Friday, August 12, 2011
Sold Into Slavery
The Bible tells us that we were born into slavery to satan. Jesus redeemed us. At a price born by Himself, Jesus freed us from the power of sin, only to take ownership of us Himself. In fact, it was God who gave us to Jesus as a gift. And what a wonderful thing that was. That type of redemption has provided for us life eternal in the presence of purity and perfection. Adopted into the family of Creator God, we have been given everything that the soul could ever want.
How should a person react to a gift like that?
Love doesn’t half describe it, yet Jesus says, “The one who loves Me is the one who obeys Me.”
. A servant who is loved and who loves h/her owner in return, when tempted to betray that owner must surely say, “I can’t do that to my Master. He saved my soul.”
. If the chance to gain wealth by dishonesty, one redeemed by Jesus must turn away.
. When tempted by sorrow or trials, Jesus’ brother or sister need not fear but instead we take hold of His hand a wade into the thick of it.
. When those around us let others do God’s work, we who know what it’s like to be lost must with joy pick up the slack. “Jesus gave His all for me. How can I do any less for Him?”
. When lusts of any kind turn my head, as a servant I will set my face like a flint and with my eyes on the prize I will finish the race, I will fight the good fight, I will remain faithful.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hello,
ReplyDeleteI thought of the little proof I said I would attempt to make and it made me realize that there are certain questions I should ask before doing anything else. It's really interesting to think of all this so I am looking forward to your answers to these. Actually, if you answer 'no' to any of them, please tell me why you think so, or why the question is not properly formulated from your point of view. The first ones are a bit silly but it's merely to build up the argument so it's essential to have them as premises...
1 - Do you believe you exist?
2 - Do you believe other people exist?
3 - Do you agree that some things are real while others are imaginary?
4 - Do you agree that something that is considered to be a concept is, by definition, imaginary?
5 - Do you agree that some concepts point to real things while some concepts point to imaginary things?
6 - Do you agree that if something is real it cannot exist only as a concept?
7 - Do you agree that real things are real regardless of humans' beliefs?
8 - Do you agree that, from this, it follows that an objective reality exists?
9 - Do you agree that, in this existing objective reality, the basic 3 laws of logic are axiomatically true?
10 - Do you agree that facts are logically and objectively true but time and context dependent?
I don't understand #10 but as to the others I agree.
ReplyDeleteSounds good!
ReplyDelete10 - For a statement to be considered a fact, it needs to be:
1) Logically true
No explanations required obviously, a square can never be 'not a square'.
2) Objectively true
Which means that it is not dependent on an opinion, except if the fact itself states an opinion.
Examples:
- It is a fact that the Earth is round; it's not dependent on any opinion, objectively true
- It is a fact that I like to eat ice cream, dependent on my own opinion, still objectively true as long as my opinion does not change.
3) Facts are time/context dependent
- 'The Earth is round' is a fact today, but it could cease to be a fact if the Sun explodes and wipes out the Earth
- 'I like ice cream' is a fact, but my tastes could change
Do you agree with this personal definition of what I consider to be a fact?
ok -
ReplyDeleteI've got birthday parties this weekend so I might not be around for a bit - but carry on.
Hey, I understand that, I am super busy as well and I am thus letting the computer go for the day... or else I am not productive ;)
ReplyDeleteAt least I am glad to have these simple principles laid down, it will help me explain to you what I believe and why.
Have a nice day!
Hello again,
ReplyDeleteI know I won't have time to put the effort I wanted to into this so I will simply give a quick summary of my thoughts regarding why I believe that the material world is all there is. I have never done such proof so I expect it to be far from perfect and I know you won't agree with it so it's really not an attempt to convince you. The only goal is here is merely to try to explain to you why I consider that you are misrepresenting my position as an atheist/materialist. Yes, I now say materialist, I confirm that, because it has nothing to do with what I thought materialist meant before.
The first difference is that I used to think that being a materialist was silly simply because it is obvious that there are things that exists that are not made of matter. Thoughts, feelings, emotions, only to name these, are considered to be immaterial since they are not described in terms of their physical properties; they are not made of 'wood' or 'glass', they are thought of, or experienced by, people.
The point of being a materialist has thus nothing to do with this obviously. It would be nonsensical for someone to claim that these things are made of matter. However, here's what the materialist position really states, and it's that all these things that exist but are not made of matter, can be reduced to a dependency on matter. This dependency on matter is what makes them, in a strict sense, material.
In other words, the fact that humans are made of matter, and are the generators of these non-matter things, makes them dependant on matter, and thus material, in a strict sense. The obviously question that follows from this is : but how can we know, or at least, believe, that everything is material? Can there be things that are not material, in a strict sense?
