# Reading > Religious Texts >  What was before God? (or, Why did He wait so long?)

## Xamonas Chegwe

Here's a question for the religious out there. I'd like to know how you explain the fact that your religion (and I'm not singling out any in particular) has a definite historical beginning?

Christianity is just under 2,000 years old; Islam about 600 years younger; Buddhism around 2,500; Judaism is no more than 3,500 years old. Hinduism is closer to 4,000. As far as I know, no older religion has survived to any degree; the gods of the ancient Greeks, Norsemen and Egyptians have been devolved into quaint myths and legends.

Given that the human race is essentially the same physically (and presumably mentally) as it was tens of thousands of years ago, why were there no monotheistic religions prior to 1,000BC? Why did God 'wait' to reveal his plan until fairly recent times? What was the fate of those 'souls' that perished before your religion existed? Or for that matter, those that lived and died in a country that it hadn't yet reached? Surely, if God is as you claim, He is perfect and all knowing; He can't have 'changed His mind', can He?

Of course, as an atheist myself, I would say that this is because religion is a human construct; that as humanity gained knowledge and experience, they invented gods that also grew to match that knowledge. 

I would go further, but I'd be straying from the topic if I did. So I'll limit my questions to those I asked two paragraphs ago.

Any views?

----------


## Christian

The question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, "What does blue smell like?" Blue is not in the category of things that have odor. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created, or come into existence, or are caused. God is uncaused and uncreated - He simply exists.

How do we know this? Well, we know that from nothing, nothing comes. So if there was ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence then nothing would have ever come to exist. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been existing. That ever-existing thing is what we call God.

----------


## Unspar

Here's what most Christians or Jews would believe (though it might seem like a bit of a stretch for an atheist like yourself):

God created the world and universe and whatnot with everything in it and revealed himself to Adam and Eve _in the very beginning_. If you take that for true, God didn't wait for anything but has been part of the human experience since humans existed. He revealed Himself to Noah and Abraham as well, long before the Jewish religion took a foothold in the nation of Israel. God's been a part of His peoples' lives every step of the way, according to the Bible.

As far as why God "waited" to reveal Himself as Jesus Christ, that's a real toughy, and there's no good explanation because humans can't understand God's reasoning. This is a point where people believe in Jesus because of who He was and what He did, and that's pretty illogical considering the observable nature of the world. It's a leap of faith.

But to bring it more to a common ground, I'll try to answer your question in a secular way as well. The reason these religions didn't sprout until only a few thousand years ago would be because there was no written language until then. God could be rocking with Abraham for his whole life, but there was no way for Abraham to turn it into a major monotheistic religion because he couldn't very easily spread the word without it getting completely distorted. Written language allows for doctrine allows for religion.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

Christian,

You addressed the title of this thread, not the questions I asked in my opening post. If gos (and presumably Jesus) have always existed, why no christianity until 30AD (or there abouts)?

Unspar,

A better answer. But still you fall back on the old failsafe of "I don't know that, only god knows that." I'm afraid that that won't wash with us heathens. And, if god is as all-powerful as supposed, why was he limited to chatting with Abraham & Moses? Surely he could have spoken to people all over the world? And why did he tell them something different to what Jesus said less than 1,000 years later?

----------


## Charles Darnay

Here's the Jewish side to this argument... granted I don't believe much in all this myself, but I have often heard the stories. I look at religion through a writer's perspective - not a believer's.

Firstly, you're off with your dates. Abraham "lived" around 3000 - i think it was actually 2700BC - this was the start of a monotheistic religion. However, Abraham and his family later to come were simple nomadic people. they lived life by their beliefs without trying to spread them to others. Meanwhile, the Greeks and Egyptians were spreading their dieties around. 

The Jewish belief is that Christianity was a branch of Judiism. 30 AD, Jesus Christ - a Jewish carpener - dies and a buch of people beleive he was then resurected. They then form this whole new faith aroud this man - and his teachings (which he may or may not have). Christiantiy however, remained inferior to the Roman polytheistic religion, until 300 AD (I believe) when Constantine became emperor. He was a believer of Christianity and he began the whole reform.

So that is why the monotheistic beliefs did not enter into the books until very late. As for where they originated.... where did Abraham get this idea. I don't know, no one knows, and you will never get an answer to that question. Maybe there wasn't an Abraham - maybe there wasn't a Jesus Christ as Christians depict him - religious may be manmade (as I believe), but is based upon faith, giving people hope. Those who beleive, turly believe in religion, need not answer your question, becuase they can satisfy themselves with the fate that they have faith in God, God has always been there and that is that.

----------


## emily655321

I think the key, as Unspar very astutely pointed out, is the lack of written language. Someone didn't just sit down and write the Torah and invent Judaism; it was likely passed down through generations as a collection of oral tales. When writing developed, they got written down, and that's the earliest _evidence_ we have of Judaism. The tale of Moses and the Ten Commandments may very well have its roots in a primitive misunderstanding of the first written transcription of these tales.

"Hey, where's Moses?"
"Iunno. But he went up into the hills with a couple slabs of rock a while ago."
"What the heck for? Oh, wait, here he comes. Hey, there's stuff on the tablets now! Moses, what's that you got there?"
"The word of God."
"Ohhh..."
Later that day:
"Hey! I ran into Moses today, and he came down off the mountain, and he had these tablets, and God wrote on 'em!"
"Wow, cool!"

Anyway. The explanation I always heard growing up for Jesus' coming was that after a while people got God's rules all mixed up and started sinning too much again, the way they had when he flooded the Earth. But he already promised Noah he wouldn't kill everybody anymore, so this time he sent a messenger down instead, to set people right. I think the moral of this story is that killing everybody is way more efficient than talking. But then, I didn't pay much attention in CCD.

----------


## jon1jt

I REALLY REALLY LIKE THIS QUESTION XAMONAS! First, to CHRISTIAN: The question asked is about God's late emergence in the history of religion - Yahweh was first. Genesis places the Creation to be somewhere at around 10 or 14BC, and according to the available sources X listed, there IS no indication of God or any form of monotheistic practice before that time. I don't see a false assumption anywhere other than what we definitively know from the bible. You just dodged a very direct question. Even if X's assumption was that god came out of nothing. It came out of nothing anyway in judeo-christian text. 

UNSPAR SAYS:
"God "waited" to reveal Himself as Jesus Christ..." I don't need to quote further, but his assumption is we are to believe Jesus is god incarnate, which is a whole other issue. There are tons of books on that one. 

"This is a point where people believe in Jesus because of who He was and what He did, and that's pretty illogical considering the observable nature of the world. It's a leap of faith." We can all thank Kierkegaard for this "leap of faith" idea, which is a euphemism for "The Absurd." Because the leap of faith says just that: "Even though I know what I know to be absurd, I'm going to believe it anyway." Imagine if we applied this thinking to our daily lives?! 

"Of course, as an atheist myself, I would say that this is because religion is a human construct; that as humanity gained knowledge and experience, they invented gods that also grew to match that knowledge."

You are the first one I've encountered who is a self-proclaimed atheist, like me!!!!!!!
Most people love to use the more accepted "spiritual" label. The answer which follows is very reasonable and in line with the history of ideas. Consider that in Ancient Indian philosophy, and later Greek, there emerged the notion of the "One" and the tripartite self, which is why later Christian Fathers (Aquinas) stole Platonism and esp. Aristotlian philosophy, Aristotle, who called the notion of "God" as "Prime Mover" or "Unmoved Mover." Very convenient, isn't it? Yet, there is never any mention of the pre-Socratics and the rest of polytheistic history. 

I love the question that started this thread because it does exactly what I said in another thread, taking on Religion at its very foundation. And the question posed here shakes those foundations.

----------


## jon1jt

I'm A Heathen, Yes, Yes!!!

----------


## Unspar

To X, God says that He chose Abraham and Moses. He didn't chat up the rest of the world because He didn't want to, or maybe because there wasn't anyone in the rest of the world who would trust Him or listen to Him. That's my best guess, but it's all going to come down to that old "we can only know so much" idea.

To Jon, a leap of faith is not necessarily absurd. It's absurd if you know what you're leaping to doesn't exist. But if you suspect it exists, and you decide to give it a good college try, there's nothing absurd about that. The Theory of Relativity takes a leap of faith (Mass and time changing relative to speed? That's crazy!); Darwin's Theory of Evolution takes a leap of faith (If we evolved from something, what did we evolve from and where did that come from?). There's always going to be some tenet of our beliefs that we can't explain satisfactorily and must take a leap of faith.

As far as the Jesus thing, I was merely trying to explain what Christians believe in terms of God's choice of revelation to mankind. I'm not asking you to believe Jesus is God incarnate; I'm explaining that I do, and if you want to know where Christians come from, here it is.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"Given that the human race is essentially the same physically (and presumably mentally) as it was tens of thousands of years ago, why were there no monotheistic religions prior to 1,000BC?"

I agree that religious beliefs prior to the invention of writing can only be guessed at, so there may have been monotheists from the dawn of humanity.

Another plausible argument is that the shift to monotheism was associated with a social change from a matri-central society to a patriarchal society.

Neither of those views answers your questions from the point of view of any of the "Religions of the Book." From those you will have to be content with the old failsafe of "I don't know that, only god knows that." If you started from a theist position, that would be a sufficient answer. If you don't, no answer that actually involves God is likely to convince you. 

"What was the fate of those 'souls' that perished before your religion existed? Or for that matter, those that lived and died in a country that it hadn't yet reached?" There is not much milage in speculating about the fate of souls, whether in this life or beyond. In the religion to which I feel closest, however, the purpose of mankind is to assist God in opposing evil. A person need not hold to a religion or even know about one to fulfil this purpose - all that is necessary is to have a sense of right and wrong. Having this sense, those who try to promote what is right are fulfilling God's purpose, and those who oppose what they know to be right are denying God's purpose. What this means, in terms of the fate of their souls, God alone knows.

This may not bring us much further forward. We do not all appear to have the same view of right and wrong, so you could ask the question, "Why has God not enabled us all to see the correct view (i.e. His view) of right and wrong?" One religious answer is that, within this universe, there is Evil as well as good, and confusion and dissension are products of evil. Your assumption (expressed in such phrases as "if god is as all-powerful as supposed") that any God must, within this universe, be omnipotent, is not necessarily valid. I am comfortable with a dualist viewpoint, not a monotheist viewpoint. I take licence to contribute to this thread from your original post which rather mixed a tolerance of polytheist religions with the monotheist assumptions behind some of the questions.

----------


## Amra

Muslim perspective...

Allah s.v.t has sent over 120 000 prophets to human beings over the existence of human race. Every nation that existed had a Prophet who was sent to them to reveal God's message. The message was always the same, but it was changed and corrupted over time by human beings. The last Prophet, Mohammed a.s, was sent to be the seal of prophethood; to confirm all other revelations and Prophets, and to correct what was changed by humans. There will be no other prophets until the Judgment Day. So, it is not correct to assume that God waited, or didn't reveal Himself to human beings before, because He has done so from the first human being that He created.

----------


## Doctor Boogaloo

So basically, everything I need to know is in the Koran. And you guys have been trying to tell us this for years! Man, we really have to get our fingers out.
And, let's see... God sent 120,000 prophets loose amongst the rabble... and he only told them tiny little bits of the 'truth'... and he saved all the cool stuff for Mohammed. 
Okay.
I need a beer.

----------


## The Unnamable

Playing Puck the mischievous again, eh Xamonas? You know the answer  because God exists only as an idea. Not only that, but the idea is not a logical one, which is, in itself, turned into a virtue by the faithful. We cannot fathom the unfathomable wisdom of God, end of story. Such illogicality is allowed to run unchallenged because we must respect the views of others. 
You say that God is perfect and all-knowing. If God is omniscient and omnipotent, then there can be no free will. If I have a choice of two shirts to put on, God knows which I will choose. If He does, then I can only choose the one He knows I will choose. This means I do not have free will. If He doesnt know, then He isnt omniscient and omnipotent, which means He cant be God. No one has ever adequately explained this to me. I have been told that God knows your free will but this is typical of the evasions of the faithful. If I dont have free will, then how can I be morally responsible for anything I do? I couldnt do anything else.

----------


## Evergreenleaf

Maybe after Adam and Eve betrayed Him He got mad and decided not to talk to any people anymore, so they got their own weird ideas. After that He only talked to really, really good people, like Abraham, and so the religions began, when more and more good people spread what He was saying to them. 

I actually have no idea. I'm an atheist too.

----------


## Ryduce

I don't understand why we have these discussions,because the answers to these questions are unattainable.As for me,I will continue to believe in God because it gives me comfort in my existence.I do not know God,nor will I ever,but I refuse to accept that life ends with death.I don't know if we have free will or if we are pre-destined by the plans of God,but I do know that we are beings ultimately created from nothing and we have a conscious choice to choose between right and wrong,and I will try to live as right as possible even if it is certain that God infinitely knows my every thought,choice or action.



And I know that many of you are intellectually superior to me,so please don't rip my brain to shreds.

----------


## chef

WOW! that is so deep, i agree with you becasue you don't have to see something to know is there. It's llike air you don't see it but you know it's there, You can't see God but you know he is there becasue of FAITH!!!

----------


## Amra

> So basically, everything I need to know is in the Koran. And you guys have been trying to tell us this for years! Man, we really have to get our fingers out.


I didn't say that God only gave bits and pieces to other Prophets, but that those messages were corrupted and changed over time by human beings. The holy Qur'an is the last revelation to the last Prophet, and it contains the same message that was revealed to all other prophets. 




> You say that God is perfect and all-knowing. If God is omniscient and omnipotent, then there can be no free will. If I have a choice of two shirts to put on, God knows which I will choose. If He does, then I can only choose the one He knows I will choose. This means I do not have free will. If He doesnt know, then He isnt omniscient and omnipotent, which means He cant be God.


God knows everything because He is not limited by time or space. He knows what has happened, what will happen, and what is happening, because the relativity of time does not exist for Him. However, just because He knows something will happen, does not alter the fact that you have free will. He knows what you will decide, not because He is influencing your free will, but simply because He knows the future, and knows what your decision will be even before you yourself make it. There is no contradiction in this at all.

----------


## The Unnamable

> I don't understand why we have these discussions,because the answers to these questions are unattainable.As for me,I will continue to believe in God because it gives me comfort in my existence.I do not know God,nor will I ever,but I refuse to accept that life ends with death.I don't know if we have free will or if we are pre-destined by the plans of God,but I do know that we are beings ultimately created from nothing and we have a conscious choice to choose between right and wrong,and I will try to live as right as possible even if it is certain that God infinitely knows my every thought,choice or action.


There many questions to which there are no answers but we owe it to ourselves to continue asking them. Or perhaps it is just a compulsion that is an attempt to stave off the monumental boredom of everything. You state your position passionately and there is nothing much to be said in the face of faith. For me, to say that it gives you comfort is no different from saying the same about alcohol, drugs or your favourite Teddy bear. I dont know any of the things you mention either, but I will continue to wonder. The question of free will versus predestination is a tough one. If God does know your every thought, choice or action, then how can you be said to be responsible for any of them? They are already written and your behaviour must be compelled by Gods knowledge of what you will do. This comes as a huge relief to me  none of it is my fault; it was Gods will.

----------


## The Unnamable

> God knows everything because He is not limited by time or space. He knows what has happened, what will happen, and what is happening, because the relativity of time does not exist for Him. However, just because He knows something will happen, does not alter the fact that you have free will. He knows what you will decide, not because He is influencing your free will, but simply because He knows the future, and knows what your decision will be even before you yourself make it. There is no contradiction in this at all.


Of course theres a contradiction! If God knows what my decision is before I make it, then I can only make one decision  the one God knows. This limits my freedom to choose. You cannot explain this in terms of human reason and logic  you resort to saying that the rules dont apply for God. I also find it interesting that this boundless, infinite, unfathomable God, this God who is beyond all categorisation, is nevertheless male.

----------


## tiny explorer

> Of course theres a contradiction! If God knows what my decision is before I make it, then I can only make one decision  the one God knows. This limits my freedom to choose. You cannot explain this in terms of human reason and logic  you resort to saying that the rules dont apply for God. I also find it interesting that this boundless, infinite, unfathomable God, this God who is beyond all categorisation, is nevertheless male.


I don't think there is contradiction after all..it's as simple as He knows what our reaction on our life but he just lets us do things our own...Because if we do not have freedom to choose then why will He let YOU respectively make a post here questioning His significance??get it?if He limits you then why we are all arguing on this matter if He can make all choose one belief and faith..this explains how we're having freedom on our ways.And another thing, this topic will go a long way but after all, we still have the same question that won't be answered here...unless we believe that there reallyis the great God...Just wnt to share an answer of a child when his teacher asked that if God really exists where is He?The child said...Do you believe that you are intellectual ma'am?The teacher answered "yes" "Why Ma'am did you see intellectuality?"And this portays the big discusion here....  :Brow:

----------


## blp

> If God is omniscient and omnipotent, then there can be no free will. If I have a choice of two shirts to put on, God knows which I will choose. If He does, then I can only choose the one He knows I will choose. This means I do not have free will. If He doesnt know, then He isnt omniscient and omnipotent, which means He cant be God. No one has ever adequately explained this to me. I have been told that God knows your free will but this is typical of the evasions of the faithful. If I dont have free will, then how can I be morally responsible for anything I do? I couldnt do anything else.


Not only that, but you have no choice about whether to be a believer or not and God knows this, so why would you be punished for it?

----------


## blp

> I don't understand why we have these discussions,because the answers to these questions are unattainable.As for me,I will continue to believe in God because it gives me comfort in my existence.


What if comfort isn't really what you need, Ryduce?

----------


## jon1jt

> "Another plausible argument is that the shift to monotheism was associated with a social change from a matri-central society to a patriarchal society.
> 
> Neither of those views answers your questions from the point of view of any of the "Religions of the Book." From those you will have to be content with the old failsafe of "I don't know that, only god knows that." If you started from a theist position, that would be a sufficient answer. If you don't, no answer that actually involves God is likely to convince you. 
> 
> "What was the fate of those 'souls' that perished before your religion existed? Or for that matter, those that lived and died in a country that it hadn't yet reached?" There is not much milage in speculating about the fate of souls, whether in this life or beyond. In the religion to which I feel closest, however, the purpose of mankind is to assist God in opposing evil. A person need not hold to a religion or even know about one to fulfil this purpose - all that is necessary is to have a sense of right and wrong. Having this sense, those who try to promote what is right are fulfilling God's purpose, and those who oppose what they know to be right are denying God's purpose. What this means, in terms of the fate of their souls, God alone knows.
> 
> This may not bring us much further forward. We do not all appear to have the same view of right and wrong, so you could ask the question, "Why has God not enabled us all to see the correct view (i.e. His view) of right and wrong?" One religious answer is that, within this universe, there is Evil as well as good, and confusion and dissension are products of evil. Your assumption (expressed in such phrases as "if god is as all-powerful as supposed") that any God must, within this universe, be omnipotent, is not necessarily valid. I am comfortable with a dualist viewpoint, not a monotheist viewpoint. I take licence to contribute to this thread from your original post which rather mixed a tolerance of polytheist religions with the monotheist assumptions behind some of the questions.


One cliche afer another.

----------


## jon1jt

> I didn't say that God only gave bits and pieces to other Prophets, but that those messages were corrupted and changed over time by human beings. The holy Qur'an is the last revelation to the last Prophet, and it contains the same message that was revealed to all other prophets. 
> 
> 
> 
> God knows everything because He is not limited by time or space. He knows what has happened, what will happen, and what is happening, because the relativity of time does not exist for Him. However, just because He knows something will happen, does not alter the fact that you have free will. He knows what you will decide, not because He is influencing your free will, but simply because He knows the future, and knows what your decision will be even before you yourself make it. There is no contradiction in this at all.


More cliches.

----------


## jon1jt

> I also find it interesting that this boundless, infinite, unfathomable God, this God who is beyond all categorisation, is nevertheless male.



An anthropomorphic male, interesting, yes, isn't it? And if we were bumblebees, we'd be buzzing away in our hives to the omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient Bee!

----------


## jon1jt

> WOW! that is so deep, i agree with you becasue you don't have to see something to know is there. It's llike air you don't see it but you know it's there, You can't see God but you know he is there becasue of FAITH!!!


I swear, I'm moving to the woods! I gotta get away, seriously!

----------


## Amra

"Of course theres a contradiction! If God knows what my decision is before I make it, then I can only make one decision  the one God knows. This limits my freedom to choose. You cannot explain this in terms of human reason and logic  you resort to saying that the rules dont apply for God. "


God knows your free will. He knows what you will decide before you even think it. He knows what you will write next before you even write it. Does that affect you in any way? Certainly not. His knowledge of future has nothing to do with your free will. He didn't tell you to not believe in him, nor did He force you not to believe; He simply knows that you don't believe. I don't know why this is a hard concept to understand. To simplify, let's say you have a child who says "you are welcome" every time someone says "thank you" to him/her. Does you child not have a free will simply because you know the child will say "you are welcome" after you thank him/her? Of course not. And, let's say, you know that when your child is mad, he/she will refuse to say "you are welcome" and will instead look mad. Does your child not have a free will, simply because you know that when it is upset, it will refuse to say that to you? No. Well, imagine all this in a greater scale, and imagine God, who is not limited by time or space, and who knows EVERYTHING. Why does His knowledge affect you? He knows what will happen in the future, and He also knows what your free will will make you do, or not do. 

"I also find it interesting that this boundless, infinite, unfathomable God, this God who is beyond all categorisation, is nevertheless male."

He is not male. God doesn't have a gender. Muslims refer to God as Allah; and Allah in itself does not have a gender. It is unfortunate that because of our language limitations we resort to the resources we have, and assign Him a gender simply because we have to refer to Him in some way. It is best to not do that, but it would be pretty hard to talk about God without being forced to refer to him/her/it in that way.

----------


## Scheherazade

Unless you have something constructive to offer to the ongoing arguments, please don't post. Using cliche, 'put down' remarks do nothing in the way of moving the argument forward.

----------


## The Unnamable

> why will He let YOU respectively make a post here questioning His significance??


Because he doesnt exist.

So the answers to Xamonass questions, What was before God? (or, Why did He wait so long?) are People who needed a God and He had to wait for man to invent him.

----------


## The Unnamable

> God knows your free will. He knows what you will decide before you even think it. He knows what you will write next before you even write it. Does that affect you in any way? Certainly not. His knowledge of future has nothing to do with your free will. He didn't tell you to not believe in him, nor did He force you not to believe; He simply knows that you don't believe. I don't know why this is a hard concept to understand.


Dont assume that I find it hard to understand  I dont. I simply find it impossible to accept. There is a huge difference. Your explanation is a semantic conjuring trick and not even a convincing one. If he knows what I will write, then what I will write must already exist in his mind, even before it appears in mine. For me to produce something different from Gods knowledge of what I will write is, therefore, a logical impossibility. How is it therefore possible to say that I have free will? You also manage to make God seem rather menacing  as if he is daring me to reject him. What, according to your religion, will be the consequences for me (in both this life and the next) if I _dont_ believe? 




> To simplify, let's say you have a child who says "you are welcome" every time someone says "thank you" to him/her. Does you child not have a free will simply because you know the child will say "you are welcome" after you thank him/her? Of course not. And, let's say, you know that when your child is mad, he/she will refuse to say "you are welcome" and will instead look mad. Does your child not have a free will, simply because you know that when it is upset, it will refuse to say that to you? No. Well, imagine all this in a greater scale, and imagine God, who is not limited by time or space, and who knows EVERYTHING. Why does His knowledge affect you? He knows what will happen in the future, and He also knows what your free will will make you do, or not do.


This is a weak analogy. Firstly, why a child? Secondly, what sort of a human being can only respond you are welcome? Are you sure you dont mean a telephone answering machine? On what basis am I making the assumption that the child will only answer, or refuse to answer, you are welcome? I might _expect_ the child to say, "you are welcome" but that doesnt mean _I know_ it will. Your comparison is not the same as God knowing my every thought and action, unless God simply programs us like robots. That doesnt seem very much like free will, either.





> He is not male. God doesn't have a gender. Muslims refer to God as Allah; and Allah in itself does not have a gender.


Would you say that Allah has been endowed with predominantly male, female or neutral gender characteristics? I notice that you dont use She but He. Are they interchangeable?




> It is unfortunate that because of our language limitations we resort to the resources we have, and assign Him a gender simply because we have to refer to Him in some way. It is best to not do that, but it would be pretty hard to talk about God without being forced to refer to him/her/it in that way.


In the end, we come down to the claim that God is unknowable and that human logic cannot comprehend it/him/her/them. If you are happy with the contradictions I see, then thats your choice. But why is it necessary to assume that lack of understanding on behalf of those who dont accept those contradictions is the problem? My answer to Xamonass question is simple  because there is no God. I have many objections to the idea but picked a simple one on the basis of logic. There is nothing wrong with the reasoning  I am finally beaten by faith, not reason.

As this is a Literature Forum, we might expect people to be interested in human experiences as depicted in Art. Has anyone seen Krzysztof Kieslowskis _Dekalog_, based on the Ten Commandments? What I see in those films is Kieslowskis sympathy with the frail and flawed human beings who try to live by those rules. One of the stories is about a Mathematician and his seven-year-old son. Both of them are computer buffs and, with winter approaching, they take various measurements at the lake to calculate when the ice will be thick enough to withstand the weight of the boy. The father (a Professor, if I remember correctly) puts his faith in the capacity of the human mind, in Mathematics and Physics. Thats his faith. But the commandment relating to this episode is Thou shalt have no other Gods before me". You can imagine what happens. For me, the beauty of the film is not that there is any resolution of the theological issues; its in the nature of the depiction of their impact on our lives.

----------


## rachel

> I think the key, as Unspar very astutely pointed out, is the lack of written language. Someone didn't just sit down and write the Torah and invent Judaism; it was likely passed down through generations as a collection of oral tales. When writing developed, they got written down, and that's the earliest _evidence_ we have of Judaism. The tale of Moses and the Ten Commandments may very well have its roots in a primitive misunderstanding of the first written transcription of these tales.
>  
> "Hey, where's Moses?"
> "Iunno. But he went up into the hills with a couple slabs of rock a while ago."
> "What the heck for? Oh, wait, here he comes. Hey, there's stuff on the tablets now! Moses, what's that you got there?"
> "The word of God."
> "Ohhh..."
> Later that day:
> "Hey! I ran into Moses today, and he came down off the mountain, and he had these tablets, and God wrote on 'em!"
> ...


Oh Em, you are so priceless. Please write a book right now on the subject, I cannot wait to read it and Mel Brooks will be on your doorstep to publish it.
I being a Jew have never seen such insight! what a girl  :FRlol:

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> Playing Puck the mischievous again, eh Xamonas?


Playing? Maybe "I am that merry wanderer of the night."  :Wink: 

Interesting point about the gender of god. I always thought that Allah _was_ a masculine word but apparently this is debatable - this from Wiki:




> Many linguists believe that the term Allah is derived from a contraction of the Arabic words al (the) and ilah (deity, masculine form) - al-ilah meaning "the god." In addition, one of the main pagan goddesses of pre-Islamic Arabia, Allat (al + ilah + at, or 'the goddess'), is cited as being etymologically (though not synchronically) the feminine linguistic counterpart to the grammatically masculine Allah. If so, the word Allah is an abbreviated title, meaning 'the deity', rather than a name. For this reason, both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars often translate Allah directly into English as 'God'; this also explains why Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians freely refer to God as Allah. However, some Muslim scholars feel that "Allah" should not be translated, because they perceived the Arabic word to express the uniqueness of "Allah" more accurately than the word "god", which can take a plural "gods", whereas the word "Allah" has no plural form. This is a significant issue in translation of the Qur'an.


