Just to kick things off. I struggle with doubt. But I think God created doubt. On a theological level, ask yourself this.

Would I have more freedom as a human if I KNEW FOR CERTAIN that there was a God?"

For example, if it was 100% evident that God was real, we would act very differently. But I think God chose to be ambiguous so that our faith is a pursuit driven by us and not mandated by Him.

This is where I think atheism is foolish. Because of its' certainty. Agnosticism I can understand because it has its share of doubts. Just my thoughts on the matter.

You mean to tell me he's just been sitting there, watching people kill eachother over this uncertainty for 2000++ years now, just because he wants to be mysterious?

If that is the case, God is a prick.

Are bananas any less healthy or delicious because you know they exist?

Sure, you could say that knowing something for certain takes away your freedom to make unsubstantiated guesses, but is that really a worthwhile freedom? There are lots of things that we know exist, and it doesn't shake our faith in them one bit. I believe in televisions, and candles, and sugar, and jumping jacks. Accepting the existence of these things without proof wouldn't make them any more real, or me any more "free."

So we don't have the freedom to not believe things that are obviously true. So what? Are you honestly saying that if God revealed himself it would be an infringement upon our individual liberty?

This assumption that free will requires faith is hooey, and isn't even theologically sound. According to the Bible, angels live in Heaven, and know God personally, right? But, according to Jude 1:6, some of those angels, "which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." They left Heaven and went down to Earth to start families with human women. Sounds to me like they had plenty of free will. Maybe the theological question you should be asking yourself is why aren't humans allowed that luxury? Since faith clearly isn't the source of free will, nor even a necessary component of it, what is the virtue of faith?

Joe, You are the one making the assumption that freewill requires faith. Not I.

Are you honestly saying that if God revealed himself it would be an infringement upon our individual liberty?

Yes. Be honest with yourself. If it were revealed that the creator of the universe was real and his 10 commandments are to be taken seriously, you would act differently. You would try your best to do God's will and not yours. This inherently limits your freedom.

But I don't believe in God. If there is a God, I'd like to know for sure. And if there were one, I sure as Hell would act differently. You do believe in God, and you're saying that you would act differently if you knew for sure that he exists. I'm saying that doesn't make any sense. If you already believe he's real, what difference does it make whether or not he shows himself? Moreover, why would you prefer that doubt to unmistakable evidence of God's existence?

If I knew that the god of the bible existed, I would not act difrent.

Personally I have never found raciest, sexiest, egotistical, blood thirsty, Greedy, bossy, jerks that appeling.

Maybe living in his image isn't so great. We should all try to be a little less Christ like.

And if there were one[God], I sure as Hell would act differently.

Do you realize that you just made my point? Our actions, freewill…if you will, are a great blessing from God that stems directly from doubt. But yet we have the freedom to act however we want.

I don't prefer doubt. It sucks. But that's the way it is here on Earth. I think you are missing my point. I believe in God but yet I have doubts. I have the honesty to admit that. But atheists have absolute certainty, which to me seems foolish and not honest. I have a much greater respect for an agnostic than I do for an atheist because I feel an agnostic is being honest. The agnostic does not know for certain. I know you don't believe in God, but for my example you need to suspend your disbelief for a second and understand and comprehend the situation that I am describing to you. Atheists use hypothetical examples all the time and have no problem with it. Please afford me the same luxury. Would or would not your behavior change if….

God, the creator of the universe and the Earth in all of His power and glory reveals Himself to exist.

Your honest answer was “yes.” You agree with my thesis that; If God’s existence was proven then our freedom to do what ever we wanted would be greatly deterred if not diminished all together. So isn’t it good thing that God created our existence in this fashion?

Cure4pain said, "Would I have more freedom as a human if I KNEW FOR CERTAIN that there was a God?"

And then Cure responds to the following question: "Are you honestly saying that if God revealed himself it would be an infringement upon our individual liberty?"

Cure responds, "yes"

And then Cure says, "You are the one making the assumption that freewill requires faith. Not I."

So with Cure's first statement, he implies via his question that he has more freedom (that is, free will) because he does not know for certain whether or not there is a "God". So if one does not know for certain whether or not there is a "God", then it requires faith to believe in this "God.

So if "God" revealed himself, and thus it would no longer require faith to believe in this imaginary being, then it would be an infringement upon Cure's individual liberty or free will.

