Why I am a Christian with KNOW it, know it certainty

Rosie's picture
Submitted by Rosie on Tue, 2010-06-22 02:18

1. Deism
From quite a young age I understood that there had to be some kind of intelligent design. My thinking then was as follows: The entire universe was completely governed by all these physical laws. An amazing thought in itself. But without which life on this planet could not have happened. There was not only the beginning of the universe created and governed by physical laws but these laws also included the potentiality for future life - plants and all these animals (including mankind).

If Darwin's theory were true then man was evolving all the time (as with all the other animals) and his biological apparatus known as the brain was evolving also. Originally this biological apparatus was for the purposes of survival and procreation but as man used this apparatus in ways going beyond these two functions, it evolved or maybe had freak genetic imbalances occur to it (which we call genius or maybe even divine sparks in matters of the spirit) which took mankind into deeper thought/creativity, discovering new things to aid with the issues of survival but also abstract thought questioning why are we here, what's it all about etc. Because the brain wasn't originally designed for this purpose we had some way to go before it would evolve to the level where we would in fact understand all the laws and finally understand everything. (At which time we would KNOW it know it.- I will explain what this means in para 2. below)

In the meantime, I had then thought, man is thinking and creating explanations - hence our religions and philosophies. I read these religions and philosophies with interest but always with the belief that they couldn't hold the answers because we weren't there yet evolutionarily speaking - there wasn't any certainty or full understanding/knowledge yet.

And then many years later, a strange thing happened that was to change my life and my thinking.

2. A fundamental preliminary
An answer to the question why didn't God just create us already perfect and "knowing" of His existence - why the mystery? why the pain and suffering? why the time delays?!

Consider this:
Intellectual certainties - from authority vs from self-knowledge/experience

From authority we accept mathematical formulae and do not doubt it. e.g., pi.r.squared (the area of a circle)- please excuse the limitations of my keyboard!

Even though we may not have worked out the proofs for ourselves, because it is not denied by anyone we accept it "from authority". But how much deeper is the certainty when we have actually worked out the proofs for ourselves and know from self knowledge/experience that it is true. When you do this, you KNOW it know it. I call this intellectual certainty from the self.

Emotional certainties - from authority versus from self-knowledge/experience

Before we experience the emotions of falling in love, we are aware of this state through literature and other people's experiences and our own observation of others in this state. Noone has denied the existence of this emotional state and it could even be described as feelings a, b and c. So we don't dispute that there is an emotional state comprising feelings a, b and c and we call this falling in love. This time, an emotional certainty from authority.

But, again, how much deeper is the certainty when we experience these emotions for ourselves. When we KNOW it know it. I call this emotional certainty from the self.

Now, intellectual and emotional certainties from authority help us in the ways that they are designed to help us but there is always a niggling doubt - are they correct? I am taking this on someone else's word and not my own. I am living in a state of faith. But when you have intellectual and emotional certainties from the self, these niggling doubts vanish. You KNOW it know it, if you get my drift.

And so it is with God. He could have "designed" us to know and live His truths from the outset, he could have designed us to obey them in the belief that to do so would give us happiness. But this would not have concurred with the laws of the universe - which includes our evolution - and nor would it have allowed us to experience certainties from the self. To KNOW it know it. There would have been intellectual and emotional certainties from authority only and denied our evolutionary process according to the physical laws of the universe.

However, during a stage of our evolution, He did provide us with this opportunity of knowledge from authority - through the Bible - because He wants us to live in happiness anyway and those that follow His commands through faith, in obedience, will achieve this. So God, through revelations to people over time as recorded in the Bible, provided us with intellectual and emotional certainties from authority and is what we call "religious faith". It is for this reason that the Bible asks us to have faith.

Those that wish to KNOW it know it, however, have to experience a different thing.

Either the geneological line must wait until the brain evolves sufficiently for man to discover all the physical laws of the universe, all the moral laws of the universe and ultimately will then explain the Creator, God, and all that He told us in the Bible is true OR to the impatient, hungry ones who want to know now, who are prepared to dispense with all sensibile "rationality" and seek, knock etc there is another opportunity available.

There exists a different experience that will get you to the KNOW it know it stage even though before it happens you have no idea that it will happen or how. All you had was your hunger to know and to be prepared to try anything to satiate that hunger. For others it may be different - but this is how it was for me. For I was a skeptic. I had no religious faith. And all I had done was to go to some lectures, be interested in the Bible as an historical document only and had then agreed to study the Bible. I had studied a few Books of the Bible at this stage - all very interesting - and then I studied Revelations. And Revelations completely blew me away! How could the future have been predicted with this accuracy? But this was not the thing that gave me KNOW it know it certainty. It was a step in the right direction. It had me knocking loudly.

This different thing that can happen to us via all kinds of routes or paths but which end result is always the same, is the conferring of the Holy Spirit upon us. We are told via the Bible's authority that this can occur but until it happens it is nothing more than an emotional and intellectual certainty from authority. Not even a certainty from authority at that stage because you are still wondering whether the Bible is just a thing of man's creating. Perhaps just a potential certainty from authority. But when it happens to you, from one day to the next your life is not the same. You have experienced something which is on a greater emotional magnitude than falling in love for the first time. You then go on to realise you have experienced an intellectual certainty from authority and that what the Bible said on this particular issue is absolutely true. And so you have experienced the KNOW it know it intellectual and emotional certainty from the self.

So what is this conferring of the Holy Spirit? this unexpected, wholly unreasonable, irrational and truly unbelievable thing that has happened to you? It is so completely overwhelming -the very idea of it in fact, what is it? a complete mystery! - so that in your skepticism you start reading around the subject. For you wonder did I imagine this? Is it a self deluding thing? You read account after account of the same thing happening to others. So, you think, I am not imagining it - it is universal amongst the KNOW it know it Christians. And, once you have experienced this process, you go back to the Bible and, by God, you are prepared to believe everything it says for how could this be true and not everything else. Or at least you are suddenly very very open to the possibility of it all being true. You may not understand it all - the Bible I mean - but what a drive exists from that day on to try to understand. And faith? Well that becomes entrenched. Actually, no that it not completely true. I think it would be possible to let your memory fade of your experience (you could never forget it entirely) and give up and just get on living day to day with the haunting feeling that you know you should be pursuing it but you are too lazy, too hedonistic, too tempted to do those things which we ought not to do, or to not do those things which we ought to do, or what ever the reason. And hence the command for the Sabbath. This is the day to reconnect with God. To remember and NOT to forget.

So you go to the Bible and you start reading whatever you can get your hands on to see what has been revealed about this book.

And you start reading. Archaeology - Biblical accounts scoffed at for years - "couldn't possible be true - those two religions would NEVER have built temples side by side!" and lo! finally someone discovers it to be true.
Science - God created the universe. Ricky Gervais -" What? Before he created darkness and light? He did it in the dark?! Couldn't possibly be true!" (I did enjoy that skit, Curt!) And then lo! Big Bang theory. The Bible seems to be right again.

And so it goes on. Your life is changed. You have experienced the KNOW it know it certainty. Intellectual and emotional certainties from the self in complete correlation to the intellectual and emotional certainties from authority as described in the Bible.

And so this is how it was that I changed from Deist to Christian. In one fell swoop!

I went on to have some pretty extraordinary spiritual and related experiences afer this event (nothing to do with responses to art).
But those are stories for another day. Maybe.


Linz

Rosie's picture

Objectivity - Objectivity is a judgement based on and derived from observable phenomena, uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudice.

Intrincism is the belief that value is a non-relational characteristic of an object. i.e, that an object can be valuable or not, good or bad, without reference to who it is good or bad for, and without reference to the reason it is good or bad; something that an object or a thing has of itself, independently of other things, including its context.

Subjectivism is the doctrine that knowledge and value are dependent on and limited by your subjective experience.

So objectivity is a judgement based solely on observation, and differs from subjectivism in that it does not take in to account one's emotions, opinions, or experiences of the thing being observed and differs from intrincism in that it does not ascribe any value to the thing observed of itself insofar as it may be independent of anything else including its context.

I sure hope For The New Intellectual explains justice in terms of my questions. Richard thinks he has a copy and will dig it out for me. In the meantime I found a snippet on the AR Lexicon but it seemed a bit waffly and imprecise in comparison to Aquinas! Have you read the Wikipedia article on it? Very rude reviews!

Rosie

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I've been boot-camp-hard on you here because I think boot camp is the only thing that will startle you out of the unspeakably cruel and irrational doctrine to which you have hitherto unthinkingly subscribed. I say "unthinkingly" in hope. If you've subscribed to this ghastly beyond-barbaric nonsense with eyes wide open then you're a monster, and I truly want nothing more to do with you. If, as you intimate in this post, you're stepping back and re-examining, then I'm happy to encourage the process, but only up to a point. I'd need to know, first and foremost that unlike Baade, you understand that "objective" does NOT mean pre-ordained, a priori, emblazoned-across-the-sky, written-on-tablets-of-stone, delivered-from-burning-bushes, from-some-other-dimension, independent-of-man; it means simply "reality-based and reality-derived, to be established by observation and logic." If I can get you over that hurdle, which Baade is seemingly incapable of surmounting, then we can make progress. Otherwise it's hopeless.

As far as independent reading goes, one chapter of one book will do for starters: the title chapter from "For the New Intellectual." I don't want to hear any blather about Tara Smith or folk Baade thinks might be respectable because they teach in academia, repository of most filth. READ RAND!! Smiling

So Rosie:

What's objectivity, and how does it differ from intrinsicism and subjectivism?

Linz

Rosie's picture

If my analysis is incorrect, that during the 1000 years God gives all unbelievers a second chance and all evidence is provided for them to make their decision so that all but the Satan worshippers are spared, and, instead, God set about a plan that resulted in billions of people being put in to a fiery furnace or any sort of torment for eternity - an infinite punishment for a finite "crime" - knowing how it would end up, as I have already said, I would certainly agree with you that this seems monstrously unjust and more than that: cruel. I was quite startled and horrified by the thought when James Valliant raised it last year as I had not considered it from that vantage point.

For people like you (and others) who are good people (most of the time when they aren't hurling unjustified abuses) and who require more evidence than a book or an account from ancient historians of the existence of a man named Jesus Christ before they would even think about entering a religion, or, on looking into it discovered that the Creator would have them in Hell if they did not believe in Him, it would not be fair to anyone to receive eternal torment for choosing not to do so. As you know I stumbled on to it by chance - going to listen to lectures on ancient history and deciding to study the Bible as a result of that. I have had some very, very extraordinary experiences however both before and after I became a Christian with evidence in reality following the event to which other people can attest. They are inexplicable . From this I know that there are more things on earth that are entirely rational. These experiences don't actually "prove" Christianity - I know that - but Christianity (and indeed other religions) do account for them. I could tell you these stories over drinks or lunch/dinner some time perhaps. No one has explained them without recourse to the mystical or a made up, unprovable scientific theory.