I've got more to say here, but there's been a lot of traffic here since I started the thread, so I need time to digest it all and prepare a response.

Watch this space.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

Two more supplementary questions.

If God is eternal and unchanging, why did He:

(a) react to the wickedness of the world of Noah, and to Sodom & Gomorrah, with violent destruction? But to later wickedness with Jesus's forgiveness?
(b) originally 'choose' the Jewish people and protect and defend them, while smiting their enemies? But later on (in the person of Jesus) 'choose' the entire world as his people?

Shouldn't one expect a degree of consistency from an eternal, unchanging being?

----------


## The Unnamable

> Shouldn't one expect a degree of consistency from an eternal, unchanging being?


Not if God is a She.  :Wink:

----------


## Amra

> Dont assume that I find it hard to understand  I dont. I simply find it impossible to accept. There is a huge difference. Your explanation is a semantic conjuring trick and not even a convincing one. If he knows what I will write, then what I will write must already exist in his mind, even before it appears in mine. For me to produce something different from Gods knowledge of what I will write is, therefore, a logical impossibility. How is it therefore possible to say that I have free will? You also manage to make God seem rather menacing  as if he is daring me to reject him. What, according to your religion, will be the consequences for me (in both this life and the next) if I dont believe?


I really don't have anything more to add, and I would just end up repeating myself, because what seems very logical to me, is apparently not at all logical to you. I just don't understand how you can think that your free will is influenced simply by the fact that Allah t. knows the future. If you had the ability to look into the future and you saw everything that will happen, does your knowledge mean that people who acted a certain way were influenced by your knowledge? NO. So, why is it hard to accept that same scenario with God in it? He doesn't influence your free will, He simply KNOWS the future, and by knowing the future, He knows how you will act, because future doesn't exist for Him, as He is not limited by it. 





> This is a weak analogy. Firstly, why a child?


Why not?




> Secondly, what sort of a human being can only respond you are welcome? Are you sure you dont mean a telephone answering machine?


Call it social norms.  :Smile:  We act and respond a certain way when someone says "Thank you". I didn't claim the analogy to be great, but it is nevertheless showing that our knowledge of the future doesn't impact the free will of others.




> I might expect the child to say, "you are welcome" but that doesnt mean I know it will.


Well, that is the difference between you and God. He KNOWS exactly what will happen, because He is the All-Knowing. However, He is not influencing it. I don't know how many times I have to say this. Can others jump in and clafy this? Does this really seem like a tough concept? 




> Your comparison is not the same as God knowing my every thought and action, unless God simply programs us like robots. That doesnt seem very much like free will, either.


Knowing and influencing are not one and the same.  :Biggrin:  





> Would you say that Allah has been endowed with predominantly male, female or neutral gender characteristics? I notice that you dont use She but He. Are they interchangeable?


They are totally irrelevant because Allah doesn't have a gender. As humans, we identify things a certain way, but to understand God, we have to get away from those. However, even if we get away from those abstractlly, linguistically we still have to limit God to what we know. He/She/It is interchageable in the sense that all of them are wrong, and do not describe the nature of Allah s.v.t.





> In the end, we come down to the claim that God is unknowable and that human logic cannot comprehend it/him/her/them. If you are happy with the contradictions I see, then thats your choice.


What is the contradiction? WE know God only as much as He told us about Himself. We can't know Him more than that, simply because He is above our comprehension. In the holy Qur'an, Allah s.v.t gave us 99 adjectives that describe Him. We know Him through those, but it is not possible to know Him beyond that, because than we would have to be intelectually above Him. The Creator and creation are not one and the same, and it would be a contradiction if they were. 





> If God is eternal and unchanging, why did He:
> 
> (a) react to the wickedness of the world of Noah, and to Sodom & Gomorrah, with violent destruction? But to later wickedness with Jesus's forgiveness?


This is a Christian belief, so I can't really give you an answer. Muslims do not believe that Jesus came to forgive the humanity, nor that he erased their sins. Allah s.v.t has punished different people over the history of human kind, usually those people were punished because of the greatness of their sins. 





> (b) originally 'choose' the Jewish people and protect and defend them, while smiting their enemies? But later on (in the person of Jesus) 'choose' the entire world as his people?


Again, a belief that Muslims do not accept. Every nation that existed had a Prophet who was sent to them. Allah s.v.t didn't put one nation above another, and the only way that people are compared is based on their faith, meaning that those who are faithful are on a greater level than those who are not. 




> You also manage to make God seem rather menacing  as if he is daring me to reject him. What, according to your religion, will be the consequences for me (in both this life and the next) if I dont believe?


Every human being will enter paradise in the end, except those who committed shirk. Shirk means that a person worships something else, other than the One and Only God. Notice that this implies that every human beings worships something, because worship in Islam means putting something above everything else; submitting to it, so even those who claim to not believe in God, believe in other things that become their deity. They may believe to be gods themselves, self-sufficient in a way, or they may resort to following their desires, or money, or power etc. Even if they do not consciencly claim this, their actions will reveal who their gods are. 
So, every human being who didn't commit this sin, which is the greatest sin in Islam, will eventually enter paradise. Those who die with their sins outweighing their good deeds will be punished with hell, but will enter paradise after they have paid for their sins. Those who die as kafir (people commiting shirk) will spend their eternity in hell.

----------


## Ryduce

> There many questions to which there are no answers but we owe it to ourselves to continue asking them. Or perhaps it is just a compulsion that is an attempt to stave off the monumental boredom of everything. You state your position passionately and there is nothing much to be said in the face of faith. For me, to say that it gives you comfort is no different from saying the same about alcohol, drugs or your favourite Teddy bear. I dont know any of the things you mention either, but I will continue to wonder. The question of free will versus predestination is a tough one. If God does know your every thought, choice or action, then how can you be said to be responsible for any of them? They are already written and your behaviour must be compelled by Gods knowledge of what you will do. This comes as a huge relief to me  none of it is my fault; it was Gods will.



But I feel that God's infinite knowledge has nothing to do with free will.Even if he knows my actions prior to them actually occuring,it is still "MY" choice.He is not choosing for me,but being all knowing he is already aware of "MY" actions.It is not a contradiction,because I'm not choosing what he knows.He knows what I'm choosing.It is still "MY" conscious choice.God designed the universe like a clock that has been set,it runs itself and then intervenes only when neccessary."I" am always responsible for "MY" actions.You just don't want to take responsibility for anything,it's much easier for you to say it was God's will.Thats how I see it.


Like I said before I'm only 17 please don't blast my brain into oblivion.

----------


## Amra

Thanks Ryduce for jumping in. I didn't think it a very hard concept to grasp either, and I don't understand how God's knowledge is in contradiction with our free will...

----------


## The Unnamable

> I really don't have anything more to add, and I would just end up repeating myself, because what seems very logical to me, is apparently not at all logical to you.


No, its not that its logical to you and illogical to me  its illogical full stop. It might be acceptable or unproblematic to you but that is not the same. 




> I just don't understand how you can think that your free will is influenced simply by the fact that Allah t. knows the future.


You cannot understand this simple scenario? There are two pens on the table. One is red, the other blue. I decide to pick up one of them. Perhaps I should have used the scenario of a blonde and a brunette in a bar.  :Brow:  God knows which it will be before I carry out the act. So, lets say for the sake of argument that God knows that I will pick up the red one. I cannot therefore pick up the blue one. What kind of free choice is that? So if God knows the future, I can do nothing that will cause a deviation from that future. Surely, you can see that free will and a foreseen future are logically irreconcilable? 




> If you had the ability to look into the future and you saw everything that will happen, does your knowledge mean that people who acted a certain way were influenced by your knowledge? NO.


No, but then I didnt create that future. Also, those people can only do what is consistent with the future already written.




> So, why is it hard to accept that same scenario with God in it? He doesn't influence your free will, He simply KNOWS the future, and by knowing the future, He knows how you will act, because future doesn't exist for Him, as He is not limited by it.


Its hard to accept because you use logic up to a point where it can no longer serve you and then you fall back on saying that God is supernatural. You might just as well tell me that youve simply got a hunch that God exists. 




> Firstly, why a child?
> Why not?


Because you are not comparing like with like. I also think _child_ is a deliberately emotive choice that suggests our relationship with a deity is like that between a parent and a child.




> Call it social norms. We act and respond a certain way when someone says "Thank you". I didn't claim the analogy to be great, but it is nevertheless showing that our knowledge of the future doesn't impact the free will of others.


No, it isnt showing that at all. As I said above, the child might be expected to respond in the usual way but that doesnt mean he or she certainly will. In the case of Gods expectations, we are dealing with an absolute. They are not expectations but knowledge. We can never have knowledge of the future because it doesnt exist. By definition, it is endlessly deferred. You are freely mixing human expectation with divine, absolute knowledge.





> Well, that is the difference between you and God. He KNOWS exactly what will happen, because He is the All-Knowing. However, He is not influencing it. I don't know how many times I have to say this. Can others jump in and clafy this? Does this really seem like a tough concept?


Again, it is not a _tough_ concept, merely an illogical one. You seem to assume that by repeating the same point it will eventually become truth. All you are really saying here is that I, a mere human, cannot _know_ but something that isnt human _can_. Your argument depends on the existence of a hypothetical being  an omniscient, omnipotent supernatural entity, in which I do not believe. 




> Knowing and influencing are not one and the same.


This is the second time youve mentioned influence, which I was careful to omit from my comments. Im not suggesting that God _influences_ our decisions. I am merely pointing out that free will and omniscience are irreconcilable.




> They are totally irrelevant


If they are all limited and equally wrong, why dont we hear Allah referred to as _she_ very much? I cant say that I have ever heard Allah referred to as she but many times as he. 




> What is the contradiction? WE know God only as much as He told us about Himself. We can't know Him more than that, simply because He is above our comprehension.


People used to say similar things about Eric Clapton in the Sixties. The contradiction is between the idea of omniscience and free will. If God is above my comprehension, then my reason will get me nowhere. Therefore, instead of spending my time wondering about the philosophical aspects of his/her existence, I will direct my attention to the morality of the systems that serve him/her here on Earth. That would take us into territory that would be banned on this Forum. Ill give you a simple example, though. The idea of original sin is repugnant to me. I believe it was thought up to reconcile the idea of an infinitely merciful God with the death of infants. A newly born child is, as far as Im concerned, utterly sinless. Yet they nevertheless die. How can God permit this (rhetorical)? The answer -even that defenceless babyis full of sin. Horrible idea. 




> In the holy Qur'an, Allah s.v.t gave us 99 adjectives that describe Him. We know Him through those, but it is not possible to know Him beyond that, because than we would have to be intelectually above Him. The Creator and creation are not one and the same, and it would be a contradiction if they were.


A contradiction by your laws, not mine.




> Every human being will enter paradise in the end, except those who committed shirk. Shirk means that a person worships something else, other than the One and Only God. Notice that this implies that every human beings worships something,


I take it that this is yet another assumption that I must accept as objective fact. You know, people who have had a go at religious belief have been castigated by mods a number of times on this Forum since I have been posting. They are criticised for intolerance. To me, the kind of assumptions you are making suggest there is little room for the faithfuls tolerance of me. 




> because worship in Islam means putting something above everything else;. Those who die as kafir (people commiting shirk) will spend their eternity in hell.


Id better get some flame-resistant books ready then because I want no part of such a system. _That_ is my free will and I exercise it.

----------


## Amra

> No, its not that its logical to you and illogical to me  its illogical full stop. It might be acceptable or unproblematic to you but that is not the same.


It is illogical simply because you claim so? That's not an argument; it is simply an opinion.





> There are two pens on the table. One is red, the other blue. I decide to pick up one of them. Perhaps I should have used the scenario of a blonde and a brunette in a bar. God knows which it will be before I carry out the act. So, lets say for the sake of argument that God knows that I will pick up the red one. I cannot therefore pick up the blue one. What kind of free choice is that? So if God knows the future, I can do nothing that will cause a deviation from that future. Surely, you can see that free will and a foreseen future are logically irreconcilable?


You need to differentiate certain simple concepts before you make an argument. God is either influencing you, or He is not. He is either influencing your free will, or not. It can't be both. Simply by knowing the future, He is not influencing it in any way. You didn't answer my question regarding this knowledge of future. If you could know the future and would be able to see everything that will happen, do you at the same time have the ability to change it? Does your knowledge of the future affect it in any way? Are the people around you going to act differently simply because you have seen the future? You have to imagine that God knows everything that will happen. In the Qur'an, a lot of times we have verses that talk about the Judgment Day. It says what people will say when they see hell fire, or it tells the story of people talking to each other during Judgment Day. This is because, Allah s.v.t knows already what will happen. The future and the past are concepts known to us, but Allah s.v.t is beyond that. He is not limited by time. However, you confuse predestination with knowledge. Our free will is not affected by His knowledge. He simply KNOWS what will happen, because He is not limited by time. He looks at the past, and the present, and the future as one, not seperate entities. I can see that this may be confusing to you, but if you try to seperate influence from knowledge, you will understand it.




> No, but then I didnt create that future. Also, those people can only do what is consistent with the future already written.


He KNOWS the future, we create it. Whatever choices in our lives we make, are because of our free will. God simply knows the future, and hence, knows our decisions.





> Because you are not comparing like with like. I also think child is a deliberately emotive choice that suggests our relationship with a deity is like that between a parent and a child.


Because they are not alike. God and humans are not alike, therefore, the comparison cannot be between equals. And I havent' used child deliberatly because in Islam we don't have that parent/child relationship with God. 





> This is the second time youve mentioned influence, which I was careful to omit from my comments. Im not suggesting that God influences our decisions. I am merely pointing out that free will and omniscience are irreconcilable.


Well, they can only be irreconcilable if there is influence. If there is no influence, then they can coexist without any problems. You need to decide whether or not He influences our free will or not. If He doesn't, then tell me why free will and omniscience are irreconcilable?




> If they are all limited and equally wrong, why dont we hear Allah referred to as she very much? I cant say that I have ever heard Allah referred to as she but many times as he.


Because we have been taught by the society to use He for God, even though nothing in Islam suggests that. As I stated before, it is an unfortunate linguistic limitation. To avoid that as much as possible, we use Allah s.v.t to refer to God, because that noun doesn't have a gender, or pluarility.




> The idea of original sin is repugnant to me. I believe it was thought up to reconcile the idea of an infinitely merciful God with the death of infants. A newly born child is, as far as Im concerned, utterly sinless. Yet they nevertheless die. How can God permit this (rhetorical)? The answer -even that defenceless babyis full of sin. Horrible idea


The idea of the original sin is not known in Islam. Human beings are born sinless. People do not die because of sin. They die because death is just another part of life. It doesn't happen because of sin, nor does sin influence it. Those who die as children enter paradise without being questioned, because they are considered sinless. 




> To me, the kind of assumptions you are making suggest there is little room for the faithfuls tolerance of me.


There is no compulsion into the religion. You can practice whatever you like. However, as it is in every society, certain things would be regulated to allow the possibility of life among different people of different beliefs. For example, if you would live in an islamic country, based on shariah, you probably wouldn't be allowed to openly preach about atheism, just like you are not openely allowed to preach about communism in a democratic society. If you consider that intolerance, then that is your right, but every society is intolerant in some way to certain groups.





> Id better get some flame-resistant books ready then because I want no part of such a system. That is my free will and I exercise it.


And Allah s.v.t already knows it.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

Amra,

If god is unknowable, as you repeatedly say, how do you _know_ that he is neither male, female nor neuter? How do you _know_ that he doesn't influence our choices? How, indeed, can you claim to _know_ anything at all about this god?




> There is no compulsion into the religion. You can practice whatever you like. However, as it is in every society, certain things would be regulated to allow the possibility of life among different people of different beliefs. For example, if you would live in an islamic country, based on shariah, you probably wouldn't be allowed to openly preach about atheism, just like you are not openely allowed to preach about communism in a democratic society. If you consider that intolerance, then that is your right, but every society is intolerant in some way to certain groups.


"Probably wouldn't"? In many islamic countries, preaching christian religion to muslims is punishable, let alone preaching atheism. I think you are guilty of portraying shariah law as a little more tolerant than it actually is. 

And I can quite openly 'preach communism' in my democratic society thank you. I wouldn't, but that is because I find it as flawed and ultimately ridiculous as any other dogmatic philosophy, islam included. 

Your analogies do not wash here my friend. Please choose them better in future!

I am only intolerant of deliberate obfuscation such as your own in that quote.

----------


## Ryduce

I just don't understand why all you people feel so compelled to prove that there is no God.Some people need thier faith because that's all they have.If faith is not a neccessity to you,then you should just leave it at that.Because your not going to enlighten anyone with information that is ultimately irrelevant.People will believe what they want,thus this entire discussion is impertinent and insignificant.There are no answers,and I don't need any,nor do you.Because I have faith,and you don't.That's all this discussion will ever be.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

Oh, but I _do_ have faith, Ryduce. I have faith in many things. It's just that none of them are gods.

The true difference is that I question my faiths; I constantly question them. I believe, as did Socrates, that the unexamined life is not worth living. I prefer to be awake, rather than slumber on, hoping for some vague promise of a better life to come. I prefer to look for my better world here; in this world.

Am I wrong to hope to share that vision? Or, at the very least, to show others that it is there to be seen, should they wish to look?

Those of religious belief are to be free to prosyletise and evangelise, I suppose; while we rationalists and atheists must zip our mouths? That is not my opinion. 

When the faithful can happily wallow in their beliefs, without pressing them on others, I will do likewise. Until that day, my friend, I consider it my duty to show the world that there is another point of view. While one poor benighted soul stands in a shopping mall, bible, qu'ran, or baghavad gita in hand, preaching to the uncaring, I will preach back.

We both have a right to our beliefs; and we both have a right to expound them.

----------


## emily655321

> Those of religious belief are to be free to prosyletise and evangelise, I suppose; while we rationalists and atheists must zip our mouths?


In the real world, perhaps this is an issue worth taking up. Evangelizing for either side is against the Forum rules, though.  :Smile: 
I think it's possible that we heretics have done a bit more than our share of that.

----------


## jon1jt

> Unless you have something constructive to offer to the ongoing arguments, please don't post. Using cliche, 'put down' remarks do nothing in the way of moving the argument forward.


You're right Scheherazade, what was I thinking -- I'll think long and hard about the ideas above and hopefully contribute to this "ongoing argument" as you have. Sorry about that.

----------


## Scheherazade

jon1jt,

My post was not to participate in the discussion but to remind certain things as a Moderator. If you have any issues with the way I moderate, please feel free to PM me.

Oh, by the way, your apology has been accepted! 

 :Tongue:

----------


## jon1jt

> Oh, but I _do_ have faith, Ryduce. I have faith in many things. It's just that none of them are gods.
> 
> The true difference is that I question my faiths; I constantly question them. I believe, as did Socrates, that the unexamined life is not worth living. I prefer to be awake, rather than slumber on, hoping for some vague promise of a better life to come. I prefer to look for my better world here; in this world.
> 
> Am I wrong to hope to share that vision? Or, at the very least, to show others that it is there to be seen, should they wish to look?
> 
> Those of religious belief are to be free to prosyletise and evangelise, I suppose; while we rationalists and atheists must zip our mouths? That is not my opinion. 
> 
> When the faithful can happily wallow in their beliefs, without pressing them on others, I will do likewise. Until that day, my friend, I consider it my duty to show the world that there is another point of view. While one poor benighted soul stands in a shopping mall, bible, qu'ran, or baghavad gita in hand, preaching to the uncaring, I will preach back.
> ...


This is THE most profound statement here.. It reads like poetry, full of all that's life-sustaining and -affirming, the hope to fight these Titans of Truth and Justice and to do so without a book in hand, but with humility - a socratic understanding - that we don't know it all. Thanks for the refreshing remark, wrested between the folds of the self-righteous and pious, to which it reacts like a thunderclap.  :Banana:

----------


## Amra

> Amra,
> 
> If god is unknowable, as you repeatedly say, how do you know that he is neither male, female nor neuter? How do you know that he doesn't influence our choices? How, indeed, can you claim to know anything at all about this god?


1. Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; 

2. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; 

3. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; 

4. And there is none like unto Him. (Surah 112)

This surah in the holy Qur'an is considered worth 1/3 of the Qur'an, because it contains the most important message, namely that God is ONE, that no one is equal to Him, and that nothing is like Him. Besides, as God calls himself in Qur'an with the noun Allah, we gather that He doesn't assign Himself a gender, because the noun Allah doesn't have a gender. Everything I said about Allah s.v.t is based on the revelation He gave to Prophet Mohammed a.s. However, you are right that we should be careful about making any claims about God, since we really can never know Him, except through those things He revealed about Himself in the Qur'an. 




> "Probably wouldn't"? In many islamic countries, preaching christian religion to muslims is punishable, let alone preaching atheism. I think you are guilty of portraying shariah law as a little more tolerant than it actually is.


There is no country in the world today that is implementing shariah law. What we have are muslim countries that mostly live under dictatorships, who implement very perverted versions of Islamic law, and that only in certain circumstances. If you want to look into shariah law more deeply, you would have to go back in history a couple of hundred years ago to see what a true shariah ruled society looks like.




> And I can quite openly 'preach communism' in my democratic society thank you. I wouldn't, but that is because I find it as flawed and ultimately ridiculous as any other dogmatic philosophy, islam included.


I guess it depends how you would define "quite openly". Why do you suppose those who preach communism openly do not get any media coverage in the USA? How can it be that we don't see any communists offering their point of view on Fox News? Or claiming that democracy as such is not fulfilling the needs of the working class, and communism could do that? Could you form a party and promote communism as the better alternative to democracy? Could I form a party and promote shariah law as the best alternative to democracy? I think not. Democracy is tolerant only then when there is no real threat. Every right is relative, and can be given or taken away depending on the interests of the ruling party. I guess, I should stop here since we are not allowed to discuss politics, but I am sure you get my point. 




> The true difference is that I question my faiths; I constantly question them. I believe, as did Socrates, that the unexamined life is not worth living. I prefer to be awake, rather than slumber on, hoping for some vague promise of a better life to come. I prefer to look for my better world here; in this world


Why do you think that others don't question their faiths? I mean, most of the people I know were not born muslims, and even if they were born muslims, they didn't practice it. So, most of them chose to practice it after they have evaluated other teachings and ideas, believing Islam to be the right choice for them. I have been born into an atheist family living under communism, and I have become a muslim through my own questioning of different ideas and beliefs. No one can force you to accept an idea, and simply because you defend an idea and believe it to be true at this point, doesn't necessarily mean that it was always like that. Mostly, you go through the stage of questioning it before you accept it. However, once you accept it, the need of questioning it all the time decreases, because you have done most of the research before you accepted that idea.

----------


## Sami

Xamonas, I thought your last post was very well written and I respect the view youre expressing. 

I wonder though if youre being completely sincere since I think you probably accept that some things arent fully amenable to the type of logical or rational explanations that you seem to be pressing for. Personally I do believe in God even though I cannot justify this belief to you in terms that would qualify by the standards of Socratic argument. The more important thing is that even if you were able to show me why my belief is illogical, this probably wouldnt change my mind on this issue; Id continue to believe in any case even if atheism could be demonstrated as the rational option. 

Does this mean that I am simply dogmatic, or maybe a bit stupid? Possibly it does. However, I happen to think that there are some things that, despite failing by the bar of reason will continue to be important _precisely because they cannot be fully explained or justified_. Isnt it part of the definition of faith that it cannot be proved? I would also perhaps put hope in this category  it continues even in circumstances where all reasonable factors point to the contrary conclusion. 

If a fully examined life means that all aspects of belief and thought are to be exposed to continual interrogation and rational examination then I would tend to think this could also be inflexible and dogmatic, as well as being a very partial view of life. I think you probably already know this in any case, so I am not sure what it is that you are trying to get the religiously minded participants of this discussion to admit? Is it that you see yourself as the forum gadfly?

----------


## The Unnamable

> It is illogical simply because you claim so? That's not an argument; it is simply an opinion.


If I say that All poets are blonde. Mary is blonde so she must be a gardener, is that logical? If it is or isnt, is it just my opinion or not?




> You need to differentiate certain simple concepts before you make an argument. God is either influencing you, or He is not. He is either influencing your free will, or not. It can't be both.


What if I say that my God is not limited to such logic and that for Him it can be both? My God is beyond human comprehension and can simultaneously influence and not influence. It makes argument a little difficult, doesnt it?




> Simply by knowing the future, He is not influencing it in any way. You didn't answer my question regarding this knowledge of future.


I did. I pointed out that I am not a God so I can have no knowledge of the future. Had I created the universe and everything in it, including future history, then I would not only be influencing peoples choices but defining what is and isnt possible. Your statement Simply by knowing the future, He is not influencing it in any way, is not an argument  merely a repeated opinion. Explain to me, in rational/logical terms how God can know the future if people are free to deviate from it. This is a question you have failed to answer. How can I pick up the other pen? If I can, God is not God: if I cant, I have no free will. Telling me that God knows my free will avoids the issue by creating a dimension beyond the human and rational. I see a contradiction within the two positions outlined and no one has yet explained how this can be resolved.




> If you could know the future and would be able to see everything that will happen, do you at the same time have the ability to change it? Does your knowledge of the future affect it in any way? Are the people around you going to act differently simply because you have seen the future?


Why are you asking me this? Im not God. I am not omniscient and omnipotent, so the analogy is irrelevant. If I were, I assume that I would have the ability to change it. However, for the sake of argument, Ill play along for a moment. Person X is driving along and comes to a fork in the road. Road A leads to a safe route and road B leads to a sheer drop from a cliff. If I know (in the way that God knows) that the driver will take road B and die, then nothing he or she does will make any difference to that outcome. He or she might think he or she has free will but the outcome is unavoidable. In this sense I am not only influencing the future but also setting it in stone. Also, you suggest that having knowledge of the future does not mean that we can influence it. Are you saying that God does not have the ability to influence things? I thought He was omnipotent.




> However, you confuse predestination with knowledge.


Its not that I confuse predestination with knowledge but that I believe knowledge of the future is indistinguishable from predestination and certainly incompatible with the idea of individual free will. 




> Our free will is not affected by His knowledge. He simply KNOWS what will happen,


Again, you simply restate the same opinion. As I said, in the final analysis, you resort to the claim that your God is beyond human rules. 




> because He is not limited by time. He looks at the past, and the present, and the future as one, not seperate entities. I can see that this may be confusing to you, but if you try to seperate influence from knowledge, you will understand it.


Yes, difficult concepts always confuse me, which is why I dont mind being patronised.




> He KNOWS the future, we create it. Whatever choices in our lives we make, are because of our free will. God simply knows the future, and hence, knows our decisions.


This is the crux. If God knows the future, in what sense can we be said to be free to create it? We cannot do anything that is inconsistent with that future. All decisions we make cannot alter anything. I presume that God knew my actions and decisions before I was even born. A whole lifetime of history precedes me and when I come along, nothing I do will change it.





> Because they are not alike. God and humans are not alike, therefore, the comparison cannot be between equals.


Exactly, so what use is it?




> Well, they can only be irreconcilable if there is influence. If there is no influence, then they can coexist without any problems. You need to decide whether or not He influences our free will or not. If He doesn't, then tell me why free will and omniscience are irreconcilable?


Okay, I dont believe in any God so he/she/it exerts no explicit influence over me because he/she/it doesnt exist. However, if there is an omniscient being that knows the future, I, as an individual, cannot do anything about that future because its already decided. Its not that I see God as standing on the sidelines, urging me to do what I might or might not have decided to do anyway. Its simply that if the future is written in stone then I can have no free will to change it. Surely that highlights why the two concepts are irreconcilable?