Cure is, therefore, indeed the one making the assumption that freewill requires faith.

"I think God created doubt."

You're stupid.

Our actions, freewill…if you will, are a great blessing from God

LOL! Some "blessing"! According to what you believe, if one follows ones "free will" instead of "God's" rules according to the Bible, one goes to hell. "A great blessing" my ass!

So with Cure's first statement, he implies via his question that he has more freedom (that is, free will) because he does not know for certain whether or not there is a "God". So if one does not know for certain whether or not there is a "God", then it requires faith to believe in this "God.

JoAnn. You must have a god-like power to be able to discern what I say and what I imply. Now I see how we can be so confused when we discuss things here at 1gm. I write something and you can interpret my hidden implications. Brilliant. How can you even deduce that I feel I have more freewill that a non-believer? I don't feel that way. We all have the same amount of freewill.

if one follows ones "free will" instead of "God's" rules according to the Bible, one goes to hell.

But that's the beauty of it. God wants us to love Him freely. Of our own doing. Not by Him forcing us to love Him. This becomes more evident when you realize that God's "rules" are there to protect us and not to ensnare us. I would urge you to take a week out of your life and try to do one simple thing. Love God. Not Jesus or Allah or Buda etc., but the Monotheistic creator of you and me. After you do that tell me if you find his ways to be better or worse for us.

Mitch, You're late for detention. Why don’t you come back in 20 years when you are old enough to have an intelligent conversation.

How easy is it to say, "God created doubt." And to further the absurdity, to pad this nonsense with "I think."

Do you now? In what sense are you thinking or have you thought of this matter?

Faith, doubt, free will, choice, action, consequence... Not one of these terms has been defined here, yet God obviously created them so that we may toss them about notwithstanding intellectual involvement into what they actually mean.

You believe God created everything. So it obviously follows that he "created" doubt. What is the point bloating our minds with this redundancy? You hold the premise that all things are created by God; until you explain what God is, anything you have to say on his behalf is worthless.

Frankly, I think many freethinkers and atheists enjoy allowing the believer to have his or her tiny assumption that "God exists."

Unfortunately, this leads into nothing less than a vacuous discussion that only affirms the consequent tirelessly while the antecedent is ignored until kingdom come.

I say that we all stop playing their little hypothetical and stone wall them with the demand that they define what they mean by God. It's absurd to rabble on about what God can or cannot do, what God does or does not do, what God creates or doesn't create when the burden of proof is tossed out the window.

1. If God exists, then God created all things.
2. Doubt (a thing) exists.
3. Therefore, God exists. [4. Carry on heated debate about how things contradict God's existence.]

This is the wrong way to argue, and this situation is going on here.

Aaron, How about this.... I know God created doubt. (now I am being a smart ass)

You want definitions? Have you taken the time to read my views about the nature of doubt and freewill? Or are you exercising what you just learned your first week in Philosophy 101? Don't waste our time.

Your honest answer was “yes.” You agree with my thesis that; If God’s existence was proven then our freedom to do what ever we wanted would be greatly deterred if not diminished all together. So isn’t it good thing that God created our existence in this fashion?

If one wishes to see a perfect example of amateur philosophy, one need look no further than your reasoning on these posts.

The problem with your arguments is that if we are to believe the Bible is true, than God has appeared to people in history before, thus damaging their freewill. If we are to assume that God intervenes in human affairs and does not just represent the creator of everything while letting it run lazzie faire as it were (deism), then he has already tampered with our freewill.

In the comment you made that I just quote above, you confine God to your rules not realizing that God's freewill extends even beyond your own logic (if we are to assume that god is omnipotent). He would be able to square a circle or create an ambiance of goodness without the presence of evil (heaven).

I've still yet to see an adequate response to Harris' final sentence:

Ask yourself, when even the doubts of experts are thought to confirm a doctrine, what could possibly disconfirm it?

To your last question: I actually am.

And why is rudimentary logic "a waste of time?" It is absurd to declare the fundamentals of philosophy and logic to be irrelevant when the fallacy is so apparent. So the fallacy has a name, does this mean that it somehow is less applicable to--and this is laughable--what scholarly discussion goes on here?

Hardly. The fallacy has a name and I am putting it on the table because that is the point of defining these fallacies in the first place. If you are going to commit a popular fallacy, then do not become surprised when someone sees it. The argument that I am using "elementary philosophy" does this entire discussion a disservice. What's more, doing so in itself is a fallacy of logic.