In the meantime, I would really be most interested to learn about justice from an Objectivist point of view and I assure you it would not be a waste of your time to do so. You have many threads on which to comment, though, and I have asked a lot of questions. I don't know how long the questions would take to answer but your mentioning not having the time or not wanting to waste your time, would indicate that it may take a while. So, if it would be simpler for you to point to a book that answers these questions then I would be happy with that. I just want to know.

But dear Rosie ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... it's all make-believe. Not a shred of evidence for any of it. Only women and PhDs could possibly believe such tosh. And only sub-human deformities could possibly believe such monstrous tosh.

Do you agree that only a sick fuck could write what I quoted from the link you gave? That Gobby sends people to hell for not acknowledging his existence?

That rubbish aside, you've asked some good questions which I'd like to answer. But if I'm speaking to someone who truly believes the aforementioned indescribably stupid and morally revolting balderdash then I know I'd be wasting my time.

Linz

Rosie's picture

But while you refuse meaningfully to address my point that Gobby knew all along what happen and went ahead with the whole cosmic soap opera anyway, I'm not going to give up the time such answers would require.

I addressed that! Don't you retain what you read but instead just return to your own story?! I said that in the end times, with Satan bound, and the dead risen, the evidence that God exists will be clear. And in light of this clear evidence, the only people who go to Hell will be those who deliberately choose to not follow God. I.e., they choose evil. If God knows the outcome is that everyone (except the satan worshippers) turns to him in the end then his original plan for everyone to obey His law is met (whether it be by faith and obedience to that faith or, finally, through the "know it know it certainty" and evidence of the end times) and a world of righteousness finally prevails (without evil) and this is good! Translated in to your talk, God knew what would happen - all except the true Satan worshippers would be saved - so had no problem embarking on the plan which is returns us to the "Garden of Eden" but where, this time, all would be obedient to His laws with knowledge also of good and evil. I.e., not robots.

That article was to indicate that there is a consequence to breaking moral laws. I think you should read and print out in full the article of God's Justice (which is the overview and crux of the matter) rather than just that article (or another one that was not even referred to!) which is coming from the single perspective of pointing out that, like all physical laws, there are consequences to breaking moral laws. That article does not bear in mind what I am saying or the article on God's Justice presents - that God's Justice is restorative not vengeful. The flood is an example of restorative justice. And it is God's justice that will determine how it all ends.

So please answer my questions. Especially if the answers and the philosophy are convincing. I am a lawyer. I am interested in justice. And I would be interested in the Objectivist idea of justice and how this works. It should be able to stand on its own regardless of any court system but it could also be revolutionary in altering a court system and laws in general.

So please answer my questions. This is an Objectivist forum after all!

Rosie

Lindsay Perigo's picture

In your unswerving commitment to the most pernicious poppycock known to man, you refuse to answer my question but then ask a bunch of me. Some of those I'd love to answer because they're illuminative of everything else going on, in particular your marriage to intrinsicism and unmitigated sadism. But while you refuse meaningfully to address my point that Gobby knew all along what happen and went ahead with the whole cosmic soap opera anyway, I'm not going to give up the time such answers would require.

Let me lob the same grenade from another angle. Here's an excerpt from one of those grotesque Goblian gargoyles you linked to earlier (emphases mine):

We have our catalog of sins. We have rape and incest and murder ; and we have them all cataloged and classified--but there isn't one of them (or even put them all together in one big hunk) that comes close to the sin of keeping Jesus Christ out of your life. Did Jesus say, "I'm going to send the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin because they rob banks"-- or, "because they believe not on me"?

It is folly to expect that you or I can trifle with the Lord Jesus and not have a penalty attached to it. What ridiculous thinking people have in this area! We expect penalties for doing much less. Life is just built that way.

You jump off a high building, the law of gravity will take care of you. You might say, “God is love,” all the way down, but you're still going to get splattered when you hit the bottom! You break the law of gravity, and it breaks you! You may love your little child, but if he puts his finger up on that hot burner on the gas stove or the electric stove, he's going to get burned!

Fire burns. Gravity kills. Water drowns. And you can say, "God is love, God is love, God is love," until you're blue in the face. But water will still drown you, fire will burn you, and gravity will kill you, and sin will damn you no matter how much you say about a loving God.

God just set up life that way. He set up the rules. He set up the laws by which we are to live. And if we break those laws, they break us, and we pay the consequences.

Now what sort of sick fuck could write some piece of trash like that? What sort of sick fuck could believe it? And of what sort of Sick Fuck could such a thing be true?! Just as in my story, your goblin creates man so that man can worship him. Many men don't, just as Gobby knew they wouldn't. So he makes them suffer forever, just as he knew he would. Not, note, for rape or incest or murder—none of these comes close to spurning that mega-megalomanic that is Gobby! Gobby sends them all to Hell for not sucking his dick! What kind of deformed, infantile tantrum-throwing entity are we dealing with here?

The sentence "sin will damn you no matter how much you say about a loving God" is as dishonest as any sick fuck can get. It should really say, "Gobby, who created you knowing that you would commit the sin of not worshipping him, will damn you for it anyway, because he's a cosmic sadist who creates people for no other reason than to consign them to a torture chamber created by him that never closes down."

Linz

Rosie's picture

"So the story is now changing to Gobby giving the rebels, whom he knew would rebel, so many chances to reprent, so many offers they can't refuse, that in the end none of them ends up in the eternal lake of fire he'd prepared for them for having the temerity to do what he knew they would do when he created them? Doesn't sound like your trad Day of Judgment ritual to me, Rosie. "

I see this as a possible outcome. It does say in Revelations that the war when Satan is unbound after the 1000 years is very brief and God is victor. So it doesn't sound as though Satan has a very big team!

You attribute the same bad motives to God as you do to some of your friends, Linz! God is perfect and his nature is love, holiness, mercy and justice. He cannot be unjust by definition. You contradict yourself too because not so long ago you said that if he were loving he would forgive the evul folk on the day of Judgement or not have created them from the outset. My explanation seems just and the 1000 years scenario is where God reveals himself in full (by the binding of Satan) to the people who did not have faith in His word and needed to have evil completely removed in order to understand.

Seems to me an awful lotta folk there are being told "Depart from me ye cursed into the everlasting fire ...' Nothing there about "I'll come get you when you're good and roasted."

Huh? I am not saying that either.

So, Linz, just as a matter of interest, you have agreed at one time that moral laws are objective.

On the breaking of those moral laws are you saying that the consequences of this are: (1) that the person who breaks them (and anyone else that the breaking of those laws affects) has a less "flourishing" life? (Which hardly seems fair or just to the person who is detrimentally affected as a result of another person's breaking of the moral laws - possibly even his life extinguished in the case of murder.) (2) if the person who breaks them is caught, he may get earthly justice through the courts - which of course will depend entirely what type of political system there is (if any) and the extent of the corruption of that system?

So, summing up, can you please answer the following questions from Objectivist philosophy:
(a) Is "justice" a consequence of the breaking of objective moral laws?
(b)If yes, (i) Is that justice objective?
(ii) How is that justice delivered to the person breaking the law?
(iii) By whom is that justice delivered? and
(iv) How is justice delivered to the people affected by another's breaking of the moral law?
(v) Can this justice be measured?
(c) Do you believe that the quality of a person's life is detrimentally affected in proportion to his breaking of the moral law? (And, if so, how is this measured?)
(d) Is there simply no "justice" for the breaking of objective moral laws other than earthly justice?
(f) If earthly justice is corrupt, and someone "gets off" for something that they have indeed done, how is justice served in respect of all the people who have allowed this corruption and also to the person who "gets off"?
(g) If the choice to live is pre-moral (which it has to be if on choosing life it is not "good" but just "is" and what you do with your life is the measure of the good) is suicide (the choice not to live) also pre-moral?

That will do for starters.

Rosie

Lindsay Perigo's picture

So the story is now changing to Gobby giving the rebels, whom he knew would rebel, so many chances to reprent, so many offers they can't refuse, that in the end none of them ends up in the eternal lake of fire he'd prepared for them for having the temerity to do what he knew they would do when he created them? Doesn't sound like your trad Day of Judgment ritual to me, Rosie. Seems to me an awful lotta folk there are being told "Depart from me ye cursed into the everlasting fire ...' Nothing there about "I'll come get you when you're good and roasted."

Rosie, your Goblianity is as stupid as it is sick.

I offer in evidence the full text from one of your links:

One of the classic problems that people bring up is: How can a God of love send anybody to Hell? Well, there are several answers to that.

One of course is that God doesn't send anyone to Hell. You send yourself there. God has done everything He possibly can to keep you out of Hell and still leave you as a person with free will and not just a robot. That's the way He made us--after His image, after His likeness, the power to say “yes” or the power to say “no,” the power to reject our own Creator, and of course to take the consequences.

In one sense you can say He doesn't send anybody to Hell, because across the road to Hell he has placed the cross of Christ. There are also the prayers of parents, pastors and Sunday school teachers, and all the other things that God brings into our lives to stop us on our selfish way and to bring us to the Savior. We have to go wandering on past it all and put ourselves in Hell.

Sometimes you hear people say, "God wouldn't send His children to Hell." God certainly doesn't send His children to Hell because when we're His children we're in the family of God. We're born again and part of our salvation includes deliverance from judgment. We're not all children of God except through faith in Christ Jesus.

Can a God of love send anyone to Hell? You might as well ask some other question to make just as much sense. Does God allow disease in the world? Does God allow jails and prisons for some people? Does God allow the electric chair sometimes? Does God allow sin to break homes and hearts? Does God allow war? All of these things are the consequences of sin entering into the world, and in some cases the direct result of man's rebellion, and the result of greed and pride and egotism and hunger for power that doesn't have any use for people--only the desire to get ahead.

This is the incredible fruit of sin. Sin brings suffering into the world. There's no way of getting around it. And the greatest sin in the world is to reject the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior.

We have our catalog of sins. We have rape and incest and murder ; and we have them all cataloged and classified--but there isn't one of them (or even put them all together in one big hunk) that comes close to the sin of keeping Jesus Christ out of your life. Did Jesus say, "I'm going to send the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin because they rob banks"-- or, "because they believe not on me"?