> Because we have been taught by the society to use He for God, even though nothing in Islam suggests that. As I stated before, it is an unfortunate linguistic limitation. To avoid that as much as possible, we use Allah s.v.t to refer to God, because that noun doesn't have a gender, or pluarility.


Although I think the question of why we have been taught by the society to use He for God is revealing and worth considering, I wont do so here.




> The idea of the original sin is not known in Islam. Human beings are born sinless. People do not die because of sin. They die because death is just another part of life. It doesn't happen because of sin, nor does sin influence it. Those who die as children enter paradise without being questioned, because they are considered sinless.


Now we move into a different realm  I am no longer concerned with the philosophical aspects but the moral ones. I want justice and fairness in the here and now, not in some unproven, supernatural other world where everything is lovely.




> There is no compulsion into the religion. You can practice whatever you like. However, as it is in every society, certain things would be regulated to allow the possibility of life among different people of different beliefs. For example, if you would live in an islamic country, based on shariah, you probably wouldn't be allowed to openly preach about atheism, just like you are not openely allowed to preach about communism in a democratic society.


Firstly, Im from the UK, a supposedly democratic country. There is no law against openly preaching communism. I believe this is true for most democracies. Secondly, you say that I can practise whatever faith I like but that certain ideas would not be tolerated. I cant practise what I choose then, can I?




> If you consider that intolerance, then that is your right, but every society is intolerant in some way to certain groups.


So a bit of good old intolerance is okay then and justified on the basis that intolerance is everywhere? I know that intolerance is everywhere  which is why I think those beliefs need challenging. I can only say that I am glad that I do not live in a society that enshrines its religious dogma in law.

----------


## The Unnamable

> I just don't understand why all you people feel so compelled to prove that there is no God.Some people need thier faith because that's all they have.If faith is not a neccessity to you,then you should just leave it at that.Because your not going to enlighten anyone with information that is ultimately irrelevant.People will believe what they want,thus this entire discussion is impertinent and insignificant.There are no answers,and I don't need any,nor do you.Because I have faith,and you don't.That's all this discussion will ever be.


While I understand your frustration with having heartfelt beliefs challenged, I disagree that its irrelevant to question those beliefs. I am not trying to take away your faith, I am simply explaining my views. Given that a great many of our laws have some basis in the teachings of various faiths, it matters what those beliefs are. 




> Because your not going to enlighten anyone with information that is ultimately irrelevant.People will believe what they want,thus this entire discussion is impertinent and insignificant.


Isnt this what Cardinal Bellarmine said to Galileo?




> Because I have faith,and you don't.That's all this discussion will ever be.


To an extent, this is true. However, I am offering reasoned argument and explanations for why I think the way I do. If you choose to ignore these, then perhaps _that_ is why the discussion goes no further.

----------


## jon1jt

TO SAMI:
That's why I think it's a waste of time for we atheists and you bible-wielding types to engage in a serious dialogue; it's just not possible. We athiests have an acute sensitivity to the rhythms of nature, to what's here, to what's accessible, which is vastly limited. I think it was Whitehead who said one of the fundamental problems of life is that our creator just didn't give us enough information. We atheists acknowledge a shut-off valve, humility, when our mind has gone full-circle, where the analytical needle hits Zero, the Nothing, God, the One; we choose not to be pulled down the drain by biblical hyperbole and metaphysical illusion to substantiate that which is unavailable, and accept having a "very partial view of life" because we live in a 3-dimensional world. Reason recognizes those limits and accepts it. That is the great and joyous gift of "Being There" (Da-sein). Heidegger rightly said the gods of history have retreated, the modern age has done "violence to metaphysics," the chains are off, and while we sway over the infinite abyss, we hear an echo, those mystic rhthyms Socrates once heard and for which he followed his speculative mind to the height of the Sun and where he allowed it to rain down on us. This was the light of Reason. You say we're dogmatic? Surely ye jest. Faith is as empty a concept as the Old/New Testaments and Koran.

Copernicus, Galileo, Newton ushered in a new science that sought material and efficient causes and deemed irrelevant Aristotle's formal and final causes (i.e. purpose). You bible types ascended to a fourth dimension, from a perspective that today speaks down to Galileo, Newton, and the rest of us, because you are the universal voice, you are god incarnate, who speaks down and comes down to chastise those who are endlessly searching, wondering. We accept our own mortality; we accept tragedy (begrudgingly so); we call on no god for recompense, we suffer, and somehow conjure meaning from the absurd; we are Sissyphus; we don't discriminate, we "live free, love free, court destruction with taunts..." We invite change, divergent lifestyles - from the moral to the profane; you cast aspersions against the Will to life (amor fate!); we jump into the eye of the storm and dance to earthy incantations; we accept human beings with all their imperfections; we are, above all, discoverers and not followers. 

You say, "Where all reasonable factors point to the contrary conclusion," we say, however seductive the pull of this notion, we wake up in the morning, look in the mirror and ask, "I wonder if its true."
__________________

----------


## The Unnamable

*Xamonas*, you carry on being a gadfly. As soon as anyone on this forum asks awkward or probing questions, there is a chorus of disapproval activated. Liberal sentiment takes over and thinking is marginalized. Thank God the writers we are supposedly on here to discuss didnt take the same anaemic approach. I am not threatened by thought and often find your posts interesting and provocative. They make me think and/or laugh  either one is fine by me, although some of your humour does need to be a bit funnier.  :Brow:

----------


## Amra

> Its not that I confuse predestination with knowledge but that I believe knowledge of the future is indistinguishable from predestination and certainly incompatible with the idea of individual free wil


This is where we differ, and because we start of from different postulates, we are not going to go anywhere with this discussion. So, I'll leave it at this, because I can't reconcile the idea that mere knowledge of the future is indistinguishable from predestination, and that it somehow has an affect on free will, whereas you don't have a problem with that. 




> Firstly, Im from the UK, a supposedly democratic country. There is no law against openly preaching communism. I believe this is true for most democracies. Secondly, you say that I can practise whatever faith I like but that certain ideas would not be tolerated. I cant practise what I choose then, can I?


Practice and preaching is different. You can practice whatever you like, but preaching it openly to the public would certainly be regulated in a way it is in every society. There may not be a law against communism per se, but let's say we redefine communism to mean terrorism, as we can so easily do nowdays, and all of a sudden we have no problems not tolerating that idea anymore? Funny, how democracy works to protect itself from any possible threat. What if someone came with the idea to abolish democracy and started preaching against it? What if someone formed a party that calls for an shariah based law in the UK? How do you think your tolerant UK country would react? 




> So a bit of good old intolerance is okay then and justified on the basis that intolerance is everywhere? I know that intolerance is everywhere  which is why I think those beliefs need challenging. I can only say that I am glad that I do not live in a society that enshrines its religious dogma in law.


WEll, intolerance is a very relative and subjective phenomena. Perceived intolerance is what I was referring to, and not actual, because we would have to have an objective standard if we wanted to decide upon an objective (in)tolerance level. Since we don't have that, every society would be PERCEIVED as intolerant by one or the other group, and it is impossible to get away from that. Who on Earth can set a law that would satisfy everyone? For example, every society that doesn't implement shariah law is intolerant in my eyes, whereas you will certainly think otherwise. Do you think that this can every be reconciled? Certainly not.

----------


## Sami

Just to clarify: I was not trying to suggest that we ought not to question faith or belief. Faith could be opposed to reasoned argument, and historically and politically speaking religious faith has, of course, been used as a means to suppress debate. However, I dont think that this necessarily has to be the case, and the point I was trying to make is that a commitment to non-belief could also become dogmatic if this meant that we were always required to provide a rational account of ourselves. Is such an account always possible?

I have really struggled with the question of atheism, but tend towards the conclusion that it would be very dishonest of me not to admit that I do have faith in God. An atheist might rationally convince me that this is incorrect, but I dont happen to think that we always live according to the rules of reasoned discourse. For me, this is what makes life interesting, surprising and basically worthwhile. 

I suspect that Xamonas knows this since he too claims to have faith. I also think he knows that Socrates might agree with the idea that reasoned knowledge has limits (didnt Socrates have hopes about death despite the fact that he could not possess any certainty about the afterlife?) 

Unnameable: I tend to think of the free speech and open debate that you seem to favour as very liberal assertions, so I am not sure that its a liberal chorus of disapproval that worries you? 

Jon1jt: Your post contains a lot of assumptions. In particular you seem to assume that faith is always closed to debate and, once again, for me this is not necessarily the case. If I did not wish to debate with you, then I would not have posted my view. I am sorry that you think its a waste of time to discuss matters with people who believe in God. I wish you every success in finding a more interesting and constructive way of passing the day. Also, is someone who believes in God necessarily a Bible type?

----------


## The Unnamable

> This is where we differ, and because we start of from different postulates, we are not going to go anywhere with this discussion. So, I'll leave it at this, because I can't reconcile the idea that mere knowledge of the future is indistinguishable from predestination, and that it somehow has an affect on free will, whereas you don't have a problem with that.


Im happy with that but I would like to point out that you are being disingenuous. My whole argument *does not* rely on the fact that I see predestination and knowledge of the future as the same thing. I gave perfectly adequate examples of how free will and knowledge of the future are irreconcilable. You have simply ignored them, citing the above as your reason for so doing.




> Practice and preaching is different. You can practice whatever you like, but preaching it openly to the public would certainly be regulated in a way it is in every society.


I was a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain when I was a callow youth. I used to preach my beliefs. I wasnt once arrested, nor was I the victim of a Press smear campaign. 





> There may not be a law against communism per se, but let's say we redefine communism to mean terrorism,


What kind of argument is that?! Lets say we redefine Stamp Collecting as Terrorism and see what happens? 




> as we can so easily do nowdays, and all of a sudden we have no problems not tolerating that idea anymore?


I think youll find that its easier to redefine some activities as terrorism than others. It usually involves large numbers of innocent dead people. I never once killed anyone when I was a member of the Communist Party, nor do I remember any of my fellow members doing so. 




> Funny, how democracy works to protect itself from any possible threat.


You find it funny; I find it reassuring. Democracy, for all its faults, is _my_ culture and I want to preserve it.




> What if someone came with the idea to abolish democracy and started preaching against it?


I would not have a problem with that. I believe in free speech.




> What if someone formed a party that calls for an shariah based law in the UK? How do you think your tolerant UK country would react?


I dont know but I hope it would argue as strongly as possible against it. I know I would. I dont wish to live under shariah law. 




> WEll, intolerance is a very relative and subjective phenomena. Perceived intolerance is what I was referring to, and not actual, because we would have to have an objective standard if we wanted to decide upon an objective (in)tolerance level. Since we don't have that, every society would be PERCEIVED as intolerant by one or the other group, and it is impossible to get away from that. Who on Earth can set a law that would satisfy everyone? For example, every society that doesn't implement shariah law is intolerant in my eyes, whereas you will certainly think otherwise. Do you think that this can every be reconciled? Certainly not.


I agree, which is why I would never live in a country that implemented shariah law. I will promote and defend my values and western style democracy will allow me to do this (within limits, of course). The same would not be true if I lived under shariah law.

----------


## The Unnamable

> Unnameable: I tend to think of the free speech and open debate that you seem to favour as very liberal assertions, so I am not sure that its a liberal chorus of disapproval that worries you?


I don't understand your point.

My interest in the contradiction I mentioned comes from Miltons _Paradise Lost_. It bothered Milton sufficiently for him to consider it at length throughout his works. Here is a passage from _Paradise Lost_, Book 3 (his in the first line refers to Satan)

For man will hearken to his glozing lies,
And easily transgress the sole command,
Sole pledge of his obedience: So will fall
He and his faithless progeny: Whose fault?
Whose but his own? ingrate, he had of me
All he could have; *I made him just and right,
Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall.*
Such I created all the ethereal Powers
And Spirits, both them who stood, and them who fail'd;
Freely they stood who stood, and fell who fell.
Not free, what proof could they have given sincere
Of true allegiance, constant faith or love,
Where only what they needs must do appear'd,
Not what they would? what praise could they receive?
What pleasure I from such obedience paid,
When will and reason (reason also is choice)
Useless and vain, of freedom both despoil'd,
Made passive both, had serv'd necessity,
Not me? they therefore, as to right belong'd,
So were created, nor can justly accuse
Their Maker, or their making, or their fate,
As if predestination over-rul'd
Their will dispos'd by absolute decree
Or high foreknowledge they themselves decreed
Their own revolt, not I; if I foreknew,
Foreknowledge had no influence on their fault,
Which had no less proved certain unforeknown.
So without least impulse or shadow of fate,
Or aught by me immutably foreseen,
They trespass, authors to themselves in all
Both what they judge, and what they choose; for so
I form'd them free: and free they must remain,
Till they enthrall themselves; I else must change
Their nature, and revoke the high decree
Unchangeable, eternal, which ordain'd
Their freedom: they themselves ordain'd their fall.
The first sort by their own suggestion fell,
Self-tempted, self-deprav'd: Man falls, deceiv'd
By the other first: Man therefore shall find grace,
The other none: In mercy and justice both,
Through Heaven and Earth, so shall my glory excel;
But Mercy, first and last, shall brightest shine.

God uses the same sophistry that has been offered here. Milton also discusses the problem of free will and censorship in _Areopagitica_. He has to offer some comment on the problem and, fabulous though his verse is, its power to persuade rests more on that than on rational thought. The fact that Milton has felt it necessary to address the issue is itself significant. 

The emboldened type is an example of where Miltons epigrammatic terseness serves to persuade us by rhetorical rather than logical means.

----------


## rachel

> Not if God is a She.



oh go ahead and make fun! Say you don't write material for the comedians at Yuk Yuks in your spare time now do you?  :Biggrin:

----------


## rachel

> *Xamonas*, you carry on being a gadfly. As soon as anyone on this forum asks awkward or probing questions, there is a chorus of disapproval activated. Liberal sentiment takes over and thinking is marginalized. Thank God the writers we are supposedly on here to discuss didnt take the same anaemic approach. I am not threatened by thought and often find your posts interesting and provocative. They make me think and/or laugh  either one is fine by me, although some of your humour does need to be a bit funnier.


I am a little, just a little shocked that you said this dear Unnameable, but at any rate since you are a teacher and since I don't get the opportunity to be in you class and learn, I at least looked up good old gadfly in the online dictionary. When visiting the farm of course I know what one is , but i never thought about the use any other way(you know how simple I am and yet you are kind to me.....very telling wouldn't you say?) 
At any rate I hope by calling XC a gadfly you were referring to the second meaning. I really hope that is what you meant. Or I shall defend him to the death. And you will see Mary as you have never seen her before.!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Sami

> I don't understand your point.



Thats completely understandable  :Smile:  I probably shouldnt be posting on this topic since I am all too aware that I am muddled on these questions. 

I think what I was trying to say about free speech was that your concern with religious views limiting debate seems to be an anti-liberal position to me. The chorus of disapproval that you mentioned did not seem to be motivated by a liberal sentiment, but by less tolerant positions that reject the possibility of debate and plurality. 

I know next to nothing about Milton so it is interesting to read your post  thanks! I think that the relationship between logical argument on the one hand, and rhetorical persuasion on the other, is a very difficult one. Is there necessarily always going to be a tension between the two sides, or as you put it, a contradiction?

----------


## Amra

:Biggrin:  


> Im happy with that but I would like to point out that you are being disingenuous. My whole argument does not rely on the fact that I see predestination and knowledge of the future as the same thing. I gave perfectly adequate examples of how free will and knowledge of the future are irreconcilable. You have simply ignored them, citing the above as your reason for so doing.



Well, you cannot argue that it is not one and the same thing, because then you don't have an argument to support the idea that free will and knowledge of the future are irreconcilable. They can only be irreconcilable if there is predestination, or influence from God, or both, since they can be seen as one and the same thing. Since you have expressed your opinion that none of those are present, I don't know what your argument is then based on. (?) 
It can go three ways:

1. Knowledge of future and free will are irrencilable because there is predestination.

2. Knowledge of future and free will are irreconcilable because there is influence from God.

3. Knowledge of future and free will are irreconcilable because knowledge of future is indistinguishable from predestination, and predestination implies influence, which implies no free will.

4. you can add something, if I have missed it....

I can even make an argument on this..
1. Knowledge of future is predestination.
2. Predestination means influence.
3. Influence implies no free will. 
4. Free will and knowledge of future are irreconcilable.

 :Smile:  However, if you don't accept the first two premises, I dare you to make a logical argument to support your theory.




> I was a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain when I was a callow youth. I used to preach my beliefs. I wasnt once arrested, nor was I the victim of a Press smear campaign.


I stated that preaching to the public openly about a belief that is fundamentally different from the constitution of the country would be regulated, as it is in every society. Your one example doesn't not prove anything because there are million of others that I could state to offer another perspective. I mean, this subject is very broad, and we can go into it if you'd like, but I thought it was a very general statement that you would agree on without going into it deeper. Your own experience of something is not enough to disprove my statement, so we can't really take it into consideration. My point was that every society will regulate things that it perceives as a threat in one way or the other. I mean, it makes me wonder why Noam Chomsky, for example, does not get ANY media coverage in the USA. I have NEVER seen him giving an interview on Fox News, and in his books he claims that his views are purposefully cenzored because they do not agree with the mainstream (if you want to call it that) views. Would that be considered censorship? Why is the Austrian historian sentenced to three years in prison for denying the Holocaust? Why don't we have a free access to Al-Jazeera in the USA? Why did the USA bomb the Al-Jazeera headquarters in Qatar? Cenzorship? And so on... I should stop...  :Wink:  




> I would not have a problem with that. I believe in free speech


The issue here is not what YOU would think, but what the society as whole would tolerate.




> I agree, which is why I would never live in a country that implemented shariah law. I will promote and defend my values and western style democracy will allow me to do this (within limits, of course). The same would not be true if I lived under shariah law.


Well, that goes only in as much your values are in line with democratic values. If they would be different from that, democracy would cenzor and supress them.

Let's restate your above statement from my perspective...

I will promote and defend the values of shariah law(my values) and Islam will allow me to do this. The same would not be true if I lived under democracy.  :Biggrin:  




> What kind of argument is that?! Lets say we redefine Stamp Collecting as Terrorism and see what happens?


You didn't get my point. I merely stated the way society is able to justify its own actions by redefining things. It is hard to talk about this subject on this forum because we are not allowed to talk about current politics, but Big Brother and Patriot Act are to me one and the same; in principle that is. Simply by giving a certain name to an idea doesn't necessarily change that idea, but it does affect how people look at it. Isn't it interesting that both Big Brother and Patriot Act carry such names, targeting your emotions? Why wasn't the Patriot Act called Allowed Spying Act? Would that change the essence of the law? NO. But it surely changes how people look at it. Attacking a free, sovereign country is certainly not democratic, nor can it be supported by ANY international law, but if we call the country a terrorist country and its leader a dictator, that would surely justify our actions. Create an evil and a threat, and our actions will appear democratic. Every society can do that, and then the question of tolerance and justice comes to mind. It is easy to be tolerant and just when there is no real opposition, but every society has its own interests that it will harbor and protect in ways that it can. To say that one is more tolerant than another is simply not true. They just mask their intolerance in different ways.

----------


## The Unnamable

> I am a little, just a little shocked that you said this dear Unnameable, but at any rate since you are a teacher and since I don't get the opportunity to be in you class and learn, I at least looked up good old gadfly in the online dictionary. When visiting the farm of course I know what one is , but i never thought about the use any other way(you know how simple I am and yet you are kind to me.....very telling wouldn't you say?) 
> At any rate I hope by calling XC a gadfly you were referring to the second meaning. I really hope that is what you meant. Or I shall defend him to the death. *And you will see Mary as you have never seen her before*.!


I dont think Id like that but before you summon up some wrath for me, please note that I was using the word gadfly because Sami had used it of XC. I dont consider XC a gadfly (its far too Shakespearean a word for someone so humble) and was offering my support for the boy. 

As for very telling .you are still seeing those incredible sunsets, arent you, Mary?  :Biggrin:

----------


## The Unnamable

> I think what I was trying to say about free speech was that your concern with religious views limiting debate seems to be an anti-liberal position to me. The chorus of disapproval that you mentioned did not seem to be motivated by a liberal sentiment, but by less tolerant positions that reject the possibility of debate and plurality.


To be honest, that didnt help much. Perhaps I should say that the chorus of disapproval did not refer to anyone of a religious disposition. I meant those who complain that certain views are challenged when they should be respected. Liberal sentiment was used in a pejorative sense - from Goethes remark that liberals have no ideas, they only have sentiments.

----------


## The Unnamable

> Well, you cannot argue that it is not one and the same thing, because then you don't have an argument to support the idea that free will and knowledge of the future are irreconcilable.


They differ somewhat but my point was simply that it amounts to the same thing. If the future already exists in Gods perception then all I can do is act it out. Im not bothered whether or not this can be termed predestination  Im not interested in the label, just the contradiction. Again, I ask you, how can we be said to be free agents if we can do nothing that will change what is already decided? I dont even care who decided it (although, in the strictest sense, it must be God.)




> They can only be irreconcilable if there is predestination, or influence from God, or both, since they can be seen as one and the same thing. Since you have expressed your opinion that none of those are present, I don't know what your argument is then based on. (?)


None of those is present to me because I have no faith. 
Would anything exist without God? - No
Is God omnipotent and omniscient? - Yes
So everything that ever has been or ever shall be must have emanated from God. God created it all. He knows what will happen to me next week and nothing I do can change that. That limits my freedom. 




> It can go three ways:
> 
> 1. Knowledge of future and free will are irrencilable because there is predestination.
> 
> 2. Knowledge of future and free will are irreconcilable because there is influence from God.
> 
> 3. Knowledge of future and free will are irreconcilable because knowledge of future is indistinguishable from predestination, and predestination implies influence, which implies no free will.
> 
> 4. you can add something, if I have missed it....


 4. Knowledge of the future and free will are irreconcilable because if the future already exists in Gods mind, no human subject can deviate from that path. 
According to your views, I have already made every decision of my entire life. Its like a movie playing out frame by frame, a movie that God has directed or at least seen. Are movie characters endowed with free will?




> I stated that preaching to the public openly about a belief that is fundamentally different from the constitution of the country would be regulated, as it is in every society.


I disagree. Not everything will. Besides, regulated is a nice cuddly word and much nicer than the words that could be used legitimately to describe what happens in some countries. 



> Your one example doesn't not prove anything


Of course it doesnt. I was being facetious. 



> My point was that every society will regulate things that it perceives as a threat in one way or the other.


Of course it does and I am in favour of that. 



> I mean, it makes me wonder why Noam Chomsky, for example, does not get ANY media coverage in the USA. I have NEVER seen him giving an interview on Fox News, and in his books he claims that his views are purposefully cenzored because they do not agree with the mainstream (if you want to call it that) views. Would that be considered censorship? Why don't we have a free access to Al-Jazeera in the USA? Why did the USA bomb the Al-Jazeera headquarters in Qatar? Cenzorship? And so on... I should stop...


Does Chomsky appear much on Al-Jazeera, then?





> The issue here is not what YOU would think, but what the society as whole would tolerate.


I can only speak for myself, sorry.




> Well, that goes only in as much your values are in line with democratic values. If they would be different from that, democracy would cenzor and supress them.


I believe its a matter of degree. I simply do not accept that Western democracy is no less repressive than the kind of ideologies you endorse. I know where I will be tolerated most and Im not even female.




> Let's restate your above statement from my perspective...
> 
> I will promote and defend the values of shariah law(my values) and Islam will allow me to do this. The same would not be true if I lived under democracy.


I totally agree  and my solution to the problem is to live in a democracy. If I wanted to embrace other values, I would live in a country that promotes them. As a white, heterosexual, able-bodied male, I appear to belong to the only group who are not allowed to celebrate their culture in these wonderful times of rich cultural diversity. I was shocked to see that the Luge event at The Winter Olympics contained no members of the Tamil community, and that Aztecs were under-represented in The Grand National. Time for another Royal Commission.

Actually, I am an ex-pat but I dont expect my host country to change its culture to accommodate my values. If the country in which I am living implements shariah law, I will leave. 





> You didn't get my point.


I did, which is why I said I think youll find that its easier to redefine some activities as terrorism than others.



> I merely stated the way society is able to justify its own actions by redefining things. It is hard to talk about this subject on this forum because we are not allowed to talk about current politics, but Big Brother and Patriot Act are to me one and the same; in principle that is. Simply by giving a certain name to an idea doesn't necessarily change that idea, but it does affect how people look at it. Isn't it interesting that both Big Brother and Patriot Act carry such names, targeting your emotions? Why wasn't the Patriot Act called Allowed Spying Act?


To a degree, I can sympathise with your points (see the Language as Power thread). However, I still choose western democracy with all its flaws over Islam and its (for me, far greater) flaws.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

I think I stirred something up here. It's just taken me the best part of an hour to read the new posts in this thread - and that's just in the last 18 hours. There's far too much to respond to all the points. I'll just nip back in and post when I think of something.

But if 'gadfly' is too Shakespearean, what of 'Puck'?  :Wink:

----------


## Sami

I think I am causing more confusion than anything else here...

About the gadfly  I used this because XC mentioned the Examined Life from Platos Apology. In this text Socrates refers to himself as the gadfly on the noble horse of Athens. I wasnt trying to insult anyone  honest!

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> I mean, it makes me wonder why Noam Chomsky, for example, does not get ANY media coverage in the USA.





> Noam Chomsky has received many honorary degrees from the most prestigious universities around the world, including the following: University of London, University of Chicago, Loyola University of Chicago, Swarthmore College, Delhi University, Bard College, University of Massachusetts, University of Pennsylvania, Georgetown University, Amherst College, Cambridge University, University of Buenos Aires, McGill University, Universitat Rovira I Virgili, Tarragona, Columbia University, University of Connecticut, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, University of Western Ontario, University of Toronto, Harvard University, University of Calcutta, and Universidad Nacional De Colombia. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the National Academy of Science. In addition, he is a member of other professional and learned societies in the United States and abroad, and is a recipient of the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award of the American Psychological Association, the Kyoto Prize in Basic Sciences, the Helmholtz Medal, the Dorothy Eldridge Peacemaker Award, the Ben Franklin Medal in Computer and Cognitive Science, and others. He is twice winner of The Orwell Award, granted by The National Council of Teachers of English for "Distinguished Contributions to Honesty and Clarity in Public Language."


A lot of American universities in that list - he can't be that heavily censored.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> I think I am causing more confusion than anything else here...
> 
> About the gadfly  I used this because XC mentioned the Examined Life from Platos Apology. In this text Socrates refers to himself as the gadfly on the noble horse of Athens. I wasnt trying to insult anyone  honest!


I am extremely humbled to be compared to Socrates. I took it as a complement anyway; I will take it as a far greater one now. (bows)

----------


## Sami

Dear oh dearI wasnt actually drawing the comparison myself. I was asking whether you were aiming to perform a Socratic role in the forum. I take it that you do? Do you really feel flattered to be thought of as a Socrates character? He was a pretty annoying bloke really  Im sure youre far nicer than he was. Plus, he came to a bad end you know.

----------


## Whifflingpin

Amra: My point was that every society will regulate things that it perceives as a threat in one way or the other. 
Unnamable: Of course it does and I am in favour of that.
Sami: he (Socrates) came to a bad end you know.

Hmmm

----------


## Amra

> They differ somewhat but my point was simply that it amounts to the same thing.


They either differ, or they are the same thing. You keep contradicting yourself.




> If the future already exists in Gods perception then all I can do is act it out. Im not bothered whether or not this can be termed predestination  Im not interested in the label, just the contradiction. Again, I ask you, how can we be said to be free agents if we can do nothing that will change what is already decided? I dont even care who decided it (although, in the strictest sense, it must be God.)


