Store up for yourselves treasures in Heaven
where moth and rust cannot destroy and thieves cannot break in and steal

Friday, September 9, 2011

What is this Evil?

A couple decades ago, I was doing some work in the Federal Corrections system. In my off time, after work, I was doing a lot of reading about satanism. Well, one of the guys that I was working with was pretty - um - spooky, creepy, unbalanced, more than the norm, and the norm was pretty unbalance. Anyhow, I had never spoken of what I was reading to anyone. I doubt that my wife even knew (we have very different tastes in reading material so her pile is her pile and mine is mine) and even if she did notice what I was reading she never had any contact with anyone who could have told this guy. Long story short, this guy comes into the office and after a bit of small talk he says, “Your studying about satanism aren’t you?”

The problem with involuntary facial movements is that they’re, well, involuntary. Noticing the twitch of my eyebrows he said, “I'm a Shaman, my father was a Shaman. My grandmother was a Shaman as was her mother before that. I have powers and I know how to use them.”

Evil, has fascinated me for a long, long time. Evil as an entity, evil as a personal agent, personal, social, and governmental evil - that kind of stuff. I’ve been fascinated with we as humans who give ourselves willingly to evil and thereby become its slave. I’ve been fascinated with evil as we remain enamoured with it even as we watch it destroy our important relationships. If evil is a real entity, like information or logic or matter or energy, and if you are obsessed with attaining power (as is everyone in the prison system (and I mean “everyone”)) then why in the world would someone want to be on the side of the created (satan) rather than on the side of the Creator?

Surprisingly, at least to me, an atheist said recently that he believed evil to be a real entity. That’s almost as shocking to me as when I heard someone say just after 9/11 terrorist attacks, “Until today, I didn’t believe in the existence of evil.”

According to the Bible, God created human beings to bear His image; to possess and display to a limited degree His mercy, grace and love. God created humans to use their intelligence and creativity to manage the earth and walk humbly with their God.

The invited entrance of evil into the cosmos changed everything. Yet, God’s plan for a healed, forgiven and intimate relationship with His creation has not ended. While the presence of evil temporarily adds tension to that plan, that plan itself will not be halted, only delayed.

Whose side are you on?

29 comments:

  1. Is there a side for people who don't believe in magic?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am not sure what the definition would be, but several of your posts contain magic in it. For me it's just unexplained anecdotes but for you it seems to mean something more, something that require a special explanation, something... magic.

    Let's take this post for instance.

    1) You were doing a lot of reading on satanism but had never told anyone. Some guy came to you and talked to you about it.

    Funny anecdote, but perhaps you have a magical explanation?

    2) You are fascinated by evil in a magic sense. For you evil is more than a synonym for 'really bad', it's actually an entity and/or a personal agent and/or a government.

    You also metaphorically mention that humans can become slave of evil, but is it really metaphorical or do you actually believe that evil is literally a person we can submit to? Like submitting to Satan? Then that makes evil a magic thing we can believe in and decide to follow...

    3) What comes after is another and more defined version of evil as an object in the form of the "created (satan)" who was created by God. In this version, when we do something bad, we magically surrender to Satan, while when we do something good, we increase the magic counter of God's side. Pick wisely!

    4) An atheist believes evil to be a real entity. Really? What a dumb atheist to think that evil is a magic entity that really exists as part of some other plane of existence we cannot prove anything about.

    5)God created humans to use their intelligence and creativity to manage the earth and walk humbly with their God. God used magic to create us since he can. What we certainly know is that, here on Earth, there is surely no way to know who is walking with God or not, no matter what God is defined to be... so you need some magic connection to God to know for yourself, while being telepathically linked to the mind that created everything. Literally. Everything.

    6)The invited entrance of evil into the cosmos changed everything.
    So God did invite Evil into the cosmos, magically. At least that's very clear now.

    7)Yet, God’s plan for a healed, forgiven and intimate relationship with His creation has not ended.
    To be in a healed, forgiven, magical and intimate relationship with God, you simply need to believe, surrender, and then you will magically be connected. You will know it when it happens. It will all make sense then. You will no longer be tempted by Evil.

    ***

    8? I thought I would write 1 or 2 before re-reading the post... I guess I did repeat myself. Oh well, let me know which ones are bad examples of magic and why!

    ReplyDelete
  3. "I am not sure what the definition would be, but several of your posts contain magic in it. For me it's just unexplained anecdotes."

    But Hugo, magic has an explanation. It’s slight of hand. Illusion.
    ======

    1) You were doing a lot of reading on satanism but had never told anyone. Some guy came to you and talked to you about it. Funny anecdote, but perhaps you have a magical explanation?

