tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7563451968059931498.post8445428284662232866..comments2023-06-13T09:35:04.588-04:00Comments on that atheist guy's blog: Pantheismthat atheist guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16091786187162784705noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7563451968059931498.post-52958088659950624812008-06-20T18:07:00.000-04:002008-06-20T18:07:00.000-04:00JK wrote:"That is a startling admission."How would...JK wrote:<BR/><BR/>"That is a startling admission."<BR/><BR/>How would I know if an act is evil or the result of psychosis? Maybe an absolute good and evil do exist, but I don't have any evidence to say if they do. In everyday language I might say a criminal was "evil" because he caused undue suffering. The same problem exists for other subjective judgments. I might call a certain painting "beautiful", but does that mean an absolute beauty exists?<BR/><BR/>Another point of difference behind this discussion is that I don't believe free will exists, although it is a useful fiction to set up a justice system.<BR/><BR/>Again, such absolutes might exist, but I don't think it would require the existence of a god.<BR/><BR/>"You have to exist to have a feeling about yourself."<BR/><BR/>I think our problem here is how we are defining "I" and "you". I'm saying the "you" in the statement above IS that feeling. Like the dreamer who is having a dream that he is a bear. Something exists in reality (the dreamer), but the "I" which the dream bear says in statements like "I am a bear" is just an illusion. That "I" is just a feeling of bear-self, but it is not the true self.that atheist guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16091786187162784705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7563451968059931498.post-82057278479587960382008-06-19T22:24:00.000-04:002008-06-19T22:24:00.000-04:00TAG,“Yes, but that is the best I can do.”That is a...TAG,<BR/><BR/>“Yes, but that is the best I can do.”<BR/><BR/>That is a startling admission.<BR/><BR/>“I don't know of any ways to find absolute standards, and as you know, I don't trust religious claims about such absolutes.”<BR/><BR/>But if you look atg how you react when people wrong you, you might find a clue that there are some moral absolute that are universal in and of themselves. The absolutes are evidence for an Absolute who can be the basis for them.<BR/><BR/>“I think the undeniable statement should be "This feeling of self exists."”<BR/><BR/>You have to exist to have a feeling about yourself.<BR/><BR/>JKJ. K. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02329537522697826005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7563451968059931498.post-75514041399439954512008-06-19T15:47:00.000-04:002008-06-19T15:47:00.000-04:00JK wrote:"You are just giving a definition of evil...JK wrote:<BR/><BR/>"You are just giving a definition of evil as abnormal behavior, not an absolute standard."<BR/><BR/>Yes, but that is the best I can do. I don't know of any ways to find absolute standards, and as you know, I don't trust religious claims about such absolutes.<BR/><BR/>"The thing about the propositoin / thought "I exist" is that the statement is undeniable. You have to exist in order to deny your own existence. Undeniable statements are true based on the fact you can't deny them."<BR/><BR/>I think you are referring to a previous discussion we had. The problem here is we might be deluded about the true nature of our existence. In a lucid dream, I might think I'm a talking bear saying "I exist". Yes "something" real exists (the dreamer in this example) but the bear-self is an illusion.<BR/><BR/>I think the undeniable statement should be "This feeling of self exists."that atheist guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16091786187162784705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7563451968059931498.post-6264819549156858602008-06-18T20:54:00.000-04:002008-06-18T20:54:00.000-04:00TAG,Sentence above should read "Not an absolute st...TAG,<BR/><BR/>Sentence above should read "Not an absolute standard." Sorry for the typo.<BR/><BR/>JKJ. K. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02329537522697826005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7563451968059931498.post-71169343374381872242008-06-18T20:52:00.000-04:002008-06-18T20:52:00.000-04:00TAG,An explaination for where evil comes from does...TAG,<BR/><BR/>An explaination for where evil comes from does not account for the sense of injustice I feel when I am wronged. You are just giving a definition of evil as abnormal behavior, and an absolute standard.