God, Omnipotence and Free Will

[Avatar]

--A

[rusmeister]

On what basis do you say that life is good?

Because I like it. That's the only basis I need. It's exciting, fascinating, even sometimes terrible. It's also meaningless. That doesn't make it less good.

--A

If it is good, then it is not meaningless. If it is meaningless, then it is not good. You can't have both AND claim any objective and common understanding of the words you are using. You are applying your own meaning to them - which is especially self-contradictory when speaking of meaninglessness.

Since we don't share a common language, communication appears impossible.

[Avatar]

Of course I can. It can be good and meaningless at the same time Rus. When I say meaningless, I mean devoid of any grand plan. Unimportant in the great scheme of things. Lacking a geat scheme, in fact. Just happening.

If your life has to have some ultimate goal, or has to fit into some great plan in order to be good, then you may be missing out on all the things that make it good, independantly of whether or not such a plan exists.

That's fine. Since you believe there is such a plan, it gives your life meaning. Which makes life good for you.

I don't need some overarching design to make my life good. My enjoyment thereof is sufficient for me to call it good.

I'm not, of course, suggesting that it is meaningless to me. Just to the universe and almost everybody in it. Whether I live or die, nothing will change except for me and maybe some people who know me. It has plenty of meaning, insofar as I assign meaning to it. I don't need some external source of meaning.

--A

[rusmeister]

Of course I can. It can be good and meaningless at the same time Rus. When I say meaningless, I mean devoid of any grand plan. Unimportant in the great scheme of things. Lacking a geat scheme, in fact. Just happening.

If your life has to have some ultimate goal, or has to fit into some great plan in order to be good, then you may be missing out on all the things that make it good, independantly of whether or not such a plan exists.

That's fine. Since you believe there is such a plan, it gives your life meaning. Which makes life good for you.

I don't need some overarching design to make my life good. My enjoyment thereof is sufficient for me to call it good.

I'm not, of course, suggesting that it is meaningless to me. Just to the universe and almost everybody in it. Whether I live or die, nothing will change except for me and maybe some people who know me. It has plenty of meaning, insofar as I assign meaning to it. I don't need some external source of meaning.

--A

The difference is so deep that I don't think any communication is possible. I will offer this as a response:
www.calvin.edu/~pribeiro/DCM-Lewis-2009 ... tivism.doc

I offer this because I do believe in an objective universe that we both share in common, and that your life and death matter to all of us on a scale that we can't really perceive.

Enjoy!

[Seven Words]

Rus--

I just read some of that. And again, the underlying assumption that Christianity is correct is the stopper. The demand that subjective statements of belief which are unproven be given equal (or greater) weight than demonstrable, objective fact. IF you start from that assumption, then it is a wonderful, eloquent, flawlessly logical essay. But that basic assumption is the problem. I'm not saying the assumption of the Christian God's existence is wrong (as I've said many times before, there's no proof of THAT, either). But to convince me to change my beliefs (which I arrived at based on long contemplation, introspection, reading, and personal experiences), you need proof. No matter how deep, sincere, and earnest your faith is (and I have no doubt whatsoever that all of those adjectives describe yours Rus), it is still just an idea to me...until such time as there is proof, or I have one of those personal experiences which validates your faith. Secular humanism/atheism/science don't start with "God exists, let's figure out how to support the idea"....they start with "The Universe exists...let's figure out why".

[rusmeister]

Rus--

I just read some of that. And again, the underlying assumption that Christianity is correct is the stopper. The demand that subjective statements of belief which are unproven be given equal (or greater) weight than demonstrable, objective fact. IF you start from that assumption, then it is a wonderful, eloquent, flawlessly logical essay. But that basic assumption is the problem. I'm not saying the assumption of the Christian God's existence is wrong (as I've said many times before, there's no proof of THAT, either). But to convince me to change my beliefs (which I arrived at based on long contemplation, introspection, reading, and personal experiences), you need proof. No matter how deep, sincere, and earnest your faith is (and I have no doubt whatsoever that all of those adjectives describe yours Rus), it is still just an idea to me...until such time as there is proof, or I have one of those personal experiences which validates your faith. Secular humanism/atheism/science don't start with "God exists, let's figure out how to support the idea"....they start with "The Universe exists...let's figure out why".

While Lewis takes Christianity as a final conclusion, he does NOT use it as a base assumption for his arguments. He was far too sophisticated a debater to do so. You might want to look up the Oxford Socratic Club en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_Club . I wonder what part of the text, exactly, is "stopping you"?

[Avatar]

Well, I've downloaded the doc. Will give it a read within the next few days.

--A

[Seven Words]

His start being "Christianity is true. Here's how I prove it." He doesn't give equal weight to equally factually unsupported beliefs. He does not allow for the theoretical validity of opposing viewpoints, even though the objective evidence for them is AT LEAST equal to that supporting his own. Secular humanism/atheism, in fact, has MUCH MORE objective evidence supporting it. It isn't proven, admittedly. But there's a much stronger case for it than anything else.

[Fist and Faith]

I can't seem to download it... Not sure why not yet.