    You’re the one who believes in magic Hugo - not me. This was a very serious individual. Not someone to be fooled with nor someone who would fool with you. He was deadly serious. What’s your explanation for what happened?
    =====

    “Then that makes evil a magic thing we can believe in and decide to follow...”

    So anything you don’t understand is labeled magic? How very scientific of you.
    =====

    Pick wisely!

    Indeed
    =====

    “An atheist believes evil to be a real entity. Really?”

    It’s Christopher Hitchens. I might call him many things but dumb is not one of them.
    ======

    “What a dumb atheist to think that evil is a magic entity that really exists as part of some other plane of existence we cannot prove anything about.”

    Who is dumber? The one who observes the evidence and draws the obvious conclusion or the one who plays words games to distract himself from the obvious?
    ======

    ". . . to know for yourself, while being telepathically linked to the mind that created everything. Literally. Everything."

    Hugo, have you ever thought that you’re maybe heading toward Buddhism? They believe this is all an illusion. First you start with the belief that Creator God does not exist, then you look at the evidence for how it came to be - from nothing - and because you've already decided to believe that a Creator cannot exist, you just pretend it's not real.
    =======

    “You will no longer be tempted by Evil.”

    Where do you get THAT from? If anything, the temptations become even more intense. When you’re already in his camp, there is no need to overtly tempt. You can be allowed to think you’re a good person.

    ReplyDelete
  4. But Hugo, magic has an explanation. It’s slight of hand. Illusion.

    Ya that's actually my point... magic tricks are not magical at all because they have a non-magical explanation.

    You’re the one who believes in magic Hugo - not me

    Wait, what? No, you are the one who literally believes in magic... unless you can explain to me what the difference between a miracle and a "real" magic trick is?

    This was a very serious individual. Not someone to be fooled with nor someone who would fool with you. He was deadly serious. What’s your explanation for what happened?

    I don't have an explanation and I barely have any knowledge of what happened. You told a story and seem to imply that there was something spooky about it, something... magic. That was the point...

    i.e. if you invoke a supernatural explanation, to me, that's magic. Supernatural is just a synonym. I don't see the difference.

    So anything you don’t understand is labeled magic? How very scientific of you.

    Actually that's what you do...

    If I don't know or don't understand, I say... I don't know or I don't understand. I don't invoke some magic explanation just because it could be right. If there is no mechanism presented as an explanation than the explanation is worthless; it's just making stuff up while the honest answer is 'I don't know'.

    It’s Christopher Hitchens.

    Ok, so what. It's still dumb to call 'evil' a real entity.
    Plus... can I doubt? I want some quotes...

    Who is dumber? The one who observes the evidence and draws the obvious conclusion or the one who plays words games to distract himself from the obvious?

    What's obvious? That a magic being you call Satan is the one tempting us into doing evil?

    Hugo, have you ever thought that you’re maybe heading toward Buddhism?

    Are you out of you mind?

    “You will no longer be tempted by Evil.”

    Where do you get THAT from? If anything, the temptations become even more intense. When you’re already in his camp, there is no need to overtly tempt. You can be allowed to think you’re a good person.


    Well that I did not know. I was so sure that you were the one saying that when you know you are saved then you are not even tempted by sin or at least it's easier not to be. I thought you were just going with the flow, agreeing with God all the time.

    I was mistaken!

    You just exposed a contradiction in your perfect magical relationship with God though.
    Don't you see it?

    ReplyDelete
  5. “unless you can explain to me what the difference between a miracle and a "real" magic trick is?”

    Yes, I can, actually.

    Magic, uses the laws of physics to move and manipulate matter / energy.

    A Miracle: Noun - an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause. For example: a working definition of a miracle is when a non material, non natural Cause brings a material universe, a mathematically precise, life sustaining universe into being before and without the laws of physics, matter / energy / space / time (anything natural / material) even existing.

    Yes, yes, this is where you amuse yourself by playing some more words games about how the concept of “before” doesn’t make any sense, but you and I both know what’s being said.

    Do you actually think that’s going to fool God? “Honest! I was confused because I didn’t know what the word “before” meant.”
    =======
    “Supernatural is just a synonym. I don't see the difference.”

    Supernatural: Noun - of or pertaining to what is above or beyond that which is natural. Unexplainable by natural law.

    Magic: Noun - The art of producing illusions as entertainment by the use of slight of hand or deceptive devices.
    =====

    “That a magic being you call Satan is the one tempting us into doing evil?”

    And the atheist explanation for the harmful behaviours that we inflict upon each other after a 100 million years of evolution is? Are we just lazy, Hugo? Or is it that we don’t know what is right and what is wrong? Could that be it? Ignorance?
    =====

    “I thought you were just going with the flow, agreeing with God all the time.”