If future exists already in God's perception, it doesn't mean that it is predestined, but you imply that everything is predestined, and that the existence of it in God's perception(knowledge) is the same as predestination. I mean, you have to decide what your argument is based on. Is the future predestined or not? Are we influenced by God or not. You keep evading to make a logical argument although I have challenged you to do so, and to use your own premises and conclusions. You say it is not the same, but then you go on and give an example that implies it is the same.  :Confused:  

here is an argument...

1. God knows the future.
2. Our free will is future.
3. God knows our free will.


another..

1. God knows everything.
2. Our thoughts are something.
3. God knows our thoughts.

Can you tell me a logical argument that will prove your point without saying that we are influenced by God, or that future is predestined, because you claim that is not the case? God knows about the future because He sees it. He didn't influence it. It has happened. Imagine that you look back into the history and narrate to people what has happened in the history. Does that mean that you changed the free will of the people whose stories you are narrating? I hope not.  :Smile:  Well, for God, future is history, because He knows it. We are limited by time, and we only know the past, and the present. He knows everything. However, knowledge of something doesn't mean influence nor predestination. Or it does? You decide.





> .He knows what will happen to me next week and nothing I do can change that. That limits my freedom.



So, knowledge of future equals predestination?




> Besides, regulated is a nice cuddly word and much nicer than the words that could be used legitimately to describe what happens in some countries.


I agree. "Sentencing to prison" for three years for expressing a historical opinion would do it more justice. 





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Amra
> I stated that preaching to the public openly about a belief that is fundamentally different from the constitution of the country would be regulated, as it is in every society. 
> 
> 
> *I disagree. Not everything will*


and then...




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Amra
> My point was that every society will regulate things that it perceives as a threat in one way or the other. 
> 
> 
> Of course *it does and I am in favour of that*.



You agree or you disagree?




> Does Chomsky appear much on Al-Jazeera, then?


How would I know? Democracy in the USA decided that Al-Jazeera is not promoting its values, I suppose.  :Wink:  




> However, I still choose western democracy with all its flaws over Islam and its (for me, far greater) flaws.


Again, a personal choice and a statement that agrees with what I have been saying all along. You prefer democracy, I prefer shariah law. However, isn't it funny that democratic societies want to impose their values on everyone else, and don't let people decide themselves how they want to be ruled? Contradiction? Surely so. I guess, you would be much more bothered if muslim countries were all over the world trying to impose shariah to everyone else, but since the case is reversed, and democratic values are imposed on others, no one is complaining. As long as democracy is portrayed in the cuddly  :Smile:  terms of tolerance, love, and peace and every other idea "dehumanized" and equated to evil, there is no need to follow any principle, and it will be easy to justify any action that the West coins as necessary. The only choice we have is to merely allow oneself to be ruled by the superior, as it has been in the most barbarian times....When you think about it, taken away the technological advances, we have not changed one bit from the primitive cave man fighting his competition in the eternal game of survival of the fittest.

----------


## Amra

> A lot of American universities in that list - he can't be that heavily censored.


Heavily or not, that is for each one of us to decide, but the point is that he is being censored by the mainstream public/media. Most of the awards that you named come from universities that are considered liberal, and as far as I can tell, all of the awards are based on his conbritubions to the study of language, not for his political thoughts and critisism.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> Heavily or not, that is for each one of us to decide, but the point is that he is being censored by the mainstream public/media. Most of the awards that you named come from universities that are considered liberal, and as far as I can tell, all of the awards are based on his conbritubions to the study of language, not for his political thoughts and critisism.


There are a lot of people that don't figure heavily in the mainstream media - usually because they are considered too 'highbrow' for the average reader or are not 'newsworthy' enough (whatever that means!) This doesn't imply censorship, just editorial bias. I have certainly heard of, and have easy access to, Chomsky's political views; even in my poor, benighted, democratic country. They are also freely available on the internet, where there is no censorship whatsoever - except in certain countries, none of which happen to be democratic and several of which are muslim (Tunisia, for example).

----------


## The Unnamable

> They either differ, or they are the same thing. You keep contradicting yourself.


I take it you have decided that you cannot answer the argument and will therefore take issue with semantics and focus on the appropriate form for philosophical enquiry. A king and an emperor are not the same things. They differ. However, for the purposes of a discussion about say, power, they amount to the same thing. I do not believe in God. I do not believe in predestination. Where is the contradiction? 



> If future exists already in God's perception, it doesn't mean that it is predestined, but you imply that everything is predestined,


No, I dont. I am saying that if the future is known, I cannot change it. I dont care whether you call that predestination or cosmic toffee theory. My point still stands. If I cannot change things, I have no free will. 



> Is the future predestined or not? Are we influenced by God or not.


I dont care. That is not my point  you are merely using it to avoid answering the question I have asked a number of times. How can I believe that a non-existent being influences us?



> You keep evading to make a logical argument although I have challenged you to do so, and to use your own premises and conclusions. You say it is not the same, but then you go on and give an example that implies it is the same.


No, I gave an argument that _stated_ (not implied) that it _amounts to_ the same thing. You even quoted this yourself, above. 





> here is an argument...
> 
> 1. God knows the future.
> 2. Our free will is future.
> 3. God knows our free will.


What does 2 mean? If you wish to teach me how to argue, perhaps you should give an example that makes sense.





> Can you tell me a logical argument that will prove your point without saying that we are influenced by God, or that future is predestined, because you claim that is not the case?


I cant follow you here. Also, you want me to reduce my argument to a 1-2-3 structure because it suits you? 
1.	The future has already happened.
2.	What has already happened cannot be changed.
3.	The future cannot be changed.






> God knows about the future because He sees it. He didn't influence it. It has happened. Imagine that you look back into the history and narrate to people what has happened in the history. Does that mean that you changed the free will of the people whose stories you are narrating? I hope not.


I thought you had already conceded that it is unfair to compare things that are unalike. History is the past. Knowing the past is not the same as knowing the future. My narrating history is not the same as God narrating the future. The analogy is worthless. 




> Well, for God, future is history, because He knows it.


And I must simply accept this fact, I assume. If He knows it, then he knows which shoe I will put on first tomorrow. I cannot change that. 




> We are limited by time, and we only know the past, and the present. He knows everything. However, knowledge of something doesn't mean influence nor predestination. Or it does? You decide.


As I pointed out earlier, _you_ introduced the word influence and I am unconcerned with the label you apply. By deciding that these two alternatives are the only ones possible, you are simply attempting to define the issue as you wish it to be. I dont accept this. Also, again, I dont care. The existence of a knowledge of the future (whatever you call it) means that I can do nothing to deviate from that future. Thats what matters.




> So, knowledge of future equals predestination?


What does it matter? Deal with the issue. If I cannot change the future, how can I be a free agent?




> Quote:
> Quote:Originally Posted by AmraI stated that preaching to the public openly about a belief that is fundamentally different from the constitution of the country would be regulated, as it is in every society. I disagree. Not everything will 
> 
> 
> and then...
> Quote:
> Quote:Originally Posted by AmraMy point was that every society will regulate things that it perceives as a threat in one way or the other. Of course it does and I am in favour of that. 
> 
> 
> ...


With which point? They are different, if you hadnt realised. In the first one I say that I disagree with your claim that a belief that is fundamentally different from the constitution of the country would be regulated, as it is in every society. I disagreed because there are beliefs that will simply be ignored, hence my saying, Not _everything_ will. Notice also that I do not support or oppose the idea of regulation. In the second I say that I am in favour of regulation. There is no contradiction. 




> How would I know? Democracy in the USA decided that Al-Jazeera is not promoting its values, I suppose.


If it means that much to you, you could always live in a country that does not deny you your freedoms. Or you could use the Internet, something you would not be able to do in many of the countries served by Al-Jazeera.

----------


## Amra

> No, I gave an argument that stated (not implied) that it amounts to the same thing. You even quoted this yourself, above.


There is no argument to answer. That is my problem. You are merely repeating your opinion, without stating what it is based on, without giving premises on which the argument is based. What is there to answer? I wish you would make a logical argument so I can reply to it. This way it is pointless to discuss anything, because I have to guess what your argument is, and then assume your premises, and then try to make sense of it. 




> I do not believe in God. I do not believe in predestination. Where is the contradiction?


You believe the future is known without believing in God and predestination.  :Confused:  You are confusing me more and more. If you don't believe in these concepts, why are we even discussing this? You should have just stated this in the beginning and saved us all three pages of repetition. Even if you don't believe in them in reality, because you are an atheist, if you decided to engage in an argument, then we can assume that you believe in these concepts, but then we have to assume you believe in all of them, or none of them. I mean, you can't pick and chose what suits you and ignore other things.





> No, I dont. I am saying that if the future is known, I cannot change it. I dont care whether you call that predestination or cosmic toffee theory. My point still stands. If I cannot change things, I have no free will.


I don't really think that you are reading what I am writing to you. That is very unfortunate, because it seems like you are leading a monologe and repeating the same thing, without making an argument, ignoring important concepts, and showing a great inability to actually defend what you are stating. This is your argument.

1. Future is known.
2. Known means predestined. 
2. Future is predestined.

But then you claim that it is not predestined, and when I ask you what you mean, you say you don't believe in any of this.  :Goof:   :Confused:  What you are doing is basically stating one premise, and making a conclusion. It doesn't work like that. I am not calling it predestined just to give it a name, but to explain what it means. It is a verb, not a simple noun needed to give a name to something. I am not giving it a name, but using it to explain what you are stating. There is a huge difference. 





> I dont care. That is not my point  you are merely using it to avoid answering the question I have asked a number of times. How can I believe that a non-existent being influences us?


LOL. This is actually your belief.  :Biggrin:  *You* are the one who believes that God doesn't exist, and at the same time believe that He influences your free will. You actually stated exactly what I have a problem with the whole time.  :Biggrin:  

I am the one who believes that an EXISTING being DOESN'T influence our free will.  :Nod:  




> No, I gave an argument that stated (not implied) that it amounts to the same thing. You even quoted this yourself, above.


The problem with it is that you CLAIMED it is NOT the same thing, but then gave an argument that stated/implied it is the same thing. The problem is that you didn't believe it is the same, but then you argue it is.  :Confused:  That is why I reacted, and as far as I can see you still haven't figured out whether it is the same or not. 





> What does 2 mean? If you wish to teach me how to argue, perhaps you should give an example that makes sense.


2. Free will is part of future. 

I thought it was clear in the first argument...well, there is the clarification. 





> 1. The future has already happened.


This is a faulty premise. Future has not already happened. It is merely known to an All-Knowing being that is not limited by time. Knowledge and influence are not one and the same. 




> I thought you had already conceded that it is unfair to compare things that are unalike. History is the past. Knowing the past is not the same as knowing the future. My narrating history is not the same as God narrating the future. The analogy is worthless.


LOL. You make an argument above this statement that says:

1. The future has already happened.

..which means it is in the past, but then you claim here that history and future are not the same.  :Confused:  another contradiction....

Anyways, you didn't answer why your narrating of history is not the same as God's narrating the future. ? Simply stating that the analogy is worthless is again your opinion that is not supported by anything else. If we are limited by time, God is not. If we only know the past, He knows the future as well. For the lack of better explaining it, to Him everything is history, or everything is the present, whichever you like. But, wouldn't be ridiculus to think that God was waiting for future to happen without knowing it?  :Biggrin:  To imagine a being that created EVERYTHING to be limited by time and space? 




> And I must simply accept this fact, I assume. If He knows it, then he knows which shoe I will put on first tomorrow. I cannot change that


Knowledge and influence are not one and the same.




> As I pointed out earlier, you introduced the word influence and I am unconcerned with the label you apply. By deciding that these two alternatives are the only ones possible, you are simply attempting to define the issue as you wish it to be. I dont accept this. Also, again, I dont care. The existence of a knowledge of the future (whatever you call it) means that I can do nothing to deviate from that future. Thats what matters.


YOu haven't intruduced any other concept, so I had to resort to the only thing that makes sense in this, which is influence. There is either influence or there isn't one. If there is influence, then there is not free will, if there is no influence, then there is no free will. You cannot make an argument stating that there is no influence, BUT there is no free will. However, I haven't said that you can't intruduce another concpet that would make your argument logical, but so far you have failed to do so.




> What does it matter? Deal with the issue. If I cannot change the future, how can I be a free agent


You look at it incorrectly. There is nothing to change, because for human beings, future HAS NOT happened.




> With which point? They are different, if you hadnt realised. In the first one I say that I disagree with your claim that a belief that is fundamentally different from the constitution of the country would be regulated, as it is in every society. I disagreed because there are beliefs that will simply be ignored, hence my saying, Not everything will. Notice also that I do not support or oppose the idea of regulation. In the second I say that I am in favour of regulation. There is no contradiction


I never stated that EVERYTHING will be regulated, so your statement didn't make sense. I simply stated that things that are perceived as threat will be regulated. I didn't say all things, so there was no reason to even make a statement like that. 




> If it means that much to you, you could always live in a country that does not deny you your freedoms. Or you could use the Internet, something you would not be able to do in many of the countries served by Al-Jazeera


I could if the western countries would let people decide for themselves how they want to be ruled without imposing their values on them.

----------


## The Unnamable

> There is no argument to answer. That is my problem. You are merely repeating your opinion, without stating what it is based on, without giving premises on which the argument is based. What is there to answer? I wish you would make a logical argument so I can reply to it. This way it is pointless to discuss anything, because I have to guess what your argument is, and then assume your premises, and then try to make sense of it.


This is nonsense. You are trying to suggest that an argument _must_ consist of premises, inferences and conclusions. If we were in a seminar comprising part of an undergraduate philosophy course, I would agree. But we are not. 



> You believe the future is known without believing in God and predestination.


No, I dont believe the future is known. Read my posts _attentively_ and you will see why.



> You are confusing me more and more. If you don't believe in these concepts, why are we even discussing this? You should have just stated this in the beginning and saved us all three pages of repetition. Even if you don't believe in them in reality, because you are an atheist, if you decided to engage in an argument, then we can assume that you believe in these concepts, but then we have to assume you believe in all of them, or none of them. I mean, you can't pick and chose what suits you and ignore other things.


This is more nonsense  you imply that we can only discuss concepts we believe in! Then you had better not discuss atheism or western democracy.  :FRlol:  




> I don't really think that you are reading what I am writing to you.


  :Rolleyes:  



> That is very unfortunate, because it seems like you are leading a monologe and repeating the same thing, without making an argument, ignoring important concepts, and showing a great inability to actually defend what you are stating.


  :Rolleyes:  




> This is your argument.


Above you said There is no argument to answer, now you outline what that argument is. Which is it? Am I offering an argument or not? Its you who appear to be contradicting yourself.  :Biggrin:  




> 1. Future is known.
> 2. Known means predestined. 
> 2. Future is predestined.


Besides, that isnt my argument. Its a bastardisation of what you want to be seen as my argument.




> LOL. This is actually your belief. You are the one who believes that God doesn't exist, and at the same time believe that He influences your free will.


Of course I do  Im an extremely stupid person. No, it isnt my belief. I think your imperfect command of English is letting you down. Most of what I said was with the assumption IF I believed X, then I would find Y problematic. I didnt realise that you dont believe in adopting a hypothetical stance. The odd thing is though, this is an approach you yourself have used:
If you had the ability to look into the future and you saw everything that will happen  Here you are asking me to assume X so that I can consider Y. More confusion? 





> The problem with it is that you CLAIMED it is NOT the same thing, but then gave an argument that stated/implied it is the same thing.


First of all, I offered no premise, inference and conclusion, so by your own definitions you cannot call what I said an argument. Please make up your mind. Have I offered an argument or not? 
Do you understand the concept that two things can be _very similar_ but not the same? Take the following two questions:
Do you have any money on you?
Do you have any cash on you?
Money and Cash are not identical. However, in this case, they are sufficiently similar as to amount to the same thing.



> The problem is that you didn't believe it is the same, but then you argue it is. That is why I reacted, and as far as I can see you still haven't figured out whether it is the same or not.


Yes, the problem is my own lack of understanding. I cant figure it out. Its not that, as I said earlier, I am not interested in the label itself, its because Im stupid.




> 2. Free will is part of future. 
> 
> I thought it was clear in the first argument...well, there is the clarification.


Perhaps the reason it isnt clear is that its not even correct English usage. For someone who is such a stickler for the appropriate forms of logical enquiry, I am surprised you arent more careful.  :Biggrin:  




> This is a faulty premise.


  :Brickwall:   I dont believe it has already happened. I was again making the assumption if X, then Y.



> Future has not already happened. It is merely known to an All-Knowing being that is not limited by time. Knowledge and influence are not one and the same.


I think Ive found where the problem lies. I assume youve had a google and found this: 
http://www.comereason.org/phil_qstn/phi038.asp
A lot of what you have written is a kind of garbled version of that article. It explains why you used a child in your analogy. 
Anyway, the problem lies in what is understood by know. Do you remember the following?
let's say you have a child who says "you are welcome" every time someone says "thank you" to him/her. Does you child not have a free will simply because you know the child will say "you are welcome" after you thank him/her? Of course not.
The flaw in this is that the parent cannot know in absolute terms that the child will do what is expected. He or she might _assume_ and be correct in that assumption the vast majority of the time. However, even if that is how the child responds most of the time, it is not an _absolute_ certainty. One time he might simply cough instead. Gods knowledge, on the other hand, _is_ absolute. What He knows cannot be altered. An omniscient God would know absolutely; we cant. 

The only reason that you can say they are not the same is because you support the existence of a supernatural being that is not bound by any laws. All you are telling me is that you do not know how to reconcile the two but you are sure your God does and theres an end to the matter. What happened to the rigour of philosophical enquiry?




> Anyways, you didn't answer why your narrating of history is not the same as God's narrating the future.


Really? I thought I did.  :Biggrin:  



> But, wouldn't be ridiculus to think that God was waiting for future to happen without knowing it?


No more ridiculous than _any_ belief in a God.




> Knowledge and influence are not one and the same.


Im sorry, now Im getting confused. Is this an argument or an opinion?  :FRlol:  




> YOu haven't intruduced any other concept, so I had to resort to the only thing that makes sense in this, which is influence.


The only thing that makes sense to you, you mean. So I must be constrained by the definitions you choose? Thats handy  for _you_.




> You look at it incorrectly. There is nothing to change, because for human beings, future HAS NOT happened.


  :Brickwall:  




> I never stated that EVERYTHING will be regulated, so your statement didn't make sense. I simply stated that things that are perceived as threat will be regulated. I didn't say all things, so there was no reason to even make a statement like that.


  :Brickwall:  
You said, _a_ belief that is fundamentally different. I believe that there are views that are fundamentally different that would not be regulated. You did not use the words perceived as a threat in the sentence I quoted above. 




> I could if the western countries would let people decide for themselves how they want to be ruled without imposing their values on them.


I dont understand. Are you saying that if countries like America allowed other countries to decide their own systems of government, then you would like to live in those countries? Yet you live in America. Is living in America for some reason less objectionable than living in countries where you feel it exerts an unwelcome influence? It strikes me that this is similar to saying, I would like to live in Cuba but the Russians exert a negative influence there and promote an ideology of which I disapprove, so Ill live in Moscow instead.


I did post more than this, including the website addresses of four articles from _The Daily Telegraph_ (the UKs top-selling broadsheet newspaper). They have been removed. So now, even providing links to a major British newspaper is banned. _The Daily Telegraph_ banned on a Literature Forum! They will be pleased.

----------


## Amra

I give up....  :Biggrin:

----------


## The Unnamable

> I give up....


When defeat is inevitable, it is wisest to yield. - Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (Quintilian)  :Biggrin:

----------


## Amra

> When defeat is inevitable, it is wisest to yield. - Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (Quintilian)



LOL. This can hardly be applied in this case...  :Nod:  but if it makes you feel better..you can choose to believe it....  :Wink:  

if I get some more time, maybe I'll demonstrate ALL the contradictions and faulty reasoning in your "arguments".... It will take me some time though to go through all of them and make some sense out of it without being condensending....

----------


## The Unnamable

> LOL. This can hardly be applied in this case...  but if it makes you feel better..you can choose to believe it....  
> 
> if I get some more time, maybe I'll demonstrate ALL the contradictions and faulty reasoning in your "arguments".... It will take me some time though to go through all of them and make some sense out of it without being condensending....


Now I deserve inverted commas! Ill settle for you being able to spell condescending correctly.  :Biggrin:

----------


## The Unnamable

> if I get some more time, maybe I'll demonstrate ALL the contradictions and faulty reasoning in your "arguments".... It will take me some time though to go through all of them and make some sense out of it without being condensending....


Please dont make any undue effort for _my_ sake  of course, if its for _your own_ sake, feel free.  :Biggrin:  


Have you read Miltons _Samson Agonistes_? You remind me of Harapha of Gath. (You might need google again).  :Biggrin:

----------


## Amra

So far, the best argument you made was about a misspelled word.  :Biggrin:  For your records, I speak three languages fluently, and can communicate in two others. No reason to feel intimidated.   :Wink:  

Keine Sorge....  :FRlol:

----------


## RemiAnn

We as humans are always asking "when?". We asked when you woke up and when you ate and what time various things happened. We like to celebrate time events. How long a couple has been dating. How long a couple has been married. Birthdays and significant events are other things we humans like to set a date too. It's not nessassarily that the religion was set at THAT time. It is a time to go by to celebrate blank years that religion has been in existance. Besides who knows?, how long was a day that long ago? We have been changing our calendars for centuries, trying to perfect it...how do we know that it was the same back that long ago?
Also, as the others were saying, it has a lot to do with written language. We all know that spoken words get jumbled and confused. The religion could have been around millions of years before.
But, I am very curious, just wondering, why is it you believe that religion is a human invention. Is it because as humans gained knowledge we invented gods to display it? 
I have another question. We as humans have a thirst for power, do we not? People are constantly fighting for more power, that's why we have wars, we don't agree and people don't want to give in to other people views so we've tried to kill off their beliefs...right? So, if we are in a constant power struggle why would we even care to invent gods? We would want ourselves as a god or choose a person here on earth as one, as many groups have done. 
I am just wondering to hear other people's views on these things.

----------


## The Unnamable

> We as humans are always asking "when?".


*VLADIMIR*: Dumb! Since when? 
*POZZO*: (_suddenly furious_.) Have you not done tormenting me with your accursed time! It's abominable! When! When! One day, is that not enough for you, one day he went dumb, one day I went blind, one day we'll go deaf, one day we were born, one day we shall die, the same day, the same second, is that not enough for you? (_Calmer_.) They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

_Waiting for Godot_ Samuel Beckett

----------


## jon1jt

> Please dont make any undue effort for _my_ sake  of course, if its for _your own_ sake, feel free.  
> 
> 
> Have you read Miltons _Samson Agonistes_? You remind me of Harapha of Gath. (You might need google again).



Gotta love it.

----------


## Amra

:Biggrin:  Let's get back to the discussion, because ad hominem arguments are not my thing.




> This is nonsense. You are trying to suggest that an argument must consist of premises, inferences and conclusions.


That is pretty much the definition of an argument. It is not my suggestion, but rather an overall concensus amongt people as to what an argumet is.

from Webster dictionary...

2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade
3 a : the act or process of arguing : ARGUMENTATION b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion 





> If we were in a seminar comprising part of an undergraduate philosophy course, I would agree. But we are not.


WE don't have to be in a seminar to use logical ways of proving an argument. Every somewhat educated person is familiar with the ways of arguing an opinion, and what a productive discussion should have. If we are merely stating opinions, then there is no need to discuss, because you would state your opinon, and I would state mine, and that would be the end of it. If you are claiming this, then we can just stop here. However, if you are stating an argument, but then fail to support it, then there is an inconsistency. You cannot call something an argument and at the same time refuse to provide any support for it. It is misleading to the people who read this, because you claim something that we should accept as true fact, but then refuse to give the reasoning behind it. If there is no reasoning, then what you have is an opinion and not an argument.




> No, I dont believe the future is known. Read my posts attentively and you will see why.


I did...and here is what I found on the first glance....




> I am saying that if the future is known, I cannot change it.


  :Confused:  

If the future is known? Is that your premise? What if I say, if the future is not known, I can change it. That would be equally true then, because future is not known to us. I mean, it is really up to you to decide what your argument is and what you base it on. Here are some questions that you should ask yourself that would provide some clarification on what your argument really is.

Is the future known or not known? Is the knowledge of future same as predestination? Does influence exist or not? Does knowledge of future by God equate influence on our free will? 




> The existence of a knowledge of the future (whatever you call it) means that I can do nothing to deviate from that future


Are you admitting here that there is knowledge of the future? Whatever I call it? I call it knowledge of future by God. What do you want to call it. Decide and then tell me whether or not it exists or not.




> This is more nonsense  you imply that we can only discuss concepts we believe in! Then you had better not discuss atheism or western democracy.


No, I didn't imply that we cannot discuss concepts we don't believe in. I just stated that if you decide to argue something, you have to base that on some premises that you accept to be true/logical to that argument as valid. If you say that you think we don't have a free will because God is influencing us, then I would assume you have some premises that you are basing this belief on that you accept as valid and logical to that argument. You can't just state this but when someone asks you to provide proof with premises that make sense in this argument, you state that you don't believe in the premises.  :Confused:  You don't have to believe in them per se, but you have to believe that a certain concept fits into this argument, and that is why you accept it as true to that argument.




> Above you said There is no argument to answer, now you outline what that argument is. Which is it? Am I offering an argument or not? Its you who appear to be contradicting yourself.


You don't have an argument. That is my statement. What I offered above was my assumption of your argument, because I had to do so to be able to lead a somewhat logical discussion. So I proceeded to state an argument on your behalf, because you have failed to do so, but as you can imagine, that task is pretty hard when the person keeps contradicting himself.




> Besides, that isnt my argument. Its a bastardisation of what you want to be seen as my argument.


Please enlighten me, and tell me what your argument is and what it is based on. Is there a premise in the argument that I have provided that you don't agree with? Does is just not fit what you want your conclusion to be? I don't know. You tell me. 




> Most of what I said was with the assumption IF I believed X, then I would find Y problematic. I didnt realise that you dont believe in adopting a hypothetical stance. The odd thing is though, this is an approach you yourself have used:


When you make your assumptions, they should be logical and acceptable to the argument that you are making. It is irrelevant what you believe in reality, but when you make an argument that is based on faulty assumptions, then your conclusion will not be correct. It's very simple. However, when you confuse reality with hypothetical premises and conclusions, that's when the problem arises. I don't care what you believe in reality, it is totally irrelevant, what I care about is whether or not you have a valid argument, and whether or not your premises make sense in the argument. If you assumed that future is known, you would assume that God influences us, it would be equally incorrect as saying that you do believe the future is known, and because of it, you believe that God influences us. Hypothetical or not, it is simply not a valid argument.




> First of all, I offered no premise, inference and conclusion, so by your own definitions you cannot call what I said an argument.


That is why I used argument in quotation marks, which seemed to offend you in the end.  :Smile:  You didn't make an argument, you gave an opinion. When I use argument referring to what you are stating, I should use either opinion, or "argument". I will try to do so in the future to avoid confusion. 




> Money and Cash are not identical. However, in this case, they are sufficiently similar as to amount to the same thing.


Then you are agreeing that predestination and knowledge of future are one and the same thing?




>  I dont believe it has already happened. I was again making the assumption if X, then Y.


Lol. Well, then, your assumption is incorrect. Whether or not your assumption is correct or not has nothing to do with what you in reality believe. The assumption has to make sense to the argument you are making, not necessarily be something you accept and believe in outside of the argument.





> think Ive found where the problem lies. I assume youve had a google and found this:


I haven't read that article nor have I googled anything since we started this conversation except the definiton of an argument that I took from the online webster dictionary. What I am stating here are my beliefs, not based on a quick read of an article, but arisen from long term research and convictions that I have come to hold as true.