It is folly to expect that you or I can trifle with the Lord Jesus and not have a penalty attached to it. What ridiculous thinking people have in this area! We expect penalties for doing much less. Life is just built that way.

You jump off a high building, the law of gravity will take care of you. You might say, “God is love,” all the way down, but you're still going to get splattered when you hit the bottom! You break the law of gravity, and it breaks you! You may love your little child, but if he puts his finger up on that hot burner on the gas stove or the electric stove, he's going to get burned!

Fire burns. Gravity kills. Water drowns. And you can say, "God is love, God is love, God is love," until you're blue in the face. But water will still drown you, fire will burn you, and gravity will kill you, and sin will damn you no matter how much you say about a loving God.

God just set up life that way. He set up the rules. He set up the laws by which we are to live. And if we break those laws, they break us, and we pay the consequences.

I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful, rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside.
All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened. And yourself, in a dark hour, may will [a grumbling] mood, embrace it. Ye can repent and come out of it again. But there may come a day when you can do that no longer. Then there will be no you left to criticize the mood...
—excerpted from The Problem of Pain and The Great Divorce, by C.S. Lewis (1898-1963), included in The Quotable Lewis, 1989 Tyndale

In a sense, the concept of hell gives meaning to our lives. It tells us that the moral choices we make day by day have eternal significance, that our behavior has consequences lasting to eternity, that God Himself takes our choices seriously.
The doctrine of hell is not just some dusty theological holdover from the Middle Ages. It has significant social consequences. Without a conviction of ultimate justice, people's sense of moral obligation dissolves, and social bonds are broke.

Of course, these considerations are not the most important reason to believe in hell. Jesus repeatedly issued warnings that if we turn away from God in this life, we will be alienated from God eternally.

And yet, although "the wages of sin is death," Paul also says that "the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23). While breath remains, it is never too late to turn to God in repentance, and when we ask for forgiveness, God eagerly grants it.
—excerpted from Answers to Your Kids' Questions, by Chuck Colson, 2000 Prison Fellowship Ministries.

We may rest assured that no one will suffer in hell who could by any means have been won to Christ in this life. God leaves no stone unturned to rescue all who would respond to the convicting and wooing of the Holy Spirit.
As for the fate of [the damned] being eternal, it could not be otherwise. Death is not the cessation of existence but the continuation of the eternal being with which God lovingly endowed man--but now in painful separation from God and all else in utter darkness and loneliness.
—excerpted from In Defense of the Faith, by Dave Hunt, 1996 Harvest House Publishers

The Bible says that God prepared hell for the devil and his demonic cohorts (Matthew 25:41), that He is "...not wishing for any [person] to perish but for all to come to repentance." (II Peter 3:9), and that He has done everything possible to save us from that terrible, terrible place. Yet in the end God will not violate or overrule the deliberate choice of those who consciously and willfully turn away from Him.
—Daryl E. Witmer of AIIA Institute
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil."
—Jesus Christ, John 3:16-19, NASV Bible

I shudder in revulsion that such sick fucks can walk the earth. Then there's more, on the same site to which you linked:

In Mark 9, notice that the Lord Jesus repeats three times about Hell, “where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.” Now, I personally feel that it is a great waste of time to quibble and argue with people about whether it is literal, real fire or not. And it seems there is some reason for saying that it need not necessarily be a real fire, or that this is a literal, real worm that is referred to here. But it is interesting to note that one of the Bible words used to describe Hell is Gehenna, and that referred to the garbage dump of the valley of Hen, where there was fire constantly burning, and the worm and maggots never lacked something to eat. They were always alive, always in existence.

Will there literally be a burning fire in Hell? The fact of the matter is that if this is just symbolic language, it’s bad enough for me, and certainly the reality will be worse than the symbol. And fire isn’t very funny. If you’ve ever been badly burned, as I was as a little boy, you never forget it. And if the Lord is simply using symbolic language, how much more terrible must the reality be?

You don’t need fire to be in pain.

Now, I don’t think physical suffering is the worse kind of suffering. We know that when Jesus was on the cross He took and an awful lot of abuse. He was spit on and mocked. They pushed sharp thorns down into His head, shredded His back with the cat-o’-nine-tails, drove the nails in and the spear. He was even deserted by His own disciples. The physical suffering was great. They even plucked the beard out of His face. But you never hear the Lord Jesus complaining about any of that. Rather, the peak of His agony and His suffering is when He cries out, “My God, my God why has thou forsaken me?”

The real pinnacle of suffering for Jesus was to be God-forsaken and to be left alone. That hurt more than thorns and thistles and spears and nails and whips and spit and all the rest—to be God-forsaken.

I honestly don’t think that those of us in America can appreciate or understand that as much as some missionaries who have gone out to some of the most primitive parts of the world, where some have told me that the spiritual darkness is so heavy you feel you could cut it with a knife. The presence of the Demonic and the Devil and the powers of darkness are felt keenly. We can’t really understand what it would be like to be in a place where the hard Satanic atmosphere has not been broken, shattered, or in some ways penetrated through the persistent preaching of the Gospel.

When we read in the Old Testament, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Ezekiel 18:4), really the idea of the word is that it shall be separated. It is not non-existence or annihilation, but rather it is separation from God.

Physical death is the separation of the soul from the body.
Spiritual death is the separation of the soul from God.

When Jesus said,“why has thou forsaken me?” that was the height of the suffering.

In Hades, what do people remember?

Returning to Luke 16, and the story of the rich man and Lazarus, I’d like to mention that there is no indication here that this is a parable. It doesn’t start out like a parable, but says, there was a rich man, and a man by the name of Lazarus, specifically named. Parables don’t usually take that turn. And the one was carried to Abraham’s bosom and the other one was a lost soul who went to a place of punishment and torment. But I want you to notice in this story that when the rich man was in eternity without God, without hope, his memory was very much alive. He said, “Send Lazarus to give me a little relief.” At another point he said, “Send him to tell my five brothers, lest they also come to this place of torment.”

Every once in a while, you’ll hear somebody say concerning some member of their family whom they know is unsaved, “Well, if he’s gone to Hell, or she’s gone to Hell, I want to go there and be with them.” I’ve got news for you—they don’t want you there. The rich man said, “Go tell my five brothers, lest they also come to this horrible place.” He got very missionary-minded and very evangelistic a little late in the game.

What did the Lord say to him? “Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime had thy good things.” I don’t really think we need to talk about fire. I think one of the most horrible, terrible features of eternity without Christ would be to have your faculty of memory—to remember the gospel services you sat through and kept saying “no” to Christ—to remember your hardness and coldness of heart to somebody that was a testimony—to remember your indifference—to remember programs and meetings in which you emotionally were stirred and maybe tears came to your eyes and a lump to your throat, and you said “No!” to Christ. I can’t think of anything that would be more horrible than that. “Son, remember.”

You don’t need fire to be in pain. You don’t need physical suffering. Just to be God-forsaken—separated from God and all that is good and holy and to have your memories along with it. To remember a mother and dad who prayed for you, who tried to lead you right. You took the bit in your mouth and decided to go your own way. You wouldn’t listen. A horrible thing memory can be if we’re outside of Christ. “Son, remember.” And evidently, man in eternity could see, he could remember. He didn’t need to have fire to make him uncomfortable. There were plenty of other factors to make Hades and Hell very unfunny. To be out in eternity without Christ is very unfunny.

Unutterably vile, heartless and cosmically unjust. Humanity will come of age only when it outgrows sub-human filth like this.

Not evasion, Linz

Rosie's picture

I don't have a problem with your view of justice. I wrote what I wrote to illustrate that your view of justice is similar to aspects of God's Justice. If you really thought that I worshipped evul then I would not expect you to want me near you. I believe I would feel the same way if I thought someone worshipped evil although even then I am not sure whether I could just walk away from that, no matter how it repulsed me on the face of it. (But that is another issue and let's not get distracted with that!)

I have not suggested "walking away from you". What I said was that if my talking about my belief in, and experience of, God results in your accusations of my being a liar or insane then, because that is not only incorrect (I am entirely honest and as sane as the next person) but a show stopper if you genuinely think that, it all becomes rather a pointless exercise and a waste of my time (and yours) to continue with the conversation. There would be more productive, useful and, indeed, enjoyable ways to spend the time. I would choose to just listen to the music posted and discuss/learn about Objectivism which were the two main reasons I signed up in the first place.

My understanding is that you would want me to stay away from you - unless I can show you (or try to show you) why God would allow people to go to Hell - on the basis that if I am unable to persuade you of God's justice you would consider that I worship, and by association am, evul. Is that right? And if, after I explain my view, you still prefer to think that I worship, and am therefore, evul then I can only ask you to point to any evidence of my being so! You won't find any! But I will happily stay away from the kingdom of Peka Peka although it would be unjust that your disinvitation should include Richard because he is not a Christian and my views are not his!

My previous understanding of God's Justice and Hell has, as a result of SOLO, an additional point to consider: why did God go ahead with a plan if he already knew how people would respond. As I mentioned last year, in response to James Valliant I think it was, I had not thought much about Hell and had no answer to that aspect (assuming it is correct). I needed to think about it some more. I did think about it and believed I intimated my answer to this, this year when we were talking about God giving warnings and second chances throughout the Bible, when I mentioned the 1000 years in Revelations which I thought was an opportunity for people to again reconsider their position. And it didn't occur to me that anyone could possibly turn away from God once evil was removed and only His character was present - because that is pretty much how you feel and what happens when you are "born again" (as it is called).

So, as I see it, there are two aspects to the analysis.

(1) the notion of God's Justice - which is the answer to the question, "Why would a loving God send people to Hell?" and "what is this Hell?" (which is what we discussed last year); and
(2) why did He embark on a plan if he already knew how people would respond?

The first aspect I don't think is so difficult to understand or agree with and is reflected, partly, in your own notion of Justice set out in The Lord Linz's Justice (and if we are created in God's image then it is not surprising that your idea of justice would reflect aspects of God's notion of Justice).
As I understand it, Hell is separation from God and one is not sent there but one chooses it for oneself when one rebels against God - which is tied up with the notion of God's justice. But just as this article examines the notion of God's Justice with the character of God, and refers to the writings of two early Christian scholars Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen, (190 and 230 A.D. respectively) in reaching its conclusion, so it would horrify me to think that people would live in torment for eternity and that an infinite "punishment" for a finite "crime" does not seem just. That is why I believe that in the 1000 years, when Satan is bound, and presumably no evil exists, and explanations become clear, everyone will be given a second chance. There is divided opinion about this notion of a second chance but, as I see it, warnings and second chances are consistently given throughout the stories in the Bible and the notions of love, justice and mercy being part of the character of God lends itself more readily to this interpretation.

