Do YOU believe in God?

[Guest GhostRanger]

That acceptance trumps the requirement of faith.

 

 

 

That's a basic premise. It's only relevant depending on the topic at hand - and considering the topic at hand is to question that premise, there are no grounds for it. Once again, your logic, your reasoning - only takes you so far. Eventually you have to say "this is wrong, and this is right - because I believe it." You have to define wrong and right based on your own personal belief.

 

 

 

As Astra was trying to say, your logic only works for your own beliefs. I can logically show how giving to the poor could be wrong, and someone else could logically show how it's right. When it comes down to it - logic has nothing to do with it - it's your own personal belief on what is right, and what is wrong.

 

 

 

LetÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s take your giving to the poor example. If both individuals had the same methodology and the same information available the conclusion would be the same. If they drew separate conclusions then they did not follow the same methodology or they had different information available to them.

 

 

 

That's not true. Logic can prove multiple conclusions with the same evidence. If you don't know this - you know very little about logical argumentation. Logic and evidence can point to where you want it to.

 

 

 

As far as the first part of your response, you are simply starting over again even after I just walked you through the entire process. I have shown how my logic can take me the entire way. You pulled out the last part of my post which was the conclusion. If you want to know how I arrived at that statement please read the rest of the post.

 

 

 

Your conclusion was not proven. That was the problem. You logically walked through it but then you used the word "right" and "wrong" without defining it. You can't logically define it. It's your own defintion. Your conclusion made a leap that went beyond logic - and therefore, you didn't define right and wrong with logic.

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

 

 

On you saying you already proved it - you said

 

 

 

right is the outcome that will further my position, and wrong is the one that will hinder it.

 

 

 

You yourself defined right and wrong there. Someone else might disagree with that - and because of that, you didn't use logic to decide right and wrong - you decided that "right" is furthering your position and "wrong" is hindering it. Logic can't prove that - that's your own personal belief.

[Godzira]

So what your trying to say is that there is someone in the world who wants things to go badly?

[Ultralord]

if evolution is real... why is there still monkies? on this point i actually got detention because i argued with my science teacher on this point.

 

 

 

Because humans didn't evolve from monkeys :wall:

 

(I wish thereÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s an emoticon of someone hammering a nail into their brain via the nose, because thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s how I feel when I see comments like these)

 

 

 

That's what I was tought. Then again, I never thought my science teacher was very bright... :-k

 

 

 

But one thing I need clearence on... If humans didn't evolve from monkies, then what did they evolve from? Monkies are the closest thing to humans.

[Guest GhostRanger]

So what your trying to say is that there is someone in the world who wants things to go badly?

 

 

 

To answe that question directly, yes. But that's irellevant. What people want has nothing to do with right is - unless that's your definition. And if it is - that is the definition you believe in - it can't be proven logically. Eventually, you just have to say "this is what right is, and this is what wrong is, and it's because I believe that."

 

 

 

Your definition of right might very well be, "further yourself" and your definition of wrong might be "hindering yourself," and you might be able to logically show why you like and dislike those things. But that doesn't prove how one is right and one is wrong. You have to decide that based on what you believe.

[pianofrieak2]

Ok, you've explained your reasoning very well, but you still haven't told me why your reasoning can be trusted to be accurate? How do you know that you are perceiving and interpreting the evidence accurately?

 

 

 

I'm not trying to disprove the merit of logic, my point, as Ghost's point was earlier, is to show that every system of thought, when you go to the most basic level, is built on unproven assumptions. You assume that your logic is trustworthy. I assume that God exists and His word is trustworthy. You assume that your view is better than mine because it is grounded in logic, rather than in faith. My point is that your logic is also grounded in faith.