Where have you given definitions aside from hypothetical situations of "doubt in action?" Your definition of doubt and free will are worthless to us if they are contingent on your theological presumption. Define what you mean by "God."

But atheists have absolute certainty, which to me seems foolish and not honest. Certainty about what?

I have a much greater respect for an agnostic than I do for an atheist because I feel an agnostic is being honest. The agnostic does not know for certain.

Do you know what agnosticism is? Considering the point Thomas Huxley was trying to convey, that people have obscured into issues outside of science and evolution, "agnosticism" is a position on knowledge. It is not about belief. Simply being "agnostic" says nothing about whether you do or do not agree with the argument for God's existence, which is the crux of the matter. Agnostics can be believers and non-believers; but inherently, agnosticism is neither about belief in God nor lack of belief in God. It serves no purpose as a topic in discussion about doubt.

Dammit.

Cure said, "JoAnn. You must have a god-like power to be able to discern what I say and what I imply"

No, I just followed the logical conclusion of your reasoning. It seems that you lack skills in following logic. You're not even aware of exactly what arguments it is that you're making. You didn't respond to the points that I made now did you?

As Erick said, "If one wishes to see a perfect example of amateur philosophy, one need look no further than your reasoning on these posts."

So Cure, what is your answer to the question that you posed:

"Would I have more freedom as a human if I KNEW FOR CERTAIN that there was a God?"

I am leaving for a bit tonight but will be back to respond. Peace.

To add to the discussion I pose a question: Do we love our parents less and/or have less freewill because we experience their presence than if we were only to hear allegations of their existance?

This is what I am getting from your reasoning Cure. How would we be "fored" to love God if He were to show Himself (which he has, apparently; see Bible). Does it follow, then, that we do not love our parents from our own freewill but rather do so manditorily given we have knowledge of their existance everyday (or 'had' assuming they are now deceased)?

Also, you contradict even your own attitudes toward God's creation:

But yet we have the freedom to act however we want. I don't prefer doubt. It sucks. But that's the way it is here on Earth.

...one paragraph down...

So isn’t it good thing that God created our existence in this fashion?

(Click here to read comment again)

That should have been "forced" not "fored".

Your methods are stringent, Erick!

Anyway, I have a similar charge. Wouldn't we need to know the character of God to thus answer whether or not human freedom is necessarily something it cherishes?

Example: We know the personality of our parents, thus we know how they will respond to our actions. Therefore, our freedom is limited by our knowledge of how we perceive them actually.

Do we perceive God in the same way that we perceive our parents? Keep in mind that our parents are subject to changing opinions. However, God's personality (whatever it may be), is solidified in the literature of the Bible. Is a concrete, unchanging character something that can inherently be compatible with human freedom?

Religious arguments always remind me of the brilliant opening scene in Super Troopers when the three stoner kids are having a weed-fueled debate over property rights. “You can't own the water…it’s God’s water.” That’s about as intellectual a conversation as you can get about a subject that is unknowable. I don’t care if you have the Dali Lama, the Pope, the Rabbi of Jerusalem, the Ayatollah Khomeini (I miss him sometimes), and Jerry Fallwell all seated at the same table in a Starbucks, their conversation isn’t going to sound much different to me than the stoner kids dialogue.

Erick, I can see my contradiction. But I feel it is more of my poor wording. So I will try to explain. I feel that doubt is a necessary component of faith. But the way it is set up on Earth by God can be uncomfortable and a struggle. But yet it is better than having him over our shoulder all the time. So yes, I feel that even though it is a struggle, is a good thing. But the ironic thing about doubt, and I think goes with Mother Teresa, is that when you struggle with doubt, you often feel closer to God. Pretty neat huh?!?!!?

What would be better than having an all-loving god over our shoulders? I know personally I'd benefit from his assistance on my exams.

I am told God loves me -- and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul.

Was it necessary for her to say "absolutely great" for you to understand that she did not believe?

Her struggle was to believe in God at all, not with her crumbling faith.

Your arguments will always result in "poor wording" because they just do not make sense.