    There's no contradiction. I do agree with Him about what is right and what is wrong. Why do you assume that always translates into obedience?

    Do you agree that lying is wrong? Does that mean that you’ve never told a lie?

    Do you agree that being unfaithful is wrong? Does that mean that you never lust?

    Do you agree that stealing is wrong? Does that mean that you are 100% honest in everything you do? Everything?

    It’s because I agree with God that when I fail, I repent. You on the other hand, just move the goalposts so that, as the old song goes, “What were once vices are now habits.”

    It’s because I agree with God that I became a Christian; i.e. someone who admits a need for His forgiveness and who always will need His forgiveness and therefore casts h/herself on the mercy and grace of Jesus the Messiah.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Let's look at Wikipedia...

    Magic may refer to:

    - Magic (illusion), the art of appearing to perform supernatural feats using sleight of hand or other methods
    - Magic (paranormal), the use of paranormal methods to manipulate natural forces, such as witchcraft

    Which 'magic' do you think I was referring to?

    To help you a little bit, consider the definitions that Wikepedia uses, coming from
    merriam-webster.com


    1a : the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces

    1b : magic rites or incantations

    2a : an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source

    2b : something that seems to cast a spell : enchantment

    3 : the art of producing illusions by sleight of hand
    See magic defined for English-language learners »
    See magic defined for kids »

    Now, what is the difference between magic, the "real" magic I was talking about, and what you believe Jesus did here on Earth? (i.e. forget the creation of the universe for a minute, I am talking about "everyday" miracles if you see what I mean)

    ****

    I'll address the rest later because you seem really confused...

    ReplyDelete
  7. - Magic (paranormal), the use of paranormal methods to manipulate natural forces, such as witchcraft

    Which 'magic' do you think I was referring to?

    So you think there ARE paranormal methods to manipulate natural forces? You and Hitchens are closer than you think.

    ReplyDelete
  8. That's hilarious, of course I don't believe in that kind of magic either!
    :-D

    Again, you are the one who believes in magic, not me. You are that confused?

    Any Hitchen's quotes to support your claims btw? From the little I know about him I find it very hard to believe that he does believe in any magical thing... not that it would change anything; I am just curious.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Re: Hitchens - I'm not going to look it up for you. It was on an atheist blog a couple days ago.

    The universe is not an illusion.
    Mark 2:1-12 is not an illusion.

    Neither of them operated within the bounds of the laws of physics. That by the way is the definition of a miracle.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Re: Hitchens - I'm not going to look it up for you. It was on an atheist blog a couple days ago.

    Actually I looked up quickly already and did not find anything that looks like what you wrote. So I will conclude for now that you, once again, misunderstood the ideas shared by an atheist.

    The universe is not an illusion.

    Thanks for the insight; I don't see why I would think otherwise.

    Mark 2:1-12 is not an illusion.

    'Mark' is a book, so of course not, it's not an illusion.

    Oh you mean the actual content?

    It's Jesus performing a magic trick, a real one, a miracle! Great example!

    Neither of them operated within the bounds of the laws of physics. That by the way is the definition of a miracle.

    The universe does not operate within the bounds of the laws of physics? What the...?

    Miracles do not operate within the bounds of the laws of physics. Yep, exactly, that's why we can call label them as magic. There is no difference.

    Let's put it even more clearly. What's the difference between Jesus healing a paralyzed man and Harry Potter casting a spell to paralyze someone?

    The difference is that you believe one actually happened while the other is pure fiction. However, both remain magical actions, supernatural actions, actions that defy the laws of physics, actions that we cannot explain in the real world, actions that have no known mechanism, actions that have a magical cause.

    Why do you find it so annoying and/or insulting and/or inaccurate when I say you believe in magic?
    It's not my fault that you do. :)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Time to finish replying to the stuff at the top...

    ...this is where you amuse yourself by playing some more words games about how the concept of “before” doesn’t make any sense, but you and I both know what’s being said.

    It's not a word game. Yes I know what you want to say. You're the one who has an understanding problem. You are incapable of seeing the logical fallacy you always make when using this 'before time' nonsense. It's always the same. The summary is this:

    - Before the universe existed, nothing existed except God.
    - Therefore the cause of the universe has to be God.

    If you could prove me wrong, you would prove God exists. We both know you cannot do that. You have faith that God exists. That's what you start with; not the other way around.

    ReplyDelete
  12. And the atheist explanation for the harmful behaviours that we inflict upon each other after a 100 million years of evolution is? Are we just lazy, Hugo? Or is it that we don’t know what is right and what is wrong? Could that be it? Ignorance?