 

 

 

Believe it or not this is not my first run in with the philosophical reductionism debate. So, instead of reducing for another three pages, lets drop right to the bottom. Perhaps everything I know is flawed and nothing exists other than in my own consciousness. If that be the case it is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because the things I perceive are still my reality and thus the way I interact with that reality is still valid. So you see, I would need faith if I wanted to believe that everything around me is real as it appears. However faith is not required because real or not I accept it as my reality. That acceptance trumps the requirement of faith.

 

 

 

I'm sorry to go back a page, but since this is my first time with the philosophical reductionism debate, let me ask you a question. You seem to be an expert in the subject. :)

 

 

 

How do you "know" that you can't "know" anything? That would mean that you have known everything and know enough to know that you can't know anything which is, of course, contradictory. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the theory, but that's what it seems to be to me.

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

 

 

And evilperson, check your PMs. I don't want any confusion of people thinking it's that time of month yet.

[Godzira]

Ok, you've explained your reasoning very well, but you still haven't told me why your reasoning can be trusted to be accurate? How do you know that you are perceiving and interpreting the evidence accurately?

 

 

 

I'm not trying to disprove the merit of logic, my point, as Ghost's point was earlier, is to show that every system of thought, when you go to the most basic level, is built on unproven assumptions. You assume that your logic is trustworthy. I assume that God exists and His word is trustworthy. You assume that your view is better than mine because it is grounded in logic, rather than in faith. My point is that your logic is also grounded in faith.

 

 

 

Believe it or not this is not my first run in with the philosophical reductionism debate. So, instead of reducing for another three pages, lets drop right to the bottom. Perhaps everything I know is flawed and nothing exists other than in my own consciousness. If that be the case it is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because the things I perceive are still my reality and thus the way I interact with that reality is still valid. So you see, I would need faith if I wanted to believe that everything around me is real as it appears. However faith is not required because real or not I accept it as my reality. That acceptance trumps the requirement of faith.

 

 

 

I'm sorry to go back a page, but since this is my first time with the philosophical reductionism debate, let me ask you a question. You seem to be an expert in the subject. :)

 

 

 

How do you "know" that you can't "know" anything? That would mean that you have known everything and know enough to know that you can't know anything which is, of course, contradictory. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the theory, but that's what it seems to be to me.

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

 

 

And evilperson, check your PMs. I don't want any confusion of people thinking it's that time of month yet.

 

 

 

The argument goes that it is possible that everything that we believe is true is in fact an illusion created by our consciousness. This is troubling for some people because it shakes the very foundations of existence and yet it cannot be proven to be false.

[Godzira]

So what your trying to say is that there is someone in the world who wants things to go badly?

 

 

 

To answe that question directly, yes. But that's irellevant. What people want has nothing to do with right is - unless that's your definition. And if it is - that is the definition you believe in - it can't be proven logically. Eventually, you just have to say "this is what right is, and this is what wrong is, and it's because I believe that."

 

 

 

Your definition of right might very well be, "further yourself" and your definition of wrong might be "hindering yourself," and you might be able to logically show why you like and dislike those things. But that doesn't prove how one is right and one is wrong. You have to decide that based on what you believe.

 

 

 

 

 

I would be interested in knowing how you propose our personal beliefs are formed, since you do not accept my explanation.

[Guest GhostRanger]

I would be interested in knowing how you propose our personal beliefs are formed, since you do not accept my explanation.

 

 

 

By what you believe. Things might affect what you believe - but they can't prove any type of morality. Ultimately, it's just what you believe. How you feel.

 

 

 

For instance, if I saw a homeless person on the street I would feel bad for them. There are several logical reasons I would feel bad - they don't have money, they probably don't have any food... but there are several people who would pass by and feel that it's their own fault that they are homeless and on the street. Ultimately, it's how we feel and what we believe that determines right and wrong, good and bad.

[pianofrieak2]

Godzira, I understand that about philosophical reductionism. How would you answer my questions?

 

 

 

Also, if everything is created by our consciousness, then is our thinking created by our consciousness? How do you know what your thoughts are reducing to be true?

 

 

 

Hmm...seems to be completely illogical.