That isn

Neither you nor I can say whether or not she believed in God. Of course her struggle was to believe in God at all. That is soooooo obvious. What is it that you think Christians struggle with in their faith? Whether or not we get that red SUV? Please. Do yourself a favor and enroll in some Theology 101 so you can have some understanding as to where religious arguments are coming from. Then you will not be able to blame your lack of understanding on poor wording.

Neither you nor I can say whether or not she believed in God. Of course her struggle was to believe in God at all. That is obvious. What is it that you think Christians struggle with in their faith? Whether or not we get that red SUV? Please. Do yourself a favor and enroll in some Theology 101 so you can have some understanding as to where religious arguments are coming from. Then you will not be able to blame your lack of understanding on poor wording.

So you're saying we cannot call a spade a spade and we must assume that her doubts actually hold no relevance to whether or not she actually believed? Is this the argument you propose? It seems like yet another theological vacuous slight-of-hand.

We're right back at Harris' question:

Ask yourself, when even the doubts of experts are thought to confirm a doctrine, what could possibly disconfirm it?

Either her doubts are irrelevant to the doctrine or her doubts disconfirm it, but they certainly do not substantiate it. If we cannot say the strength of her belief is a good indication of whether or not she believed, then we are implicitly claiming that each person's faith exists in a vacuum. Therefore, not one person's faith is relevant to the doctrine or to another person.

I don't understand how you came across building and attacking this straw man, that I proposed the issues of faith are evidential (of course it has nothing to do with achievement and loss in daily life; I just said that) insofar as daily tests of faith go. If I said that faith is an issue of believing in God, and you agree that it is obvious, from where do you apply ambiguity to my own understanding of where faith truly sits as a concept?

I am not blaming my lack of understanding. I am saying that faith is inherently irrational and cannot be made to make rational sense. It is the flaw in the source of any argument you propose.

To believe in God is to somehow be convinced by a certain argument for his existence and insodoing that argument defines that particular conception of God. The religious argument for the Christian conception of God is expressed in the Bible; that is the point of the Bible: to argue for his existence.

However, faith in itself, as I have said, is inherently irrational. The arguments for his existence, as based on faith, are therefore untenable as rational arguments.

Aaron, Yes, this is the crux of the whole thing. Faith. This is where we shake hands and part ways. Because I get more intellectual comfort believing that all of this came about due to a creator and your intellectual comfort comes from thinking this is all random chance chaos. That's fine. I think not having some sort of faith is irrational. You think the opposite. Our discussion can go no further. I will correct you in one area though. The point of the Bible is not to argue for God's existence. It is to teach us how to live. We should halt our dialogue because that very paragraph tells me you are as ignorant about Theological concepts as I am about Philosophical. Also, it’s ok to start you sentences with “I think.” I am more interested in your thoughts and ideas anyway.

The only thing I will say about Harris' last statement is that it comes from somebody who has little experience in the practice of doubting to begin with. It would be like me telling you how to throw a curve-ball when all I have ever done is sit in the stands.

I am not of the belief that the only principle of the Bible is to establish the existence of God, but insofar as this discussion goes, I am only focusing on that point. I personally feel the Bible teaches you how to only be obedient and live a Christian life while disregarding the intellectual vigor of arguing for God's existence. In truth, the Bible hardly cares at all for argumentation of God's existence and assumes it as true (which is why it is intellectually dishonest). However, problems of evil are handled through the Bible, indirectly, along with other philosophical dilemmas that need not be spelled out here.

Now I am curious as to where you got this terrible idea that atheists belief in, as you so eloquently put it, "random chance chaos." What ever does that even mean?

Any academic, philosophical or casual atheist will tell you that atheism itself says absolutely nothing of what you do believe. So why are you assuming, without the slightest shred of reason, that I believe in "random chance chaos?" Furthermore, I hardly doubt any atheist actually does believe in whatever you seem to think that believe in--which I presume amounts to some flavour of nihilism. In no way does atheism automatically entail nihilism.

What's more, I am not an atheist. I believe in God, only I call him Nature, as did Spinoza.

What we have here is an issue of definition. Trust and faith do not mean the same thing. Having trust in someone or science is not the same thing as religious faith in God because God has never been proven to provide evidential cases for us to trust in him beyond personal experience which can be said to be nothing more than following ones' imagination. Do not confuse religious faith with optimistic faith, for the latter has some basis on history and evidence.