    Your religion, your God, your interpretation of the world does not help explaining any of this. There are too many different people, too many different religions, too many messed up mental conditions, too many good and bad people from all belief system, and so on... Your god concept is not special and it adds nothing to the understanding of why people do this or that. So what's the point of asking me this?

    I know you don't even care about my opinion, at all, so why do you ask rhetorical questions like this that can serve nothing but flattering your own sense of wisdom and experience? Be assured though; the questions you ask here are all worth considering.

    However, any interesting discussion I could have on such subject are pointless with you. According to you, you are on God's side and I am on Satan's side, or on no side at all, I don't know; but in any case, any explanations I could give you would not be satisfying for you, because there would be a lack of divine in it. The truth is dry and you like your divine wisdom to be juicy.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I do agree with Him about what is right and what is wrong.

    [List of bad things to do]

    It’s because I agree with God that when I fail, I repent. You on the other hand, just move the goalposts so that, as the old song goes, “What were once vices are now habits.”

    It’s because I agree with God that I became a Christian; i.e. someone who admits a need for His forgiveness and who always will need His forgiveness and therefore casts h/herself on the mercy and grace of Jesus the Messiah.


    That's funny because I told you more than once in the past that I consider that being a responsible adult implies being responsible for your action. (Something you never acknowledge by the way, even after I directly asked you if you did try to apologize to people you hurt) So, it is extremely important from my point of view to concede when we do something bad and do what's needed in the context. It can be in the form of an apology, a repair or unfortunately, go to jail in the worst cases!

    But nothing is all white or all black, life is more complicated than you want it to be. Or perhaps you are simply incapable of appreciating all the complexities we see? It's so much easier to just posit a God that saves you when you believe in Him. Oh sure, you then feel a bid bad when you have to sacrifice a few good things here and there but eh, you'll get the ultimate reward when you die so it's all good. On the way there though, that's when it becomes tricky because...

    How are you even suppose to know what's good or not? You say that I move the goalposts and in a way you are right, because I fully concede that nothing is absolutely good or bad. The problem, again, is that you cannot understand that. You pretend to have access to an absolute morality but it does not exist. You make stuff up as you go­. You move the goalpost even more than I do! Why? Because God has some standards that we cannot fully understand and humans are supposed to try to follow them; however God can technically come along at any time and change all this, give us new rules or even ask somebody to violate rules to please God. God can do this, don't deny it, or else what is he, our slave?

    Actually no, the thing is that God is a concept you have in your mind. Nothing else.

    ReplyDelete
  14. “The universe is not an illusion.” “Thanks for the insight; I don't see why I would think otherwise.”

    You said the universe was brought into being by magic. Magic has to do with illusions and deception. The universe is not an illusion and what brought it into being was obviously not an illusion either. The cause was non material and it was / is real. Making a joke of this Cause will not change Its nature nor the fact of Its existence.
    =====

    “Before the universe existed, nothing existed except God. Therefore the cause of the universe has to be God. If you could prove me wrong, you would prove God exists.”

    Well, prove is a very strong word but as you’re using the word here, I do prove you wrong and I do prove that God exists. What I say next I’m saying only for the benefit of other readers who are not as closed minded as you seem to be.

    . We know that whatever begins to exist has a cause and an explanation of its beginning to exist.

    . We know that before the universe began to exist, only the Cause (what we call God) of the beginning of the universe (matter / energy, space, time and the laws of science) existed.

    . We know this because matter / energy is not and cannot be eternal or infinite.

    . We know this because matter / energy cannot create itself out of nothing.

    . We know this because matter / energy cannot bring itself into being out of nothing.

    . We know that Creator God (the Cause) exists because the universe (matter / energy) exists.

    Therefore it takes much more faith to believe that a Creator does not exist than to believe the logical conclusion that a Creator does exist.

    “The existence of the universe declares the existence of Creator God, therefore humans are without excuse.” Romans chapter One.
    ======

    “so why do you ask rhetorical questions like this”

    It’s not a rhetorical question. I think that Jesus the Christ and the religion that bears His name offers the best explanation for the world as you and I both observe it. As an atheist, I’d like to know how atheism, i.e. those who reject the existence of God and anything supernatural, including “good” and “evil” explain the overwhelming and ubiquitous tendency within humans toward what we call evil - harming each other and even ourselves. If you don't know how, as an atheist, you're supposed to explain the obvious presence of evil I'm sure you could look it up and then paste the information here.
    ======

    “but in any case, any explanations I could give you would not be satisfying for you”

    I’m sure that’s true, but you and I are not the only people involved. There are regular listeners on this blog from literally all over the world. I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s interested in your explanation.
    =====

    “You pretend to have access to an absolute morality”

    No - I have access to Objective morality - NOT absolute.