[Death_By_Pod]

Godzira, I understand that about philosophical reductionism. How would you answer my questions?

 

 

 

Also, if everything is created by our consciousness, then is our thinking created by our consciousness? How do you know what your thoughts are reducing to be true?

 

 

 

Hmm...seems to be completely illogical.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

 

also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision_making

 

How do you know your thoughts on religion are reducing to be true either? Science never makes any claims of infallibility.

 

 

 

Btw. Godzira I've never heard of that term "philosophical reductionism," a similar sort of idea is that the only thing we can not doubt is our own doubt; which is a Descartes type of reductionism.

[Godzira]

I would be interested in knowing how you propose our personal beliefs are formed, since you do not accept my explanation.

 

 

 

By what you believe. Things might affect what you believe - but they can't prove any type of morality. Ultimately, it's just what you believe. How you feel.

 

 

 

For instance, if I saw a homeless person on the street I would feel bad for them. There are several logical reasons I would feel bad - they don't have money, they probably don't have any food... but there are several people who would pass by and feel that it's their own fault that they are homeless and on the street. Ultimately, it's how we feel and what we believe that determines right and wrong, good and bad.

 

 

 

We are not born with either a lack of belief or belief itself. Our ideas of what we believe to be right or wrong come from one of two places, both of which are external to ourselves.

 

 

 

The most obvious way that we begin to form our beliefs is by simply participating in the human experience. Merely by holding consciousness we are taking in information that will be incorporated into our beliefs. Our instincts manifest themselves as desires and fears, not only in the basic sense but it more refined ways as well. Yet, these instincts are only perceptual guides and not beliefs in their own right as they no more than guide us toward the interactions that truly form our experiences.

 

 

 

The second way that a determination can be made about right and wrong is through the guidance of another human institution such as religion or a set social structure.

 

 

 

When it comes to my own beliefs about right and wrong I do not accept the second way as valid. My reason for refusing this form of determining right and wrong is that it is nothing more than the first process executed by other individuals. Seeing as the first process is unavoidable in the equation I would much rather use my own logic, reason, and human experience to determine my beliefs about right and wrong since it is more likely to be suitable to me, having been structured from my own experience.

[Godzira]

Godzira, I understand that about philosophical reductionism. How would you answer my questions?

 

 

 

Also, if everything is created by our consciousness, then is our thinking created by our consciousness? How do you know what your thoughts are reducing to be true?

 

 

 

Hmm...seems to be completely illogical.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

 

also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision_making

 

How do you know your thoughts on religion are reducing to be true either? Science never makes any claims of infallibility.

 

 

 

Btw. Godzira I've never heard of that term "philosophical reductionism," a similar sort of idea is that the only thing we can not doubt is our own doubt; which is a Descartes type of reductionism.

 

 

 

Philosophical reductionism is term I have used for years to label reductionism that focuses on more of a question of perception. Descartes tried to reduce his thought processes while I am decomposing perceptual reality. Thus philosophical reductionism is a better fit to describe the topic at hand though only narrowly.

 

 

 

Just as an interesting side note, my first encounters with reductionism were scientific not philosophical. Quite humorous how alike they are.

[Godzira]

Godzira, I understand that about philosophical reductionism. How would you answer my questions?

 

 

 

Also, if everything is created by our consciousness, then is our thinking created by our consciousness? How do you know what your thoughts are reducing to be true?

 

 

 

Hmm...seems to be completely illogical.

 

 

 

 

 

The only thing we could ever know to be true is our thoughts here and now and only because we are experiencing it. Even the nature of that experience is in question.