Some friends posted a YouTube video of them performing an old Foremen tune: "The Agnostic Gospel Song," which I've always loved. This time, I thought of you lot when I heard it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ4Tx2ivQuo&mode=user&search=

Arron, Thanks for some clarification. An unfortunate habit that comes from posting here is the need to make generalizations. Most of whom I engage with here are generally nihilistic. Well good. I am glad to hear that you believe in God. I have one question though. If you believe God is nature, then where do you derive values?

Cure,

Religious folk seem to think that values are only to be found in religious texts. However, religious texts are nothing more than the constructs of men who derived their values from living life. Have you ever read any philosophical texts? Aristotle? Plato? Kant? Shaupenhauer?

Did civilisations before the advent of the Bible lack values?

Do all of your values come from the Bible?

JoAnn, Excellent point!! In fact this is probably where most Christians drop the ball. It is hard for allot of Christians to accept the idea that values can be derived elsewhere. Embarrassingly, much to their shame. But common sense and most Theologians would agree that the religious texts are not the sole arbiters of truths and values. The interesting thing is that, up and down the line, these values whether it be from The Bible or Kant are pretty similar. So, the long way around to your answer is "yes" of course they had values. But where did those values come from? I would say most of my values are derived from the Bible and the rest from the Society in which I live. What about yourself? Where do you derive your values?

Judgment values, aesthetic values, values of good and evil?

You'll need to be a bit more specific. We judge things as either good or bad because of our ignorance of the true cause of how things come about and because our passions push us to form inadequate ideas of those things we come to judge. Rather than truly understand the nature of things, we cave into the passions which are intimately bound with our imaginations. Values are derived from the imagination which obviously can be both confused and without true intellectual completeness.

All "values" come from within ourselves which act merely as labels to the things we come to judge.

The god I believe in is absolutely the opposite of that of the god of Christianity. In all truth, the god of Christianity is an incoherent mess of piecemeal theology. It's a putrid mess of a concept which arrests the minds of all who accept it into a pretense of inadequate thought about the true nature of reality. You really should not be "glad" that I believe in God. We each believe in "God" only in name.

But where did those values come from? I would say most of my values are derived from the Bible and the rest from the Society in which I live. What about yourself? Where do you derive your values?

And from where did those values derive? Ancient Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilizations existed before the time of Abram. Are you trying to argue that the story of the Bible exists in a vacuum and somehow magically Abram, Moses and the lot appeared in 2000 BCE out of thin air? They jolted all of civilization into a proper ethical system? Did the Israelites somehow make it to Mount Sinai without having some sort of established ethical and moral system?

Furthermore, it is not debatable that Ancient Greece is the cradle of Western thought and civilization. The Pre-Socratics, Socrates, Plato and his Academy, Aristotle--these are the thinkers who empowered the theology and religion you so easily think only exists because of his divine guide. No. The Greeks did more to keep your religion alive than you know. It was the arguments of Aristotle that influenced Augustine, Aquinas, and Anselm and hundreds of other ancient theologians. This is because Greek philosophy was the foundation of education in their era. Theology is arguably nothing more than Ancient Greek philosophy given a new language and a motive that buried the beautiful skepticism of the Greeks and replaced it with undue conviction into the idea of the Christian God. If not for Greek philosophy, and if then not for Roman Catholic theology, you would not have whatever watered down theological convictions you take for granted today.

Christian Rome assimilated much of Greek thought while Muslims of the era preserved much of what they could salvage from destroyed libraries of Greek philosophers and thinkers which re-emerged and infiltrated Western thought during the first millennial.

All values DO NOT come from within ourselves. Many do but not all. Why can you not answer a simple question? Where do you derive your values? I understand if you are young and still trying to figure this out. But it seems like a simple enough question to answer without going into the history of western thought. Save it. I don't disagree with the impact Greek Philosophy has has on thought. You brush with a pretty broad stroke some of your assumptions. As someone who feels they have more wisdom talking to someone who has more knowledge, take some basic Theology and then make some critiques. It seems your writing becomes a little glib and biting when it comes to God but when you start talking Philosophy it's all well writen and informative.

Simply because you do not like my answer, that does not make it incorrect nor does that invalidate it. "Many do but not all" is a conjecture that says little to nothing as a counterpoint.