> What He knows cannot be altered. An omniscient God would know absolutely; we cant.


How do you draw a line between knowledge and influence? You are always missing that one link to connect and make a valid argument.

----------


## sdr4jc

Man, all I gotta say is you guys are ruthless!

----------


## Whifflingpin

21733 - This is the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. Easily arrived at by multiplying the number of psalms by the number of tribes of Israel by the first number that you happen to find in the Apocalypse of St John the Divine, take away 4 (for the Archangels who are too important to dance) and 7 (for the angels who are carefully holding the vials of plagues.)

.

----------


## sdr4jc

Whifflingpin...are you okay?......

----------


## rachel

hullo sdr4jc, welcome.(sorry, I have been away)

Of course Whiffling is okay, he's more than okay, he's perfect and wonderful, and he dances with the angels and he is one.

----------


## The Unnamable

> Let's get back to the discussion,


Ive said all I want to, thank you.  :Nod:  

Der Klügere gibt nach. You had your chance!  :FRlol:  

Lieber breit grinsen als schmal denken.  :Brow:  


H.L. Mencken wrote: "The chief contribution of Protestantism to human thought is its massive proof that God is a bore;''

You have provided me with the same service.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Amra

> Ive said all I want to, thank you.


By all objective standards, that didn't amount to much.  :Wink:  I couldn't even get one simple logical argument out of you. 





> Der Klügere gibt nach. You had your chance!


Lol. This made me laugh in many ways.  :FRlol:  

There was another quote you used, but you seem to have forgotten it, although you applied it to the same situation.  :Wink:  

When defeat is inevitable, it is wisest to yield. - Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (Quintilian)  :Wink:  




> You have provided me with the same service.


Logical discussions are not for everyone, and many find them cumbersome and hard to follow, so you are not alone.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Whifflingpin

"Whifflingpin...are you okay?......"

 :Banana:  Yes, thank you for asking - I just thought I'd inject a serious note into this thread, and maybe a bit of sound reasoning, as a change from the frivolous blather that has been going on for a while.  :Banana:  

 :Angel:  Thank you too Rachel malachi  :Angel:

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

Amra,

If The Unnamable's style of argument is not to your taste. Please allow me to offer mine.

You claim:

A. God has always existed. Presumably, this includes the time _prior_ to the creation of the universe (and I am only _assuming_ your idea of a creation for the sake of argument).
B. God knows everything, past, present and future in infinite detail.
C. God created the universe and everything in it.
D. God is all-powerful. Nothing is beyond his ability.

Please feel free to correct me if any of these do not agree with your definition of God. I'd hate to base my argument on an uncertain base.

You further claim:

E. There is no predestination. Humans have complete free-will and choice in their actions (with the obvious proviso that their choice of action is physically capable of being applied).

I will show that these beliefs lead to a contradiction. I am _not_ stating that I personally believe in any of them except the last.

1. Now, if A and B are true, this implies that God knew the precise details of the life of every creature in the universe prior to creating it.
2. If D is true, God could have chosen _any_ universe, with any set of rules and possible futures to create.
3. And if C is true, God created the universe exactly as it is, _in full knowledge of the fate of every creature in it._
4. 1, 2 & 3 imply that the exact details of the minutest part of this universe were known _and chosen_ by God when he created it. In other words, He chose a universe where I am an atheist and you are a muslim.

This is utterly incompatible with premise E, which clearly states that I could have chosen to be a muslim at any time.

_Reductio ad absurdum_ therefore states that at least one of the original assumptions A, B, C, D, & E must be false.

Is that argument logical enough for you? I know that the language is not as stylish as my learned colleague, The Unnamable, and that it is certainly not nearly amusing enough for his taste. I trust though, that what it lacks in style and wit, it makes up for in the solidity of the logical process.

Feel free to be as rigourous in your counter-argument. I look forward to it.

----------


## Scheherazade

> I did post more than this, including the website addresses of four articles from _The Daily Telegraph_  (the UKs top-selling broadsheet newspaper). They have been removed. So now, even providing links to a major British newspaper is banned. _The Daily Telegraph_ banned on a Literature Forum! They will be pleased.


The Unnamable,

Your post is deleted not because it contained a link to _The Daily Telegraph_ but because the contents of the articles you linked were directly related to current political events. As I suggested in my PM, please _do_ feel free to PM them to those who are interested.


*To All,*

_Once again_, *please do not personalise your arguments.*  

And

*any off-topic post will be deleted.*

----------


## Whifflingpin

"B. God knows everything, past, present and future in infinite detail."

Not that I care whether there is free will or not (we have to live as if there is free will, because we do not know what, if anything, is fore-ordained.)

Your careful argument, Xamonas, depends on whether this statement B is true, and in what sense it may be true. Your argument is valid if time is linear to God as it appears to the created universe. If, however, God's view of time be not linear, then, amongst the infinite options which you allow to the Creator is the option to create a universe in which some, or all, of the creatures have free will to act within their natures, and the Creator's knowledge may, in linear time, come after the free action but still, in God's view be known by Him, though not determined by Him, at the moment of creation.

I think that if you do not allow this possibility, then you do not get as far as considering predetermination, in your terms, because your clause D does not hold.

.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"E. There is no predestination. Humans have complete free-will and choice in their actions (with the obvious proviso that their choice of action is physically capable of being applied).

... I am not stating that I personally believe in any of them except the last."

Interestingly, it is, if I understood and remember him correctly, the atheist Stephen Hawking who demonstrates clearly that the universe and everything in it is totally preordained, and that had there been a Creator, He would have had no free will in the way in which he created the universe.

.

----------


## The Unnamable

> it is certainly not nearly amusing enough for his taste.


On the contrary, I laughed out very loudly when I read it. I think we can safely assume that google has been red-hot since that appeared.  :Biggrin:  At the moment however, you appeared to have frightened off some people with the solidity of your logic.  :Nod:

----------


## Amra

> You claim:
> 
> A. God has always existed. Presumably, this includes the time prior to the creation of the universe (and I am only assuming your idea of a creation for the sake of argument).
> B. God knows everything, past, present and future in infinite detail.
> C. God created the universe and everything in it.
> D. God is all-powerful. Nothing is beyond his ability.


I agree with all those premises.




> E. There is no predestination. Humans have complete free-will and choice in their actions (with the obvious proviso that their choice of action is physically capable of being applied).


Just to be clear in this, God did decide certain things, such as the Judgment Day, the laws of this universe, the revelations of His message to the Prophets, but He didn't influence *us*  to make the choices we made, meaning that our free will is indeed not influenced by Him directly, but is only limited by the laws of the nature we live in, as you already stated above.




> 1. Now, if A and B are true, this implies that God knew the precise details of the life of every creature in the universe prior to creating it.
> 2. If D is true, God could have chosen any universe, with any set of rules and possible futures to create.
> 3. And if C is true, God created the universe exactly as it is, in full knowledge of the fate of every creature in it.
> 4. 1, 2 & 3 imply that the exact details of the minutest part of this universe were known and chosen by God when he created it. In other words, He chose a universe where I am an atheist and you are a muslim.


I think that the main problem arises because we want to limit God to time. Time is a very important concept in this issue, because God created time as well, and is not limited by it, whereas we are. If we try to put those boundaries on God, then we negate your premise D. God created the laws of this nature, the universe, decided when the Judgment Day will be, gave us Prophets to guide us, and gave us free will to decide for ourselves. For us, everything that is still ahead is future and unknown, but for God, that restriction doesn't apply. He already knows everything that will happen, but He let it happen because we have free will. If He wanted to influence that in any way, wouldn't He have created all of us to be believers? Stating that God influences us in the decisions we make would imply that God is evil and unjust, that Judgment Day exists merely for His entertainment, and that human beings are programmed robots. All of these are incompatible with the view of God we have, and the characteristics He has. When you read the Qur'an, you can see that on many occasions God talks about the future as if it had already happened. 

044.010 
YUSUFALI: Then watch thou for the Day that the sky will bring forth a kind of smoke (or mist) plainly visible, 

044.011 
YUSUFALI: Enveloping the people: this will be a Penalty Grievous. 
044.012 
YUSUFALI: (They will say :Smile:  "Our Lord! remove the Penalty from us, for we do really believe!" 
044.013 
YUSUFALI: How shall the message be (effectual) for them, seeing that an Messenger explaining things clearly has (already) come to them
044.014 
YUSUFALI: Yet they turn away from him and say: "Tutored (by others), a man possessed!" 

Notice that in one of the verses God tell us what the people will say when Judgment Day comes:"Our Lord! remove the Penalty from us, for we do really believe!". Did God influence them to not believe, or to say this? No. He simply tell us what will happen, because He knows it. To Him it has already happened.
It shows that for God time is linear, and therefore everything that would happen, or that has happened, and that which is happening is known to him. However, there is a difference between influence and knowledge. His mere knowledge of things that are future for us, but known to him because He is not limited by time, does not imply that He influences our free will. It simply means that, as He knows everything else, He knows our free wills as well. 

I would like you to explain more, if you could, how you draw the line between knowledge and influence, because if we assume that we cannot do anything because we are predestined to what God had already decided, then that implies influence. Right?

By the way, thank you for engaging in this discussion. Your imput is very refreshing....  :Nod:

----------


## Amra

Here are some more verses from the Qur'an, and you can see how God narrates future as something that has already happened. 



10. The Unbelievers will be addressed: "Greater was the aversion of Allah to you than (is) your aversion to yourselves, seeing that ye were called to the Faith and ye used to refuse." 

11. They will say: "Our Lord! twice hast Thou made us without life, and twice hast Thou given us Life! Now have we recognised our sins: Is there any way out (of this)?" 

12. (The answer will be :Smile:  "This is because, when Allah was invoked as the Only (object of worship), ye did reject Faith, but when partners were joined to Him, ye believed! the Command is with Allah, Most High, Most Great!" 

....

83. For when their apostles came to them with Clear Signs, they exulted in such knowledge (and skill) as they had; but that very (Wrath) at which they were wont to scoff hemmed them in. 

84. But when they saw Our Punishment, they said: "We believe in Allah,- the one Allah - and we reject the partners we used to join with Him." 


Again, verses telling us of future events as if they had already happend confirming God's unlimited knowledge not bounded by time constraints.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

I don't follow your logic Amra. Why does it make a difference whether God is inside or outside of time. 

In your view, He created a universe (this one, to be precise) _with absolute prior knowledge of every act that would be commited in it._ This is what postulates A, B, C & D imply. 

If they are true, which you say you believe, then everything that occurs in this world is the _pre-ordained_ will of God. He could have made the world a different way but he didn't. 

This means that he _chose_ a world in which you will (presumably) be saved and I will go to hell. 
He _chose_ a world with malaria, genocide, tsunamis, murder in the name of religion, and even atheism.

Whether he chose this world before what we perceive as the present, or from outside of time altogether, is irrelevant. It was his choice; according to the 4 statements that you believe in, it had to be. As you say, this implies that *God is evil and unjust, that Judgment Day exists merely for His entertainment, and that human beings are programmed robots.*  

Personally, I take a different view, I say that it makes the idea of a _loving_ God possessing all of those properties absurd. Alternatively, it means that using any logic at all to explain God's actions is absurd, in which case, why did you start it?

Rely on faith, if you like. But try to rely on logic and (unless your arguments are flawed and you willfully ignore those flaws) the God that you believe in _can not exist_.

----------


## Amra

> In your view, He created a universe (this one, to be precise) with absolute prior knowledge of every act that would be commited in it. This is what postulates A, B, C & D imply.


Yes.




> If they are true, which you say you believe, then everything that occurs in this world is the pre-ordained will of God. He could have made the world a different way but he didn't.


How do you link knowledge with preordination? The first statment asserts His knowledge of what will happen. In the second you state that because He knows what will happen, He must have predestined it. Why?

Can we assume that God knows what will happen even though He didn't influence it?
He created the world with certain natural laws, gave us free will, and let us do whatever we did knowing what we will do. If you imagine the God as a psychic (may He forgive me for this) who sees the future and merely lets it happen, how do you ascribe influence to Him simply because He knows what will happen?

----------


## Whifflingpin

This discussion is absurd, in that whatever may be postulated, no creature could know what is in the mind of the creator. Of course, for any believer there is an act of faith, and a point beyond which logic is of no help. This is, if I may again misrember and misquote the atheist Hawking, analogous to Hawking's statements that questions about conditions prior to the start of the universe, and post end-of-universe are, for us, meaningless non-questions. (Edited bit: "God has always existed. Presumably, this includes the time prior to the creation of the universe" The second, at least, of these two statements is without meaning - "always," "time prior" are concepts that have meaning within the framework of time, but they are non-terms outside such a framework. )

Assuming that God exists, we have not the slightest idea or concept how he operates or what he knows in his own sphere. In terms of the created universe, our free will may be consistent with his total knowledge, because what, to us appears infinite time is to him an instant. In his terms, not that I can know anything about them, the created universe has no before, during and after, it just is and is not; his knowledge of all its being and its end is instantaneous with the moment of creation, because its beginning and end are not separated.

I think that Amra's arguments are consistent with the paragraph above. 

Christians, on the other hand, have an additional non-logical item of faith, which is that the creator has, at one point in history, entered into his creation and experienced what it is like to suffer time, and known what creatures suffer, as one of them, rather than as an onlooker. For Christians, this is sufficient answer to Xamonas' accusation of callousness on the part of God, namely, that whatever we (all creation) suffer, he suffers.

For me, that concept of God's incarnation, though wonderful, is both insufficient and too complicated. But, to me, the world seems too full of the divine for atheism to offer a sufficient description, and too full of evil for a single loving creator - hence, I think that any theory that attempts to describe this universe must be dualistic at least. I appreciate that this view is scarcely fashionable just now, but it is exactly the conditions that make Xamonas decide that there is no divine power make me conclude that there are two.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> How do you link knowledge with preordination? The first statment asserts His knowledge of what will happen. In the second you state that because He knows what will happen, He must have predestined it. Why?


I have answered this already. 

1. He knows everything.
2. Everything includes every single occurence in every possible universe.
3. He could have created any universe, but chose to create this one.
4. Every single occurence is already known and cucially, already determined, _because this particular universe out of all possible universe has been chosen._

If 1 or 2 is not true, God is not omniscient.
If 3 is not true, God himself is either not omnipotent, did not create the universe or did not _Himself_ have free will!
4 follows logically from 2 and 3.

Tell me which of these logical statements you are unhappy with.

----------


## Amra

> I have answered this already. 
> 
> 1. He knows everything.
> 2. Everything includes every single occurence in every possible universe.
> 3. He could have created any universe, but chose to create this one.
> 4. Every single occurence is already known and cucially, already determined, because this particular universe out of all possible universe has been chosen.





> If 1 or 2 is not true, God is not omniscient.


One and two are true.




> If 3 is not true, God himself is either not omnipotent, did not create the universe or did not Himself have free will!


I don't see how the negation of 3 would mean that God didn't have a free will. Also, when you say He chose to create this universe and not some other, what do you mean specifically? I would agree to the extent that HE chose to create the laws of nature in this universe, death, Judgment Day and set certain limits upon us, but free will has nothing to do with that. We have the free will to choose how we want to live within those limits. He didn't choose how we would exercise our free will, He simply knew what will happen. Are you suggesting that after seeing how we would end up, He should have set other laws? Wouldn't that actually be influence, rather than letting it play out as it has? Are you suggesting that HE wasn't mercifull enough; that the universe He created for us and the laws that we operate under were not fair enough, and therefore you blame Him for the things that happen? We could debate these things, but if you are suggesting that He predestined everything to happen a certain way, then that is simply not true, and your argument doesn't prove that, because you never link knowledge to influence in any logical way. He did let things happen as they did, and they happened with His approval.. He approved us to have a free will and do as we please.

This is how I imagine it to be: God created the universe, and He created the laws within it, then He created the first human beings, gave them free will, sent the Prophets to guide them, and let it all play out. He saw what would happen, and decided to let it be, believing that His laws and the universe He created were just and that everyone had a fair chance. 




> 4 follows logically from 2 and 3.


Not really. 1 and 2 talk about His knowledge. 3 is not clear enough, and I have explained above why. 4 simply concludes something that is not logically linked to 2, and because 3 appears to be faulty, it is not possible to make 4 valid based on it. Where do you get the impression that God chose this universe? Doesn't that imply that He actually didn't influence anything, because if He had chosen something else, that would actually mean that He intervened in the natural procession of things. I wouldn't use choose in this context because it is confusing and doesn't really describe the reality. If we assume that He only LET things happen in their natural procession, than your argument doesn't stand. You never linked knowledge with predestination, but simply stated in 1 and 2 that He had knowledge of everything, and then you concluded that because He had knowledge that means He predestined it. There is no link between those two.

Also, Wifflingpin perfectly explains what my argument is. Using descriptive words for time such as "before", "after", "prior" when we talk about God is not correct, because God is not limited by time, and we are doing just that by expressing ourselves in that way.




> Assuming that God exists, we have not the slightest idea or concept how he operates or what he knows in his own sphere. In terms of the created universe, our free will may be consistent with his total knowledge, because what, to us appears infinite time is to him an instant. In his terms, not that I can know anything about them, the created universe has no before, during and after, it just is and is not; his knowledge of all its being and its end is instantaneous with the moment of creation, because its beginning and end are not separated.


Perfectly stated.  :Nod:

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> I don't see how the negation of 3 would mean that God didn't have a free will.


I didn't say that. I presented that as one of three possible implications of statement 3. You are arguing that I implied one of these specifically - which is untrue.




> Also, when you say He chose to create this universe and not some other, what do you mean specifically? I would agree to the extent that HE chose to create the laws of nature in this universe, death, Judgment Day and set certain limits upon us, but free will has nothing to do with that. We have the free will to choose how we want to live within those limits.


In the above group of statements:
(a) You ask what I mean by him _choosing_ a particular universe and then agree that he DID choose a particular universe.
(b) You agree that he _set certain limits on us_ yet deny that this affects our free will. 
This is a shaky foundation for your subsequent arguments.





> He didn't choose how we would exercise our free will, He simply knew what will happen.


This is a rephrasing of the question I just addressed. 

You still haven't put forward any argument to explain the difference that you see between 
(a) choosing to create a particular universe where he knows in advance the minutest detail of all of our actions
and 
(b) creating a universe where all of our actions are fixed in advance




> Are you suggesting that after seeing how we would end up, He should have set other laws?


I am _asserting_ (not suggesting) that, according to the definition of God to which you subscribe, he could have - not should have; _could_ have. 




> Wouldn't that actually be influence, rather than letting it play out as it has?


I have stated many times that it is 'influence' or rather pre-destination either way. This is merely one of an infinite number of possible universes which a God such as you believe in could have created. He chose the one that plays out _exactly_ as it does, not some other. The pre-destination is implicit in his ability to choose how he creates his universe, his ability to see the future of all possible universes and the choice of universe that he makes.




> Are you suggesting that HE wasn't mercifull enough; that the universe He created for us and the laws that we operate under were not fair enough, and therefore you blame Him for the things that happen?


I am not going to be drawn into a debate about God's personality - I don't believe in him, let alone blame him - and you consider him 'unknowable' so this is a dead end.




> We could debate these things, but if you are suggesting that He predestined everything to happen a certain way, then that is simply not true, and your argument doesn't prove that, because you never link knowledge to influence in any logical way.


Oh yes I do. What has _not_ happened is you using the same logic to refute me. Your arguments are nothing but a statement that you believe me wrong but are not certain exactly how.




> He did let things happen as they did, and they happened with His approval.. He approved us to have a free will and do as we please.


Again you reword your original premise. Repetition is not a valid logical argument technique.




> This is how I imagine it to be: God created the universe, and He created the laws within it, then He created the first human beings, gave them free will, sent the Prophets to guide them, and let it all play out. He saw what would happen, and decided to let it be, believing that His laws and the universe He created were just and that everyone had a fair chance.


Use use an awful lot of 'then's in describing the actions of a God that is outside of time. You also imply here that he only 'saw what would happen' after sending the prophets. You also imply some knowledge of what God himself believes in the last sentence - naughty!




> Not really. 1 and 2 talk about His knowledge. 3 is not clear enough, and I have explained above why.


Where have you explained why? You have muddied the water and denied it - that is by no means the same thing.




> 4 simply concludes something that is not logically linked to 2, and because 3 appears to be faulty, it is not possible to make 4 valid based on it.


3 'appears' to be faulty? Is it or isn't it? You have not disproved it to my satisfaction as I have stated above.




> Where do you get the impression that God chose this universe?


Are you denying that he could have chosen a different one? And if you are, why not? Because he is not all-powerful enough? or because he himself has no free will in the matter? 





> Doesn't that imply that He actually didn't influence anything, because if He had chosen something else, that would actually mean that He intervened in the natural procession of things.


Why would choosing a _different_ universe than this one imply influence, yet choosing this one does not? What is the difference between this universe and any other, except for the simple fact that this is the one that God chose to create?




> I wouldn't use choose in this context because it is confusing and doesn't really describe the reality. If we assume that He only LET things happen in their natural procession, than your argument doesn't stand.


Think about what you wrote here. It is _your_ assertion that God created the universe, yet now you ask me to assume that he 'let it happen in it's natural procession'. Did he create it or not? Did he create the universe but not the laws of the universe perhaps?




> You never linked knowledge with predestination, but simply stated in 1 and 2 that He had knowledge of everything, and then you concluded that because He had knowledge that means He predestined it. There is no link between those two.


Again you retread the same old ground. I have shown why I believe there is a causal link between these two statements. You have merely stated, without logical argument, that you don't agree.




> Also, Wifflingpin perfectly explains what my argument is. Using descriptive words for time such as "before", "after", "prior" when we talk about God is not correct, because God is not limited by time, and we are doing just that by expressing ourselves in that way.
> 
> Perfectly stated.


My argument does not rely on God's existence in time. It is purely based on the definition of God that is held by believers.



Amra,

I am quite happy for you to believe in your God. But it is a matter of your faith and nothing else. 

Many logical arguments for the existence of God have been proposed over the centuries; and they have been far more rigourous and internally consistent than your own. Not one has stood up to scrutiny.

Believe what you will (you will anyway), but using logic in such an inconsistent way as you have is not constructive. All it serves to do is convince those that already agree with you, based on the fact that they don't read your words carefully and want them to be true.

Let us agree to differ on God's existence, free will and prior knowledge. None of these can be proven logically. I do not claim to have disproven God's existence; all I claim is that I have shown that there are logical inconsistencies in the _idea_ of God that you present. That you refute that is up to you, of course. You can deny anything you like; just as you can believe anything you like.

But logic is too sharp a tool to apply on something that is based on faith alone.


Peace,

XC

----------


## Whifflingpin

"But logic is too sharp a tool to apply on something that is based on faith alone."

Xamonas, you could have a go at the game I used to play when I was bored at work. There were trees on the other side of the car park, and the game was simply to describe a leaf that I could see so that, out of all the leaves on the tree, a person next to me could recognise the leaf I was describing. Mere location, like "third leaf on the third branch up on the third tree from the left" was not permitted.
Of course, there were a few leaves that could be described, but, although I could see thousands of leaves, and knew that each leaf was unique, the task of describing more than half a dozen quickly became impossible. Logic can take no part in this task, and language fails almost from the outset.

If logic and language cannot even enable us to describe something so common and physical as a leaf, why do you think that either can be used to describe things beyond the universe? They are just two very crude and inadequate tools.

----------


## Amra

> Let us agree to differ on God's existence, free will and prior knowledge. None of these can be proven logically. I do not claim to have disproven God's existence; all I claim is that I have shown that there are logical inconsistencies in the idea of God that you present. That you refute that is up to you, of course. You can deny anything you like; just as you can believe anything you like.


I agree that we differ on God's existence, free will and prior knowledge. We simply look at them and understand them in different ways. I have never had a problem believing that God's knowledge has no effect on our free will, and was actually quite surprised to see that others didn't see it that way. 

When you say God chose this universe, I stated that I only agree as far as the fact that He chose the natural laws of this universe, death, Judgment Day, and that our free will operates within those limits. However, I do not agree that He chose what we will do within those limits. If there wasn't enough room for us to make the right choice, and if every human being was an atheist, then I would say, God didn't give us a fair chance to believe in him. But, this is simply not true. I believe that His mercy is far above what we deserve, and that He set the laws of the universe so that we all have a fair chance of being believers. I do not believe that His knowledge had anything to do with predestination, as those are two very seperate concepts. If you woud try to make an argument saying that God doesn't know the future, then it would simply be not acceptable since we think of him as the All-Knowing. How would you reconcile God's ignorance of future and his All-Knowing nature? You couldn't. He has to be the One who knows everything, from our thoughts, act, hidden feelings, to the laws of the universe. However, knowing something and influening it are not one and the same. *As I asked before, why is it not possible to assume that God knew what will happen, but instead of intervening, He let it play out as it has?*




> In the above group of statements:
> (a) You ask what I mean by him choosing a particular universe and then agree that he DID choose a particular universe.
> (b) You agree that he set certain limits on us yet deny that this affects our free will. 
> This is a shaky foundation for your subsequent arguments


I agreed only to the extent that He chose the limits of this universe, the natural laws, death, Judgment day, but that He doesn't effect every single thing we do within those limits. As far as I can tell, you are not simply stating that, but you go further to say that He predestined EVERYTHING we do, think, feel. That is not what I agreed with. I think that we are affected in the sense that we cannot go outside of the limits God set for us, but we can do whatever we like within those limits. Since I also do not believe that these limits are unfair to any single group, I do not see why we should even bother with them. Why do you believe that by setting limits God influences our free will in every day life? Don't you think if that was true, then all of us would act the same way, because we were somehow trapped by God? HOw can that be reconciled with the fact that some people believe and others don't?





> You still haven't put forward any argument to explain the difference that you see between





> (a) choosing to create a particular universe where he knows in advance the minutest detail of all of our actions
> and 
> (b) creating a universe where all of our actions are fixed in advance


There is a big difference between choosing certain natural laws and setting limits in an environment, and influencing our free will that operates within those limits. As I stated before, we are limited as to what we can do within those limits (we can't live forever, we can't change our nature etc.) , and our free will operates within those limitis. However, there is a difference between letting the free will operate within those limits, and affecting the free will in other ways. Which one do you support?
In b) you state something that I don't agree with, because our actions are not fixed because He influenced them, they are only fixed in the sense that He knows what will happen.




> Are you denying that he could have chosen a different one? And if you are, why not? Because he is not all-powerful enough? or because he himself has no free will in the matter?


I am not denying that He could have done anything. He is All-Powerful. However, I would like you to tell me whether you believe that the limits He set for us are unfair, whether or not you think that setting the limits and influencing our free will is one and the same, and whether or not you think that by setting the limits He influenced our free will as well, not simply because we are limited by the laws of nature, but in a more specific way. (i.e He predestined that you will be an atheist and that I will believe in Him)




> Why would choosing a different universe than this one imply influence, yet choosing this one does not? What is the difference between this universe and any other, except for the simple fact that this is the one that God chose to create?


Again, the question is what you mean by "he chose this universe". Do you simply agree with me that He chose the laws of this universe, death, Judgment Day, or that He chose everything else as well, such as what we will do every single day, what we will say, what we will believe in, etc?





> Think about what you wrote here. It is your assertion that God created the universe, yet now you ask me to assume that he 'let it happen in it's natural procession'. Did he create it or not? Did he create the universe but not the laws of the universe perhaps


Here you confuse things again. Choosing the universe to me means that He chose certain laws of nature within we operate. It means that our free will is LIMITED by those laws of nature. It doesn't mean that we don't have ANY free will, but simply that it operates under certain conditions. Is your argument based on this, or do you go further to say that BECAUSE our free will is conditioned, we don't have it at all? That would not be true, because if there was no free will, and if we all had the same conditions and limitations, wouldn't we ALL choose the same things? Wouldn't the fact that we all choose the same things imply that we simply didn't have any other choice, or any other path? But it is not like that. WE have the same conditions and same limitations, but you see people operate in different ways. Isn't that proof of free will in itself?