[logic-is-overrated]

^^Being the intellectual layman that I am, I can't join in that discussion.^^

 

 

 

But I do have more questions for the christians of the forum. I have just finished reading "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine. Basically, he wants to prove that the Bible is "the word of man" not "the word of God" by using nothing but the Bible. In his work, he examines various books of the Bible and makes various claims. I don't follow him completely on a lot of his claims (such as Chronicles being older than Genesis). But some, I do find to be logical and one in particular I have a question about. This:

 

Having premised these things, I proceed to examine the authenticity of the Bible, and I begin with what are called the five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. My intention is to show that those books are spurious, and that Moses is not the author of them; and still further, that they were not written in the time of Moses, nor till several hundred years afterward; that they are no other than an attempted history of the life of Moses, and of the times in which he is said to have lived, and also of the times prior thereto, written by some very ignorant and stupid pretenders to authorship, several hundred years after the death of Moses, as men now write histories of things that happened, or are supposed to have happened, several hundred or several thousand years ago.

"The Age of Reason" can be found free online and only takes a couple hours to read (5 or 6 maybe if you go through and try to look up the scriptures and try to piece together everything he's talking about); so if you don't agree with what he says about the Torah at least have read why he comes to that conclusion. (To be honest I don't think it would hurt you much to skip part 1)

 

 

 

If you accept his claims that the author of the Torah is unknown then you basically have an anonymous book that has no authority to confirm anything that was written in it.

 

 

 

I am not an expert in anything so I could only validate his reasoning as far as I could by following the scriptures he referenced. Saying that, here's my point: Do you accept his claims about the Pentateuch? If not, why? If so, how does this affect your view of the Bible knowing the foundation it rests upon has been stripped of any authority?

[Death_By_Pod]

 

Philosophical reductionism is term I have used for years to label reductionism that focuses on more of a question of perception. Descartes tried to reduce his thought processes while I am decomposing perceptual reality. Thus philosophical reductionism is a better fit to describe the topic at hand though only narrowly.

 

 

 

Just as an interesting side note, my first encounters with reductionism were scientific not philosophical. Quite humorous how alike they are.

 

 

 

It took me way too long to understand your post. Hint: don't use big words when you don't need to, especially words that you made up.

 

 

 

Of course philosophical and scientific reductionism is going to be similar; they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t share the word ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâreductionismÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ for nothing.

[Rose_2_Pure]

if evolution is real... why is there still monkies? on this point i actually got detention because i argued with my science teacher on this point.

 

 

 

Because humans didn't evolve from monkeys :wall:

 

(I wish thereÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s an emoticon of someone hammering a nail into their brain via the nose, because thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s how I feel when I see comments like these)

 

 

 

That's what I was tought. Then again, I never thought my science teacher was very bright... :-k

 

 

 

But one thing I need clearence on... If humans didn't evolve from monkies, then what did they evolve from? Monkies are the closest thing to humans.

 

 

 

We evolved from homosapiens I think and monkeys evolved from some other kind of ape. I wouldn't know though I'm just guessing.

[Godzira]

We are HomoSapiens. One of the earliest candidates that we have was a bipedal ape named Australopithecus Africanus. Though not a human, thus no H0m0 in the name, Australopithecus was bipedal and most likely was a user of natural tools. However, it is not considered a tool user because it did not manufacture any forms of primitive tools.

[Godzira]

 

Philosophical reductionism is term I have used for years to label reductionism that focuses on more of a question of perception. Descartes tried to reduce his thought processes while I am decomposing perceptual reality. Thus philosophical reductionism is a better fit to describe the topic at hand though only narrowly.

 

 

 

Just as an interesting side note, my first encounters with reductionism were scientific not philosophical. Quite humorous how alike they are.

 

 

 

It took me way too long to understand your post. Hint: don't use big words when you don't need to, especially words that you made up.

 

 

 

Of course philosophical and scientific reductionism is going to be similar; they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t share the word ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâreductionismÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ for nothing.

 

 

 

My apologies, most of my debating takes place on other forums and the term itself we derived out of necessity during one of these debates as a way to differentiate two separate forms of reductionism. I guess I had become used to it. #-o

[my_pet_worm]

I was considering joining this discussion again, but as soon as I saw 'Philosophical reductionism', I ran, no, I sprinted.