    Objective because it originates in a source outside of ourselves and superior / transcendent to ourselves.

    Not absolute because you’re right, there are gray areas.

    And yes, I do make amends and have made amends to those I’ve wronged. Including the One who I’ve offended the most. It’s His laws and guidelines that I’ve broken. Some people who possess and moral system that is like yours, one that is relative to the person's desires in the moment, have been surprise by my apology because they didn’t consider that I’d done anything wrong. You know -
    Only big lies are lies.
    Only stealing a lot is stealing.
    Only ejaculating into a vagina is adultery.

    However, if it broke my Creator’s moral code, an objective moral code, then it was wrong regardless of what the other person thought.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You said the universe was brought into being by magic.

    No; let me know what part you got wrong and I would correct if I made a mistake.

    Magic has to do with illusions and deception.

    Yes that is one definition of magic. You are talking about magic tricks only though.

    The universe is not an illusion

    Agreed.

    ...and what brought it into being was obviously not an illusion either.

    This seems simple and obvious but is it really the case?

    In everyday conversation I would completely agree with what you wrote and would simply move on. However, I know that I have to stop here because you are sneakily trying to push your own per-conceived notion that at some point there was nothing and then 'boom' there was everything.

    The problem is that saying that something brought the universe into existence contradicts this idea that everything came into being. Why?

    Because you say that there something brought everything into being, but that was not from nothing then because you said there was something!

    Obviously, you won't jump to that right away, it would be too obvious, so we will grant you what you just said and move on.

    Ok, so, I agree, what brought the universe into being was obviously not an illusion.

    The cause was non material and it was / is real.

    I am not aware of anything that is not made of mater or contingent upon mater. In a literal sense, all that exists is described in terms of matter. Of course I am not talking about the regular everyday life usage of material here. Thoughts, ideas, concepts, emotions, etc... are all immaterial in the sense that we imagine them in our heads, in our minds, and they are real, but they are still dependant on the existence of brains as far as we know.

    So if you say that the cause was non material, I need you to clarify what you mean exactly.

    I can cut the chase because I know that for you, it becomes yet another trick. It's a way to bring the spiritual world in the game. The word that essentially means non-material. It's the narrow passage between the "non-literal immaterial" that I was talking about (like emotions) versus the "literal immaterial labelled" as "spiritual".

    ReplyDelete
  16. Making a joke of this Cause will not change Its nature nor the fact of Its existence.

    Absolutely true.

    Why do you capitalize the C and the two Is then. I find it pretty funny :-D

    ====

    Well, prove is a very strong word but as you’re using the word here, I do prove you wrong and I do prove that God exists. What I say next I’m saying only for the benefit of other readers who are not as closed minded as you seem to be.

    Because I don't believe your proof of God I am close minded?
    Wow, the ego is feeling strong tonight.

    However, your proof fails on so many level that it's always fun to address it again anyway.

    We know that whatever begins to exist has a cause and an explanation of its beginning to exist.

    Vague but will do for now since I already mentioned the problems we will most likely run into...

    We know that before the universe began to exist, only the Cause (what we call God) of the beginning of the universe (matter / energy, space, time and the laws of science) existed.

    We know that before the universe began to exist, only the Cause (what we call God) of the beginning of the universe existed. Yes.

    That is perfectly fine but you just labelled 'Cause of the Universe' with 'God'. Not very useful for now...

    More importantly though, I left out the parenthesis because I reject this definition of 'universe'. It creates a confusion as to what exactly began to exist. When we discuss the beginning of the universe, we are generally discussing physics and how particles were acting in such a small space at such high energies, etc...

    However you are not talking about physics at all. You are doing a follow-up on your premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause. The problem here is that the universe beginning to exist is not at all the same thing as the 'whatever begins to exist has a cause' that you were referring to before.

    In the first premise, you are purposely making the reader think of everyday things. A baby starts to exist when born, a chair starts to exist when built, music starts to exist when played and so on... None of these 'whatever' actually 'begins to exist' as what you claim the universe did, because you mean something else...

    Either you mean that the universe was assembled from other things, just like all the other things that we agree began to exist, OR, you mean that the universe began to exist from literally nothing.

    Nothing being nothing; no except.

    So which one is it?


    I think I should stop going through the proof here since I am too close minded to believe it apparently.