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

Sorry Amra, but it is you that is confusing things. I have made my position abundantly plain. Reread my earlier posts; they contain everything I have to say on the matter. 

And I will not be drawn into arguments about how 'fair' things are. The world isn't fair and that is nothing to do with God as far as I am convinced. I do not believe in God, so logically _nothing_ is anything to do with God. My belief is that all religion is a human construct and that there are no such things as gods or prophets. 

Free will exists. We are free to do whatever we wish; however perverse, ridiculous, illogical and bizarrre. The only constraints upon us are those imposed by the nature of the universe; we cannot transform anthills into mountains of gold, walk through walls, turn invisible, etc. These rules are a necessary part of the way the universe is; not part of the grand design of some all-powerful being.

As I already said, have faith if you will, that is your prerogative. But please stop mixing logic and rhetoric as if that justifies your position.

----------


## Amra

> Free will exists. We are free to do whatever we wish; however perverse, ridiculous, illogical and bizarrre. The only constraints upon us are those imposed by the nature of the universe; we cannot transform anthills into mountains of gold, walk through walls, turn invisible, etc. These rules are a necessary part of the way the universe is;


I agree...




> not part of the grand design of some all-powerful being.


I don't agree. The rules of nature are only necessary IF there is a God who has a greater plan for all this. If there was no grand design, then the rules don't make sense. For example, why should it be more necessary to die than not to die? Why have rules if there is no puropose to them? They just happen to exist?

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

The rules of the universe are a necessary result of the only way that the universe can exist. It is based on precise physical and mathematical relationships (albeit ones which are not yet fully understood). The universe could no more function in a different manner, than 2 + 2 could equal 5. This is how I see it. 

You may well believe that God could make 2 + 2 = 5 if he wished. I think this is beyond even him.

----------


## TodHackett

> The rules of the universe are a necessary result of the only way that the universe can exist. It is based on precise physical and mathematical relationships (albeit ones which are not yet fully understood). The universe could no more function in a different manner, than 2 + 2 could equal 5. This is how I see it. 
> 
> You may well believe that God could make 2 + 2 = 5 if he wished. I think this is beyond even him.


See, here's my thing with God...

God could make the Universe such that 2+2=4, AND 2+2=5. 'Cause S/He's God, man... since when is S/He bounded by logic or feeble human knowledge of any sort?

So, God could make the Universe such that both were true, or neither, or one at one time and another at a different time. S/He could make the Universe such that some believed that 2+2=4 and some, that 2+2=5; S/He could make it such that people switched beliefs all the time.

Heck, maybe he's made the Universe in all of these ways, or none of them, we just don't know it. And that's the thing-- we can't know it, because in some ways, God's not knowable. Any attempt to say one knows God is limiting His/Her magnificence, and that just doesn't ring right to me. 

That's what's so cool, and so frustrating, about God!

So, given that we can't know God, I'm all for sticking to what we _do_ know, or at least what seems to work-- i.e., math and science.

Yup. That's my two cents. For now.

----------


## mcrane

hi all,  :Wave:  
this thread is the reason i registered. last night i read all of the posts in this thread. And allow me to say, Unnamable and Amra, u both have incredible energies.  :Thumbs Up:  
I read many interesting opinions at the beginning. However, i think we've diverted just a tiny bit from our original subject "what was before God?"
Free will or predestination is an idea representing part of the core beliefs in chirstianity, Islam, judaism AND atheism. It is a fundamental AND controversial concept that some believers do not agree to entirely.  :Argue:  

concerning our main topic "what was before God?" I would like to raise a question: What was before Us??? Believers agree that God has always existed and will always exist. He was around since the creatin of man and is around now and will be until the judgement day. 

But what happened before that? before man was created? and what will happen after people are judged? 
 :Brickwall:  
can anyone help on that?

----------


## Whifflingpin

"Men esteem truth remote, in the outskirts of the system, behind the farthest star, before Adam and after the last man. In eternity there is indeed something true and sublime. But all these times and places and occasions are now and here. God himself culminates in the present moment, and will never be more divine in the lapse of all the ages." Thoreau.

I've just read that, and it may even be relevant, but I've just discovered Thoreau, thanks to Chmpman, and I've got to share him.

.

----------


## tiny explorer

[QUOTE=The Unnamable]Because he doesnt exist.

He doesn't exist? Then it contradicts your view that, you only chooses what God has already known what you will do?meaning you have the freewill....He won't be a God after all if His existence is known among his creation He has no creator coz He is the creator...

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

[QUOTE=tiny explorer]


> Because he doesnt exist.
> 
> He doesn't exist? Then it contradicts your view that, you only chooses what God has already known what you will do?meaning you have the freewill....He won't be a God after all if His existence is known among his creation He has no creator coz He is the creator...


  :Confused:   :Confused:   :Confused:  

Sorry. You lost me there. Some grammar might help. Nice use of smilies though.  :Nod:

----------


## sdr4jc

You may well believe that God could make 2 + 2 = 5 if he wished. I think this is beyond even him.[/QUOTE]


If I may make a comment here...absolutely NOTHING is beyond God's abilities. It is quite disturbing to me that you believe God incapable of such a simple feat. He raised people from the dead and walked on water. Why would this be a challenge to Him?  :Wink:

----------


## sdr4jc

> hi all,  
> this thread is the reason i registered. last night i read all of the posts in this thread. And allow me to say, Unnamable and Amra, u both have incredible energies.  
> I read many interesting opinions at the beginning. However, i think we've diverted just a tiny bit from our original subject "what was before God?"
> Free will or predestination is an idea representing part of the core beliefs in chirstianity, Islam, judaism AND atheism. It is a fundamental AND controversial concept that some believers do not agree to entirely.  
> 
> concerning our main topic "what was before God?" I would like to raise a question: What was before Us??? Believers agree that God has always existed and will always exist. He was around since the creatin of man and is around now and will be until the judgement day. 
> 
> But what happened before that? before man was created? and what will happen after people are judged? 
>  
> can anyone help on that?



The Bible speaks of three kinds of knowledge that God has given us: the first being His Word (the Bible) in print for deliberate education. The second is in our hearts, how He speaks to us through the Holy Spirit, and the general consensus on this is that it is equivalent to our conscience. The third is through evidence of the creation, this world, the animals, our bodies, food and water, everything tangible by which God's love and existence was proven.

But then there's a passage in the Bible that speaks of our limited capacity to fully understand God, and it even goes on to say that if we saw God in His full glory, we could not live to tell of it, as He is just too much for us. In this same context, we cannot know the full extent of His knowledge. And with regards to "What came before us" I am likewise very curious. But I feel as though it's one of those questions I'll have to ask Him when I get there. In the meantime, it just takes a small amount of faith, thus the cornerstone of Christianity. In all those shady areas like that, I just give it over to God and I just accept that I won't know until He reveals it. And I may theorize and debate and rationalize, but when it comes down to it, I just have faith that it will be made known to me. And I am content. 

I don't have to have all the answers in order to be secure. Not saying you all do, but stuff like that doesn't cost me any sleep. However, it does make for good discussions.  :Nod:

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> If I may make a comment here...absolutely NOTHING is beyond God's abilities. It is quite disturbing to me that you believe God incapable of such a simple feat. He raised people from the dead and walked on water. Why would this be a challenge to Him?


You believe that - I don't think he did either of those - I don't think there _is_ a 'he' in the first place.

----------


## chmpman

Well if God is a figment of man's imagination and wants, He can do ANYTHING. Or nothing. Whichever suits the worshiper.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

My use of the equation 2 + 2 = 5 was chosen precisely because it is a direct, logical result of Euclid's postulates. This being untrue, would imply that logic itself was invalid. 

Since Amra was attempting to use logic to argue that we could have free-will in a world where God knew the results of every action in advance, I threw this into the mix. 

If logic can be over-ruled by God, then it is pointless to use logic to argue any facts about God (whether one believes in the big fellah, or not). This was the crux of my argument - it all comes down to faith; to what you believe. 

Belief in God is illogical - you can only believe by abandonning logical thought and accepting that belief without question and without logical examination - something I am psychologically and intellectually unable to do. As I have said repeatedly, I have no beef with belief, just with attempts to justify it through faulty logic.

----------


## sdr4jc

So why must something be "proven" in order for it to be true? You seem well-learned, and I'm sure you know that most "scientists" will agree that even with all the laws of physics and such, that there are still MANY things that just cannot be explained away, yet they are quite definately in existence.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> So why must something be "proven" in order for it to be true? You seem well-learned, and I'm sure you know that most "scientists" will agree that even with all the laws of physics and such, that there are still MANY things that just cannot be explained away, yet they are quite definately in existence.


1. Where did I say that "something has to be proven to be true"? The last few words of my last post are "I have no beef with belief, just with attempts to justify it through faulty logic." Don't put words in my mouth!

2. There are many things that can't be explained _YET_. That doesn't mean that they never will be explained. It's not too long ago that the Earth was believed to be flat and the sun to revolve around it. We have come a long way in a relatively short time but the quest for knowledge is unending. It's a little early to concede that the jigsaw of science has missing pieces.

3. And I _am_ well-learned; it's not a mere semblance, thank you.  :Wink:

----------


## mcrane

> In the meantime, it just takes a small amount of faith, thus the cornerstone of Christianity. In all those shady areas like that, I just give it over to God and I just accept that I won't know until He reveals it. And I may theorize and debate and rationalize, but when it comes down to it, I just have faith that it will be made known to me. And I am content.


hmmm.. it is true that somethings are a bit hard to rationalize. But i have a small problem with "just letting them go."  :Rolleyes:  

the reason being that, through my humble knowledge of chirstianity, judaism and islam, God spoke to man (when he/she/it first spoke) through the word of logic. 
People were asked by prophets to challenge and rationalize their beliefs and see if it makes sense that the universe has no creator. To me, it doesn't. however, it also doesnt make sense that this creator would create and judge beings like us for a reason that is not quite clear. It also doesnt make sense that this creator comes from nowhere and that we shouldnt know what was before us or after us.  :Brickwall: 

If we were supposed to use our minds in order to reach evidence of God's existence, y shouldnt we use our minds examining other unknowns about this universe. It ALL has to make sense. I think!  :Smile:

----------


## swimangel

the answer is simple. it might be hard to understand but here goes..... 
God allways was and allways will be. Christians might have only been arround for 2,000 years, but people have believed in God for centuries because he allways was. My Grandpa is an Atheist, but even he admits there was something that created the universe. And I'm not trying to get on your bad side or any thing but if you profess to be an Atheist (which meens you don't believe in anything) woulden't you be believeing in something right there? God is all knowing and all powerfull and he never "changed his mind" just read the Bible you will see that God cast out angels from heaven(i won't go into any details until you read it yourself),and that's where the dino's died, then he rebuilt (if you would put it that way) the earth in 7 days. so Christianity isn't a religion it's a belief

----------


## Petrarch's Love

There are more things in heaven and earth, Xamonas, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.  :Wink:  I feel as though I can identify with both sides of this debate. As an agnostic I can well understand having a faith in some higher power than us. I believe very firmly in what people refer to as god. Yet while I see this higher power as the basis and inspiration for most of the world's religions, I don't believe specifically in the mythologies of any of these religions. I think that organized religion provides many good things in providing the context for discussing the big questions, encouraging people to help one another, and comforting people in their times of distress, and I respect those who sincerely believe in their religions as a way to a good and giving life. Yet I've seen too often how easily the attribution of our human ideas to the unknowable "god" can be turned to bad ends and the power of religious ideology abused to suit, not a higher but a human purpose. I believe that the spirit we call "god" is truly unknowable, and so I do not believe in trying to apply human logic to understand it. So I suppose I agree with Xamonas in that I don't see the point of a logical argument attempting to prove the existence of god, and that many of the personifications of the almighty are in fact human inventions. Still, I agree from a very different position, one which readily embraces the existence of god. I suppose taking both sides in a sense may make mine the least popular position on this thread. Throw your stones gently.  :Wink:

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> My Grandpa is an Atheist, but even he admits there was something that created the universe.


Then he's _not_ an atheist!




> And I'm not trying to get on your bad side or any thing but if you profess to be an Atheist (which meens you don't believe in anything) woulden't you be believeing in something right there?


Please see the "atheists" thread for many examples of what atheists _do_ believe in.




> God is all knowing and all powerfull and he never "changed his mind" just read the Bible you will see that God cast out angels from heaven(i won't go into any details until you read it yourself),and that's where the dino's died, then he rebuilt (if you would put it that way) the earth in 7 days. so Christianity isn't a religion it's a belief


1. I have read it. All of it. Most of it many times. Have you?
2. The dinosaurs died because God threw the angels out of heaven? Where does it say _that_ in the bible? Where does it mention dinosaurs in the bible at all, for that matter? Did the angels land on the dinosaurs heads and crush them?
3. God _re_-created the Earth in 7 days? You are reading an interesting book there, but it sure ain't any bible I know! No mention of multiple creations in there. Are you sure you're not thinking of the Silmarillion or something?

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

Ok, first of all, I'm an atheist. Secondly, your strategy resembles someone throwing as much crap as possible at a wall and hoping most of it sticks. That's fine when you're talking to a fifth grader, but did you really expect that to work here?

Let's get to your argument. You start off by saying:




> the answer is simple. it might be hard to understand but here goes..... 
> God allways was and allways will be.


Would you like to back this up with credible evidence? Because that statement can't and never will be proven and to make such a statement, without proof, is idiotic. 

You then say: 




> My Grandpa is an Atheist, but even he admits there was something that created the universe. And I'm not trying to get on your bad side or any thing but if you profess to be an Atheist (which meens you don't believe in anything) woulden't you be believeing in something right there?


 Ok, atheists don't believe in a creator. If they really are atheist, that is. Because the creator would be a divine being, which would make him a theist.(theos = divine being = god) So, your grandpa doesn't fully represent what atheists believe in. He's more of an agnostic than anything else. 

Here's the fun part: 



> God is all knowing and all powerfull and he never "changed his mind" just read the Bible you will see that God cast out angels from heaven(i won't go into any details until you read it yourself),and that's where the dino's died, then he rebuilt (if you would put it that way) the earth in 7 days.


I'm sure all of that is 100% truth, right? Just because the Bible says it? You can't use the Bible to prove Christianity, it's just circular reasoning. Also, I HAVE read the Bible. I see nothing about dino's dying or the earth getting REBUILT in there. Again, textual evidence would be nice. By the way, the Nephilim weren't dinos if that's what you're getting at. 

Annndddd to top it all off: 


> so Christianity isn't a religion it's a belief


Try telling a priest that. Or a Catholic. Or a Christian. Hell, try that with anybody. Is Judaism a belief as well? How about Buddhist? That too? 

Ok, now I'm sure this looks like a personal attack and in some respects it is. However, I think you need to be shocked into doing a little more research and learning how to argue correctly. Do not use "faith" or "because the Bible says so", because those are as valid as "I think so" and "It's my opinion that". Consider this being thrown into an icebath. It'll suck, but you'll learn from it.

Stop throwing crap and you won't get it back. 

You sell Pepsi by stopping Coke production. Enough said.

----------


## sdr4jc

Question to all~


Why is there such an urgency to disprove the existence of God? 

God is nothing apart from love and mercy...so why all the negativity on this end?

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> Question to all~
> 
> 
> Why is there such an urgency to disprove the existence of God? 
> 
> God is nothing apart from love and mercy...so why all the negativity on this end?


I have no such urgency - believe what you like - I just have a compulsion to point out bad logic and shaky arguments when I see them. I'm not looking to shake anyone out of their beliefs; just to ask a few awkward questions and see what answers I get.

I am genuinely interested in how believers think; in the different ways that each rationalises his or her faith. I am also half-researching an idea for a short story involving religion.

----------


## Scheherazade

> Question to all~
> 
> 
> Why is there such an urgency to disprove the existence of God? 
> 
> God is nothing apart from love and mercy...so why all the negativity on this end?


Love and mercy are all good but why is the urge to believe in a divine being to have those in your life? 

To me, this is like saying that one needs to have imaginary friends to value friendship.


I also agree with XC that asking questions does not necessarily mean one is trying to persuade others otherwise. When one sees arguments, it is only natural to react and question those. The Forum Rules states that:


> If you are going to post to this part of the forums, you must be willing to subject yourself to other members' points of views and opinions, which may not agree with yours.

----------


## Mililalil XXIV

All of the first Christians were Jews who held quite vast views as to the history of all nations. Their immediate disciples were quite a number of other Jews that saw Christianity as the matured estate of their nation's Destiny, as prophesied from before the Covenant of Moses was given. JESUS HIMSELF contrasted things Moses wrote about, which had been from the beginning, with concessions granted temporarily in the Mosaic administration in Israel. Had the sons of Israel not been so dull spiritually in Moses' time, they would have been ready to have had CHRIST HIMSELF immediately succede Moses with the Covenant HE established. Moses himself possessed a heart that could not comprehend the weaknesses in those he led about in the wilderness, which were the cause for certain parts of the Law.
For one that gives due consideration to the fact that Genesis mentions a Prophecy near the beginning of it, about a Woman and her SEED (a phrase indicating that the Woman, not some human father, would first have the first particle of the CHILD's Humanity in her), there is good reason to believe that one Religion was foretold from the beginning, centering on the SEED of the Woman as the Hope of Salvation, and giving due consideration to the Woman's participation with HIM. Also, there is the implication of a People that regard the SEED's Mother as their own also. The Catholic Church, established by JESUS CHRIST, the VERY SEED HIMSELF, was from the beginning known by many as born of a Virgin. All Catholics regard Mary as the Second Eve, our Mother (but not a goddess) in the order of the Church (Which is peopled by her and her spiritual children).
The fact that so many numerous heathen religions try to find a place for a mother goddess reflects the original universal knowledge of the Prophecy of a Woman and her SEED, which many cultures, detached from the ONE that first spoke it, aspired to see fulfilled in their own provinences. Thus all the things that many have ignorantly said the Church stole from heathens' myths were misapplications of a Prophecy given before heathenism entered the then small race of man.
From the beginning, Israel saw their Religion under Moses as the continuation of the first Religion, but under the new Covenant given since the Exodus from bondage in Mistrayim (Egypt). The first Christians saw the Catholic Faith as the perfect full Tree grown out of the nation of Israel's spiritual essence, into a growing body ready to fill all the earth, embracing all the nations. It is the ultimate Judaism, attaining, in Faith, what those before the nation of Israel's birth passed on in Spirit.
Jews regard their Religion as that of Abel, except kept according to a new Covenant given through Moses. Christians regard the Religion in that Covenant to be the one that is now Christianity, hidden in the SPIRIT within the shell of a seed, so to speak. Moses was a good example of one that delved into the SPIRIT, within that seed, and obeyed the Law in loyalty to HIM he also looked forward to the Revelation of in history with prophetic Hope.
I don't see any time in history as being without the true Religion, nor is there evidence of a time before Religion. Things long held to be meaningless markings by "missing links" are now being deciphered as expressing sentences. The layers of the earth used for dating the passage of time reveal proportions of time equal to those enumerated in the Bible - could the modern count be wrong?
All of the earliest myths correlate in some very extraordinary ways. 
Many sects breathe a certain way as though for holistic benefit. One word translated as "meditate" from Hebrew literally means to "inspire". The fact that two types of religions have religious terms that involve breathing reflects a common earlier religious vocabulary, while it is obvious that the lungs cannot profit the Spirit, thus the Hebrew idea of breathing in spiritually, not carnally, must be the original Devotion, the other being not even worth wasting breath on.

----------


## Whifflingpin

Love and mercy are all good but why is the urge to believe in a divine being to have those in your life?

Love and mercy are as necessary to human life as reason. The disagreement that I have with the bulk of atheist postings here is that they seem to leave no room in their world for such experience. Unnamable has quoted Goethe, once or twice, that liberals have no ideas only sentiment  it could be argued that reason without sentiment does not get far in facing anything that matters.

One of the problems we have here in discussing God is that many people stop thinking about God when they start puberty. This means that they are stuck with the language and anthropomorphic view that is appropriate to childhood. Anyone whose ideas of God develop beyond the childish knows that He is not he, that He is omniscient yet knows nothing in any way that would make sense to us, that He is both transcendent and immanent at once, that there is no rational way of describing Him. Which makes discussion a little difficult.

I do not think there is a need to believe in a divine being in any image-of-human way. If you recognize love and mercy, you experience the divine. If I may hearken back to the leaf-describing game that I mentioned earlier in this thread, I would say that the divide between believers and atheists is that believers hold that there is a qualitative difference between the trees on the other side of the car-park and the asphalt of the car-park.  The fact that this difference cannot be logically described simply demonstrates, to the believer, that logic is not sufficient to describe the world. Sentiment, in spite if the contempt of the atheists, is necessary for understanding.

.

----------


## Mililalil XXIV

It might be well to note that Buddhism is not a religion, only a loyalty to a revolutionist, and a loyalty to a mentor as Plato was to his disciples. It is more one man's experiment. It doesn't define any religion at all - it only says "Try this, and you may hit on something you never might have hit on in any other frame of mind".
As for Hinduism, there is no single Hindu religion, for to be Hindu has meant from the beginning to belong to a collition (if somewhat forced) of various ethnic entities in a particular region for which all therein are named.
Shiva's and Vishnu's devotees hate Brahma. Their ancient myths say that Brahma is left without a single worshipper. That has long proved false: for there is but one enduring temple to Brahma. That there is but the one is due to this only other major division of ancient Hindu culture failing to have any universal appeal. But in Hindu religions are residual kernals of the First Religion.
The Hindus claim, like the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians, to be the first civilization, while all three calim to have never left anywhere else to be where they now reside! Ancient maps showed no aquatic rift between India and Africa. 
In Genesis, we read of the first post-Flood civilization, in the land of "Shinar". In Hebrew it is "Shin'ar" (the apostrophe representing a back of throat gutteral sound that many replaced with an /H/, /G/, or silent phonetic.
The first component of "Shin'ar", "Shin-", is like the name used by many Hindus of themselves from ancient times: "Sind". The second component, "'ar", may be a variant of Hebrew "'iyr", meaning "city", not unlike our "-gard" ending in names like "Midgard".
Genesis says that Nimrod was the first post-Flood impericist - his sin was the start of all wars to follow: he intruded on ethnic allotments, taking land that belonged to the Assyrians, rather than dwelling under the rightful rulers of his brethren in the land of his inheritance. He happened to be a Cush-ite, of the people the Ethiopians and various of the Arabs descend from. This could be the root to the black/white conflict - because a dictator just happened to be dark-skinned, those of his subjects that were lighter skinned incidentally banned together to recover lands given them in earlier generations by lot from their forefather Noah.
History bears out the mortal conflict between white Assyrians and the Babylonian empire begun by a Cush-ite. It also bears out the mortal conflict between the white Brahmins and the dark-skinned Dravidians in India. 
The Sumerians were described in the same manner as Ethiopians, that is, as "dark-faced". They are the oldest Mesopotamian super-power. There has been found no cogent reason for discounting that "Sumer" equals "Shinar".
The lighter-skinned Arabs are often said to have "Arabicized", which means they were not of the original gene-pool of the Arabs. There are Semitic words that sound like the word "Arab", which could imply their being named for something of a conquesting legacy, as with Nimrod's.
Ancient historians used to confound India with Ethiopia. There is to this day a number of regions in India that sound reminiscent of the name "Cush", the father of Nimrod.
Genesis also says that around the time that languages were scrambled, the earth was divided. If this was a literal rending, and the ancient maps showing no rift between West India and East Africa were once accurate, then this might be sufficient to explain three cultures all making the same boast of primacy, and of still remaining in the birthplace of their pre-eminant culture.
There seems to be evidence in China, Egypt, India, and Mesopotamia, of parallel developments of writing. Interestingly enough, if it was in a Mesopotamian quarter of the originally in tact Shinar that the languages were scrambled, at Babel, then that accords well with all of the efforts made in Mesopotamia to compare languages and write out the literatue in parallel translation. This would be the expexted reaction of a super-power trying to regain the communications lost in an instant, that immediately crippled all imperial progress.

----------


## Whifflingpin

Love and mercy are as necessary to human life as reason. The disagreement that I have with the bulk of theist postings here is that they seem to leave no room in their world for such experience.

.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"In Genesis, we read of the first post-Flood civilization, in the land of "Shinar". In Hebrew it is "Shin'ar" (the apostrophe representing a back of throat gutteral sound that many replaced with an /H/, /G/, or silent phonetic.
The first component of "Shin'ar", "Shin-", is like the name used by many Hindus of themselves from ancient times: "Sind". The second component, "'ar", may be a variant of Hebrew "'iyr", meaning "city", not unlike our "-gard" ending in names like "Midgard"."

So the first settlement after the Flood was called Sin City? Makes the Flood a bit pointless, no?

----------


## Mililalil XXIV

> "In Genesis, we read of the first post-Flood civilization, in the land of "Shinar". In Hebrew it is "Shin'ar" (the apostrophe representing a back of throat gutteral sound that many replaced with an /H/, /G/, or silent phonetic.
> The first component of "Shin'ar", "Shin-", is like the name used by many Hindus of themselves from ancient times: "Sind". The second component, "'ar", may be a variant of Hebrew "'iyr", meaning "city", not unlike our "-gard" ending in names like "Midgard"."
> 
> So the first settlement after the Flood was called Sin City? Makes the Flood a bit pointless, no?


Many of the Fathers often have seen a type of Baptism in the Flood. The Flood was never forgotten, and effected good people with a tendency to think twice about backsliding into past faults, but was considered by the wicked only in their attempt to avoid the same consequence, while pursuing the sin enetered into their evil hearts.
So it might seem also with Baptism. It washes away the past, yet one can return to the vomit of their past, reviving the old sinful man they buried in Baptism, making their own past washing vain, or they can use that flooding over of what was as a true Gate into a new Path of Life, leading on to its own Destiny.

----------


## The Unnamable

> Love and mercy are as necessary to human life as reason. The disagreement that I have with the bulk of atheist postings here is that they seem to leave no room in their world for such experience. Unnamable has quoted Goethe, once or twice, that liberals have no ideas only sentiment 


Goethe didnt say that there should be _only_ ideas and _no_ sentiment. Your assumption that atheists, by denying _your_ idea of spirituality, have no spirituality is typical of the pious prattle that abounds here. Its an approach that dehumanises. If I dont love God, then I cant love anything. What an assumption that is!




>  it could be argued that reason without sentiment does not get far in facing anything that matters.


You, I assume, are to decide what matters? It could equally be argued that sentiment without reason is just self-regarding, melodramatic gush and piffle. Subscribing to such a view does, of course, make someone Mr. Spock, unable to experience any aspect of human existence beyond the biological, physical and chemical. 




> One of the problems we have here in discussing God is that many people stop thinking about God when they start puberty.


I think the problem is that they _start_ thinking about God and soon come to the realisation that the idea is nonsense - that it exists precisely because children need reassurance. 




> This means that they are stuck with the language and anthropomorphic view that is appropriate to childhood. Anyone whose ideas of God develop beyond the childish *knows* that He is not he, that He is omniscient yet knows nothing in any way that would make sense to us, that He is both transcendent and immanent at once, that there is no rational way of describing Him.


No, they dont _know_; they _believe_. This is the problem I have with your approach. You want both the authority of the absolute and the freedom of the relative. 




> Which makes discussion a little difficult.


