Friday, February 08, 2013

Moer Exchagne with Adrea

  photo thd_trinity1.gif

Chris Andrea Writes again with a much longer post. I promised to answer again. Actually I'm glad because I had no martial for today.
Anonymous said...

1)He says that Christians equate "meaning of life" with belief in God. He wonders why they are so slavish waiting for others to set for them the meaning of life.
That's a silly position to take, it's just name calling basically. If he doesn't understand why we say that God gives us meaning than he can't ridicule it as "slavish." Slavery is involuntary, it's a matter of force. We don't say necessity is enslaving. Are we enslaved by gravity? We could say we are but is the reason we jump off high buildings becuase we are just slaves to gravity? If we decided we hate gravity and we are going to mock and ridicule it would there be a different outcome from jumping off a tall building? God gives meaning because he's the basis of all that is. Everything was created by God. If God has a purpose in creation then obviously that purpose is meaning. The kind of meaning that atheist think they have is relative and fleeting. When you are dead you are dead and whatever meaning your life had it had only for you and when you are gone it has no meaning at all. Chrsitain meaning is eternal it's forever because the creator of all things ordains it.

2)He then says some things I agree, for example dont live your life just to see an aim accomplished but be excited and satisfied by the whole effort no matter the result. Or other things like the fact that pleasure is temporary. But saying that pleasure is temporary I think he tries to water down his previous statement of hailing pleasure: "drink,eat and dont ask why you do it cause you lose the game and you exchange this unique life you have with a nonexistent "promised afterlife".
That's sounds really simple minded. It sounds like he's saying close your eyes stick your fingers in your har deaden your hear tot God and never mind what's true. Maybe he has a more profound idea in mind but that's what it sounds like. Why miss meaning? God is the greatest thing in life. Feeling God's presence (which atheist write off as anything form pretense to lunacy) is proved by a huge body of empirical research to be transformational and healing and the best thing for us. The joy it brings to know God and feel his presence is the greatest gift in all of life. It's the most precious thing there is. It was be utterly stupid to miss that just because of some ideogical BS a bout being independent or seeking your own selfish little way or something.

That's really the bottom line for atheists. I've demonstrated this and it's backed by empirical reserach. Many atheists hate themselves so they hate God and that's the basis or their rejection of God. I'm not that doesn't account for the motivations of all atheists. It does fit a sizable number. What exactly the number I don't know. I think it's a lot becuase if I'm right about that self loathing manifesting itself in bulling of religious people, they there must be a lot of it.

3)Something we forgot! Morality! He makes a subtle argument about it. He says that morality exists apart from God or laws and that if it was coming from God, then He would consider good or bad whatever he wishes. He gives the example of human laws that come after morality exists and are usually based upon morality. That is to say, laws can be moral but they are not the creator of morality. The same as saying God is moral, but He didn't create morality. 
It's silly to suppose that God didn't create morality. If God is real and if the Chrsitain tradition is a valid reflection of God's mind in anyway then we can assume that God did create morality and that it's based upon his character. I think morality is based upon love it' an outgrowth of the human capacity to love and that in itself is the result of being made in God's image. When he talks about morality he's talking about moral laws and ethical codes. Those are man made but they reflect the image of God in which we are created, they stem from man's capacity to order, to love, to feel empathetic. These are all from God. We can't prove this by examining those things themselves but we have valid reasons to believe in God and having such reasons then we have a good justification for assuming so. It's sort of a package deal.

Then that we make on our own our moral choices, no matter if we obey to the command of God, as Abraham did. And finally, I think he considers our personal experience the creator of morality. For example we know what pain is if we have subjectively experienced it, so we want to help others and we dont want others to suffer in the same way we dont want ourselves to suffer. We dont want to do to others what we dont like other doing to us.
I think our empathic ability is part of the image of God in which we are created. There's really no reason in nature why we are conscious. We should actually be robots with no personal will or individual identity yet we have this. I think God is the source of the personal.

