Reasonable Assertions About Personal God Except One

[bluesbassman]

If you really think assertions 1-5 are "reasonable," then I'd like to compete against you for money in the type of $50,000 wager you offered last year to qualifying Christians.

However, I suspect your post merely points out that even *if* a believer accepts the muddled metaphysical arguments for the existence of a personal God via 1-5, it is nevertheless orders of magnitude less rational to accept assertion #6. (I don't disagree that 6 much more obviously silly than 1-5.)

[David Sklansky]

I mean cmon. I'm trying to make a point here.

[RJT]

Think of it this way.

The point of reading Sklansky is not to please David. It is to “get it”. If one reads Sklansky and gets it then one wins lots of money. One can read Sklansky literally and still win money. When one reads Sklansky as a source material and is able to apply it to different situations, then one really makes money.

So, if one reads the Bible (for example) and “gets it” then one has the tools to get “into” Heaven. One does this by understanding that God wants us to love God and love our neighbor. Once we have this understanding it becomes possible to get “into” Heaven. When we begin to love God and love our neighbor we become capable of understanding how to be one with God. We reach a level of understanding, a level of consciousness if you will, in which we can realize that we are (will be) one with God.

We don’t actually “enter” Heaven, but we are able to realize that we are (will be) in Heaven (one with God).

So, the Bible and Religion are tools, sources, manuals. One doesn’t actually have to “be” Catholic/Christian. But, when one loves God/N, one becomes (is Christian).

The most important thing to keep in mind is that Religion is not an end, it is the means.

[djames]

Although I quite often disagree with DS, I actually liked this post quite a bit. The devout or strict mathematical rigor may not prove 1 through 5, but I think what is written is decent enough. I too am disturbed quite a bit by #6 and it's actually my primary reason for turning me off of organized religion (well extend clergyman to any religious figure stating "do this and reach heaven," or the like).

[bunny]

I agree it's silly. At the very least, theists claiming number 6 is true have a fair bit of explaining to do as to what they mean by "benevolent".

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
1. There is no reason there should be something rather than nothing. Nothing can't create something. So since there is something, an entity immeasurably powerful, somehow outside of time must have created it.

Okay. That might make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can’t get past this statement or to be more precise, I can’t envision any but it. So, either it makes sense or it doesn’t. How does it not make sense?

(I don’t think we have to get hung up on the word “create”. For example, we can say something “other-worldly” caused our world to come into existence.)

[tpir]

You shelve the Bayes, meet people halfway, and they still give you crap [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. There is no reason there should be something rather than nothing. Nothing can't create something. So since there is something, an entity immeasurably powerful, somehow outside of time must have created it.

Okay. That might make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can’t get past this statement or to be more precise, I can’t envision any but it. So, either it makes sense or it doesn’t. How does it not make sense?

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps there is a reason there has to be something rather than nothing. Perhaps we cant conceive of it, but it doesnt make his opening sentence true.

Perhaps nothing can create something, similar observation - perhaps even supported by the creation of matter-antimatter pairs in a vacuum?

Perhaps the creator is limited in everything except the "creation of a universe" ability. No need to leap to the idea that a creator is "immeasurably powerful".

The opening statement may be right, but in order to demonstrate it as "making sense" I think you'd have to provide good evidence for why the above couldnt be true.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps nothing can create something, similar observation - perhaps even supported by the creation of matter-antimatter pairs in a vacuum?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bunny,

Please expand (explain to me) on what your example is.

TY,

RJT

[bunny]

I dont feel qualified, but my understanding is that, in a true vacuum trillions and trillions of electrons and other subatomic particles spontaneously spring into existence, paired with a corresponding antimatter particle. They then rapidly annihilate, but I understand that if this is prevented in some way the effect of their existence (something coming from nothing) can be observed.

(There's something about 2 metal plates very close in a vaccuum - the pressure or other interactions of the created particles can be observed...here's where I become clueless)