The second aspect - the concept of free will coupled with the omniprescience and omnipotence of God who is outside of space and time is harder to understand. I thought I removed the problem of this concept when I talked about the 1000 years as described in Revelations and the opportunity for all those who did not believe in God to be given a further chance to change their minds. This left open the possibility that in fact no one may end up in Hell. And, if this were the case, and since God would know this also, the plan was good. "Know it, know it certainty" would be achieved for everyone. Only those that still denied God and who were therefore true Satan worshippers (if any) would be the ones eternally separated from God - in Hell - for they would not and could not be welcome in the new earth since it would be restored to righteousness, i.e., without evil or death, as intended from the outset.

I have become involved in a diversion

Richard Goode's picture

Now you water it down to make it and you appear human.

I'm not watering anything down.

The "lonely goblin" scenario is not mine.

I do wish you'd stop gabblin' about goblins. Why not demonstrate the demonstrable, instead?

More evasion, Rosie

Lindsay Perigo's picture

If you have a problem with my "justice" you are at perfect liberty to walk away from me. I am a human being, one who believes in live-and-let-live. I am not Gobby, Da One. I did not create you, much less create you knowing you would disobey me, nor did I create a place of eternal punishment to which I knew I'd end up consigning you for the disobedience I knew you'd display. Evade this all you like. I ask again:

So tell me again why Gobby went ahead with an exercise he knew would culminate in eternal torture for billions of people who simply did what he already knew they would do when he created them?

The Lord Linz's Justice

Rosie's picture

Linz: If you disobey me and do not answer my question and continue to worship this evul you are unworthy of being in my presence and I shall forbid you to enter my kingdom of Peka Peka.

Rosie: Oh Lord Linz, I am unworthy to gather the crumbs from under your table but your nature is always to have mercy. Such separation from you will be eternal torment.

Linz: I have granted you mercy once, my child, I shall do so again (and perhaps seventy times seven) such is my love ("I couldn't be more loving") and because part of me clings to the hope that you can see what I mean, deep down, such is my omniscience.
And again I say unto you, obey me and answer my question.

Rosie: (genuflecting) Master.

So, Baade

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Did your goblin—and you do have one, don't you?—actually do anything? Create anything? If so, why? Did he know what was going to happen?

Oh, torment is less monstrous than torture and it's all allegorical anyway? How frightfully convenient.

And fucking dishonest. For the bulk of its history Goblians believed it all literally. Now you water it down to make it and you appear human.

Sick, stinking, stupid, savage superstition.

Ugh!

Do keep up!

Richard Goode's picture

How's that? ["I am not a goblinite."] You claim to believe in Gobby. Just not the Goblian Gobby. That makes you a Goblinite, rather than a Goblian like Rosie. Do keep up!

I don't believe in a God who created Man because he got bored. I don't believe in a God who created Man to lick his butt. I don't believe God created a place of eternal punishment for those who don't lick his butt. I don't believe any of those things, so that makes me a not-a-Goblinite, since Goblinism is defined, by you, as follows.

Belief in the lonely goblin (aka God) who got bored one day and created humans to lick his butt—and a place of eternal punishment for those who didn't.

Do keep up!

Rosie, may I ask again: So tell me again why Gobby went ahead with an exercise he knew would culminate in eternal torture for billions of people who simply did what he already knew they would do when he created them?

Rosie has already said

the Biblical descriptions of hell are... metaphorical to illustrate the torment of separation from God and goodness

Do keep up! (And note, torment, not torture.)

I expect the news that you will be eternally separated from Gobby is a relief to both of you.

Baade says:

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Baade says,

I am not a goblinite..

How's that? You claim to believe in Gobby. Just not the Goblian Gobby. That makes you a Goblinite, rather than a Goblian like Rosie. Do keep up!

Rosie, may I ask again:

So tell me again why Gobby went ahead with an exercise he knew would culminate in eternal torture for billions of people who simply did what he already knew they would do when he created them?

Rosie

Curt Holmes's picture

(Rosie) "Christianity has a conclusion that none of you like but its logic is astoundingly precise despite the many books and authors and the period of time over which it was written."

Speaking, of course, only for myself, I don’t “like” the beginning, the middle, or the “conclusion” of goblianity. But that is beside the point. Unlike the beliefs I do carry, each of which I may or may not “like,” there is simply no reason to believe this goblin story.

Much of it is not even original.

(Rosie) "And whoever it was who asked (thinking he was so clever and cynical) what freedom of choice is there in Christianity, as though there were none, is completely silly since clearly every person on this site has exercised it and most have chosen not to believe in God!!!"

Surprising to learn, Rosie, that mind reading is among your many skills.

Also surprising to learn that I have been judged “completely silly” by you and that you are moved to announce it to all readers.

Does that come with “KNOW it, know it certainty”?

Rosie...

Marcus's picture

What is your Jesus telling you to do here?

To go worship him in some rice field in the middle of Hungary, somwhere near Puspokladany?

That would be nice.

Somewhere far, far, away.... Smiling

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tec...

gobby

Brant Gaede's picture

Gee, Linz, you didn't have to argue with irrationalists about their irrationality. How rational is that? Their ballpark, their game, their rules. Every time you swing the bat it's a strike. Every time they swing the bat it's a hit. In truth you only got to the plate because they let you for the sake of the form. It's natural enough for you to revoke their "human status." After all you'd do that to a billion and a half Muslims at the drop of a hat--so bombs away!

--Brant

Richard....

Olivia's picture

It's an article of faith. Like your belief that Man has a full height.

Not faith on my part at all, men and women of great stature exist all over the place and serve to inspire us because their example is REAL. You cannot equate faith in an invisible God with knowledge of flesh and blood people.

No, I don't

Richard Goode's picture

you profess to be a Goblinite

No, I don't. I'm not a Goblinite.

Too bad the Catholic Church also heard some voices

HWH's picture

For her efforts, Joan of Arc became a national hero of France, and the Catholic Church canonized her and made her St. Joan. Both a hero and a saint, this is not bad for a woman who heard voices and, concomitantly, acted on her guidance

Of course the church also hated competition..

PS! "There was a practice at the time to burn people alive using wet wood, providing a slow, baking environment in which the subject was painfully nearly-baked alive before he/she was actually consumed by the flames.

It's all part of "God being love" Richard prattles of.

microfiche
reader

Olivia

Richard Goode's picture

re: God is love. How do you know this?

I don't. It's an article of faith. Like your belief that Man has a full height.

Rosie

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Fine. Gobby speaks to you, as he did to Joan of Arc. As the young folk say, whatever.

Nonsense on stilts.

I'm just so sad at the spectacle of two such potentially good people, you and Baade, lost to crap. Sick, inhumane crap at that.

So tell me again why Gobby went ahead with an exercise he knew would culminate in eternal torture for billions of people who simply did what he already knew they would do when he created them?

See Rosie, your refusal to answer this—and willingness to sanction such an unimaginable fiend—marks you out as unworthy of human status in my book and most certainly unworthy of my company, whatever the extent to which I was originally prepared to cut slack.

Your goblin is unspeakable. Part of me clings to the hope that you can see this, deep down.

Linz

Rosie's picture

Rosie could answer this question and has already mentioned the answer to this question on another thread last year. The question is not a new one and different answers are provided from different sources on the internet.

However, why would Rosie waste her time answering the question again only to be told she is a liar or mad? Hardly seems a worthwhile exercise. I have legal opinions to write and other work to do which is valued by my clients and colleagues, a family to look after, a house to run, interests to pursue and, generally, a life to lead with people by whom I am highly valued. You will understand therefore that to spend time and give my soul to my posts here only to be called a liar or insane shows a complete lack of value and would be insanity if I were to continue with it on this basis. I am not offended because it says more of you than me. I know I am neither. I recognise that your beliefs and mine arise from our different perspectives, philosophies, learning and experiences and ne'er the twain shall meet if any differences are met and evaluated in this trite and irrational way.

I have discovered a paradox in all this however.

The paradox is that where I have sought answers in reality/science to the very unusual experiences that have happened to me (of which you know only one of the more conservative occurrences) yet all of the research ended up with no real explanation, your answer/solution is to deny it!!! To not be bewildered by such a strange occurrence shows a complete lack of courage to face a reality that does not "suit". To try to explain it away in lies or madness is just simply choosing to turn your back on, and refuse to believe, the extraordinary nature of the account which is unaccountable. You are no better than the witch hunters of old! It would seem to me then that the person who is the more unrealistic, the person who turns to a world of fantasy for his answers (denying it happened, and "repairing" to very unjustified explanations of lies and/or insanity) - when you have met me, know a little of my history and with reasonable certainty know this to be a particularly false and unrealistic explanation - is YOU!!! So you make a mockery of your own philosophy here. Eye

The scholarly, excellent article I asked whether you had read indicates that Objectivism is founded on a pre moral choice which means it rests on shaky foundations indeed. Science and religion and even Objectivism (gasp) are all founded on faith - a point Olivia has failed to grasp by her post - and your philosophy, Objectivism, is weak and imprecise in several areas of logic. Christianity has a conclusion that none of you like but its logic is astoundingly precise despite the many books and authors and the period of time over which it was written. And whoever it was who asked (thinking he was so clever and cynical) what freedom of choice is there in Christianity, as though there were none, is completely silly since clearly every person on this site has exercised it and most have chosen not to believe in God!!! So I would hazard a guess that freedom of choice is alive and kicking and all have exercised it.

And why did God 'speak' to me you have asked in cynical tone as though your very cynicism should be proof of its not happening?! (More irrationality in your thinking processes and argument! The art of a debater but not a scholar.) Why Joan of Arc?

From writer Lucretia B. Yaghijan, we have this delectable bit:

Captain Robert De Baudercourt: “How do you mean, voices?”
Joan of Arc: “I hear voices telling me what to do. They come from God.”
De Baudercourt: “They come from your imagination.”
Joan of Arc: “Of course. That is how the messages from God come to us.”

The voices told Joan to enter into battle in order to save her country. For her efforts, Joan of Arc became a national hero of France, and the Catholic Church canonized her and made her St. Joan. Both a hero and a saint, this is not bad for a woman who heard voices and, concomitantly, acted on her guidance.

There are more things on heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your philosophy. Smiling

More sidestepping, Baade

Lindsay Perigo's picture

The deeply stupid lonely goblin scenario is not mine at all. I wouldn't be seen dead positing such rubbish. It's the standard Goblian story, as you well know but choose to evade.