What we call "good" or "bad" are derived from our inadequate ideas [of God] which is are absolutely representative of our inadequate understanding of reality, of Nature--God or Nature. These things which we call as such are not in themselves good or bad but our passions at play with our imaginations. Our imaginations are the products of our inadequate understanding of Nature; as the power of our intellects increases, we better understand reality and "values" more or less cease to exist for each of us because we gain better understanding of the perfection of Nature. When we experience joy, which must necessarily follow from something that pleases us, something that we value--either as an aesthetic good or an economical good or what have you--our own perfection is increased. Perfection in itself is neither good nor bad in the sense that we understand it; however, we often fall to mistake in describing it as good or "the chief good." But in reality, perfection is nothing more than things reaching a point in God which were necessitated to be.

You're calling me on my general statement about my view on the conception of the Christian God because of its generality and vague. I was making a generalization of what I've read of this God. Every time I speak ill of it, must I support my claim with a detailed list of all those things which make it a "mess of a piecemeal theology?" Why does this God deserve such respect that I must cater to all in rather argumentative fashion every time I lay words on the topic of the Christian God? If you wish for me to spell out why I think the God is incoherent, then ask me to do so. But to not proclaim my general statements "too general" for your tastes, and presume that from this experience that all the knowledge I have of the topic is wrapped up intimately with the statement I've made. I was making a strict assessment of coherence of the Christian God in direct comparison to the one of Spinoza. Insofar as making that direct assessment, I think my statement not as broad as you seem to be making it out to be, especially with your constant insistence that I take a theology course. It's annoying and condescending.

I ask you, before you begin with your condescending station of age and wisdom, consider the possibility that you do not fully understand many of the philosophical terms which I use here; those being "inadequate idea," "perfection," "imagination," and "passion."

It is easy to write these words off as merely philosophical nonsense, but understand that these words are not shots in the dark. Although I am not the most striking Spinozist, as my words and thoughts could be better served by someone else, they are not the example of someone flailing in a philosophical pool of jargon.

Well, do you agree or disagree with my answer that not all values come from within? For example, the value that marriage is better than cohabitation does not come from an internal moral compas. All I am saying is that Theology will help to round out your Philosophical endeavors. You may disagree. That's fine. I will be the first to admit that I do not understand many of the philosophical terms. That's why I have made the request to spare us the discourse. Not to be rude, but because most here do not have an elevated Philosophical education such as yours. We need to keep it simple and define when needed. I don't write your words off as philosophical nonsense. I would hope that you would afford me the same grace. Just as there have been and are great philosophers, the same is true about theologians.

we better understand reality and "values" more or less cease to exist for each of us because we gain better understanding of the perfection of Nature.

But nature is not perfect. We get cancer, hurricanes and floods. Our nature as humans stinks. Men are selfish, sex-driven pigs, by nature.

What we call "good" or "bad" are derived from our inadequate ideas

But yet they are "adequate enough" to make clear distictions between good and bad.

Reality says that I (we) exist. I feel that our existence means something. What that is I am not sure of. But we have 2 choices; to believe that there is no meaning, or to believe that the meaning is supernatural or spiritual. Meaning cannot be derived from Nature alone. Because if all we are is nature, then life is really absurd. Maybe you are fine with that. OK. I am not. I believe we are both physical and spriritual and that we need to recognize that the spirit comes from God who is not nature.

sex-driven pigs

I see absolutely nothing wrong with being sex driven. Of course, one would hope that a person has other things that drive them too, such as a drive for knowledge.

In fact, this is one of things about religions that annoys me. It takes a perfectly natural act and turns it into something dirty and to feel guilty about. I simply don't believe that lust is a bad thing. I think that it's perfectly natural behavior and nothing to be ashamed of.

Because if all we are is nature, then life is really absurd.

Well, I do find life to be quite absurd.

Cure,

As for where my values come from, well, I would imagine that they're a culmination of all of the many things that I've read and heard and then analyzed. It does not come from the Bible though. I've read the Bible many times (I grew up in a very religious family) and I found too much of what I read in the Bible to against what I believe. The major thing in the Bible that I find appalling is that crap about women being submissive to and obeying their husbands...

JoAnn, Honestly, I think you have a very sad and bitter view of Christianity. It sounds as if you have had some bad personal experiences with religious people. I am sorry for that and can understand your disenchantment with it.

I don't know how you can equate being a sex driven pig with feeling guilty about sex. Of course there is nothing to be ashamed of about sex. Sex is wonderful. But it is better to control our urges than act on them any time we feel. Isn't it? It seems you just have a bone to pick with prudishness.

