The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

[Rivendale]

Amazing read. This entire conversation reminds me of the free will argument. If we live in a deterministic universe then choice could be characterized as a series of deterministic causal effects. If there is a cascade of events they are nested in various reductionist events. The stimuli followed by nerve impulses and such. Where is the free will mechanism introduced? The same argument parallels the fine tuning argument. From a reductionist point of view, where is the finger of god reaching in and turning the dials? Will it forever be hidden? Is it like Dawkin's has said " quantum mechanics seems counterintuitive because evolution selected for events on the savanna. " Physics guy touched on the point that emergent events are simply a place holder for a series of reductive events. I never thought of it as a net to capture a series of events only to label them as a composite nonsensical term.

[MG 2.0]

I agree that words can be loaded and that can be a problem. My feeling is that "God" has a long enough history in abstract philosophical discourse that one ought to be able to use it for a vaguely defined creator being. If people are bothered by the word, I'm happy to use a different label. I don't think I should be accused of trying to smuggle in jihadism or something just for using a long and widely used term.

I don't argue that you, yourself, are smuggling in jihadists under your tails into the discussion. But if one chooses to use a term like, "god" and does little to differentiate one's use of the term on the outset of the discussion, the MGs of the world are bringing their anti-LGBT, neo-conservative divinely favored western-US Mormon Christianity in the conversation under your tails, absolutely.

Wow. Pigeon holing, aren’t we?

I’m enjoying the conversation. Let me make a prognostication. At the end of the day you will be no closer to resolving anything.

But it is fun to look at the convoluted logic that is used to reduce everything down to some thing that can…well, actually can’t, be understood and/or comprehended in all of it’s beautiful complexity by the human mind.

As a mental exercise, it is worthwhile, I suppose. One thing seems to be true. When you’re inside the system it’s a bit difficult to try and step outside and explain things. A lot of guesswork. Sort of like trying to step outside the human ‘mind’ and explaining the mass of gray matter that is the root/cause of being able to ask the questions in the first place.

The created trying to step outside of the system of creation and trying to fully explain it.

Anyway, no response expected. Just want to acknowledge the interesting twist the conversation has taken. Good stuff.

Regards,
MG

[Rivendale]

Amazing read. This entire conversation reminds me of the free will argument. If we live in a deterministic universe then choice could be characterized as a series of deterministic causal effects. If there is a cascade of events, they are nested in various reductionist events. The stimuli followed by nerve impulses and such. Where is the free will mechanism introduced? The same argument parallels the fine tuning argument. From a reductionist point of view, where is the finger of god reaching in and turning the dials? Will it forever be hidden? Is it like Dawkin's has said " quantum mechanics seems counterintuitive because evolution selected for events on the savanna. " Physics guy touched on the point that emergent events are simply a place holder for a series of reductive events. I never thought of it as a net to capture a series of events only to label them as a composite nonsensical term.

[malkie]

I don't argue that you, yourself, are smuggling in jihadists under your tails into the discussion. But if one chooses to use a term like, "god" and does little to differentiate one's use of the term on the outset of the discussion, the MGs of the world are bringing their anti-LGBT, neo-conservative divinely favored western-US Mormon Christianity in the conversation under your tails, absolutely.

Wow. Pigeon holing, aren’t we?

I’m enjoying the conversation. Let me make a prognostication. At the end of the day you will be no closer to resolving anything.

But it is fun to look at the convoluted logic that is used to reduce everything down to some thing that can…well, actually can’t, be understood and/or comprehended in all of it’s beautiful complexity by the human mind.

As a mental exercise, it is worthwhile, I suppose. One thing seems to be true. When you’re inside the system it’s a bit difficult to try and step outside and explain things. A lot of guesswork. Sort of like trying to step outside the human ‘mind’ and explaining the mass of gray matter that is the root/cause of being able to ask the questions in the first place.

The created trying to step outside of the system of creation and trying to fully explain it.

Anyway, no response expected. Just want to acknowledge the interesting twist the conversation has taken. Good stuff.

Regards,
MG

Likewise, at the end of the day I don't believe that you will be any closer to convincing anyone of your evidence-free arguments.

You seem to assume that, although you are just as much "inside the system" as anyone else is, you can explain what others cannot. By invoking (once again) the idea that we are created you are not actually explaining anything, simply adding another layer of complexity that needs to be explained.

[malkie]

MG, it's good to see that you have returned to the thread, because you left me in a state of suspense from a comment I made back on page 38:

viewtopic.php?p=2755334#p2755334

You addressed the last para of my comment, where I asked you to cite your source for a statement, though I really don't think (as I said a bit later viewtopic.php?p=2755361#p2755361 ) that your source supported your argument. Far from it, actually.