A Goblin who would go ahead with an exercise knowing that its end result would be his consigning billions of his creations to eternal torture is a goblin of love?

Since you profess to be a Goblinite rather than a Goblian, perhaps Rosie could answer this question.

Michael...

Olivia's picture

Thank you for loving my posts. Your encouragement means a lot.

Richard...

re: God is love.

How do you know this?

Whole lotta love

Richard Goode's picture

You continue to sanction an imaginary being who, according to your deeply stupid lonely goblin scenario, went ahead with an exercise knowing that its end result would be his consigning billions of his creations to eternal torture.

According to your deeply stupid lonely goblin scenario, Linz - not mine.

God is love.

Whole lotta crap going down ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Rosie, if you claim to know your goblin exists with "know it know it certainty" you're lying or you are mad, as already discussed. There is no goblin, and none of your vainglorious interpretations of experiences you've had—why would the goblin be paying all that attention to you?!—comes close to demonstrating the goblin's existence. It's all crap on super-stilts.

You continue to sanction an imaginary being who, according to your deeply stupid lonely goblin scenario, went ahead with an exercise knowing that its end result would be his consigning billions of his creations to eternal torture. You, and Baade, continue to smart-assedly evade this utterly legitimate indictment of your status as human beings—no human being worthy of the title would believe anything so monstrous. Well, knock yourselves out.

Olivia, I love your posts.

Newberry's picture

Olivia,

I love your posts.

Michael

I don't think so..

Olivia's picture

I cannot point to a physical being as you can with Shandra because that is not the nature of God. And that is not the nature of faith. But I can point to the physical nature of the universe and admire and see God in that. [Rosie]

Actually, you don't know the nature of god precisely because of this difference.
Which means your last sentence should read; But I can point to the physical nature of the universe and admire and project God into that.

I would expect to be able to point to a proof or proofs to answer all the difficult questions that remain unanswered in science. [Rosie]

Science is an ongoing jigsaw puzzle of exploration and discovery, it is impossible to understand it all because it has parameters. One piece of knowledge builds onto another piece of knowledge forming a deeper understanding. To default to the position that a god created this universe therefore all the difficult questions suddenly have answers is very similar to why people have a strong tendency to believe ridiculous conspiracy theories.

The most honest thing a scientist can do when faced with an unanswerable question is say "I don't know yet." And that is perfectly alright.

Rosie

Leonid's picture

"I absolutely insist that you see Hayfever by Noel Coward."
I'll watch it when I’ll have a chance. But you should watch “The Contact" or read the book by Carl Sagan. The book and the movie address many questions which we discuss on this thread.

Leonid and anyone else for that matter

Rosie's picture

I absolutely insist that you see Hayfever by Noel Coward. You can get it out on dvd. The one starring Penelope Keith and Paul Eddington. It is simply perfect. And will give you such a refreshingly absurd view of life.

You may even catch yourself laughing.

*Do* watch it.

Seconded!

Kasper's picture

What Leonid said... Even if it is in broken english Smiling

Rosie

Leonid's picture

Rosie "Not every time. Google is usually my first stop."

That is great! So god is only the second best. However you commit a fallacy by granting to god the same epistemic stature as to Google. Google is existent self-evident phenomenon. God is arbitrary concept that is-not connected with reality. Besides, the concept itself is self-contradictory. Another fallacy is your treatment of your feelings as irreducible primacies which they are not. They are creation of your mind, your subconscious automatic value-judgment mechanism. Your feelings aren't tools of cognition. You want to learn about existence by means of introspection, that it-by looking inside of your mind. But that would mean the acceptance the notion of primacy of consciousness, which is another fallacy. Consciousness is awareness of something which exists. To be conscious of consciousness before be conscious of existence is contradiction in terms. The only valid epistemic tool is extrospection, which provides the knowledge of existence by means of perception. Consciousness integrates these percepts into concepts. Now, please explain which percepts (not feelings) you integrated in order to arrive to the concept of god?

Kasper

Rosie's picture

Darling! So hard to answer your post when you haven't played the Socratic Method game at all according to the rules. You agreed with the premises and then changed the conclusion (mine and your initial one) so dweadfully. You answered the questions correctly and as such were supposed to conclude that the certainty from authority idea is correct but then you went and added "made up" authority. We weren't up to that yet. And that wasn't what I was saying.....sigh. I don't pretend for a minute that certainty from made up authority should be taken seriously at all!

It all happened rather the other way around as my thread indicates.

You do not and cannot "KNOW" there is a god. You simply feel it and you repair to your own experiences which you happen to attribute to a god... Your experiences only matter in so far as they create meaning for your own life. They have no importance, and they certainly aren't an argument for, proving the existence of god or otherwise.

My experiences have much importance to me dear! Just as your experience of falling in love with Shandra is important to you, and you attribute your feelings to Shandra, well so it is with me and God. Your feelings don't prove the existence of Shandra - your eyes do. But your feelings provide a different sort of reality for you and Shandra. And one that is just as important but in a different way as it concerns a different sense. It is a sense that exists whether Shandra is with you or not. And this is how it is with me. I cannot point to a physical being as you can with Shandra because that is not the nature of God. And that is not the nature of faith. But I can point to the physical nature of the universe and admire and see God in that.

If you disagree with this then you are simply flipping the order for a correct epistemology. Proclaiming conciousness over existence. The truth is not maleable to your wishes, emotional or psychological needs or experiences. It is not maleable to the beliefs of 1 or billions of people.

Truth, dear, is very much related to my experiences. But truth is not confined to things that exist in the physical only. Truth can include one's feelings. It may be truth that you agree with Objectivism. This you attribute to Ayn Rand. It is truth that I agree with Christian ethics. This I attribute to God. How does Ayn Rand account for the universe? or her notion that man is the pinnacle of creation? or that man is not an animal? Does she agree with Darwin's theory? What or where is the truth of Objectivism in these matters?

To know something means to have grasped an aspect of reality which you can prove.

But you agree that pi.r.squared is a reality yet you have not proved it yourself? And you agree I am sure, by analogy, that any other mathematical formulae that is not disputed is a reality. Can you prove the creation of the universe yourself? Can you prove what is good? Can you prove that morality is objective? Yet do you know that the universe exists or that there is such a thing as "good" and that morality is objective?

In fact I'm curious.. How as an athiest would you suggest that I check my position?

It would seem to me that if you don't believe in the existence of God, you are not bound to "check your position". It is a bit like the well known spaghetti monster argument. If it were me, however, to declare myself an athiest, as opposed to an agnostic, I would expect to be able to point to a proof or proofs to answer all the difficult questions that remain unanswered in science. Like the creation of the universe, the Cambrian explosion and the point where animal became man and how. A proof that can account for the notion of abstract thought. Or possibly even the notion of consciousness or life itself. A proof for the explanation of what happened to me in relation to the share story I have mentioned. Can you do that? If not, like me, you are relying on faith that an answer exists in science but which has not yet been discovered.

Does your alternative, the notion of gods actual existence, offer a case of it's own which stacks up?

Like you, dear, unless you can point to the proofs I mention in the previous paragraph and (according to your own words) prove them for yourself, each of our positions rests on faith. Smiling

Rosie

Kasper's picture

Can you please address all the points of my Clutching at staws post by dealing with the challenges put forward.

I don't know

Richard Goode's picture

Hilarious! Baade, who says there's a goblin, while admitting there's no evidence for same, is now urging Scepticism upon us.

Well, don't sound so surprised. I have always urged skepticism.

The savage and the PhD are on the same cognitive level. Well, there's one difference—in the latter case it's deliberate.

I choose to believe in God. Problem?

Leonid

Rosie's picture

Interesting article. Thanks.

Do we have to turn to such an improbable concept as god every time we don't understand something?

Not every time. Google is usually my first stop. Eye

Rosie

Leonid's picture

"To this there was no rational explanation that I could discover and, because it was one of a number of the same inexplicable, uncanny, knowing-things-were-to-happen-before-they-happened sorts of thing that were occurring to me at that time, which was at just the time I had become a Christian, I attributed it to God.'

Would you care just as matter of mental exercise to try some other explanation? For example excitation of the exaltation centre in your brain or some other plausible reason?
See http://www.bibliotecapleyades....
Do we have to turn to such an improbable concept as god every time we don't understand something?

Rosie [edited]

Kasper's picture

Yes I think that certaintly from a made up authority is a made up fantasy. The fantasy being the said made up authority. I've made clear in my previous posts that in the absence of evidence and arguments to the contrary I would give up my beliefs. I have done this with the christian debate, the guns debate the Iraq debate etc.

I knew that it was love because I had felt it. I also knew that Shandra (in this case) was the object of it. My feeling can only be asserted from my experience of it and my actions and deads can also be given as proof.

I don't doubt or question for example your sentiments to your beliefs. It is the beliefs that I question. The object of your affections or the attributed object to which you ascribe them.

Now can we actually get onto this god thing? I'd like to go into the substance of this debate because I'm not sure what point you're trying to make?? Why not just come straight out and make it?

I hope it is not along the lines of: Kasper has faith in P R Sqared and therefore if he rationally finds that ok then why is it wrong to have faith in a god? As we have said countless times the latter is contested by thousands of years of absent evidence, arguments to the contrary and the whole idea to begin with (the attributes of god) have been shown to be contradictory.

Curt

Rosie's picture

Why should Hilton be shouldered with the burden of coming up with a rational explanation for another of your "stories" when, as you have demonstrated, any old arbitrary assertion will suffice?

Because he discredited my explanation and believes that all things can be explained rationally. To this there was no rational explanation that I could discover and, because it was one of a number of the same inexplicable, uncanny, knowing-things-were-to-happen-before-they-happened sorts of thing that were occurring to me at that time, which was at just the time I had become a Christian, I attributed it to God. In the circumstances I do not consider it to be "any old arbitrary assertion" at all. I thought maybe Hilton must have a rational explanation since he dissed my explanation so aggressively. I didn't see it as the shouldering of any "burden" to share his rational explanation. Nor indeed did Hilton since he seems to be quite ready, willing and able to speak for himself. One wonders why you felt compelled to declare on his behalf that it was a burden to have his explanation. As it turned out, it wasn't and he didn't.

Re Maura Clarke, I don't see the hideous acts of human thugs on a par with my experience and therefore cannot see that the analogy is apt. And since she died it would hardly be character building. ???

Goodness, Curt! You seem a little out of sorts today.