What is the point of discussing something that is forever unknowable? Besides, imagine if I said that I believed in something called Gristofluffism, which is impenetrable to human enquiry. Its central tenet is that everything can be explained by contemplating bananas. How would you feel if, on the basis of my absurd belief, I then claimed that anyone missing my point was an incomplete human being? 




> Sentiment, in spite if the contempt of the atheists, is necessary for understanding.


And reason, despite the contempt of the faithful, is necessary for understanding.

The most disappointing thing about a forum supposedly dedicated to the discussion of Literature (as opposed to the nature of an unknowable God) is the profoundly anti-intellectual stance of many contributors. There is also an unwillingness to accept anything dark or lacking eternal smiles. The oohs and aahs of the supporters of Literature as Enchantment drown out most sensible offerings. Any view that questions the idea that we are not alone in the dark is either attacked as negative and disrespectful or dismissed as the thought of someone insensitive to the real value of life. 

I would like a thread dedicated to the discussion of Literature for those who arent interested in religion and its panaceas  to be able to discuss ideas and texts without the fatuous intrusion of what Orwell called the "smelly little orthodoxies which are now contending for our souls."

----------


## Whifflingpin

"You, I assume, are to decide what matters? "
Well, thank you, Unnamable, but I think I'll decline that honour, except in deciding what matters to me.

"It could equally be argued that sentiment without reason is just self-regarding, melodramatic gush and piffle."
Of course it could.

"What is the point of discussing something that is forever unknowable?"
Don't you, in your classes, think there is merit in discussing any aspect of literature in respect of which no absolute or final opinion can be held?

I am a marshmallow to your obsidian

.

----------


## sdr4jc

Unnamable and XC~

At the risk of sounding immature and unlearned next to yourself, I wish to present a thought to you: You criticize some of us for being too narrow-minded in our beliefs, particularly the "we are going to heaven and you are not" mentality that you have pointed out...however, I venture to point out that your views are even less accommodating. You are far less tolerant than you would have us believe, and just scanning through your posts on this one thread is evidence enough for me. You are even hostile.

I wish to say very clearly in accordance with the forum rules that nobody is trying to change anyone elses beliefs. In fact, they aren't even trying to impose. You wish for healthy, logical debate and yet it is your posts that are the most disrespectful of all, attacking other posts sentence by sentence.

Perhaps we can all genuinely retract our claws here. And I wish to clarify VERY CLEARLY that I am focusing this post on your words, not yourself. 

I personally value your input and opinions even if they differ with mine. It is foolish on my behalf to tune out all others. I am only asking for the same from you in return. And if you do actually value others' input, then maybe I should submit a friendly gesture that your tone doesn't reflect it.

----------


## The Unnamable

> "What is the point of discussing something that is forever unknowable?"
> Don't you, in your classes, think there is merit in discussing any aspect of literature in respect of which no absolute or final opinion can be held?


Are you suggesting that God is just another text?

----------


## The Unnamable

*sdr4jc*,

* HORATIO* : These are but wild and whirling words, my lord.

* HAMLET*: I'm sorry they offend you, heartily;
Yes, 'faith heartily.

* HORATIO*: There's no offence, my lord.

* HAMLET*: Yes, by Saint Patrick, but there is, Horatio,
And much offence too.


I dont value _all_ inputs. Should I? 

My last post was in response to an assumption that needed challenging. The tone in which I did so is obviously not to your liking. The basis on which the criticism of atheists was made is not to mine. Well just have to agree to like different types of writing. 

As someone who is relatively new here, you probably wont have seen this I posted months ago:

The farther he goes the more good it does me. I dont want philosophies, tracts, dogmas, creeds, ways out, truths, answers, nothing from the bargain basement. He is the most courageous, remorseless writer going and the more he grinds my nose in the **** the more I am grateful to him. Hes not ****ing me about, hes not leading me up any garden path, hes not slipping me a wink, hes not flogging me a remedy or a path or a revelation or a basinful of breadcrumbs, hes not selling me anything I dont want to buy  he doesnt give a bollock whether I buy or not  he hasnt got his hand over his heart. Well, Ill buy his goods, hook, line and sinker, because he leaves no stone unturned and no maggot lonely. He brings forth a body of beauty. His work is beautiful.
Harold Pinter on Samuel Beckett

----------


## Whifflingpin

""What is the point of discussing something that is forever unknowable?"
Don't you, in your classes, think there is merit in discussing any aspect of literature in respect of which no absolute or final opinion can be held? 


Are you suggesting that God is just another text?"

Isn't it mere evasion to answer a question with a question?

----------


## sdr4jc

> I dont value _all_ inputs. Should I?



Why pose topics for discussion if you didn't?

----------


## blp

> Are you suggesting that God is just another text?


This is a joke, isn't it? It seem pretty obvious he's not saying that.

----------


## The Unnamable

> Isn't it mere evasion to answer a question with a question?


 :Biggrin:  


First and foremost I was trying to be funny. I assumed that you _dont_ consider God to be simply another polysemic text. My serious answer therefore is that the comparison is not valid. God is not _polysemic_ but infinite and all the omnis.

----------


## The Unnamable

> Why pose topics for discussion if you didn't?


In the hope that I will get interesting, amusing, thoughtful or entertaining responses. What about you?

----------


## sdr4jc

The very same reasons! Ahh, I knew we shared a common link somewhere...

----------


## blp

> *sdr4jc*,
> 
> * HORATIO* : These are but wild and whirling words, my lord.
> 
> * HAMLET*: I'm sorry they offend you, heartily;
> Yes, 'faith heartily.


So Hamlet's heartily sorry, but apparently you're not.  :Rolleyes:  

Well _I'm_ sorry, but at times, yes, I think 

'You might try being a bit nicer' - [*Gilles Deleuze* _Letter to a Harsh Critic_]




> The farther he goes the more good it does me. I dont want philosophies, tracts, dogmas, creeds, ways out, truths, answers, nothing from the bargain basement. He is the most courageous, remorseless writer going and the more he grinds my nose in the **** the more I am grateful to him. Hes not ****ing me about, hes not leading me up any garden path, hes not slipping me a wink, hes not flogging me a remedy or a path or a revelation or a basinful of breadcrumbs, hes not selling me anything I dont want to buy  he doesnt give a bollock whether I buy or not  he hasnt got his hand over his heart. Well, Ill buy his goods, hook, line and sinker, because he leaves no stone unturned and no maggot lonely. He brings forth a body of beauty. His work is beautiful.
> Harold Pinter on Samuel Beckett


Yes, it's a seductive quote. If you're a sadomasochist. He's not ****ing you about, but he's grindinig your nose in the ****. Some choice, some would say. 

I _love_ dearly both Pinter and Beckett, but let's us atheists not worship any graven images before the enlivening emptiness of our atheism. Cruelty can slip in unnoticed behind the finest words and ideas. Pinter, particularly, is said to be a bit of a bastard in person. It's easy enough to make intellectual excuses, but most of us have some savagery in there. 

Anyway, I'm a bit mystified at why a professed pessimist such as yourself, Unnamable, would want to devote so much energy to trying to convert believers. A bit of hope there, seemingly. But why the evangelism? Why hang around these threads that have nothing to do with literature complaining about the lack of literature? I honestly don't understand.

----------


## SirRupert

> Here's a question for the religious out there. I'd like to know how you explain the fact that your religion (and I'm not singling out any in particular) has a definite historical beginning?



first of all, i believe you're very religious!



Well, the beggining of my faith (christianity) occured when Christ rose from the dead On easter morning.. the time lapse your refer to ( IMB [in my beliefs] 4000-6000 years before) when God the father created the earth, was used to show we can Never be righteous bey obeying the levitical law, its impossible! Why allow sin, you might ask, so that grace and the love of God be proved. he waited so long to prove his love to us that while we were yet sinners, christ died for us!


as to you thread title ( what was before God?) the answer is nothing was before him, you must remember he created TIME itself1

hope that is what you wanted to know!

----------


## Whifflingpin

"First and foremost I was trying to be funny."

Oh dear! me too, since I answered your question with a question - ah well. I shouldn't try to be clever.

Anyway, you may have noticed that I've started a thread on Wellbeck, in accordance with your desire.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

Sir Rupert,




> religious
> 
>  adjective 1 of, concerned with, or believing in a religion. 2 treated or regarded with care and devotion appropriate to worship.
> 
>  noun (pl. same) a person bound by monastic vows.


Not guilty on all counts.

----------


## SirRupert

I Say your religious because you have faith in your religion (atheism). More Faith than i do, being as atheism has no credible evedince.

Regards,
SirRupert

----------


## sdr4jc

Sir Rupert, tell us about yourself

----------


## SirRupert

sdr4jc.......what do want to know?

----------


## sdr4jc

What you believe in, what you don't, just a general idea. 

By the way, welcome to the forum! Don't let us scare you off!


Cheers

----------


## SirRupert

Ok.... I'm a Christian... i belive that atheism caused the holocaust...liberalism is amentle disorder

... I enjoy the writings of G.A. henty, howard pyle, brian jacques. cs lewis ( especially the screwtape letters.)

anthing else?

----------


## SirRupert

Oh....I love history ( english mostly)

----------


## sdr4jc

Tell me more about you and liberalism. Although liberalism irritates me profusely, I find myself rather entertained by the prospect that it is a mental disorder. In fact, I think that's quite humorous! I will have to tell my husband about that one; he needs a good laugh these days! (No disrespect at all, rather, sincere humor!)

----------


## SirRupert

haha! It is actually the title of micheal savage's book www.michealsavage.com

----------


## Green Lady

> Ok.... I'm a Christian... i belive that atheism caused the holocaust...



Didn't Hitler believe in God or a god?

----------


## SirRupert

no. he believed armineans ( i that what their "race is ) was an unevolved species of human.

----------


## sdr4jc

they are a what???

----------


## Green Lady

According to this website, I would question that information: http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/hitler/hitler1.htm

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> I Say your religious because you have faith in your religion (atheism). More Faith than i do, being as atheism has no credible evedince.
> 
> Regards,
> SirRupert


And religion of course has the evidence of circular argument; a book that says that the book is true. Not so much credible evidence as gullible evidence.

Atheism is not a religion. It is a denial of the validity of all religion. It is a belief in the non-existence of a god of any kind.

I also have faith in the innate corruptiblility of government and the fact that the England football team will win the world cup (although perhaps not this year!) Does that make me religious too?

And if my belief in atheism makes me religious, does your disbelief in atheism make you an atheist?  :Wink:

----------


## sdr4jc

And once again the boxing gloves are back in the game...

throw light punches, XC, you've got a new member on your hands there!

wink wink

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

I know no mercy sdr.  :FRlol: 

Words, like windmills, are there to be shied at.

----------


## sdr4jc

Yeah we know about you and your lack of mercy!

----------


## SirRupert

i was not saying faith=religion, but the ideals of, say, a religious person being fervent in their ideas. ( ie {almost slang form of the word}that man is religious in his conversations with people.... that could be interpreted as he makes sure his ideals are the motives for how he talks[what he says]..i try to think like a christian) religious meaning atheism controls your thinking as much as christianity mine. you probably have certain ideals driven by atheism. 


anyways this is probably going nowhere and my ideas wont change as much as your's will...continue if you like.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> anyways this is probably going nowhere and my ideas wont change as much as your's will...continue if you like.


Why is that? Are you not prepared to change? Not prepared to listen to arguments and judge them using your own intellect?

That is dogmatism. Blinkered thinking. Is that really how you want to live? Coccooned in your faith and unquestioning? Isn't there a parable about not using your talents? Does this not apply to the talent of reason? The talent of intellect?

Why am I asking these questions? You already know your not going to listen - right? 

Live happily in your closed mind; your ivory tower of christianity. If that's what makes you happy, I hope no-one ever kicks the doors in. But you can't blame me for wanting to try a few keys in the lock, can you?  :Brow:  

For the record, I question _everything_. I admit my doubts, and if they grow bigger than my current beliefs, I change those beliefs. This is how the world progresses. If everyone followed your dogged trust in some millenia-old book, we'd still think the world was flat and we'd fall off the edge if we sailed too far.

Sorry if I've offended you. But you'll find worse than me in the world.  :Nod:

----------


## SirRupert

no offense taken, but, to be frank, i have no problem with you calling me narrow-minded, But very very earnestly believe, that my beliefs are right (christianity) and your's are wrong ( atheism)

good day,







ps. the bible does not say the earth is flat....
*It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: isa. 40:20

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

Rupert,

I said closed-minded, not narrow-minded. You said your beliefs weren't subject to change. That's what closed-mided means - not influenced by others.

----------


## mcrane

"dogmatism"?? "blinkered thinking" you say??
X, It really surprises me you are familiar with the concept. It is true that it was you who brought plato's thought to the thread and that it was you who said "an unexamined life is not worth living." But your posts here reflect the least amount of "examining" 
Perhaps I may infer that since you are "settled" with regards to religious belief, that you are done "examining"
Personally, im not offended by how proud you are to be an athiest. I am largely offended, however, by an attitude im sensing; that you r "already there" and that whoever is not "there" with you deeply demisguided. 

I am not an athiest but I do not consider myself to be a believer either. I simply do not know. I "examine my life" and look for clues to help me along the way. Reading your posts makes me promise myself (and repeat the promise) that when I am "there" (wherever that might b) I will not stop "examining" and I will not stop studying clues that may come my way. I know ur probably quite sure of ur beliefs regarding this topic. But r u really sure that ur having the right attitude for the discussion?

I do not wish to offend anyone. Above all, I aim to challenge MY own beliefs.

----------


## SirRupert

xc,

my ideas not changing means, Christianity

----------


## BeingaBunny

Being a nihilist sucks.

----------


## Mililalil XXIV

> Didn't Hitler believe in God or a god?


And doesn't satan?
Then there are men who know they are married to the best women, and women who know they are married to the best men, that commit wedacide on a decent person they know to be decent.
There are police that know something about law and order, but undermine both.
And there are business people that know customers want a cheap price, but they give only the opposite, with cheap quality.
Some have seen me give a good example, then have either avoided me and forgotten what they themselves praised in me, or they decided to hate me, in order not to listen to the conscience within themselves that had empathy for me.
Do not masters of Hitler's sort have an amazing skill for murder, regardless of whom they know the goodness of?
Whether he believed in GOD or not, he certainly wanted those that loved HIM dead, whether they were Jew or Catholic or Lutheran. He did romanticize about a Norse "god" or more at times, according to some nazis' statements about him.

----------


## The Unnamable

> So Hamlet's heartily sorry, but apparently you're not. 
> 
> Well I'm sorry, but at times, yes, I think 
> 
> 'You might try being a bit nicer' - [Gilles Deleuze Letter to a Harsh Critic]


Im not Mary Poppins. 

Why should I be sorry? For defending my own beliefs against the claim that they make me an incomplete human being? The significant part of the quotation for me was, 

Yes, by Saint Patrick, but there is, Horatio,
And much offence too.

A friendly tone can hide nasty assumptions as well. Its not conventionally rude in the way I am but it is both patronising and dishonest:

When you know as well as me
You'd rather see me paralyzed
Why don't you just come out once
And scream it?
_Another bastard_

They make advances on my spirit and my soul. 




> Yes, it's a seductive quote. If you're a sadomasochist.


So now I am a sadomasochist as well?  :Biggrin:  Would it count as one of those beliefs that should be respected? If so, I might subscribe and then place special emphasis on the doctrine Do unto others 




> He's not ****ing you about, but he's grindinig your nose in the ****. Some choice, some would say.


_Some_ can say what they like. Dont like such views; dont read him. I offered it as some kind of explanation of my own sympathies, not as a philosophy for others to adopt. 




> I love dearly both Pinter and Beckett, but let's us atheists not worship any graven images before the enlivening emptiness of our atheism. Cruelty can slip in unnoticed behind the finest words and ideas. Pinter, particularly, is said to be a bit of a bastard in person. It's easy enough to make intellectual excuses, but most of us have some savagery in there.


I wasnt offering an intellectual excuse for my savagery. Perhaps I have misunderstood.




> Anyway, I'm a bit mystified at why a professed pessimist such as yourself, Unnamable, would want to devote so much energy to trying to convert believers.


And Im a bit mystified about why you care. Where do I suggest that I want to convert believers? Is that what you think Im doing? My early argument on here was with the assumption that faith is logically consistent. To me it isnt. Believe what you like but dont tell me that if my beliefs differ it is either because I am too stupid to understand or that my beliefs make me an incomplete human being. If I really were as pessimistic and cynical as you suggest, I would surely want to encourage people in their stupidity? It would justify my sour view and give me all the more to laugh at.




> A bit of hope there, seemingly. But why the evangelism? Why hang around these threads that have nothing to do with literature complaining about the lack of literature? I honestly don't understand.


Firstly, what do you mean by a lack of literature complaint? My complaint was about anti-intellectualism and the offering of religious panaceas. It was not a complaint about this particular thread or the existence of an area for the faithful, but about the site as a whole. I have only posted to six threads in total on the Religious Texts section (there are currently 220). On one I made just a single comment and two I started (one as a joke). So your claim that I hang around these threads is unfair. I hung around this thread simply because of XC. He is (nearly  :Wink:  ) always worth reading. I came back to the thread when I was quoted in a contribution that suggested that atheists are lacking something as people. 

As a final thought (not a justification for anything) have a look at WB Yeats _Meditations In Time Of Civil War_ - _Ancestral Houses_:

What if those things the greatest of mankind
Consider most to magnify, or to bless,
But take our greatness with our bitterness?

----------


## The Unnamable

> "First and foremost I was trying to be funny."
> 
> Oh dear! me too, since I answered your question with a question - ah well. I shouldn't try to be clever.


This is getting silly  I guess because we are wary of each other. I think an uneasy alliance is possible, though  perhaps born out of a kind of grudging mutual respect?  
I _know_ you were being funny  thats why I posted the lol smiley. It did actually make me laugh! I was going to post not many will get that but I thought you might take it as a criticism.




> Anyway, you may have noticed that I've started a thread on Wellbeck, in accordance with your desire.


Dont forget that my desire was deleted (not for the first time in my life). Ive just had a quick look at the thread and I dont really know what to say. The deleted comments concerned his tussles in the French courts (anyone who wants to know over what will have to find out for themselves).
I will try to respond, though. Of course, that does mean posting on yet another Religious Texts thread.  :Brow:

----------


## blp

> Im not Mary Poppins.


a) Well done you. 

b) Film version or book, Mary Poppins wasn't that nice. 

c) I said _a bit_.




> Why should I be sorry? For defending my own beliefs against the claim that they make me an incomplete human being?


No, not for that. 




> conventionally rude in the way I am


More for that. Why would you want to be _conventionally_ rude anyway? 




> but it is both patronising and dishonest:
> 
> When you know as well as me
> You'd rather see me paralyzed
> Why don't you just come out once
> And scream it?
> _Another bastard_
> 
> They make advances on my spirit and my soul.


 How do you know you don't on theirs? 

So - the choices are between overt rudeness and false politeness? And is that it? 




> So now I am a sadomasochist as well?  Would it count as one of those beliefs that should be respected? If so, I might subscribe and then place special emphasis on the doctrine Do unto others


  :Nod:   :FRlol:  [smilies meant sincerely.] 





> _Some_ can say what they like. Dont like such views; dont read him.


Seriously? I have to _like_ a writer's views in order to read him? All of them? Isn't this just another way of saying, 'if we don't agree we can't talk?' 




> I wasnt offering an intellectual excuse for my savagery. Perhaps I have misunderstood.


I didn't mean to state categorically that you were. It's more a question. As I say, it's a seductive quote. The idea of being a searing, merciless truthteller and hang the hurt to irrational comforts is seductive in general. After all, what could be wrong with it? Well, it's a bit of a cliché for one. And for two, it's a bit melodramatic - and, here's where the question really is for me - that melodrama could so easily be a ruse - for viciousness. 




> And Im a bit mystified about why you care.


Maybe because I'm finding the atheist faction here (of which I count myself a member) a little too cosey, a little too brutally sure of itself in the face of an easy target. Maybe because I care about the 'incomplete human being' jibe too - and its attendant charge of lack of values. 




> Where do I suggest that I want to convert believers? Is that what you think Im doing? My early argument on here was with the assumption that faith is logically consistent. To me it isnt. Believe what you like but dont tell me that if my beliefs differ it is either because I am too stupid to understand or that my beliefs make me an incomplete human being.


Oh, mate! You don't have to tell _me_ all that. But you don't have to feel so aggrieved either. Lots of people here agree. 




> If I really were as pessimistic and cynical as you suggest, I would surely want to encourage people in their stupidity? It would justify my sour view and give me all the more to laugh at.


Mmm. I suppose. I didn't say you were cynical or a pessimist. I thought I remembered _you_ saying you were a pessimist. Maybe I misunderstood. 




> Firstly, what do you mean by a lack of literature complaint? My complaint was about anti-intellectualism and the offering of religious panaceas. It was not a complaint about this particular thread or the existence of an area for the faithful, but about the site as a whole.


I can see your point, but what to do? This isn't and will never be the Harvard debating society. Anyway, when both sides aren't just repeating pat arguments, though they are most of the time, I find it interesting to have some religious types around. 

Oh well - perhaps I misunderstood again and it was my complaint - which I never got around to making. Mods, why are there all these threads that aren't about books in a section of the forum called 'Religious texts'? Couldn't they all be moved to general chat? Or is it that we're supposed to be writing the religious texts ourselves? 




> As a final thought (not a justification for anything) have a look at WB Yeats _Meditations In Time Of Civil War_ - _Ancestral Houses_:
> 
> What if those things the greatest of mankind
> Consider most to magnify, or to bless,
> But take our greatness with our bitterness?


If I understand this right, then, well, it's exactly what I was getting at. Awkwardly, admittedly.

----------


## mir

i still can't decide whether or not God exists. either he doesn't exist because there's so much evil and unfairness on the earth, or he's an omniscent and omnipotent creator who made us becasue we're so incredibly complex that we couldn't have come to be any other way. anyone know the science on the creation of life?

----------


## Ryduce

I still can't figure out why you all are having these silly discussions.

----------


## sdr4jc

> i still can't decide whether or not God exists. either he doesn't exist because there's so much evil and unfairness on the earth, or he's an omniscent and omnipotent creator who made us becasue we're so incredibly complex that we couldn't have come to be any other way. anyone know the science on the creation of life?




God exists. I believe the big bang theory: 

God said it. It happened.


Scientists will tell you that these two huge rocks in the void of space collided, that a single water molecule formed a gigabillion years later, then it somehow multiplied and covered the rock it was on, then some of it dried up, then a cell spontaneously became an ameoba, and a gigatrillion years later, after all life forms stemmed from the one ameoba, you showed up.

You know what? It takes FAR more faith to believe that load of crap than to just believe that God created us.


I have a new perspective that I would like your opinions on~

I may not agree with what my fellow human wishes to say, but I shall defend to the death his right to say it.

Feedback please...thanks.

----------


## mcrane

I dont find the discussion incredibly silly, rather "fruitless".  :Brickwall:  

For me, this is quite an interesting discussion, even though it does not involve relgious texts. posts from XC and the Unnamable really stir it up. It would be nice, though, if they tone it down a bit. It's not really a fight. So some people make some illogical arguements, big deal!  :Wink:  

It's enough for us to correct him/her in order to get back on track. I might add, I find a lot of false logic in their posts too. Some people here, like myself, mayb reading in search for answers or for a belief. So it wont kill anyone to JUST make their point without all the hostility.  :Wave:

----------


## blp

> I still can't figure out why you all are having these silly discussions.


lol! Thanks, R. I'm still chuckling in fact.

----------


## sdr4jc

> I dont find the discussion incredibly silly, rather "fruitless".  
> 
> For me, this is quite an interesting discussion, even though it does not involve relgious texts. posts from XC and the Unnamable really stir it up. It would be nice, though, if they tone it down a bit. It's not really a fight. So some people make some illogical arguements, big deal!  
> 
> It's enough for us to correct him/her in order to get back on track. I might add, I find a lot of false logic in their posts too. Some people here, like myself, mayb reading in search for answers or for a belief. So it wont kill anyone to JUST make their point without all the hostility.



Welcome, mccrane!

----------


## The Unnamable

> I have a new perspective that I would like your opinions on~
> 
> I may not agree with what my fellow human wishes to say, but I shall defend to the death his right to say it.
> 
> Feedback please...thanks.


Fine words indeed. Heres my feedback:

Are you prepared to defend my right to say what I would really like to say about Islam? 

Voltaire also said, 

As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.

----------


## The Unnamable

> Scientists will tell you that these two huge rocks in the void of space collided, that a single water molecule formed a gigabillion years later, then it somehow multiplied and covered the rock it was on, then some of it dried up, then a cell spontaneously became an ameoba, and a gigatrillion years later, after all life forms stemmed from the one ameoba, you showed up.
> 
> You know what? It takes FAR more faith to believe that load of crap than to just believe that God created us.


You suggest that I should adopt a more conciliatory approach and then dismiss scientific explanation as a load of crap. 

Presumably, as someone who believes in the scientific explanation, I am a supporter of crap.  :Confused:  - Very conciliatory.

----------


## Reaper_ofall

The probabilty of life every spontaniosly being created is just below none. In truth look at the new studys disproving that the world is old (did you know that organic material in the last hawian eruption was said to have happend 1.4 million years ago by carbon dating...) As to why would God wait, well, why would he reveal himself at all? Who the hell knows.

----------


## mir

yes, i definitely agree to that. but it doesn't mean that you can't debate it, as long as you don't try to put down anyone else's ideas, only offer your own. i guess the main thing that makes me skeptical about God is that humans wrote the bible, which is the main text we use to discuss God. i wonder what we would beleive about Him today if the Bible had never been written.

----------


## mir

sorry, i meant that in response to sdr4jc's "feedback please" thread

----------


## The Unnamable

> I dont find the discussion incredibly silly, rather "fruitless".  
> 
> For me, this is quite an interesting discussion, even though it does not involve relgious texts. posts from XC and the Unnamable really stir it up.


Why, thank you.  :Biggrin:  




> It would be nice, though, if they tone it down a bit.


I would but I cant seem to find my blandness control dial.  :Frown:  




> It's enough for us to correct him/her in order to get back on track. I might add, I find a lot of false logic in their posts too.


Perhaps in Master Chegwes but surely not in mine?  :Biggrin:  




> Some people here, like myself, mayb reading in search for answers or for a belief.


I dont know if youll find many answers in here but we are overflowing with beliefs.  :Wink:  




> So it wont kill anyone to JUST make their point without all the hostility.


Is that you, mother?

----------


## The Unnamable

> I still can't figure out why you all are having these silly discussions.


""Well, I cannot understand it." 

"That is the case with us all, papa. One half of the world cannot understand the pleasures of the other."" _Emma_ Jane Austen


Do you mind if I ask you something? If they are silly discussions, why are you still reading them?  :Biggrin:  Not only that but why are you posting to tell us that something youve just considered isnt worth considering?  :FRlol:

----------


## sdr4jc

Oh Unnamable...you're keeping me quite on my toes! I hope I am not causing beads of sweat on your forehead. I really do. You are perfect to bounce ideas off of, especially when we see this from two separate angles. I'm not against you, I never was, and I know better than to try to 'convert' you. You shall remain on my "Respect this person" list!

----------


## sdr4jc

> i guess the main thing that makes me skeptical about God is that humans wrote the bible, which is the main text we use to discuss God.




And God created humans. And God blessed humans. And the Holy Spirit protects the Word of God, and I assure you that no man can ever blemish the scriptures, in writing, in translating, or in re-translating.

----------


## mir

yeah . . .i guess. but then you start going around in circles - god made humans who in turn wrote the bible which refutes the existence of god, but was written by humans instead of god so how do we know . . . and it doesn't make it any easier that there were - and still are - so many other religions that have their own absolute view of god, and their own unarguable scriptures which they are sure were ordained by god - so in the end, all you have is the word of humans to beleive in. what do you do? besides becoming an agnostic, which is me now. and what is your reason for beleiving in god and trying to make others beleive it too - why do we have to have an answer at all?

