who crucified him, so you are in good company. As for the revelation part, I’m not sure what to say to that. That’s where you are, then so be it, I can respect that as a position. Would you explain why that is a hang up for you? Man to man I mean. I won’t attack you for it or anything. Just like to hear what you have to say.

Well, assuming we are on the same page of revelations, as I am talking about the divine conversations between people and God and them being a foundation for a religion. That, to me, is impossible to determine what is and what is not authentic. Joseph Smith anyone?

Originally Posted by randilover

I don’t think science is antagonistic to my side either. But again, I wanted to make the point that it’s not irrational to believe in a god. I just think the Christian one is right because of how it answers the questions and longings that I have.

That's where were disagree. Unless you are using the Behe definition of science, the science just isn't on your side and that is why we will have no reconsiliation. I can find it rational if you come at me with arguments of faith, but once science is brought into the equation, Christianity become irrational.

Originally Posted by randilover

See, I’ve said before that it is not a place or mental state or behavior, it’s a relationship. I could not scientifically prove to you my wife. I could show you a birth certificate, a driver’s license, pictures of our wedding (man, did she look beautiful), etc. But that still wouldn’t prove to you she exists. But I could then talk to you about how much she means to me, how after I met her, she changed my life. How I love her qualities, like her driving pursuit of honesty and transparency, how great of a mother she is, her beauty, etc. We’d be a little closer, but you’d still have the potential to doubt. There’d have to be a point where you’d have to either say, "Look, I really believe your wife exists, can I meet her" or, "I believe she really could exist, but if so I’m not interested in meeting her." Faith is like that. I have some driver’s licenses, birth certificates, so to speak, and I am telling you that I have met that person and how beautiful his character is. But at some point there is a place where all that doesn’t matter because you’ll need to do the relating to, or at least let the evidence stand that that person could be there.

This goes to Smith's comments on the difference between proving something historically, and proving something scientifically. You can't prove scientifically that she does exist, similarly you can't prove scientifically that God exists (not yet anyway). You could prove to me sufficiently to satisfy me belief that your wife does exist by giving me at least anecdotal evidence that she does exist (stories, pictures, etc) that assuming I trust the source I would be convinced she did exist. But science doesn't enter the equation. It is not a scientific question. Same with God. You can give me the evidence you have that I can look at and judge, but it is not a question of science. Science does not enter the equation. I have yet to see any kind of compelling evidence for God's existience, and so I remain unconvinced.

Originally Posted by randilover

Now, we can both go separate ways, I don’t look down on you, or consider you less of a person or anything (except when I beat you next season in SAC’D), but that is the nature of it. Yes it is faith, but that says a lot more than just blindly leaping.

Hey, I thought we were keeping this civil?

Originally Posted by randilover

Yeah, I bet. But just thinking, are you saying you have a clearer view of life right now, or will it be better when it has been lived out and you can see where you went wrong, where all the blind spots were you were unaware of? How actions from when you were younger hurt others, etc.?

As each year goes by I continue to see mistakes I have made. Time always allows oneself a better perspective on their live. However, when you have reached the almost certain end, that reflection is clouded by the unknown that is the long term future. That, in my opinion, cloud's one's judgement. At say the age of 50, someone who is in good health has the advantage of more years of self reflection to judge their life and come to conclusions more so than the same man at 40. At age 60, assuming continued good health, he'll be even better off to make those judgement. However, when he starts being affected by cancer, etc, and is near death and on top of a lifelong self introspection, he also has to determine what happens after he dies, he no longer has the ability to think and judge clearly. Fear as reared its ugly head. Fear of the unknown wasn't a factor (not immediately) at 40, 50, etc.

Originally Posted by randilover

No, but this seems like a distant tangent and these posts are long enough.

Too bad. I posed this same scenario to a good friend of mine who recently converted to Catholism, and who has in the passed presented me with Pascal's Wager. The problem boils down to people who think Pascals' Wager is compelling think there are only 4 scenarios, when in fact there are a multitude of posibilities. Pascal's Wager only accounts for a minority of them.