Rosie

Curt Holmes's picture

You, to Hilton, regarding your goblin-directed windfall profit story:

How would you explain it, Hilton? I mean you have to have a rational explanation, surely?

Why should Hilton be shouldered with the burden of coming up with a rational explanation for another of your "stories" when, as you have demonstrated, any old arbitrary assertion will suffice?

And how can I relate the reverence that stirs in me upon learning that your goblin is personally managing your portfolio while showering other devout goblians with somewhat lesser rewards, as in the case of Maura Clarke.

Oh, I remember now. You call that "character building."

Rosie

HWH's picture

You are commiting me to the unfathomable depths of the unknowable.

Personally I am not clear as to the source of your mysterious daytrading tips.

It may well be the particular brand of lithium you're on, however, Robert Ingersoll found that most people suffering from religion were just having a bad case of dyspepsia.

"Everybody looked sad and mournful. I have noticed all my life that many people think they have religion when they are troubled with dyspepsia. If there could be found an absolute specific for that disease, it would be the hardest blow the church has ever received"

more here http://www.infidels.org/librar...

Hahaha, Hilton!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

My scepticism extends to the question of whether there's a discernable difference in this particular instance

There isn't! And there's no discernIble difference either. The savage and the PhD are on the same cognitive level.

Well, there's one difference—in the latter case it's deliberate.

Richard

HWH's picture

of course I was speaking for someone with the cognitive capacity of a New Guinean aboriginal, and not to a doctor of philosophy.

My scepticism extends to the question of whether there's a discernable difference in this particular instance

Hilarious!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Baade, who says there's a goblin, while admitting there's no evidence for same, is now urging Scepticism upon us. What did I say earlier about the two sides of the dogmatist/scepticist coin?!

Hilton

Rosie's picture

I "get" that my interpretation of my experience is to you the "building of an associative support structure for it whether by means of fabrication or blind faith" equivalent to the Aborigines attributing easily explained phenomena to God and the return of John Frum.

But do you have a rational explanation for what happened to me?

Or are you saying that just because no one can explain this yet, have faith that we will one day? And in the meantime just accept it as a mystery waiting to be revealed with the coming of John Frum?! Smiling

Hilton

Richard Goode's picture

As soon as we run into an existent we are unable to differentiate due to lack of knowledge, context or understanding, we default to building an associative support structure for it whether by means of fabrication or blind faith. This is to avoid the excruciating agony of having to deal with something which borders between the arbitrary and a floating abstraction.

Speak for yourself.

You should try skepticism sometime.

Rosie

HWH's picture

The reason humans are so prone to adopt blind faith as a convenient solution to the epistemological challenge of integrating an unclassifiable artifact is due to the specific workings of our consciousness.

As soon as we run into an existent we are unable to differentiate due to lack of knowledge, context or understanding, we default to building an associative support structure for it whether by means of fabrication or blind faith. This is to avoid the excruciating agony of having to deal with something which borders between the arbitrary and a floating abstraction.

Since the dawn of our species, should we have met with this phenomena, our adoption of blind belief was automatic as is evidenced by the spontaneous inception of the "Cargo" cult in all the regions in which ignorant local aboriginals were exposed to western colonisation and its accouˈtrement.

All of the hundreds of Gods that evolved with us were born of the same ignorance.


and this one shows how the Catholic Church is turning them and their progeny into "milch cows" for the Vatican

pour fiche

Hilton

Rosie's picture

LOL

And that was the most conservative story! Laughing out loud

It doesn't really matter that you (or Ayn Rand) dismiss its extraordinary nature unless you can provide another explanation. Because simply dissing it doesn't explain the facts of it. This is a true experience and I was no share dealer in those days. I can not explain it though I did try to find rational explanations. Luck would explain it happening once. But three times can not be put down to luck - or maybe it can. I am no "mystic"!! As you and a number of people on this forum have noticed, I am Mrs Logical!! And the only explanation for these and the other occurrences at that time (which was when I first became a Christian), through lack of any other explanation, I was compelled and resigned to attribute to this.

If you can provide another rational explanation I would be very, very interested. I have asked a number of people. They all gave slightly supernatural explanations. The most "scientific" (but untested and unprovable) was that we think in "waves" and that it is possible to "pick up" on these waves (from someone else) if that is what you are thinking about. (At the time I was wondering what to do with some money I had received.) The analogy was given to people ringing each other at the same time or thinking about someone close to you and then they call.

How would you explain it, Hilton? I mean you have to have a rational explanation, surely?

If ever there was a case of textbook mysticism,

HWH's picture

you are the one Rosie.

Here's what Ayn remarked about your amazing sixth sense. (Galts Speech)

"The mystics of both schools, who preach the creed of sacrifice, are germs that attack you through a single sore: your fear of relying on your mind. They tell you that they possess a means of knowledge higher than the mind, a mode of consciousness superior to reason—like a special pull with some bureaucrat of the universe who gives them secret tips withheld from others. The mystics of spirit declare that they possess an extra sense you lack: this special sixth sense consists of contradicting the whole of the knowledge of your five."

You obviously have the right gear to log into "Trinity Online Share Trading" . Other believers such as those from "Heavens Gate" had cheap Chinese modems or maybe logged on to a rogue signal from "Lucifer R Us"

I'm afraid you are terminal. At best your evasion will maintain your psychological status as a "flibertygibberty" pain in the hole, and at worst you will become another one of these

A damned shame about the waste though given the scarcity of ladies like yourself in which all the lights appear to be working.

family history

Hilton

Rosie's picture

religious euphoria

I am not talking about a euphoric experience. There was no sense of euphoria mentioned by me in the post and this was not the experience. I did not describe what I experienced in my post when I talked about the "conferring of the Holy Spirit" and you could easily therefore mistakenly ascribe this occurrence to be euphoria. But that was not what it was. I have witnessed other people looking and sounding as though they are in a euphoric state but that was not my experience. I can not readily explain the occurrence in words - but the result of it I can. It is a changed heart in the sense of a feeling of intense love/concern for others, joy and a strange peace all at the same time. It was also at that stage an ability to know things that I did not know for reasons I did not know and from a source I did not know. For example: Out of the blue I had an urge to invest substantial sums of money in a company I did not know! I rang the sharebroker and asked him to do this for me. He tried to talk me out of it. He said it was foolish and NO ONE was investing in that company. To keep him quiet I agreed to lower the amount invested but to invest the rest! He did it. Two weeks later the company changed hands and the shares trebled in price. The same thing happened two more times in quick succession. He was convinced I was indulging in insider trading. I told him I wasn't but he didn't believe me. He became very suspicious and untrusting of me and I thought he was going to have me investigated! So I told him that I could only think of one entity that I was getting advice from - God!!!!!!!!!! The silence on the other end of the phone was deafening!!!! Although I am sure he thought I was mad at first hearing, he knew my family, he knew they were as sober as judges and I believe in that silence he was evaluating whether I was mad or joking and decided to come down on the joking interpretation. Smiling You, like Linz, will probably say he was wrong!

More stories a bit like like that occurred although of more of a personal nature.

Kasper and Rosie indulge in the Socratic Method!

Rosie's picture

Rosie: Q. 1. Before you fell in love yourself, did you know that this was an emotional state from a source outside yourself and, if so, did you doubt its existence?

Kasper:A.1. I knew love was an emotional state and I knew that this state could be sparked by someone or something else. I can ostensibly point to these.

Rosie: Q.2. Do you accept that pi.r.squared is the mathematical formula for determining the area of a circle and, if so, have you worked out the mathematical proofs for yourself?

Kasper: A.2.I accept pi.r.squared based on the fact that I see the results of it everywhere around me built by engineers etc who use it. I have no reason to not believe that it is true.

Kasper: Rosie your definition for some other source of certainty being from an authority outside of oneself appears to be nothing but made up fantasy.

Do you still think that certainty from an authority outside of yourself is made up fantasy? Yes or No. Please bear in mind (a) that you accept pi.r.squared as being the area of a circle without having worked out the proofs FOR YOURSELF; and (b) your knowledge of the certainty that falling in love was an emotional state before you experienced it FOR YOURSELF?

(Forget about jumping the gun to God's existence or not for the moment as it is not relevant at this stage of the discussion. One thing at a time - we are imitating Plato's witnessing of Socrate's method of discussion here! It is a slow but careful examination and practice of logic.)

Rosie

Leonid's picture

“Your example would not come within my definition of a "certainty from authority". Despite it coming from the lips of a great mathematician, I think that there would be plenty who dispute its truth (including myself) and who could easily prove its error."
The same applies to the formula of god: omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal-all these are logical fallacies and could be easily proved as error. So, in regard to your proclamation "Why I am a Christian with KNOW it, know it certainty" I'd like to ask you again: which epistemic tools did you use to obtain this knowledge? Was it your feelings, revelations, innate knowledge, certainty from authority or your thinking independent mind? You don't have to answer me if you don't want to. Just think about it

Rosie

Leonid's picture

Rosie "Get it?"
No.
You wrote:" certainty from authority" (NOT "argument") is a thing that we hold as fact because NO ONE disputes it. I.e., it is irrelevant WHO says it (so long as it is not yourself)."
Here you simply substituted authority of person by authority of collective. Such a fact doesn't constitute a proof. It's like to say that one Frenchman could be wrong but 50 millions are always right. This is an argument from the authority of collective. But one doesn't establish truth by conducting polls. The fact that billions of people believe in god doesn't prove his existence. Your feelings also don't prove it since feelings aren't tools of cognition. You have to figure it out all by yourself, by using your own reason since “in the temple of his mind everybody is alone" (Anthem, Ayn Rand). Read this short novel and learn about the meaning of the word "I". Faith is unjustified belief accepted without proof. Acceptance of anything on faith means submission and abnegation of one’s mind. And if you are looking for the role models in Bible, than learn the story about Thomas the doubter.

euphoric euphoria aint make no god girl

HWH's picture

Rosie

This sense of religious euphoria you experience during your prostrate sessions at church doesn't constitute proof of anything other than the capacity of your consciousness to fabricate these euphoric emotions to which you ascribe the existence of a God.

All of us have experienced this phenomena, either firsthand at a rave or nighclub or from images in documentaries of euphoric savages dancing around fires to the monotonous beating of drums.

There's nothing about this phenomena that provides proof of any existent, and for you to betray your valid senses for something as flimsy as your "emotional certainty from authority" contrivance is as suicidal an act as you can get.

I, like any of us who've lost someone close to this curse have seen how submission to authority rather than logic strangles all cognitive ability and kills all that which was capable of being loved once.