Some of my thoughts.
But he says not a word about how a mechanistic unconscious universe would bear consciousness and morality. How a simple or complex unconsciousness can bear consciousness and intelligence, the ability to dinstict from what is good and bad, useful or harmful.
 Ah, yes you see! Great minds think alike! Very good.

For example a house doesnt care if someone brings it down. How and why then an unsconscious "life"(if we accept the lie of abiogenesis) would be conscious and moral? Is morality a property arising from chemicals? Lol.
Yes, yes!

Ok. I hope I wrote interesting things for study. I also want to study your notion of "metaphysical". Just a question on this. Why its not also a literal place we just cant go or see with our current machines?(our bodies who are sensitive to a specific range of frequencies) Do you remember Paul saying he was caught on the 3rd heaven? This seems above the physical heaven. I may say you some details about it another time.

yes you did.

As for me, I believe in the geocentric model although I respect other beliefs, but I dont rush to bown down to atheistic science and marry it with religion.
what? you don't mean sun goes around the earth do you? No, you can't mean that.

Have a good day and thank you very much for your help

Chris Andrea
you too.


Anonymous said...

Your answer on his "slave" accusation was very good indeed.

But I didnt understand what you said about morality. My analysis on the problem was probably not good so maybe you didnt understand my doubt. Also I wanted to state that he says that WE confuse morality with laws. Lets focus on it.

I just found that its called "Euthyphro's dilemma"(from a Platonic conversation) and that its PUZZLING. You can look at wikipedia about it.

They say it has two parts, first and second horn. Is really something morally good because it is by itself, or because God chooses or orders it?

Here I will set my questions in better form. The main problem with first horn is that if some morals existed apart from God then it means they are eternal as He is and have sovereignity as He Has. Stated simply, God is not the only eternal one and also He loses His omnipotence since he has to choose only what is morally good if He is only good.

The main problem with the second horn is that if God decides what is moral and what is not, then theres not a standard definition of good and bad. God can not be called good or bad and only what God says is good no matter if doesnt seems moral to you or me. For example Isaac's sacrifice. This is what he meant when he said that apart from what God ordered Abraham, Abraham battled with his moral consciousness. Was it God the one who ordered him or the voice of the devil and why would God ask something so terrible? The atheist used this as proof that morality exists in Abraham no matter what God orders.

I made a thought about the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Why God said "Look, Abraham became as one of us, knowing good and evil"? Does it means that God had "eaten" knowledge or morality in the past as a story where we read that Odin gained knowledge sacrificing one eye? This could serve as an argument that morality or knowledge exists apart from gods.

I tried to find an answer. Some distinct between moral truths. They use the phrase "contingent" moral truths but I dont what this means. Also, their articles were too complex for me to undestand them. Im generally a fan of simplicity. I also noticed that opinions differ as in all subjects. Some theists say morality is apart from God, some others not and a third group that some morals yes, some morals not apart.

I think its a fascinating subject. If you find any free time, you can help on this.

Have a good day

Metacrock said...

Euthyphro dilemma is famous and its from Socrates,and Plato. Anyone who has been on apologetics boards as long as I have has heard it a couple of million times. The thing is it wasn't presented in a way that I recognized it.

In essence it says are God's commands good because God says they are (is the good just an arbitrary whim) or are God's commands good becuase they fit a higher stand that even God has to follow. The implications being either good is arbitrary and thus murder could be called good tomorrow of God chose, or if God follows a higher standard then he's not really in charge.

Atheists are taught in their brain washing that this is irresolvable and thus it disproves God and Christian morality.

It's easy to answer and I solved a long time ago.

(1) it only applies to a set of deities like Greeks had where they did have higher standard set b the fates.

(2) Greek god's are contingent.they don't have the same potential for being all knowing or for being the standard of the good. So for Zeus there was a higher standard he had to follow, thus he is not analogs to the Christian God.

(3) The standard that God follows is his own character: love. Thus the good is not an arbitrary whim but it's based upon God himself. It's not arbitrary neither is it a higher standard that is above God but it s God's on charter.