[Paddeeh]

I think its a question no person can truly answer.

 

 

 

People may say "Yes I believe in God with my whole heart" but can anyone truly say that they have not thought of the possibility of Genisis being a false story, and that somehow there really was a "Big Bang", created from nothing.

 

 

 

Others may say "God?! There is no such thing, scientific fact is my religon!" I truly believe that no-one here could say they have never thought "But what if I'm wrong, I will cast into Hell forever."

 

 

 

 

 

Then a small number of you will say "I believe in nothing at all!" Hah, if only. Every single person in this world believes in something that created us, and can destroy us. If there is anyone who thinks differently, three words "Bring it on."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By the Way, incase you were wondering, I believe in the "Big Bang" theory.

[sheepdean]

i believe that humans are so conceited they need to be assured that they are the most superior beings in creation, after a god who looks just like them of course. while there may be a superior entity, i honestly doubt they give two hoots about one paticular species on one paticular planet in one paticular galaxy

[pianofrieak2]

^^Being the intellectual layman that I am, I can't join in that discussion.^^

 

 

 

But I do have more questions for the christians of the forum. I have just finished reading "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine. Basically, he wants to prove that the Bible is "the word of man" not "the word of God" by using nothing but the Bible. In his work, he examines various books of the Bible and makes various claims. I don't follow him completely on a lot of his claims (such as Chronicles being older than Genesis). But some, I do find to be logical and one in particular I have a question about. This:

 

Having premised these things, I proceed to examine the authenticity of the Bible, and I begin with what are called the five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. My intention is to show that those books are spurious, and that Moses is not the author of them; and still further, that they were not written in the time of Moses, nor till several hundred years afterward; that they are no other than an attempted history of the life of Moses, and of the times in which he is said to have lived, and also of the times prior thereto, written by some very ignorant and stupid pretenders to authorship, several hundred years after the death of Moses, as men now write histories of things that happened, or are supposed to have happened, several hundred or several thousand years ago.

"The Age of Reason" can be found free online and only takes a couple hours to read (5 or 6 maybe if you go through and try to look up the scriptures and try to piece together everything he's talking about); so if you don't agree with what he says about the Torah at least have read why he comes to that conclusion. (To be honest I don't think it would hurt you much to skip part 1)

 

 

 

If you accept his claims that the author of the Torah is unknown then you basically have an anonymous book that has no authority to confirm anything that was written in it.

 

 

 

I am not an expert in anything so I could only validate his reasoning as far as I could by following the scriptures he referenced. Saying that, here's my point: Do you accept his claims about the Pentateuch? If not, why? If so, how does this affect your view of the Bible knowing the foundation it rests upon has been stripped of any authority?

 

 

 

To be perfectly honest, I'm not a major source of knowledge on the Pentateuch, so I can't really answer your questions. I do know that Moses is credited with writing the first 5 books of the Old Testament even though it is not proven.

 

 

 

As for Chronicles being older than Genesis, I sincerely doubt that. But the Bible IS NOT written in chronological order. It's organized by sections. Poetry here, history here, prophecy here.

 

 

 

I'm sorry to be bashful in answering your questions but, like I said before, I'm not an expert in the Torah. But, really, I'm not the one that should get the most offended.

 

 

 

The Jews should! They base their ENTIRE religion on the first 5 books(and commentaries on those books of course).

 

 

 

logic, have you ever read books in favor of Christianity? You seem to be truly searching out there. May I recommend some and you tell me what you think?

 

 

 

1. New evidence that demands a verdict (Josh McDowell)

 

2. Mere Christianity (C.S. Lewis)

 

 

 

Mere Christianity is a pretty short read but it's so in depth that you have to keep reading it to get the full effect. Unless you're really smart, which you are, it might take you less time.