My advice to you is to go on a mission to experience as much euphoria as you can cope with from as many settings as you can muster.

Perhaps then you wouldn't be as eager to ascribe so much to that sycophantic garden variety you find at church.

Microfiche reader

Rosie

Kasper's picture

I knew love was an emotional state and I knew that this state could be sparked by someone or something else. I can ostensibly point to these.

I accept pi.r.squared based on the fact that I see the results of it everywhere around me built by engineers etc who use it. I have no reason to not believe that it is true.

If we examine the levels of criteria enabling man to 'know' or to guide his actions then reason would be at the top and faith at the bottom. I take many things on faith, however, I don't claim to 'know' them and I would be willing to correct those assumptions or beliefs the moment a contrary position was presented with a criteria of a higher order.

You are taking something on faith to be true which is a waste of time considering the overwhelming lack of rationale to sponsor its validity. Due to the gravity of these beliefs I think it highly irresponsible to go on believing. All the arguments that I've encountered for the existence of god, and I believe that I've encountered all the major ones, are improper, incomplete and or have been refuted countless times.... Yet people such as yourself go on believing. That in itself is irrational.

Kasper - one thing at a time

Rosie's picture

I will work through your post, one issue at a time:

Rosie your definition for some other source of certainty being from an authority outside of oneself appears to be nothing but made up fantasy.

Since I no longer presume that all people understand what they read, I will answer this assertion with two questions for you from my post.

1. Before you fell in love yourself, did you know that this was an emotional state from a source outside yourself and, if so, did you doubt its existence?
2. Do you accept that pi.r.squared is the mathematical formula for determining the area of a circle and, if so, have you worked out the mathematical proofs for yourself?

Your answer to these two questions, Kasper, will determine whether or not it is sensible to continue with the other issues raised in your post.

Clutching at straws

Kasper's picture

Rosie your definition for some other source of certainty being from an authority outside of oneself appears to be nothing but made up fantasy. It isn't just yourself who's been asked to come forward with an argument for how it is that you 'know' the existence of god. There hasn't been a proper or complete argument to defend the notion of a creator for the universe to date. We are talking about thousands of years here.

You do not and cannot "KNOW" there is a god. You simply feel it and you repair to your own experiences which you happen to attribute to a god... Your experiences only matter in so far as they create meaning for your own life. They have no importance, and they certainly aren't an argument for, proving the existence of god or otherwise.

If you disagree with this then you are simply flipping the order for a correct epistemology. Proclaiming conciousness over existence. The truth is not maleable to your wishes, emotional or psychological needs or experiences. It is not maleable to the beliefs of 1 or billions of people. To know something means to have grasped an aspect of reality which you can prove. Be it inference, concrete evidence or even probability. You have none at all. Actually you have a strong argument against your case so it isn't Leonid who needs to check his position.

In fact I'm curious.. How as an athiest would you suggest that I check my position? Does your alternative, the notion of gods actual existence, offer a case of it's own which stacks up?

Greg

Rosie's picture

Fancy you being familiar with Daniel Dennett. Richard is a fan of his and brought him to my attention some time ago.

Yes, I am well aware of what he says in that quote and of course have asked myself, "what if I am wrong?"

The answer to that question is that I and my family would have lived a life making decisions in accordance with Christian ethics. But guess what? In 99% of all decisions I make, my decision would be in accordance with Christian ethics in any event. So, since this is how I lived in the main even before I was a Christian (since I agree with Christian ethics and what I am unsure about (such as homosexuality) has not been something I want for myself) if Christianity were not true, it probably would not make much difference to my choices and actions.

The thing it would affect is any afterlife. Since I did not become a Christian for this reason anyway - it is a consequential "gift" of choosing Christianity - then to simply die when I die and not have heaven is something I wouldn't know about if it weren't true. So, again, it isn't important in a practical way if this isn't true.

On the other hand, have *you* ever asked yourself, "What if *I* am wrong and it *is* true?"

Leonid Examples: mathematical formula

Rosie's picture

Your example would not come within my definition of a "certainty from authority". Despite it coming from the lips of a great mathematician, I think that there would be plenty who dispute its truth (including myself) and who could easily prove its error.

Leonid

Rosie's picture

argument from authority is logical fallacy

I know this, Leonid, but what I am saying is a litttle different.

It is contained in my answer to ding an sich below and says that a "certainty from authority" (NOT "argument") is a thing that we hold as fact because NO ONE disputes it. I.e., it is irrelevant WHO says it (so long as it is not yourself). The important thing is that what is said IS NOT DISPUTED by anyone. E.g., periodic table, mathematical formulae etc. These are things that we hold to be facts on faith from an authority - not because we have worked out the proofs or seen each element of the periodic table for ourselves. If we have worked it out for ourselves then I have called that "certainty from the self". The point is to distinguish between two types of things we hold as certainties.

Get it?

Rosie: "On your other point,

Newberry's picture

Rosie: "On your other point, re grand states of feeling attributed to God (God not being in the physical category of art, music, actions), there are several immediate examples I can think of. Prayer, extraordinary results from prayer, letting go of your will and following an internal voice (no I am not schizophrenic!) which leads you into a place and an experience you would not otherwise have had which turns out to be a saving grace in days to come and the recognition of the most extraordinary divine guidance when you live that way (which is not all the time I would have to say)."

I find this comment interesting. But I thought about this issue in different ways. One is that I think that ancient, and modern artists, through their imaginations, are the people that created god/gods. Another way I approach solutions to life issues is to listen to ALL the voices in my head, and cross check my solutions against their criticism. If I can't convince them all unequivocally, then I don't buy the solution.

Beacons

Newberry's picture

Rosie: "Beacons?...figuratively speaking, as in drawing people's attention to something?"

Yes. Smiling

There's always hope Rosie

gregster's picture

and we're here to help.

“There are some people – millions, apparently – who proudly declare that they do not have to foresee the consequences: they know in their hearts that this is the right path, whatever the details. Since Judgment Day is just around the corner, there is no reason to plan for the future. If you are one of these, here is what I hope will be a sobering reflection: have you considered that you are perhaps being irresponsible? You would willingly risk not only the lives and future well-being of your loved ones, but also the lives and future well-being of all the rest of us, without hesitation, without due diligence, guided by one revelation or another, a conviction that you have no good way of checking for soundness. “Every prudent man dealeth with knowledge: but a fool layeth open his folly” (Proverbs 13:16). Yes, I know, the Bible has a contrary text as well: “For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent” (I Corinthians I:I9). Anybody can quote the Bible to prove anything, which is why you ought to worry about being overconfident.

Do you ever ask yourself: What if I’m wrong? Of course there is a large crowd of others around you who share your conviction, and this distributes – and, alas, dilutes – the responsibility, so, if you ever get a chance to breathe a word of regret, you will have a handy excuse: you got swept up by a crowd of enthusiasts. But surely you have noticed a troubling fact. History gives us many examples of large crowds of deluded people egging one another on down the primrose path to perdition. How can you be so sure you’re not part of such a group? I for one am not in awe of your faith. I am appalled by your arrogance, by your unreasonable certainty that you have all the answers. I wonder if any believers in the End Times will have the intellectual honesty and courage to read this book through.”

Pg 50-51, Breaking the Spell, Daniel C. Dennett

Rosie:Examples: mathematical formula

Leonid's picture

Suppose some great mathematician offers to you a formula "If A is more than B and B is more than C then A is less than C”. Would you accept it as an argument from authority or reject it because this formula defies logic, law of non-contradiction, all your previous knowledge and common sense?
My point is that even second handed acquisition of knowledge requires an effort of independent autonomous mind.

Rosie

Leonid's picture

Rosie "What do you mean, "doesn't hold water"?”
It means that argument from authority is logical fallacy. In plain English its amount to argument “It’s true because I (or leader or philosopher or god) say so. It's not necessary false, but YOU don't know that until you yourself checked it by means of non-contradictory identification (logic) using your own mind, and until you integrated this new knowledge without contradiction with the rest of your knowledge which you already proved to be true.

Michael

Rosie's picture

Beacons?

Do you mean by that the literal meaning, as in signals/communication devices? or figuratively speaking, as in drawing people's attention to something?

And if the literal meaning, do you mean painting them? sculpting them? designing them? or making them for film sets? e.g., the seven beacons used as a signaling device between Gondor and Rohan in Lord of the Rings.

Rosie: "As a matter of

Newberry's picture

Rosie: "As a matter of interest, how did my post remind you of this struggle and what were the values you concluded were connected to being an artist?"

Your post deals with issues, such as the nature of intelligent design. And emotions, other thought systems, certainty of knowledge, and taking things on faith, etc. Likewise I thought about these kinds of things in relationship to art. At the time, in college, I found it all a bit much to sort through.

The pleasure of art making is incredibly intense to lots of people, including me. And at college I wanted to understand precisely what were the real life values in art making--I didn't want to go through life exclusively as a hedonist.

Picking one value among thousands, I would making beacons is one of the more rewarding aspects of art.

Dippy drifting

gregster's picture

"The walk with God, as they call it, seems upside down and back to front from a worldly sensible view but, if you do it anyway, the results are more imaginative and rewarding than one could ever have thought of using one's own mind alone. I don't know if you understand what I am talking about here."

Yeah I bet he knows exactly what you're talking about Rosie, I sure do. It's called retro-fitting and it's a gimmick often employed by religionist snake oil salesmen. The trick is to pick some example, or make one up, where some who by sheer luck, or by severe compromising of the idealised christian life of suffering-altruism, have hopped and skipped around the world without falling flat on their faces. And god provided!

"Money became a factor of the most minor import yet always the exact amount to achieve the next step."

[subliminal "fuck me!"] You know the kinds of tales; family and pet too put trust in god, and travel to become missionaries with little thought of where the next meal would come from, and unsure whether there are any cafes for when they get there. They are fortunate, didn't end up like last year's model, raped and expecting Somalian twins. The godly folk pronounced that god forgave the perp and ever since he's been living off donations from the church, crime pays, and he's found that since 'joining up' he always finds the exact amount. He's heard of the TV ad $1-a-week diversion schemes, where the flies always put in the best performance, and there's money there, from the god-fearin' white folk.

ding an sich

Rosie's picture

I think Darwin's theory of evolution is brilliant. The most interesting problem with it, in terms of Christianity, is the Cambrian Explosion.