    ReplyDelete
  17. It’s not a rhetorical question. I think that Jesus the Christ and the religion that bears His name offers the best explanation for the world as you and I both observe it. As an atheist, I’d like to know how atheism, i.e. those who reject the existence of God and anything supernatural, including “good” and “evil” explain the overwhelming and ubiquitous tendency within humans toward what we call evil - harming each other and even ourselves. If you don't know how, as an atheist, you're supposed to explain the obvious presence of evil I'm sure you could look it up and then paste the information here.

    First, atheism is not the rejection of anything supernatural right away; it is certainly my case but believing in God is way more complicated than that.

    Second, I do believe in "good" and "evil" because they are simply adjective for positive/negative things. You confuse this with the rejection of spirits like Satan or God or angels...

    In general, my main response would be that I don't see humans in such a negative way. I think people at least try to do good at first. For several reasons we all fail, on different levels, at making the correct decisions, which then lead to evil things happening.

    There would be paragraphs to write about this but since we disagree on this it's kind of a stopper...

    No - I have access to Objective morality - NOT absolute.

    Objective because it originates in a source outside of ourselves and superior / transcendent to ourselves.
    Not absolute because you’re right, there are gray areas.


    My mistake; I meant objective and I am glad you concede that there are gray areas.

    I also have objective guidelines though so you're system is not better. I would argue that it's much worse actually!

    And yes, I do make amends and have made amends to those I’ve wronged. Including the One who I’ve offended the most. It’s His laws and guidelines that I’ve broken.

    It's funny how you barely acknowledge the people you've hurt and fall back to the fact that it broke God's law. I guess I can be absolutely convinced now that I human lives more than you. Nothing new.

    Some people who possess and moral system that is like yours, one that is relative to the person's desires in the moment,

    Relative to the person's desire!? You couldn't be more insulting, you know that? But again, coming from you I don't even find it insulting because you already think I am Satan's tool...

    Anyway, I would not define my moral judgements like that at all; it's just weird.

    The rest of what you have written here only confirms that you have no clue unfortunately.

    However, if it broke my Creator’s moral code, an objective moral code, then it was wrong regardless of what the other person thought.

    In practice this does not work. You decide what God's want ultimately, so it's not more objective than my system, and at least mine DO care about what the other person thought when it's pertinent.

    ReplyDelete
  18. “you are sneakily trying to push your own per-conceived notion that at some point there was nothing and then 'boom' there was everything.”

    And you are trying to say that the material infinite does in fact exist? You and I both know that is not possible but when YOU rule out the supernatural, the pre natural, the supra natural, you must force yourself to believe what you know cannot be true - that matter in some form has always existed.
    =====

    “saying that something brought the universe into existence contradicts this idea that everything came into being”

    Wow! This is hard for you, huh? Not Everything that exists came into being, but everything MATERIAL that begins to exist has a cause and an explanation of its beginning to exist. Everything MATERIAL, Hugo. God is not matter / energy. He is Spirit.
    -------

    “something brought everything into being, but that was not from nothing”

    Something brought everything into being from nothing MATERIAL. Nothing material existed and then everything material existed. It required a Cause (I capitalise the “C” and “I” as in “It” because this Cause deserves a Capital). Whatever brought the MATERIAL universe into being is the Greatest Conceivable Being.
    =====

    “So if you say that the cause was non material, I need you to clarify what you mean exactly."

    I mean It exists regardless of whether you know about Him or accept Him as real. Just like Neutrinos existed before anyone knew they existed and even though we didn’t have, until lately, the tools or means to detect them. So too does this spiritual (non material) entity exist even though you know next to nothing about Him.
    =====

    “Because I don't believe your proof of God I am close minded?”

    No, you’re closed minded because you believe that if science cannot detect, observe, verify something then it must not exist. It’s scientism - the only truth is scientific truth. Very foolish and narrow minded.
    =====

    “When we discuss the beginning of the universe, we are generally discussing physics and how particles were acting in such a small space at such high energies, etc...”

    “In such a small space”? Haha! That’s a good one. Space and time did not exist. So where were these particles, Hugo? If the material infinite does not and cannot exist, and since existence involves time, when did these tiny little particle in this tiny bit of space begin to exist? Can you not picture what you’re trying to believe? There were no particle and there was no place (space) for them to exist in!
    =====

    “Either you mean that the universe was assembled from other things, just like all the other things that we agree began to exist, OR, you mean that the universe began to exist from literally nothing.”

    The universe began from literally nothing MATERIAL.

    Until a Spiritual Cause brought it into being from literally nothing material, the material universe i.e. matter / energy, space, time did not exist. The cause of the universe, which we call God, but you can call whatever you want, is self-existent, eternal, infinite.
    =====

    “I also have objective guidelines”

    What’s your definition of objective?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I will start with the end because the biggest problem we have in our discussion starts with your answer to the question I had put in bold:

    "Either you mean that the universe was assembled from other things, just like all the other things that we agree began to exist, OR, you mean that the universe began to exist from literally nothing.