"The major thing in the Bible that I find appalling is that crap about women being submissive to and obeying their husbands...

Well you are forgetting the rest of the verse. Before that Paul writes...

"Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ."

and then husbands are admonished to love their wives.

There are plenty of Bible commentaries out there, if you do a little digging, that state that, because of the time and culture it was written in, this statement is an effort by Paul to elevate woman. Check into it.

"Well, I do find life to be quite absurd."

Then I guess that settles it. This is what I like about you. Your honesty. I now have a solid reference to your worlview. In fact, that statement alone brings so much clarity that it answers many questions. Especially about why I get frusterated that you can't see my points. And vice versa.

All "values" as judgments are derived from within us; however, at the same time, we are within Nature. Thus, we can say it loosely follows that all values originate from Nature in some sense. However, values as we see them exist as descriptions of that which we do not fully understand, that which we do not understand the true nature and cause of.

To say values come from within does not necessarily entail that we have "moral compasses." There is no innate moral compass. Our values are heriditary and thus are passed down through generations, from when the first man judged a thing to be this or that way insofar as its usefulness; e.g., a makeshift tool was considered "good" because it served a purpose; the practice of monogamous bonds were considered "good" because they represented a certain connection of life between people in certain cultures. In truth, the latter is neither absolutely good or absolutely bad. We only proclaim these things as such with respect to our cultural dispositions--not "moral compasses."

When I say these values derive from us, I am not suggesting some sort of popular altruistic principle or some novel idea of striving to the "ultimate good." Values purely come from within us because they are representative of our inadequate understanding of the nature of those things which we judge.

I do not understand why I would need theology to "round out" my endeavors. I could take that what you are saying is that the conception of God that I follow is somehow incoherent and incomplete. I certainly beg to differ; such is the case, the philosophical ideas I carry do not require that of what I consider to be unfounded theological arguments that necessarily depend on the conception of God expressed by them.

When I say Nature, I am not referring to the moral and environmental concerns we must endure. I am referring to the totality of all things. God or Nature is the perfection which we all strive toward. You seem to be placing a weighty judgment value on the nature of man. If men would only set their highest virtues on understanding,--which is among many possibilities of man and necessarily within their natures--, then we could easily see that the human condition is capable of perfection; that is, the greatest understanding. "Men are selfish by nature" is not entirely true, as it only accounts for the actuality of a man or certain number of men at a given moment. The potentiality of humanity is what is important.

An inadequate idea is something that forms from the desire of a thing so thought (passion) and the intellect succumbing more so to that desire of that thing. When we form inadequate ideas, we are prone to act through our passions which provide us with the stopping point to determine the goodness or badness of a thing. What is the emotive response we receive from the thing we reflect upon? We stop short of full understanding of its true nature and cause to declare that it is this or that to us. What exactly would be a "clear distinction of the good of a thing or the bad"? It seems you have made an assumption that clear and distinct ideas are necessarily good or bad. I cannot agree with this assertion.

Your two choices are very limiting and very incorrect. Although I do not wish to argue and defend the materialist's metaphysics and teleology; nor will I go into nihilism or absurdism. I will stick to my own. When I say Nature, I am not refering to a sort of materialism. The only true concept is God or Nature which is the only necessary thing. From its necessity follows the lawful order of all other contingent things. Nature is not merely a material thing; God is not purely a metaphysical thing. God or Nature is the singular [substance] which involves absolutely both things as defining its own essence.

We are not only physical. We are not physical and spiritual. We are physical and intellectual.

"We are not only physical. We are not physical and spiritual. We are physical and intellectual."

But doesn't that just confine the intellect to mere physicality? Are you not just saying "We are physical and physical."

It seems your views place alot of emphasis on our just not adequately knowing everything. But if that's the case how do you come to any moral distinction on any given subject. You say man is capable of perfection. I think that is arrogance of the highest magnitude. Who decides when we have reached perfection? Will nature tell us. Will Nature somehow reward us? We can strive for perfection, but to acert that man can achive it will only lead to folly.

I think if you wanted to be as objective as possible then, yes, I think a little collegiate knowledge of Theology would do you you well. It couldn't hurt. Nobody says you have to buy into it.

There is what is purely physical and there is what is only understandable through the intellect. Mathematical and logical principles do not rely on physical things for us to understand their natures.