Rosie

Doug Bandler's picture

How do you reconcile Christianity with Darwinian evolution? If Christianity is true, God created man in God's image (whatever that means - a "limitless" being has an "image"?). But evolution describes the emergence of life as due to random processes. Volitional beings could have evolved in many different forms none of them predetermined. The form we have now is random (this does not mean causeless though). So how can God have known what form we would take so that we would be in his image if evolution is true? It would seem that either 1) Christianity is true and evolution is false; evolution only appears to be random when in fact it is the product of theistic design or 2) evolution is true in which case there can not be any designer that preset evolution to end up with a being that has the "image" of that designer. To me it is either or. What say you?

Rosie

ding_an_sich's picture

Are you a Christian that believes in Darwinian Evolution as well? Just want to make sure.

ding an sich

Rosie's picture

This week I am feeling like Schopenhauer (Im really in the mood to bash Hegel). Give it another week or two and ill start sounding like Wittgenstein (Ill be in the mood to bash everyone).

LOL. That sounds like the week you will definitely need the photo to warn us to tread lightly around you!

Michael

Rosie's picture

I don't see any difference between them and the guy with the check.

What a wonderful, imaginative, creative thinker you are. Original and thoughtful. I like that. Smiling

You are quite right of course. Both are asking for your faith in their word. And only faith would test its truth in each case. So your analogy is ironic and perfect.

On your other point, re grand states of feeling attributed to God (God not being in the physical category of art, music, actions), there are several immediate examples I can think of. Prayer, extraordinary results from prayer, letting go of your will and following an internal voice (no I am not schizophrenic!) which leads you into a place and an experience you would not otherwise have had which turns out to be a saving grace in days to come and the recognition of the most extraordinary divine guidance when you live that way (which is not all the time I would have to say).

I recall years a go, a priest said to me, "There are three aspects to becoming a Christian: academic/intellectual knowledge, faith, and surrender. For most, surrender is always the most difficult." That last example I mentioned above, I guess was an example of surrender. I do not do this often enough but the most interesting books I have read about modern Christian's lives have been those who have lived their entire adult lives this way. These stories are mind blowing - the structure of the life is as extraordinary and perfect as a snowflake. It is a work of art in itself. When I read Camus and his disgruntled recognition of the repetition of everyday life, I did have a quiet laugh at the thought of those books, those lives and how the "surrender of their lives to God" paradoxically removed all dull repetition and boredom from it entirely! Money became a factor of the most minor import yet always the exact amount to achieve the next step. Most of us live the other way round. Chasing money and then doing. The walk with God, as they call it, seems upside down and back to front from a worldly sensible view but, if you do it anyway, the results are more imaginative and rewarding than one could ever have thought of using one's own mind alone. I don't know if you understand what I am talking about here. But you are imaginative enough to understand the idea at least. Do you have a website for me to look at your art?

Rosie: "I am not aware that

Newberry's picture

Rosie: "I am not aware that all grand states of feeling are attributed to God. Just those that arose in relation to God. Most "great awesome feelings" are attributed to the object that created those feelings surely. On listening to a great piece of music - the feelings are attributed to the music; on seeing a great work of art - the feelings are attributed to the art; on seeing a person behave with tenderness and kindness (most recently Leonid's response to a newcomer to this forum) - these feelings are attributed to the person behaving so tenderly."

I am with you all the way when you describe attributing a feeling to an object like music, art, and actions. But "God" is not a member of these types of categories, unless you are talking about things like the morals and stories written by humans, which then is literature. But you are vague about the difference between the parables, and written morals, and this abstraction you call "God".

I recently received a check in the mail for a painting from a stranger, he talked a good game, and he went through the actions of being an authentic collector beautifully. Though, I couldn't quite get a personal address...I didn't feel a green light on the facts I needed to accept the check as genuine. Your God is the same kind of thing; once you remove the man-made written code and stories, the rest is not real. The human phenomenon is so rich, fascinating, pregnant with endless discoveries, and imagination (Star Wars, flying pink hypos, Platonic perfect other worlds, your God and other Gods). But it is silly to confuse the real from the imagined, and if one insists they are expressing the truth, I don't see any difference between them and the guy with the check.

Rosie

ding_an_sich's picture

Perhaps i will change my photo every week. This week I am feeling like Schopenhauer (Im really in the mood to bash Hegel). Give it another week or two and ill start sounding like Wittgenstein (Ill be in the mood to bash everyone). Your phrase "KNOW it know it" kind of reminds me of something Witty said:

"A new word is like a fresh seed sown on the ground of the discussion." -Wittgenstein

Leonid and ding an sich

Rosie's picture

I think that the argument from authority doesn't hold water.
What do you mean, "doesn't hold water"? Do you mean that you don't believe you can have certainties from authority as I have described?

Any knowledge which is not self-evident, that is-perceptional, should be "digested" by the mental process of the non-contradictional identification and integrated with the total context of the true knowledge (or justified belief if you want).

Can you rephrase that into plain English please? I have never heard this expression: "non-contradictional identification". ( On my translation of that gobbledygook, you are saying that any knowledge that is obtained via the senses and is not contradicted by any other knowledge can be held to be true knowledge by the individual. Which sounds to me the same as my made up idea which I called "certainties from authority" (as opposed to "certainties from the self"). If my translation of your words is correct, how does that differ from what I am saying re certainties from authority?)

"Knowing that one knows" isn't what I am saying re certainties from authority, ding an sich. This isn't what you were saying below, is it?

(By the way, Hello! I did laugh when you said you became so absorbed in the philosopher you were reading about at the time that your ideas/approach seemed to change from week to week! Perhaps you should put the photo of the philosopher you are each week in the slot beside your name!)

ding an sich

Rosie's picture

Just making sure Im getting your "KNOW it know it" phrase

I think you've got it. I am defining "authority" as a source outside yourself. However, to know it by authority, "it" cannot be disputed or it wouldn't be something you could take "on faith" - at another's word without working it out for yourself. Examples: mathematical formulae, table of elements, physical laws, that sort of thing.

Agreed...

ding_an_sich's picture

Knowing that one knows seems... well... silly. And circular for that matter. But then again I have yet to hear from Rosie. Perhaps she means something else. Probably not though.

How do we know that we know?

Leonid's picture

I think that the argument from authority doesn't hold water. Any knowledge which is not self-evident, that is-perceptional, should be "digested" by the mental process of the non-contradictional identification and integrated with the total context of the true knowledge (or justified belief if you want).

How do we know that we know

Leonid's picture

cancell

Shouting can do this!

Marcus's picture

Yes it can, but there are often secondary or tertiary considerations.

For example, in your case, you believe that God gives you a rational explanation for the nature of something you might call spirit.

However built on top of that there are probably several layers of conviction.

For example, it is quite likely that a Christian believes that the bible offers the true moral code to live their life by.

They may feel secure in a community type atmosphere of their church and/or family of believers.

It may comfort them to believe that a god is on their side and they will go to heaven, if they're good.

There are many interconnected reasons. However it doesn't make it any more true than the Greek gods living on Olympus or Odin in Valhalla.

Why should supernatural explanations trump natural ones?

Simply because man looks to the sky and says 'ugg, ugg' - I don't understand.

Only enlightened man has managed to break free of this primitive mind-set.

Just making sure Im getting your "KNOW it know it" phrase

ding_an_sich's picture

So when you say you "KNOW it, know it", does this mean that you know that you know? For example: lets say you are given the formula for something simple, say, the formula for a square. You take it from authority and hold it as knowledge (im just assuming that you are dealing with knowledge here); but this knowledge you are not certain of, that is, you only know it, not KNOW it know it. But when you take the time to do the proof for yourself, you, through experience apart from the authority that presented the material to you, come to the same conclusion, and hence conclude that you KNOW it know it. And, in addition to all this, that this KNOW it know it implies certainty. So we can really only KNOW it know it with certainty when we have taken the time to do it for ourselves (or experience it). I could do the same thing for a logic proof.

1. p->q
2. p
3. therefore q

I could very well know it, based on the authority, but I cannot "KNOW it know it certainty" based on this. I have to figure it out myself (which I could do with a truth table. And indeed it is valid).

So does your knowledge depend solely on authority and experience? Say I talk to someone who is not an authority on, say, math, but he gives me the central limit theorem and he is indeed correct on his assertion of the theorem. I know it without authority. Then again I dont know how youre defining "authority" here. Do you mean to say that anyone else or a specific person who is in the field you wish to inquire from (say a math professor for math and a logician for logic).

I really dont want to go any further until I have an understanding of what you mean by "KNOW it know it". Thank you for your time.

If my posts suggest sex -

Rosie's picture

If my posts suggest sex - what is at all wrong with that?

Did I say that it was wrong? I think I said I made no claims of any morality whatsoever about it.

Can you point to any of my crimes against the goblin?
Who said it was a crime? You can do as you please. And who said it was a crime against God?

(Seriously beginning to wonder whether accurate communication ever occurs!)

As for the list, Greg, it would be quite time consuming. But if the humour value exceeds the time factor at any stage in the next week I will try to give you a list. It could be rather funny to see them all together. I think you would be amused.

Marcus

Rosie's picture

So God provides a rational explanation for my emotions? Puzzled This would have to be an irrational statement for an Objectivist. It is irrational even for a Christian! In fact, I think it is irrational per se!

Believing in God allows you to get it off your ample bosom.
Shouting can do this! Why does believing in God enable this? Puzzled

Ample evidence?

gregster's picture

"You quite often relate sex to the post when it is about a subject that does not directly have any connection to sex."

Can you point to any of my crimes against the goblin? Seriously, sincerely. It may speed my salvation.

What is it that I seek, Marcus?

Marcus's picture

A rational explanation for your emotions.

Believing in God allows you to get it off your ample bosom.

Let us pray, 'God why do I feel so inadequate? Please give me the strength I need.'

Sex, once again

gregster's picture

"let's assume that is true, my posts appearing to be about sex without mentioning it in the text, what do you conjure as to my morality/immorality?"

I'll try and simplify it. If my posts suggest sex - what is at all wrong with that? Read the question over.

Marcus

Rosie's picture

Rosie you have fallen into the trap......of being a logical person who has been unable to explain her emotions and has therefore sought comfort in the concept of "God" or "spirit" as an explanation.

Have I? And how does God provide comfort as an explanation of these inexplicable emotions?!

Yes, I am a logical person. And that statement does not make any sense to me at all! Logically speaking.

As for the substance, I understand my emotions perfectly well!

You just need Linz to bust open the whole reason/ emotion dichotomy thingy for you.

Sounds interesting. I await the revelation with impatient glee. Impatient glee - an emotion - ooops better call up God for an explanation or is it comfort? or is it comfort in the explanation? or is it comfort in God as an explanation? Um. What is it that I seek, Marcus? Eye

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.