[rusmeister]

His start being "Christianity is true. Here's how I prove it." He doesn't give equal weight to equally factually unsupported beliefs. He does not allow for the theoretical validity of opposing viewpoints, even though the objective evidence for them is AT LEAST equal to that supporting his own. Secular humanism/atheism, in fact, has MUCH MORE objective evidence supporting it. It isn't proven, admittedly. But there's a much stronger case for it than anything else.

Can you show me the place in the text where he says (or clearly implies) "Christianity is true, and here's how I prove it?"?
He is coming from a standard assumption that if something is logically true, then an opposing and mutually exclusive idea must be false, which is the only way that logic can lead you to any conclusions at all.

You speak of evidence, but if logic shows you that the conclusions drawn from the evidence are false, then it doesn't matter how much evidence you have. There might be a mountain of evidence that x murdered y, but if x actually didn't murder y, then that evidence is merely misleading.

I appreciate you guys being willing to read this. I see it as a great exposition on why subjectivism ultimately can't work.

[Avatar]

I can't seem to download it... Not sure why not yet.

Right click on the link and "Save target as..." ? (For IE. Save link as... for Firefox.)

--A

[Fist and Faith]

You speak of evidence, but if logic shows you that the conclusions drawn from the evidence are false, then it doesn't matter how much evidence you have. There might be a mountain of evidence that x murdered y, but if x actually didn't murder y, then that evidence is merely misleading.

If, otoh, there are no suspects at all, and the investigation begins, and a mountain of evidence points to x, and no evidence points to anybody else, and there's no reason to believe it's not x, then logic does not tell us to remove x from the list of suspects. It is illogical to ignore that just because we went into it with an unverified, unverifiable belief that x didn't do it.

[rusmeister]

You speak of evidence, but if logic shows you that the conclusions drawn from the evidence are false, then it doesn't matter how much evidence you have. There might be a mountain of evidence that x murdered y, but if x actually didn't murder y, then that evidence is merely misleading.

If, otoh, there are no suspects at all, and the investigation begins, and a mountain of evidence points to x, and no evidence points to anybody else, and there's no reason to believe it's not x, then logic does not tell us to remove x from the list of suspects. It is illogical to ignore that just because we went into it with an unverified, unverifiable belief that x didn't do it.

That would be true. OTOH, I think I've offered you a ton of evidence that you just don't accept.
In any event, it doesn't invalidate my own point.

PS - There are at least a couple of your posts that I'd like to offer serious response to - hopefully I'll get to them by the weekend.

[hierachy]

It seems that nothing exists as a thing without excluding something else. Without contrast, it is impossible to define--there is no boundary. When we define a concept, we give it boundaries. To say that something has meaning, is to acknowledge the existence of meaninglessness outside the boundaries of meaning.

You can't have meaning without the backdrop of meaninglessness--it would be impossible to define/differentiate, and thus meaningless.

[Fist and Faith]

I think I've offered you a ton of evidence that you just don't accept.

When you decide that a particular conclusion will be reached, the kinds of things you will accept as evidence can be different from the kinds of things you will accept if you're starting from scratch and seeing what can be found.

[rusmeister]

I think I've offered you a ton of evidence that you just don't accept.

When you decide that a particular conclusion will be reached, the kinds of things you will accept as evidence can be different from the kinds of things you will accept if you're starting from scratch and seeing what can be found.

I don't believe you've truly done that, any more than I have. And I don't think that I started "completely from scratch" when I really began to think.

[Fist and Faith]

I meant it the other way around. Although I don't mean from the time either of us began to think. I mean for the current topic.

I am looking around me, seeing what is able to be seen, looking to see what fits together and what lead to what, and trying to find any sort of conclusions.

You have various conclusions - which came not from seeing what can be seen, but from what you say is special revelation and I say is the demands of your psyche - and you will prove their truth using logic and evidence.

The things, the kinds of things, that are considered valid logic and evidence are not the same when a specific conclusion is going to be achieved as they are when looking to see if any conclusion can be found. You are going to see certain things fitting together, whether they actually do or not, because they must fit together in order for your intended conclusions to match logic and evidence. The thought that there is eternal, universal meaning to our lives is a conclusion. Trying to prove it by beginning with the thought that death is "not proper" (which is also a conclusion) is not going to convince me (And why else would you offer me a ton of evidence?), because death and our notions of what is proper do not fit together.

[Avatar]

It's sorta like arguing from your conclusions. You have the answer, now the trick is to make the arguments about the question fit into it.

(And not another word from me in this thread until I've read that essay or whatever it is.)

--A

[hierachy]

The mind is a kaleidoscope, and clouds can look like anything.

[rusmeister]

It's sorta like arguing from your conclusions. You have the answer, now the trick is to make the arguments about the question fit into it.

(And not another word from me in this thread until I've read that essay or whatever it is.)

--A

Good answer.

I think that would be exactly the case - except that it's hardly even a trick, when everything I see DOES fit my conclusions, fits them better than yours, and your arguments (those traceable by logic and reason, rather than conclusions) do not match anything I see. If you feel the same way, then we are left to decide whose arguments based on reason, leaving faith out of it, are actually better (unless/until such time as experience might change the knowledge and therefore conclusions).

OK. read the essay - I think it'll be more fun to duel around that!