I would consider that a large body of individual intellects--say 20 thinkers--their ultimate choice on a moral distinction is one decision in itself. Thus, that collection of 20 would, insofar as a thinking thing goes, act as if it were a single thinking thing. Obviously within ourselves we find strife with our passions and our intellects, so naturally within a group of minds, a certain dynamic relationship will, more or less, equal that of a single individual making a decision.

We attain perfection through our understanding of these sorts of physical and intellectual aspects of God or Nature. Admitting to the potential powers of human reason to do no more than understand is not arrogance. In what way is knowledge and wisdom "arrogant?" Arrogant with respect to whom? Extraterrestrial life? If we should happen to encounter this life, would it not be that we either learn from them? Perfection does not mean dominance; perfection means that one's ability to act (true action comes from one's adequate understanding of its purpose) is untrammeled, unlimited. The passions and inadequate thought of things do not hinder the one thinking thing's ability to act.

I did not say that human reason will reach perfection. As I stated before, the highest virtue is understanding; gaining knowledge, increasing the powers of the intellect. Understanding always entails that there is something to understand; however, I will never be so pessimistic as to claim that human reason cannot achieve absolute understanding. Nor will I accept "agnosticism," as it were for this case, as a viable answer to the problem.

No one tells us we've reached perfect understanding because no one gave us the station in the first place to have that potentiality. It is absurd to ask "by whom?" Our existence as a species has been determined by the laws of Nature. We have no one else to answer to, as a species, except ourselves and our understanding of God or Nature.

You mean to say, "We can strive for perfection, but it is folly to claim we will." There is a crucial difference between what I've said and what you think I've said.

"You mean to say, "We can strive for perfection, but it is folly to claim we will."

No, I meant what I said before. I think perfection is an unattainable goal. At least here on Earth. To think that we can achieve it IS arrogant. The pursuit of wisdom and intelligence is not. I feel that if one believes man can achieve perfection one will always be disappointed and life will be quite frustrating. But if we are humble and realize that perfection is something to pursue but will never be attained, then we can live better in the reality we are given.

The Creator of the Universe loves me, cares about me, takes an active interest in my life, and when I die, he will reward me. My beliefs, coming from the Scripture, will remain the best statement of the truth from now until the end of time. Anyone who disagrees with me will burn in hell for all eternity.

Well, I guess that settles it. Is this the best you have? Wow. I have never rendered someone to babling nonsnse before.

So none of that is applicable to your beliefs? Does your God not love you, care about you, actively involve himself in your daily affairs (anthropomorphized), and reward you when you die? Do you not consider your Scripture the best statement of moral truth and metaphysical truth (without the metaphysics, it's a dull fairy tell with no real reason to worry about it)? (It can no longer claim scientific truth.) Is it not the case that hell, be it a state of being or an actual place of existence, is nonetheless a thing which is a consequence of disbelief? Are you unknowingly watering down your theism so that whatever I say is in fact never applicable to you?

What else would you expect me to say? You didn't address any of the key points I made: my explicit connection of wisdom, knowledge and perfection; my question of "arrogance against whom?" You're parroting unsubstantiated arguments about "arrogance" and misconceiving, through incorrect implications, my definition of "perfection."

But if we are humble and realize that perfection is something to pursue but will never be attained.

This is too general and inconclusive to be considered as a reasonable stance. However, I basically said the exact same thing; only you disagree but fail to provide reason for your claim that perfection is not a possibility. Your argument is empowered by your strongest proof of capitalizing the word "is." You've made no connection between your disagreement, any reason or evidence to support it, and my specific point being made.

I hate to say this, but causing the effect of "babbling nonsense" is completely your fault of reason, not your valid argumentation.

So none of that is applicable to your beliefs? Does your God not love you, care about you, actively involve himself in your daily affairs (anthropomorphized), and reward you when you die? Do you not consider your Scripture the best statement of moral truth and metaphysical truth (without the metaphysics, it's a dull fairy tell with no real reason to worry about it)? (It can no longer claim scientific truth.) Is it not the case that hell, be it a state of being or an actual place of existence, is nonetheless a thing which is a consequence of disbelief? Are you unknowingly watering down your theism so that whatever I say is in fact never applicable to you?

Yes, this is applicable. But what you are doing is comparing a 5th graders understanding of Christianity to your very academic level philosophy.