[Guest GhostRanger]

1. New evidence that demands a verdict (Josh McDowell)

 

2. Mere Christianity (C.S. Lewis)

 

 

 

Mere Christianity is a pretty short read but it's so in depth that you have to keep reading it to get the full effect. Unless you're really smart, which you are, it might take you less time.

 

 

 

It's short length wise, but I wouldn't say it's a short book. Mere Christianity is thick to read. :P

 

 

 

I would also recommend C.S. Lewis' Case for Christ. There are several authors out there who compile it with commentary.

[logic-is-overrated]

Before I begin let me say I am not an expert on evolution or anything close to it, I am not an expert on hebrew, or scripture origins or pretty much anything else so if I'm wrong on anything please let me know. My goal is not to bash any particular side, rather it is to clarify my knowledge so I can be sure what I believe is correct.

 

 

 

That being said, this post is to "theist evolutionists."

 

 

 

First let me define a few terms. When I say theist evolutionist, I mean somebody who believes in an intelligent designer (God) who uses "evolution" to accomplish what we see in biological history and the current biologicial system. The definition of evolution, as quoted from talk.origins archive:

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

<-If I'm correct, I believe it is accepted as fact that the process of evolution does occur. But throughout this post this is not what I will refer to when I say evolution. The definition of evolution, as it will apply to the times when I use the word is:

The belief that all species have descended from a common ancestor. As time went on, different lineages of organisms were modified with descent to adapt to their environments. Thus, evolution is best viewed as a branching tree or bush, with the tips of each branch representing currently living species. No living organisms today are our ancestors. Every living species is as fully modern as we are with its own unique evolutionary history. No extant species are "lower life forms," atavistic stepping stones paving the road to humanity.

To put it simply, we started with microscopic organisms and evolved to where we are today over hundreds of millions or billions of years or whatever.

 

 

 

If those definitions are not correct in anyway, again, let me know. But I am not trying to play semantics, I am simply using those words as placeholders for the meanings which I have applied to them.

 

 

 

Now to my main point: I believe the belief in evolution and the belief in the creation story as presented in the Bible, can in no way be reconciled. I believe it has to be one or the other and that theist evolutionists are, quite simply, mistaken. My goal is not to attack the theist evolutionist himself, just his belief. I will now attempt to explain why I believe such. As a side note: most of this will come from my KJV study bible.

 

 

 

Apart from the use of the word day in verses 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31, where it describes the days of creation, it is used in at least four ways in the first two chapters of Genesis: (1) the 12-hour period of daylight as opposed to night (vv. 14, 16, 18); (2) a solar day of 24 hours (v.14); (3) the period of light that began with the creation of light on the first day (v.5); and (4) the entire, six-day creative period (2:4). The day I refer to in this point is the one in 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31; the days which are used in reference to the creation. In these verses the original Hebrew has day translated into yom. Everywhere in the Pentateuch the word day when used (as in 1:5) with a definite article or numerical adjective means a solar day or a normally calibrated, 24-hour day. So according to the Biblical account of creation, God created the world in six literal days.

 

 

 

But lets go further.

 

 

 

1:11,12 -

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

It is quite obvious, that the fruit trees were created already functioning and bearing fruit. Just as animals and humans were created as already functioning and able to reproduce "after their kind."

 

 

 

If I'm wrong about anything please let me know and if you are a theist evolutionist please explain to me how they can be reconciled.

 

 

 

 

 

logic, have you ever read books in favor of Christianity?

I have read The Case for Faith and The Case for Christ but it's been awhile so I'll have to reread those. I've just received More than a Carpenter and Mere Christianity in the mail so I'll read those. And I should be getting New Evidence that Demands a Verdict and He Walks Among Us any day now.

[pianofrieak2]

logic you surprise me! I'm very impressed that you have taken the time to research the various beliefs. Great job, man! =D> I pray that through your readings, you will come to know the true God in a deeper way. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me.

 

 

 

As to your topic about theistic evolutionists, I couldn't agree more. Expect a reply from Ghostranger pretty soon though.