----------


## Theshizznigg

> Here's a question for the religious out there. I'd like to know how you explain the fact that your religion (and I'm not singling out any in particular) has a definite historical beginning?
> 
> Christianity is just under 2,000 years old; Islam about 600 years younger; Buddhism around 2,500; Judaism is no more than 3,500 years old. Hinduism is closer to 4,000. As far as I know, no older religion has survived to any degree; the gods of the ancient Greeks, Norsemen and Egyptians have been devolved into quaint myths and legends.
> 
> Given that the human race is essentially the same physically (and presumably mentally) as it was tens of thousands of years ago, why were there no monotheistic religions prior to 1,000BC? Why did God 'wait' to reveal his plan until fairly recent times? What was the fate of those 'souls' that perished before your religion existed? Or for that matter, those that lived and died in a country that it hadn't yet reached? Surely, if God is as you claim, He is perfect and all knowing; He can't have 'changed His mind', can He?
> 
> Of course, as an atheist myself, I would say that this is because religion is a human construct; that as humanity gained knowledge and experience, they invented gods that also grew to match that knowledge. 
> 
> I would go further, but I'd be straying from the topic if I did. So I'll limit my questions to those I asked two paragraphs ago.
> ...



Firstly we need to take this with a factual look at the book of Genesis.

Now according to recent research in DNA, All humanity is decended from 100 or less humans who lived in Africa. 

Now let take it that according to the Bible, humans before the flood lived for a thousand, give or take years, and that most religious information was passed onto human society. 
Hence humans, one moral code of ethics. (though slightly mutated)

So say we have a closed nit society of Agragarians, living in amongst the dinosaurs.
A close nit society that spoke one language, and from what we know had no forms of copying or writing down written works. Hence everything, religious or otherwise was delivered orally. 

Now think, remember that game as a child where you have to whisper something like "fuzzy pickles" and as it went along it would mutate into, "I like Fuzzy Snickers" 
The same goes for orally delivered religion, hence many pre-script societies have myths of human creation, though colourfully different, and the great flood that covered the earth.

So now think, human society has built cities, plants foods, wars with its neighbors, (Thanks to Cain) and has bred with a society of half angels - Nephelim. 
These Nephelim, become the heroes of old, Heracles, Zeus, Mercury, Thor, all re-accounted by different societies later on, yet still amazingly similiar in their makeup, these weren't just the inventions of people in that age, but stemmed from early, and earlier subjects.

So then the bible states that all human life was wicked, and therefor God sought to destroy us all, yet found Noah and spared him. 

Noah built the ark with his family, a 140 year project, and when the floods came the entire earth was killed off, all dinosaurs, mammoths, disco techs, cities, evil people. 

Noah emerged on Mt. Ararat, and started anew, so even if that old history had its religion written down, it was then destroyed with everything else. 
Leaving a big blank in history. Then the humans built the tower of Babel, speech was muffled and they all went their seperate ways, making the modern human societies, with their still orally based myths and religions.
God singled out Abraham, because he was strong with God, and founded the Jewish nation from him, Abraham's beliefs then passed onwards to his children, and it wasn't until Moses was prophet that he compiled the book of Genesis as a reminder to the people of who came before them. 
Hence what I said holds true, the book of Genesis is a summary of what has happened so far up to that point in israels history. 

As for the what question. God walked with Adam's descendants, and before Jesus Christ all men noble, good, or otherwise went to Hell, because of Adam's fall, after Jesus's sacrifice they were then set free. 
Enoch who lived to know all the Elders from Adam onward didn't die, because he was so strong with God, he like Elijah was swept up in a whirlwind and didn't die. 

And also, God is all knowing. Yet he is fair. 
He created Satan, one of his most beautiful creations, perfect, absolutely perfect, yet despite satans perfect nature, he corrupted himself and three quarters of the heavenly angels. 

Now remember, God orchestrated mans fall, he meant for it to happen. 
Why? Because God wanted humans to have something that the angels never had. 
The free will to choose, for God, or not. If you love God, then he wil accept you, yet if you hate him, can you really expect him to keep you around?

"Seek my Face, and I shall find you!, Keep me, and I shall keep you."

I mean for example, say you had two dogs, both the same in every way. 
Yet one dog absolutely loved you, couldn't get enough of you, and did everything it could for you. 
And the other hated you, snap at you, and did all sorts of mischief to displease you.
Which XM would you honestly prefer? 

Hope this helped answer your questions XM. 

"A man would strive for God, even if there was no proof or word of him, since he feels in his bosom the love of Adam, the love of his creator, he would seek God where ever he turned."

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

Theshizznigg,

It answers my question _from your point of view_. Thank you.

I think you already know that I don't believe any of what you wrote to be true.

It's strange how these Nephilim have crept into your arguments though. This seems to be almost as popular as Dan Brown in the list of New Age slants on the bible - and almost as convincing  :Wink: .

As far as I understand it, Nephilim comes from the Hebrew word for 'giant' and all the hocum about 'fallen angels' breeding with mankind is derived from these few verses in Genesis 6.




> 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 
> 
> 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
> 
> 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
> 
> 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.


It still worries me that there are people that believe all of this stuff is real. It's myth and legend, nothing more. The Earth is billions of years old, not thousands. The bible was written by men, not God.

PS. I did a search and I can find no mention of Discotheques in the bible - shame, that would have been more convincing than all of your other arguments combined!

----------


## Theshizznigg

I do try to add some humour to my posts its true. 

And as for you being so kind, as to read my posting, I thank you very much. Too many people are often apt to post, that they don't fully read, and it is greatly appreciated. 

As for the current views on Nephelim/what not, I don't know what the modern biblical scholars are up to. Much of my information for them came from Genesis and in all truths Caedemons poems. 

Religious-Text.com does have a large and expansive library of religous books, and I would ask you to kindly take some time to have a look at it. 
There are several books in the Christianity section that have been left out of the bible that give more info about Genesis. 
(I've yet to read most of them since my time has been short lately.)

Take Care.

Shizz.

"In all the worlds, in all the universes, I have suffered the worst imaginable fate. I'm the only male on a planet of nymphomaniac, and I'm having erectile difficulties.  :Mad:  " 
- Oddity Express # 2

----------


## Green Lady

> yeah . . .i guess. but then you start going around in circles - god made humans who in turn wrote the bible which refutes the existence of god, but was written by humans instead of god so how do we know . . . and it doesn't make it any easier that there were - and still are - so many other religions that have their own absolute view of god, and their own unarguable scriptures which they are sure were ordained by god - so in the end, all you have is the word of humans to beleive in. what do you do? besides becoming an agnostic, which is me now. and what is your reason for beleiving in god and trying to make others beleive it too - why do we have to have an answer at all?


It's not just the every day human that wrote the bible, but prophets who wrote the record of their people and the word of god so that future generations could read about it. According to these scriptures, it is through prophets/seers that god sends his messages. Whether we want to believe it is a true record or not, it's up to us. Also, some of the other scriptures, could possibly be as true as the bible. Sometimes they're just a separate record of a different area. They may possibly have some of the same things in them, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they were copied from the bible and then changed a little. 

And it's true that all we have is the word of humans to believe in, but isn't that the case with any belief. No matter how illogical something seems, it's always nice to keep a door open for possibilities.

----------


## mir

yeah . . . that's why i'm agnostic and not atheist. but i think one of the reasons that a lot of people (me included maybe) don't beleive in god is becasue we stereotype him - say he's kind and loving, and then the holocaust happens; or say he rewards the good, and then a wonderful person dies young. i think a lot more people would beleive in him if the prophets - people who wrote the bible - hadn't generalized from one or two deeds he did and called him kind and loving because one thing he did was good.

----------


## Apotropaic

Yeah, I think religion is constructed. It's all just a concept man adopted, nothing more. 

If you got a million years to do it, you couldn't point out half the irregularities of any given religion. 

That is why No One should take a religion seriously. 

Humans have always sought some sort of thing to believe in. God never really 'waited' or anything. God was always there, and still is. He just comes out different every now and then. 

God is a subjective matter. 

Yeah he exists, but it's subjective as hell.

----------


## mir

and it's kind of hard to beleive in a god when you're studying History and it keeps talking about how your god - Jehovah for me, i guess - is actually just a takeoff from a God that was originally represented as a square block of stone. but . . . i suppose it's no less irrational than "anything can happen will happen" - if it's theoretically possible that all of your atoms will suddenly decide to jump sideways through a wall, why isn't it possible for there to be an omni-everything celestial being? though I still definitely agree - he's completely subjective. but so's practically everything, when you get down to it.

----------


## Theshizznigg

> yeah . . . that's why i'm agnostic and not atheist. but i think one of the reasons that a lot of people (me included maybe) don't beleive in god is becasue we stereotype him - say he's kind and loving, and then the holocaust happens; or say he rewards the good, and then a wonderful person dies young. i think a lot more people would beleive in him if the prophets - people who wrote the bible - hadn't generalized from one or two deeds he did and called him kind and loving because one thing he did was good.


Please excuse me, 

Why does God care about the holocaust? If those that died believed in him, was it not a re-unification with their creator? 
Did God cause the holocaust? Because the last time I looked it was the Nazi party, who took it upon themselves to wipe their fellow humans from the earth.
How then can you rightfully say that God is to blame. That God has removed himself from his creations, like he did from Jerusalem in the times of Babylon? And gave the reigns over to Christ. 
The jews had the temple, but the spirit no longer resided.
Wasn't it God who stated, that we would no longer meddle in the affairs of men, yet if you seeked him, then he would indeed find you? 

God does reward the good, but more overly God rewards his faithful, whether in earthly riches, or indeed heavenly gifts. 
And again, if someone is resolved in their faith, and believe then what is death but a more grander and new beginning?

----------


## Mililalil XXIV

> Theshizznigg,
> 
> It answers my question _from your point of view_. Thank you.
> 
> I think you already know that I don't believe any of what you wrote to be true.
> 
> It's strange how these Nephilim have crept into your arguments though. This seems to be almost as popular as Dan Brown in the list of New Age slants on the bible - and almost as convincing .
> 
> As far as I understand it, Nephilim comes from the Hebrew word for 'giant' and all the hocum about 'fallen angels' breeding with mankind is derived from these few verses in Genesis 6.
> ...


Since the whole punishment on the sin of the Sons of `ELOHIYM is exacted only on humans, there is no hint of a chance that they are other than human. Because it is in the context of the tragedy of their sin that the Nephiliym are mentioned, consider the following: 

1)that their sort are tragically said to have been around after their destruction in the Flood, meaning that as the Sons of `ELOHIYM fell before the Flood, so too the Sons of `ELOHIYM after the Flood fell (a Scripture, corresponding to the descendants of Noah, says that according to the number of the Sons of `ELOHIYM the earth's borders were divided); 

2)that in contrast to once having been the earth's Holy Heroes, Sons of `ELOHIYM lost their Legacy in falling from a State of Grace. 

Nephiliym were sinners, falling beneath their GOD-given nature, and the name means "fallen ones". For those that believe that some English words derive from Hebrew ones, the Hebrew verb "nfol" means "to fall". Many ancient forms of words that we today possess in modern English that in their older English form had an initial /N/ that has since [ne-]fallen off. The Hebrew equivalent to /N/, Nun, is considered a weak consonant.

What the Genesis Passage actually says is that men that were Holy unto GOD, children of GOD (as Adam had been in Paradise), looked at beauty in women in general, rather than saving their eyes, each man, for the one from GOD alone - like when men looking for common qualities any sister can have, say several women are their "type", rather than that one alone is his only match -, and this led to them arbitrarily picking just anyone that seemed a certain quality, rather than their recognizing the peculiar beauty of the only individual made for each one, in each case.

These were now no longer Saints, but fallen ones. They, and not their offspring, were the mighty ones that were of old, famous persons. This here is a hint that many famous mythical figures in myths in Moses' day were based on real men before the Flood. All but the Remnant of the Sons of GOD (Noah and company) were the nephilim until the Flood. It no where says that nephilim were part human and part son of GOD.

----------


## mir

> Please excuse me, 
> 
> Why does God care about the holocaust? If those that died believed in him, was it not a re-unification with their creator? 
> Did God cause the holocaust? Because the last time I looked it was the Nazi party, who took it upon themselves to wipe their fellow humans from the earth.
> How then can you rightfully say that God is to blame. That God has removed himself from his creations, like he did from Jerusalem in the times of Babylon? And gave the reigns over to Christ. 
> The jews had the temple, but the spirit no longer resided.
> Wasn't it God who stated, that we would no longer meddle in the affairs of men, yet if you seeked him, then he would indeed find you? 
> 
> God does reward the good, but more overly God rewards his faithful, whether in earthly riches, or indeed heavenly gifts. 
> And again, if someone is resolved in their faith, and believe then what is death but a more grander and new beginning?


first of all, i'm not saying that i particularly beleive that god was to blame for the Holocaust - it's just a view i've heard expressed a lot. the idea is basically that since god is omnipotent and means to do good for the world, he shouldn't have let something like that happen. and also humans are god's creations, and he let evil people like the Nazis come into the world, and let the personality traits of hate and ethnocentricism and racism and sadism exist as well. as for whether the people who died in the holocaust should be happy becasue they were reunited with their god, they may be, but the people they caused pain to by leaving behind - and the people who felt pain and sorrow becasue of the atrocities commited in the holocaust - far outweigh the hapiness of the people who died. (and by the way, Jews don't beleive in heaven or hell anyways, so they wouldn't be happier after death.) the net product of the holocaust is pain, by far.
also, i'm not talking about a religion in particular - god may have "removed himself from the Jews", but i'm talking about the existence of god in the world in general. and after god promised he wouldn't meddle in the affairs of men anymore - i think that was in Noah's time, and he set the rainbow as his covenant - he sure didn't stop influencing humans, through prophets and such. and the Commandments. 
lastly, the "god reward his faithful" and "better life after death" arguments are very persuasive - but the problem is, we can't check the truth of them, so they're a bit hard to accept. also, "god rewards his faithful" in life is often disproved by the death of a good, devout person; the jailing of someone like Gandhi, who was truly good; the death on the cross of christ.

----------


## Stanislaw

> It still worries me that there are people that believe all of this stuff is real. It's myth and legend, nothing more. The Earth is billions of years old, not thousands. The bible was written by men, not God.
> 
> PS. I did a search and I can find no mention of Discotheques in the bible - shame, that would have been more convincing than all of your other arguments combined!


Well first I think discotheques are a good argument against God...  :Biggrin:  

Okay joke aside, here is how the earth could actually only be a few thousand:

If you compare the earth to a computer program...when one finds a dinosaur skeleton/fossil in a video game, they do not assume that the game has been playing for millions of years, and that the character the player is playing has evolved from programmed microscopic pixilated entities...one realizes that the game was created a little while ago, and the programmer just programmed the environment to look as such, just a thought.

Also about God and the Holocaust:
God did not cause the holocaust, he only allowed people free will...people caused the holocaust: there is an old japanese (I believe) tale:
three demons go into a town to cause trouble and scare the inhabitents, and they decide to read the minds of men to find there desires (so they can tempt them/ scare them better or the like) but when they see what the men imagin doing to their fellow man the demons flee in terror because their worst nightmare was not comparable to the evil of man.

So saying "I don't believe in God because good people die" is pretty lame. Death is really only a new beggining, a shedding of corporeal form, and with the death and resurection of christ, there is no death for the righteous.
Human existance is not the hight of our existance.

----------


## Theshizznigg

> first of all, i'm not saying that i particularly beleive that god was to blame for the Holocaust - it's just a view i've heard expressed a lot. the idea is basically that since god is omnipotent and means to do good for the world, he shouldn't have let something like that happen. and also humans are god's creations, and he let evil people like the Nazis come into the world, and let the personality traits of hate and ethnocentricism and racism and sadism exist as well. as for whether the people who died in the holocaust should be happy becasue they were reunited with their god, they may be, but the people they caused pain to by leaving behind - and the people who felt pain and sorrow becasue of the atrocities commited in the holocaust - far outweigh the hapiness of the people who died. (and by the way, Jews don't beleive in heaven or hell anyways, so they wouldn't be happier after death.) the net product of the holocaust is pain, by far.
> also, i'm not talking about a religion in particular - god may have "removed himself from the Jews", but i'm talking about the existence of god in the world in general. and after god promised he wouldn't meddle in the affairs of men anymore - i think that was in Noah's time, and he set the rainbow as his covenant - he sure didn't stop influencing humans, through prophets and such. and the Commandments. 
> lastly, the "god reward his faithful" and "better life after death" arguments are very persuasive - but the problem is, we can't check the truth of them, so they're a bit hard to accept. also, "god rewards his faithful" in life is often disproved by the death of a good, devout person; the jailing of someone like Gandhi, who was truly good; the death on the cross of christ.



You make some very interesting points, and I value your opinion because you seem to take a very calm decisive way of answering. 

Firstly I'd like to state, that. 
God himself destroyed the old order of things when Christ fufilled his prophecy. 
Also it makes several references in the bible, and the gospels of paul in particular, that God does not temp humans to do evil acts, it is the evil spirit within those humans that calls them to do evil things. 
Hence the reasoning "A human can be a saint, or a devil, it all depends on the person." 
Hitler when you look at him in the beginning, while having a large contempt for the Jews, merely wanted to rebuild a better Germany, and it was when he slowly gained power that his mental faculties started to shut down. 
He, in the words of Albert Speer, "Surrounded himself with evil, pigs! Of men, who would do anything to keep the power that they had gained."
Many of those who disagreed with Hitler's policies were either thrown out of the country, or murdered along with those they tried to protect. 

Also, you seem to be forgetting that it says several times in the bible, that it is regardless of how good a person you are, you be forced to suffer at times, (Job for example) and eventually perish.
It is only if you believe, (As the bible states.) that you will be given a second life. 

God does reward those who lead a good Christian life, whether in life or afterward. 
Wasn't it said that the greatest amounts of wealth on earth, are only baubles compared to the gifts of heaven? Or the fact that instead of death, Christians are given everlasting life? 
Can I prove this? No, I can't, I can't prove a thing about Christianity that isn't written in the bible.
But that is what Christianity is, it is believing with all your faith that God will remember you, and not let you perish. 
There is no proof of it, otherwise it would be faith, it would be fact. But then it is stated in the bible to "Trust God." And believe that he will forget no one. 

Also Gandhi wasn't a Christian at the end of his life, and whether or not he was actually a good thing for India is a matter of debate for many.

"Without faith, there is no Christianity, without faith, there is nothing."

----------


## mir

Nice arguments - you're nearly convincing me!
but there's one thing i'm trying to stay away from here - focusing on one religion, such as christianity. the new and old testaments are fine, but i wasn't talking about Gandhi being a Christian, i was just talking about him being a generally good person - and anyways, he did practice, more than anyone else i've ever heard of, the base idea of christianity - agape, love for everyone, enemy or friend. 
i understant what you're saying about the bad and good parts of people influencing them, rather than god; this idea appears in Judaism as well, as the yetzer ha-ra and yetzer ha-tov. but if God created humans in the first place, why didn't he just create them without the yetzer ha-ra? eliminate the devil sitting on your left shoulder and just leave the angel on the right? 

also, Hitler alone could have been considered deranged or just an unfortunate coincidence - a madman at the right place at the right time - but think of all the other terrible things - even more terrible in my mind - that happened while WWII was going on! did other countries step up to help the Jews? Churchill was the only one pressing for a fight! and he was only doing that becasue he thought his own country would be threatened - not out of concern for the people dying in Germany and its principalities. and worst of all was the way America acted, turning away Jews who only wanted a place of refuge where they wouldn't be gassed simply becasue one of their grandparents didn't beleive what the Aryans did. Hitler i could beleive in as an act of nature or man, not god - but the way the rest of the world acted, the selfishness and egotism and unconcern - that is what i can't beleive was a random act. 

sorry, i get really mad about that.

the one thing that really does make me belive more in God is the fact that pretty much every society throughout history has thought up some sort of God. but is this so that they could have an easy solution to all the problems and occurences that they couldn't explain, and in some societies, a hope of a better life after death - or becasue it is a theme as universal as the fact that we are alive? 

no more right now - it's almost time for next class. if God created school, then i really will beleive in him - no one but a celestial being could have thought up something that evil! : )

----------


## Whifflingpin

"The Unnamable": "I think an uneasy alliance is possible, though  perhaps born out of a kind of grudging mutual respect? "

I didn't answer this at the time - "silence implies assent." However, in view of various comments that have been scattered around lately, I think I ought to make that assent explicit, albeit with one amendment. Delete "grudging," at least on my part.

I don't always agree with your views - certainly would not defend to the death your right to make them, what do you think I am? - but I enjoy your wind-ups and approve of your caustic confrontations, and occasionally think that you are right.

.

----------


## The Unnamable

Thanks  as you know, I _hardly ever_ agree with your views but I nevertheless consider them the product of thought - for which I will always have a regard.

As for _qui tacit consentire_, it didnt do Thomas More much good.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"As for qui tacit consentire, it didnt do Thomas More much good."

Thomas More, definitely the thinking man's martyr. He did not attempt to force his view on others, but refused to act against his own principles. Did not seek martyrdom, but would not compromise to save himself from it. It's hard to say what good any of it was after 500 years, but he still stands as the best example of how to behave when the powers around are totally in the wrong.

----------


## The Unnamable

> "As for qui tacit consentire, it didnt do Thomas More much good."
> 
> Thomas More, definitely the thinking man's martyr. He did not attempt to force his view on others, but refused to act against his own principles. Did not seek martyrdom, but would not compromise to save himself from it. It's hard to say what good any of it was after 500 years, but he still stands as the best example of how to behave when the powers around are totally in the wrong.


From what I know of him, he was a remarkable man. I really like Bolts play, even though it contains Mores comment to Richard Rich when Rich perjures himself:

"Richard, the Lord said that it did not profit a man to gain the whole world if he lost his soul. The whole world, Richard ... but for Wales?"

He's got a point, though.  :Biggrin:

----------


## rachel

When ever I watch a man for all seasons I can scarce breathe. All that and I think you are referring to who I call Saint Thomas Moore, all he held dear I do too, all he believed I believe to the core of me. I like when he said that he was no hero, no martyr and wanted if possible to just live and be and carry on with the family he loved. But if he had to stand, he would stand. I have had to many times and lost everything. I neither judge the persons who wielded that power over me nor think ill of them. I think whatever you DO believe you ought to be whole souled and be prepared to accept the consequences, even if that leaves you standing utterly alone in a wasteland at the end of the day.

----------


## mir

hey, we have to read one of More's books for history this summer. Utopia. what does he write on? is he good? should i start the book in June rather than the last week of August?

----------


## ennison

Bolt's play is an astonishingly good piece of drama and a clever use of the concept of alienation but the central character is a fiction. The real More was a torturer and a bigot - no doubt he was a highly principled torturer but if someone tells you that art does not lie then this play if taken as an accurate representation of the life of a real human being called Sir Thomas More is a direct contradiction of that. The real More was quite vile.

----------


## Scheherazade

> Bolt's play is an astonishingly good piece of drama and a clever use of the concept of alienation but the central character is a fiction. The real More was a torturer and a bigot - no doubt he was a highly principled torturer but if someone tells you that art does not lie then this play if taken as an accurate representation of the life of a real human being called Sir Thomas More is a direct contradiction of that. The real More was quite vile.


Is this based on your personal experiences with More or what you heard through the grapevine?

----------


## ennison

.............................??? Could you rephrase the question to make it more answerable in English. On the grapevine I've heard Caligula was a naughty chap. Are you from the Mr Irving school of history?

----------


## Whifflingpin

Passion begets passion.

Could we agree that More was many sided?

The More of the play was not unreal.

The More who condoned or ordered the torturing of heretics was not less real.

The More who was a humanist scholar was real too.

The More who loved both law and justice was real, as was "the most affectionate father to his children that ever was in the world."


I think the phrase I would draw the line at is "The real More was quite vile." More was no Caligula, or Torquemada even. Torture was a standard legal procedure in More's day, and indeed for some centuries afterwards. Even More's enemies did not claim that More particularly enjoyed or encouraged the use of torture more than the law required. To condemn More as vile for using torture is to condemn all our ancestors as vile, up to the nineteenth century.

----------


## ennison

It's not likely that all our ancestors or even a few were torturers. I stand by that judgement on More. As for being good to one's children even the Nazis were that, in fact they were very strong on that as a principle and the road to Hell is paved with.. etc. But more importantly for me is any attempt to whitewash history through art. I'm not necessarily accusing Bolt of doing that; he may just not have known about More's torture of Bible smugglers in his own home (or considering Bolt was a one-time commie he may not have cared that rich and powerful state servants could and can torture others). If I treat Bolt's More a little differently from Shakespeare's Macbeth (another unhistorical but once real person) it's that Macbeth is relatively unimportant and is not presented as admirable whereas More is. We'll have to agree to disagree here. I take your comments on board. My comment on Caligula was a facetious response to a facetious question.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"It's not likely that all our ancestors or even a few were torturers."

It is almost certain that anyone, within two or three centuries either side of More, who was responsible for administering the law was involved to a greater or lesser degree in torture. Equally certain it is that law abiding citizens accepted torture as a normal part of the administration of justice. 

You may think of More as a torturer, and you may have reliable evidence that he enjoyed torturing people. I think that is unlikely, but my only evidence is from the more or less neutral Encyclopedia Britannica, and Foxe's Book of Martyrs, a Protestant polemic that would be expected to be very hostile to More.

In the Encyclopedia, amongst a great deal of good, there is the following:
"On the other hand he appears to have been merciless to heretics. In the epitaph which he wrote, he described himself as _hereticus molestus_, and, although the accusations of Protestants may be discounted, his own words and unimpeachable documents bespeak his severity."

In Foxe's Book of Martyrs, the book above all in which Protestant accusations against More might be expected, all I could find was:
"One Bainham, ...,was taken on suspicion of heresy, and whipped in the presence of Sir T. More, and afterwards racked in the Tower, yet he could not be wrought on to accuse any...
Soon after this More delivered up the great seal, in consequence of which the preachers had some ease." 

So I acknowledge that More's enemies, or victims if you like, declare him to be a persecutor, and he himself considered that persecution of heretics was acceptable. The one instance recounted by Foxe does not however show More to command torture more than was required by his office, and certainly not, as you imply, one who carried out torture himself or enjoyed watching it.



Your off-hand dismissal of Bolt scarcely stands up either - the play portrays More, heroically, as one who stood firm against the apparatus of the state. Whether or not that is a fair portrayal of More, it is certain that Bolt did not condone misuse of the state's power in any way.

----------


## ennison

Silence of the lemmings implies consent eh. It could imply fear. Anyway leave that. Bolt is not interested in portraying the real More. Nor was he under obligation to do so. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt of not knowing about More's interrogation techniques when he (More) himself was an agent of state power and note that there is no attempt in the play to suggest such techniques were good when used against More himself. I am not under any obligation to treat Bolt as a politically/socially moral individual just because he was a good playwright and good writer for the screen.So far from dismissing him I take him very seriously indeed. For art as propaganda is a powerful tool or weapon. Several modern historians have gone further than consulting Foxe who you rightly say may be seen as a polemicist. (Perhaps he's a case of propaganda becoming art). These historians have been much harsher than my mild 'quite vile'. More was certainly scholarly, clever, interesting in conversation and maybe talented in other directions. He still supervised torture of other human beings in his own home. Facts are chiels that winna ding as someone or other said. Anyway I rather think you want to remember him as a humanist scholar and I wouldn't say much against that reasonable position.
PS We wont fall out over it, I like a lot of your thoughts

----------