<BR/><BR/>The thing about the propositoin / thought "I exist" is that the statement is undeniable. You have to exist in order to deny your own existence. Undeniable statements are true based on the fact you can't deny them.<BR/><BR/>JKJ. K. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02329537522697826005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7563451968059931498.post-44509126281399664872008-06-18T08:14:00.000-04:002008-06-18T08:14:00.000-04:00Linda:Time (and motivation) for blogging comes in ...Linda:<BR/><BR/>Time (and motivation) for blogging comes in waves so that's why my comments and posts are so sporadic.<BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/>"Is that something like “less false”?"<BR/><BR/>I think so. But I rather not mix quantifiers like "less" with binary descriptors like "false". But just this once: Are Newton's theories false? A little bit, but much less false than Aristotle's!<BR/><BR/>"And perhaps you are inadvertently stating that simpler times allowed for higher knowledge and deeper understanding?"<BR/><BR/>Nah, they were just wrong! (But I don't think they were stupid. Of course they had a deeper understanding about surviving in the natural world than modern people.)<BR/><BR/>--<BR/><BR/>Thanks for reading the post JK. You wrote:<BR/><BR/>"You sound as if you think that we Christians believe we have God all figured out."<BR/><BR/>I did not mean to give that impression. I'm speaking from the agnostic/atheist position where nothing is known about God. As you say, the theist believes the finite cannot know the infinite, but they do claim to know some things. Those things are still a lot more than what the agnostic/atheist claims to know (= zero).<BR/><BR/>"Jesus was a human being in all respects. He was also God in all respects."<BR/><BR/>I looked at the link, but I still don't get it. I don't know how anyone can get it since it is claimed to be a mystery. <BR/><BR/>"I have given evidence at length elsewhere."<BR/><BR/>Yes, and again I've given the wrong impression. I know Christians have heaps of evidence that they find convincing. However we disagree over what is considered good evidence. This topic came up at this other blog:<BR/>http://parentingbeyondbelief.com/blog/?p=252<BR/><BR/>"(Atheism doesn’t allow for real evil either.)"<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure why "real" evil is necessary. I don't think it is easy to define "good" and "evil" in any world view. How about other hard to define words like "art". What is art? Do atheistic and theistic world views both allow for real art? Even simple nouns like "tree" can get tricky. Is a shrub a tree? How about a tall bush? Does God know what a real tree is?<BR/><BR/>Maybe you don't see an atheistic concept of evil as being "real", but it's not cloaked in any mystery either. "Evil" people have improperly wired brains due to combinations of genetic predispositions, abusive upbringing, or some kind of sickness or brain damage. (There is some "mystery" in the sense of not knowing the exact causes which can be very complicated.)<BR/><BR/>"It shows that the pantheist position is not logical."<BR/><BR/>Aren't all presuppositions (axiomatic statements) not "logical" because they are taken as self evident?<BR/><BR/>Is the Trinity logical? I don't think so because it is always called a mystery. I'm sure the pantheist can also say his claim that "God is all" is also a mystery.<BR/><BR/>--<BR/><BR/>PS: I see you quoted at the beginning an embarrassing spell-checker defying typo of mine. "here" instead of "hear". I'm going to fix that. I blame my stupid phingers!that atheist guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16091786187162784705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7563451968059931498.post-31829417383904801902008-06-17T22:48:00.000-04:002008-06-17T22:48:00.000-04:00Hey TAG,“I believe or know the particular nature o...Hey TAG,<BR/><BR/>“I believe or know the particular nature of God. (Christianity, Islam, etc.)”<BR/><BR/>You sound as if you think that we Christians believe we have God all figured out. That is far from the case. We know some things about God, some from nature, some from Christ’s revelation of His nature. But to say we comprehend His nature, or even know it in its particulars, that is beyond what we claim. The finite cannot comprehend the infinite.<BR/><BR/>“..I think the same criticism can be directed at Geisler's own religion though since I always here talk about God (Yahweh) and his mysterious ways.”