Anyway, to summarise, here are points that you left unchallenged. I'd be interested in seeing what you think.

1. We simply have no idea, and perhaps can never know, if this universe is optimal for us.
   We know it is sufficient, because we are here, but, I suggest, nothing more.
2. There's no need to work backwards from "we are here" through "we must be here for a reason" and "I don't know how or why" to "therefore god did it". We simply are here.
3. Your god, from the Bible, is an immoral or at least amoral monster.
4. If your god exists, he may be "pulling the strings" to hinder us, while simply pretending to help us. I don't think you can know which.
5. There's no need for me to try, as you suggest I must, to "discount the need for a creator" - you simply have not supplied convincing evidence, so no "trying" is needed.
6. Similarly for purposeful fine tuning - there are too many unknown unknowns to make it possible for us to be sure.

[honorentheos]

But it is fun to look at the convoluted logic that is used to reduce everything down to some thing that can…well, actually can’t, be understood and/or comprehended in all of it’s beautiful complexity by the human mind.

Some many years ago I picked up a book called Zen Seeing, Zen Drawing that has had some influence on my thinking, amongst other things. The author, Frederick Franck, takes the reader through the process of recognizing how often we use symbols in the place of what is around us, failing to truly see the world as it is because the symbols of how we think it is stand in the way. The child who is asked to draw a face and immediately makes a circle, three dots, and an arc understands the symbology of a face. But their expression of it is not the thing as it is, merely something that conveys "face" in the same way a red octagon conveys, "STOP" without the need for letters. If one is content to engage the world as symbol only, well...

Then it is better for you that you cover
your nakedness and pass out of love’s
threshing-floor,
Into the seasonless world where you
shall laugh, but not all of your laughter,
and weep, but not all of your tears.

Imagine that your symbols are indeed reality, symbols formed and handed down from a conflicted tribe assured of their own greatness even as they bent the knee to other kings, other gods in shame, using the stories that had seeped into their own culture to patchwork an origin story and a singular angry God whose favor they could only regain by rejecting the world around them to turn back to Him alone...if only then He'd final come to elevate them again.

The story of Job, the oldest sections of which are the oldest content in the Hebrew scripture, says something different. But then this couldn't stand then, either, and the scribes added to it which, in doing, only really subtracted.

Go play with your grandchildren, MG.

[malkie]

But it is fun to look at the convoluted logic that is used to reduce everything down to some thing that can…well, actually can’t, be understood and/or comprehended in all of it’s beautiful complexity by the human mind.

Some many years ago I picked up a book called Zen Seeing, Zen Drawing that has had some influence on my thinking, amongst other things. The author, Frederick Franck, takes the reader through the process of recognizing how often we use symbols in the place of what is around us, failing to truly see the world as it is because the symbols of how we think it is stand in the way. The child who is asked to draw a face and immediately makes a circle, three dots, and an arc understands the symbology of a face. But their expression of it is not the thing as it is, merely something that conveys "face" in the same way a red hexagon conveys, "STOP" without the need for letters. If one is content to engage the world as symbol only, well...

Then it is better for you that you cover
your nakedness and pass out of love’s
threshing-floor,
Into the seasonless world where you
shall laugh, but not all of your laughter,
and weep, but not all of your tears.

Imagine that your symbols are indeed reality, symbols formed and handed down from a conflicted tribe assured of their own greatness even as they bent the knee to other kings, other gods in shame, using the stories that had seeped into their own culture to patchwork an origin story and a singular angry God whose favor they could only regain by rejecting the world around them to turn back to Him alone...if only then He'd final come to elevate them again.

The story of Job, the oldest sections of which are the oldest content in the Hebrew scripture, says something different. But then this couldn't stand then, either, and the scribes added to it which, in doing, only really subtracted.

Go play with your grandchildren, MG.

[honorentheos]

Perfection.

[Marcus]

Anyway, to summarise, here are points that you left unchallenged. I'd be interested in seeing what you think....

[3]Your god, from the Bible, is an immoral or at least amoral monster....

I am beginning to believe this, especially after this:

[The CoJCoLDS] is for a certain subset of select humans. It’s not for everybody....

Wow. "select" humans? That is extraordinarily divisive language to use, especially in a location where not everyone believes in your god. Unfortunately, it just reads as bigotry when you add that you think it comes from the god you believe created every single person on this planet. Why would such a god be so vindictive to 99.9999% of his creation? The evidence indicates this is just a human-made distinction, and one that seems to cause unnecessary pain to those who believe it. Good thing most here don't. I wish you well with this burden.

[sock puppet]

[The CoJCoLDS] is for a certain subset of select humans. It’s not for everybody....

Too bad perfect God makes mostly imperfect children.