Good. I feel saner to know that two people who normally disagree with me agree on what I view as a fundamental and logical proposition. And going back to one of my chief points about a problem with the game.
Now, about God being in or out of the universe. Merely for the purpose of this thread of this discussion, let's stipulate that God exists. We probably first need to define what we mean by God. I'm speaking of the God that the monotheistic religions believe in, which is a single God, a creator of the universe. So, can we stipulate that we are talking about the creator of the universe? If not, are we really talking about God? I mean, you can privately disagree with these stipulations, but for the purpose of answering the question "Is God in our out of the universe?" it would be absurd to discuss that question without first stipulating these points. If you want to quibble with those two stipulations, the rest of what I say will lack any force whatsoever. Let's examine creation, as we understand it -- it is the process of making one thing out of some other things. As Cold Fusion programmers, we do it all the time. We take the raw tools of CF and create applications. Can you think of any instance where we create something that we are really a part of? I don't mean, like a car engineer creating a car he will really drive. He is not really a part of that car. We might write poetry that uniquely expresses who we are, but it is still just an external expression. Creation, therefore, from available evidence, is something that happens outside of the creator. Now, while it is possible for God, for whom all things are possible, to create something that he is a part of, it really seems to violate one of the fundamental elements of creation -- and that is the ability of the creator to step back and view his creation. (A chief part of my theology, and this is stepping outside of my train of thought for a moment, is that God is fundamentally a creative being, and since man was created in the image of God, we are fundamentally creative creatures.) Next, if God created the universe, then we are part of that creation. Since we are created, and do not possess the power to create universes, we must be beings of lesser ability than God. As creations of God, and lesser beings than God, how are we to trust our own rationalizations about the existence of God? Can we reasonably expect to fully understand God? We might reasonably expect to deduce a few things about God from the universe around us, but can we fully understand that which is greater than us by magnitudes that may be infinite? Since the universe is a construct of time and space, and God created time and space, then God, too, must be greater than time and space. Since the universe depends on order to operate, and since we can observe this order and categorize it and deduce it's meaning, we can use it to surmise that if God made it, he must have a purpose in creating order and not chaos. Might that one purpose (among many) might be that we can use the evidence in the universe to learn about him?) All science agrees that the universe had a beginning. What is that first cause if not God? If we are still stipulating that God exists, then we must conclude that God, as the creator, is the first cause. How can the creator, the first cause, who is greater than even space and time itself, be anything but outside of that creation? H. -----Original Message----- From: Benjamin Falloon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 10:54 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Battleground God > However, I still am looking for an answer to this conclusion: "It is > irrational to make a statement, as if fact, that God does not exist." Or > can such a statement only be made as a matter of belief, not fact? I would say it is irrational to make a statement that god does not exist. Better to just say "I do not believe in god" which is an expression of faith. Faith that there is no god. Benjamin ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 3:38 PM Subject: RE: Battleground God > Yes, one tangent of my thought went in that direction, and I would like to > explore that further, especially since you raise good points that I would > like to grapple with. > > However, I still am looking for an answer to this conclusion: "It is > irrational to make a statement, as if fact, that God does not exist." Or > can such a statement only be made as a matter of belief, not fact? > > H. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Benjamin Falloon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 6:21 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Battleground God > > > I never challenged the existence of a god... > > I was challenging the suggestion that god was 'outside the universe'... > My argument hinged on the fact that your argument based itself around the > notion that god was 'outside the universe' hence free of our laws of > rational thought. This suggests you have some kind of special knowledge > concerning a) god's location (empirical?) and b) that our laws dont apply > outside the universe. From a certain point of view, describing god's > location as outside the universe and stating that beings existing outside > the universe are not 'bound' by our physical and rational laws would be an > argument sprung precisely from our laws and hence impossible to validate. > > For example I could say that our laws of rational thought extend beyond the > universe and the any gods who have taken up residence outside our universe > are still bound by the same rules. > > Now, as there is no way for you to refute this, any arguments that > disqualify rational thought when explaining the existence of god are hence > irrational. > > Benjamin > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 11:32 AM > Subject: RE: Battleground God > > > > You're proposing a circular argument. I say God is outside the universe, > for > > the purpose of discussing faith, and you say prove it. First, I would have > > to prove that God exists, which is beyond the scope of the current > > discussion. > > > > The fallacy of the game, and what I'm discussing, is that to say "God > > doesn't exist" is a matter of faith or an irrational statement. > > > > To go down the tangent of the proofs for God and his place in the universe > > is really outside the scope of the question. The question is, as proposed > > by the game, that if you say God doesn't exist, you must be rational. I'm > > saying that either the rational statement is "I don't believe God exists" > > or the irrational statement is "God doesn't exist." One is a statement of > > faith, the other is a statement of (supposed) fact. Since you can't prove > > God doesn't exist (can you?) than the statement "God doesn't exist" (as a > > statement of fact, not of faith) is irrational. > > > > Now, if you want to stipulate that God exists, I'll be happy to debate > with > > you his place in and/or out of the universe. > > > > H. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Benjamin Falloon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 4:03 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: Battleground God > > > > > > > Yes, God and monsters have some important differences. Monsters, in > > theory, > > > are part of the physical world, so monsters can, to a great degree, be > > > empirically argued against. God is --------------> [in theory] outside > the > > universe, so our laws of > > > rationality and empiricism are ultimately absurd when trying to prove or > > > disprove God. > > > > A rational argument to your proposition begins first with your assumption > > that god is outside our universe. Wouldn't this knowledge first require > some > > kind of empirical evidence to establish this fact or is this this > knowledge > > a matter of faith as well. If so, wouldn't accepting your argument also > > require faith? You say that our 'laws' of rationality and empiricism are > > 'ultimately absurb' by you start your argument with a proposition grounded > > in the physical world. > > > > Benjamin > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 10:10 AM > > Subject: RE: Battleground God > > > > > > > Faith is believing something without empirical evidence to support the > > > belief. > > > > > > If you believe in monsters, you are exercising faith. > > > > > > If you believe in God, you are exercising faith. > > > > > > Yes, God and monsters have some important differences. Monsters, in > > theory, > > > are part of the physical world, so monsters can, to a great degree, be > > > empirically argued against. God is outside the universe, so our laws of > > > rationality and empiricism are ultimately absurd when trying to prove or > > > disprove God. > > > > > > It is not the faith's that are different, but the objects of faith that > > are > > > different. Faith still has a denotative meaning that does not rely on > the > > > object of faith. > > > > > > But I will concede that in a deeper examination, the comparison does > break > > > down. If in playing this game, you applied the connotative meanings, > > which > > > are more subjective, you would get into trouble. > > > > > > One of the problems with the game (among its many) is that you must be > > > predisposed to accept the writer's definitions of "rational," "faith," > and > > > what constitutes a valid comparison. > > > > > > For example, you must be willing to accept as valid an argument from the > > > extreme (the guy who said faith drove him to murder), in order to answer > > the > > > question in a manner that does not raise a hit. But in this extreme, as > in > > > others, there are unknown factors that would not mean his expression of > > > faith was really a valid expression of faith. > > > > > > So the rules are really stacked against you in this game in arriving at > > the > > > "proper" conclusions. > > > > > > H. > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 2:47 PM > > > To: CF-Community > > > Subject: RE: Battleground God > > > > > > > > > *mumbles blissfully from his stupor* > > > > > > Faith in god and religion different context from faith in monsters' > > > existence/non existence. > > > Different kind of faith. > > > > > > *turns on his side* > > > Mmm..Muffins... > > > > > > -Gel > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 6:30 PM > > > To: CF-Community > > > Subject: RE: Battleground God > > > > > > > > > At what point are you confused. I'll try to break it down further, if > > > you like. But it's just a set of logical propositions reaching a > > > conclusion: > > > > > > To deny one has faith in the existence or non-existence of God is > > > irrational. > > > > > > H. > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 2:21 PM > > > To: CF-Community > > > Subject: RE: Battleground God > > > > > > > > > *falls over in confused stupor* > > > > > > -Gel > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > I think it's a valid comparison. > > > > > > The Loch Ness monster seems to be a creature of myth. Perfectly rational > > > people believe they have seen Nessy, but there is little if any > > > empirical evidence to support the existence of the Nessy. It is equally > > > hard to prove that God does not exist as it is to prove that Nessy does > > > not exist. > > > > > > As I suggested earlier, the flaw of the game is that it presupposes that > > > faith is not rational. Pure faith can be a rational response to ones > > > environment. You need not be crazy or stupid to have faith. And since > > > all things that cannot be proven one way another (such as the existence > > > or lack of existence of God or Nessy) are matters of faith, to say that > > > faith is irrational is to say that all people are irrational, because > > > all people, at the end of the day, base their ultimate beliefs about God > > > on faith. If all people are irrational, than the statements of none can > > > be trusted. But since we can observe that some people are rational, and > > > since all people have faith, and since in rational people, their faith > > > is founded on some sort of reasonable response to experience, then we > > > must conclude that faith is rational. > > > > > > It is the proclamation of a lack of faith that is irrational because the > > > person who proclaims a lack of faith is denying all evidence to the > > > contrary that he cannot disprove the existence of God. > > > > > > H. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