<BR/><BR/>Just because we Christians can’t know everything about Him doesn’t mean that we can’t know something about Him. The pantheist knows nothing at all.<BR/><BR/>“…I also don't understand how Jesus could be unchanging. Didn't he have a brain which grew and changed over time developing memories and learning new things?”<BR/><BR/>Jesus was a human being in all respects. He was also God in all respects. He laid aside His position and took on human nature. He was a human being. As such He could change in the ways you describe. Here’s a better answer:<BR/><BR/>http://www.ligonier.org/questions_answered.php?question_id=8<BR/><BR/>“Anyway, there is no evidence for either of these ideas.”<BR/><BR/>I have given evidence at length elsewhere. We have reason to believe in a God. We have reason to believe that we have historical accounts of Christ’s life. Those accounts give us ample evidence that Christ spoke for the God who is. The miracles Christ worked, including His resurrection, speak to the truth of what He said. The evidence abounds.<BR/><BR/>“…I don't think any religion adequately explains evil and suffering. I suppose as a Christian philosopher Geisler blames suffering, in part, on a fallen creation. I don't see how that is satisfying, let alone being supported by evidence.”<BR/><BR/>Christianity explains the existence of evil. Real evil. The kind of evil at work in the atrocities of history and the present time. Christianity cannot explain evil, but it at least allows evil to be evil. <BR/><BR/>Pantheism does not allow for evil at all. If all is one and all is GOD, then GOD is everything we find in the world. What we see just is. There is no difference between good and evil. Evil, in this sense, is not really evil. (Atheism doesn’t allow for real evil either.)<BR/><BR/>“…He also writes, "What is more, statements that include everything, such as “God is All,” are vulnerable to the charge that they say nothing."<BR/><BR/>I agree with that. But the pantheist would respond that it doesn't disprove his position either.”<BR/><BR/>It shows that the pantheist position is not logical. It makes any statement that advocates the pantheist’s position irrational in the strict sense of the word.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Still praying for you,<BR/><BR/>JKJ. K. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02329537522697826005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7563451968059931498.post-69593936908868881902008-06-17T09:30:00.000-04:002008-06-17T09:30:00.000-04:00Hello TAG!I like your periodic hit-and-run on my b...Hello TAG!<BR/><BR/>I like your periodic hit-and-run on my blog. :-) Thanks for stopping by.<BR/><BR/><I>"I suspect the true nature of reality is completely different from any human religion."</I><BR/><BR/>I totally agree.<BR/><BR/><I>"Ancient people weren't just wrong, they were at a completely lower level of ignorance, incapable of even imagining anything close to our current conception of the world."</I><BR/><BR/><I>Lower level of ignorance</I>… hmmm… interesting phrase. Is that something like “less false”? And perhaps you are inadvertently stating that simpler times allowed for higher knowledge and deeper understanding? ;-)Lindahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18189439677913352055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7563451968059931498.post-59738019242096036132008-06-11T11:34:00.000-04:002008-06-11T11:34:00.000-04:00That web site is interesting, and I'd like a highe...That web site is interesting, and I'd like a higher resolution version of that graphic showing the hierarchy of gods/powers. But, like I said below, all those ideas are firmly at level 4 of my epistemological ladder because they make so many specific claims about the nature of God and reality. Where is the evidence? Why should I believe that model over another?that atheist guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16091786187162784705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7563451968059931498.post-26695914465244254372008-06-11T10:59:00.000-04:002008-06-11T10:59:00.000-04:00Perhaps you will find this description of a panent...Perhaps you will find this description of a panentheistic world interesting http://www.sentforlife.com/worldorg.htm . Here you may understand how 'God' can be personal as well as pantheistic. Even the problem of evil can be explained to some degree.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com