    Nothing being nothing; no except.

    So which one is it?
    "

    You answered:

    The universe began from literally nothing MATERIAL.

    This answer, logically speaking, thus cannot be part of the 'began to exist from literally nothing' set because you posit an exception to your 'nothing'. It's not literally nothing; it's nothing EXCEPT what's not material.

    (Side note: To be crystal clear and to stay logically sound, I will grant you something. If you pick the 'nothing except...' side, it does not have to be what I had written before the 'OR'. I had created a false dichotomy.)

    If something non-material existed, then you cannot say that prior to the universe beginning to exist nothing existed. Actually, you are clear on that. You do insist that nothing material existed so we still agree on the terms used.

    That's when the word 'spirit' comes in. Ironically, I had expected that answer from you and had written this:

    "I can cut the chase because I know that for you, it becomes yet another trick. It's a way to bring the spiritual world in the game. The word that essentially means non-material. It's the narrow passage between the "non-literal immaterial" that I was talking about (like emotions) versus the "literal immaterial" labelled as "spiritual"."

    I say 'ironically' because it's as if I had not said that. You did not even try to dodge it and simply used the term spirit 3 times in your last comment, as if it explains anything... The problem is that you did not define spirit with positive words. You even wrote non-material in parenthesis next to spirit once!

    Therefore, here's my only question to you at this point: how do you define 'spirit' besides 'literal immaterial'?

    ReplyDelete
  20. “I also have objective guidelines”

    What’s your definition of objective?

    Sorry my mistake again, I meant objective basis, in the sense that I use basis that are based on objective facts, basis that are independent of my opinion and any other person's opinion.

    Quickly like this I can say that these bases are empathy, life and rationality. As rational people, we have the choice to live or not. If we choose to live, we have to live among other people and that's when moral choices become inevitable.

    To determine if something is moral or not, it has to be weighted using rationality and empathy. Empathy here is used in the sense that all humans are able to understand what others would feel in certain situations; i.e. a human that completely lacks empathy cannot possibly make moral decisions that impact others.

    The next steps become context dependent so I don't think I can go further while stating my general moral framework.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Therefore, here's my only question to you at this point: how do you define 'spirit' besides 'literal immaterial'?”

    I don’t know how to define God as Spirit. Some describe it as a Force, others as an unembodied Mind. This Being possesses infinite knowledge (omniscient) and is omnipotent etc. etc.

    The Holy Spirit, is described as having the same qualities and characteristics and traits as God and is in fact God.

    I did not use some “trick” to bring in the Spiritual. The Spiritual (God) has never NOT existed. It’s the material world that made an entrance, that had a beginning.

    ReplyDelete
  22. It sucks that I don't have time because this conversation is actually very interesting in my opinion...

    I can simply ask you quickly why you would accept an infinite God but not an infinite universe?

    Personally I reject both for the same reason: infinity is purely conceptual.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Well, the infinite IS conceptual when it's used in mathematics, But it's not ONLY conceptual.

    I accept the Spiritual eternal / infinite because it has to be one or the other for our universe to exist. Either matter has never NOT existed or the cause of matter has never NOT existed.

    And as you know and agree, the material infinite cannot and does not exist. Although you talk as though the material infinite does exist because you cling to this tiny little dot of matter / engery yet can't or won't tell me where it existed.

    You're belief of course is the complete opposite of most atheists who swear by the material infinite (even though its existence is not possible) but they will not accept that immaterial cause of matter has always existed or never not existed. Instead they ask questions like, "When did the eternal God "begin" to exist?" or "Who "created" the eternal God?'

    Apparently that sounds clever to them. Sad but true.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Sad but true indeed because I agree that it does not sound very clever...

    However, what's also sad but true is that I knew you were going to say that either matter is eternal or the cause of matter is; and I knew you were going to say that the spiritual infinite can exists.

    So I need to repeat my question because you did not answer it. Why could the spiritual infinite exist? Saying that the mathematical infinite does not exist does not give an answer because infinity is a mathematical quantity. I don't see what else it could be honestly?

    Again, too bad I only had 5 min to check my emails... in Toronto spending the weekend for wedding events. Oh and very ironically, while writing this, my gf's uncle came in the room with some smoking thing, look at the picture of God they have in here, move some stuff and then just left... Pretty funny to see that while I am writing about religious issues with someone from a complete different religion. Yet you tow have something in common; you believe in magic ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hugo, you've asked those "not very clever" questions and not very long ago either.

    Why could the spiritual infinite exist?

    It's not why "could" the spiritual infinite exist. It's why "must" the spiritual infinite exist.

    I answered that in this very post. By infinite I mean self-existent being before time began, during time and after time ends.

    Your tiny extremely dense speck of matter that you say has always existed implies that time also existed, from infinity past. And you still haven't told me where this speck of matter existed. Not enough time to write down one sentence? Still trying to figure out how to re write Big Bang cosmology?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Nah I would not ask questions like this. It shows that you don’t pay attentions to details; you smudge the words you use because you don’t really like to pay attention to the details of the proof for God you present. Once more I’ll give you a chance to prove me wrong… Show me that you do look at details by reading the two questions you wrote as examples and tell me why I would not have asked them exactly like that. Can you do that?

    Next, the spiritual infinite must exists you say? That does not make any sense. Your explanation still relies on the fact that something infinite can, or must, exist, while nothing else can be infinite. So the question remains…. Why make an exception for one thing and allow it to be infinite?

    Actually, I am pretty sure to know exactly why you make that exception. The problem you have is that you assume that there was always something instead of nothing and then, because God has to be the creator of everything, God must be the only thing which is infinite. To me this is exactly what you said but formulated in another way. Do you agree?

    My tiny extremely dense speck of matter (and energy by the way) that I say has always existed… wait what? I never said that! I specifically said that I reject both the infinite material and the infinite God as being real. Big Bang cosmology, which you clearly still don’t understand, does point toward a moment back in time when everything in the universe was compacted in a tiny space. The problem is that observations cannot let us see past a certain point, so that’s where maths comes in and help us extrapolate, with great precision, what the universe most likely looked like. The part you don’t get is that the math breaks at some point, when we hit a… say it with me… singularity!

    At this point, when talking about the singularity, you can say whatever you want because there is nothing more to say. You want to claim that this is the moment at which God set the seed of this grand universe? Fine with me! Really, I am not kidding, it is logically valid to say that. My problem is that I don’t see why you believe it because it cannot be proven. When I ask you why, you bring in the game all these negative words to explain what did not exist, and then label God as being the only thing that existed. Plus, the ironic part is that you don’t admit that it’s a faith-based position; you claim that it’s the only possible logical solution and reject, without even considering them, the alternatives proposed by string theory or quantum loop gravity, just to name these 2… I am not saying they are right because I don’t know enough honestly… but just like abiogenesis, who are you to claim that here, now, in 2011, you have all the answers?

    ReplyDelete
  27. I don't admit that it's a faith-based position? I most certainly do. It has to be faith-based for exactly the reasons you state.

    What I do say is that both my position and the position of the materialist (nothing but the material exists) is based upon faith.

    Neither has "proof."

    Based upon the evidence that we have, in faith I agree with the conclusion that Creator God exists. With the same amount of evidence, in faith, materialists conclude that He does not exist.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The materialist position and the atheist position, which are not exactly the same, are actually both rejections of faith-based positions such as yours. Note that I do specify 'positions' because it's not targeted specifically at yours.

    The crucial point you are missing, and that you have no excuse to avoid because I mentioned it several times before, is that the rejection of theism, atheism, is not a basis for anything else, it is a CONSEQUENCE of scepticism applied to claims of religions.

    Let me put it another way to make it clear why your 'faith vs faith' idea does not make sense. Not knowing if God exists or not (agnosticism), not believing God exists (atheism), believing God does not exist (strong atheism) or accepting that all that exists is defined in material terms (materialism) can all come from the same scepticism worldview. Not accepting things based on faith is precisely what makes these positions similar. Therefore, these positions are essentially the same for all practical purposes that relate to God; they are all atheistic positions.

    As a consequence of this misunderstanding, you also miss something directly related: the fact that these various positions do not influence one's beliefs in anything else. I consider myself a strong atheist and a materialist but I have absolutely no attachment to these positions. I don't care one minute if, for the sake of argument, I am "required" to say that I don't know if God exists and/or that there might be a god out there somewhere. My views on reality are not affected by this, at all. There will always be things that are unexplained and I simply don't see any gods filling the gaps anytime soon.

    In other words, you could not name a single thing that I believe in that would be influenced by this disbelief in gods. Again, it's a CONSEQUENCE of my other beliefs. Anything that I believe in, and even any moral values I cherish, is not influenced by the idea that there might be a god.

    Can you say the same about your worldview? Can you suspend your belief in God, in Jesus, in the 'supernatural-immaterial-spiritual world you cannot even define' in order to come up with the exact same views on everything you believe in?

    ReplyDelete