This is where science comes in handy. As I noted a few days ago, science cannot prove absolute truths. Science deals only with facts, and as you have agreed, facts depend on a context. Therefore, at best, what science can tell us is what is, to a certain degree of certainty, at a certain moment. It relies upon mathematics which is itself a generator of absolute truth, but still context dependant since the laws of mathematics have to be set in place before we can use mathematics. Mathematical proof that yield absolute proof depend on the system of mathematics you use. So, by combining the two, we can get a system the relies on facts to yield hypothesis that yield more facts and so on. We put these together and call that a Theory, with a big 'T', because it has nothing to do with the common usage of the word in everyday life... In theory the bus will pass at 8:00 has nothing to do with the Theory of Gravity which uses the facts of gravity to try to explain, to the best of our knowledge, why we feel and experience gravity.
So, what can we learn from the world around us? What can we learn from this objective reality that we share? One very first thing we can learn about, and need to learn about, is humans. This is essential for our understanding of the universe since, after giving you the 10 questions, the next step I wanted to address was the facts regarding humans.
Now, I will cut to the chase, because I know that's where you'll disagree. When it comes to biology, the facts are clear: humans are animals, humans evolve from a common ancestor, and that common ancestor evolve from a previous common ancestor in such a way that we can consider all humans to be our cousins, all primate to be our more distant cousins, and all mammals to be ever more remote cousins. This is as far as I need to go for this exercise of thought, and that is, in any case, well supported by biology. Evolution is a fact, and what I just mentioned if not open for debate among the scientific community.
ReplyDeleteI don't need to go further than that because the point I want to make is this: the brain evolved. That is a fact that is supported by the Theory of Evolution. Because the brain evolved, we can draw a few conclusions, which then becomes beliefs.
So, because of the fact that the brain evolve, I believe that consciousness is a product of the physical brain, and nothing else. If it could be shown otherwise I would consider it, but I don't see any good reason to right now. It is the properties of the brain, which is material, that allow us to experience what we call consciousness and come up with concepts that are, for practical purposes, immaterial. Because the brain is the entity from which all of these concepts emerge, I reduce their existence as being contingent on the material brain.
Again, does that prove that the material is all that exist? Of course not. There are more steps, but again, I will cut to the chase...
Now that I consider that the brain is the source of all concepts, an interesting point can be made. We need to go back to my 10 questions. We agreed that some concepts point to real things while others point to non-real/imaginary things. We also agreed that if we were not around, the real things would still be real, and things that exist would still exist. If it was not the case, then objectivity breaks down and the 10 questions I asked become meaningless, being contingent on opinions or concepts. Since it's the other way around, since our concepts point, sometimes, to real things, then it follows that the only immaterial things that exist are concepts, but concepts are dependant on minds, that are in turn material, sow hat are we left with? Nothing is immaterial in a strict sense.
Again, does that prove that the material is all that exist? No, not really to be honest. But this thing is that we cannot prove a negative. What this shows is only that, for me, this is strong enough reasons to believe that the material world is all there is. I don't see how something immaterial in a strict sense could exist, for to not be material means to not exist in this objective reality that we share. Anything which is part of our reality can, and needs to, be described using positive properties that are part of this reality. If something does not manifest itself in reality, then it does not exist, for practical purposes, since we cannot even believe it or not.
You were doing pretty good until the last 1 1/2 paragrahps which were just three or four non sequiter statements you desperately wished could be true.
ReplyDeleteFor example: "since our concepts point, to real things, then it follows that the only immaterial things that exist are concepts,"
Rubbish.
"concepts are dependant on minds, that are in turn material, so Nothing is immaterial in a strict sense."
Again non sequiter rubbish.
"Again, does that prove that the material is all that exist? No, not really to be honest."
True statement. It would have been a good place for you to stop - but, based upon faith "for me, this is strong enough reasons to believe that the material world is all there is."
My suggestion? Go and live out this life as best you can and don't try to convince anyone else that Creator God doesn't exist. It will just make hell all the worse knowing you played an active role in getting someone you love to follow you there.
First, you don't get the point of all this. I thought I was clear, and that I had been clear in the past. This belief that the material world is all there is is NOT a basis for anything else. It's a conclusion based on all the other beliefs that I hold. So, I don't really care if it can be proven true or not...
ReplyDeleteThe distinction is important because it is not the case for you and your belief in God obviously. In your case, it's the other way around. You have your belief in God, based on faith in part, and then you construct a bunch of other beliefs out of it.
*******
Second, God has NOTHING to do with all this. Hint: I did not even come close to mention God in my explanations...
For you there is a link, and I fully understand why... it's because you claim that if there is the mere possibility of an immaterial world existing, then God must exists. That's unconvincing to say the least.
So, for you to come and say "My suggestion? Go and live out this life as best you can and don't try to convince anyone else that Creator God doesn't exist." is pretty funny in that context.
Plus, you even added:
It will just make hell all the worse knowing you played an active role in getting someone you love to follow you there.
Emotional reaction? Really? And then you'll try to convince me that you are not afraid of hell? Interesting.
*******
Third, going back to the actual argumentation, I was not expecting you to agree, but I would be curious to know what you consider to be immaterial? Because basically, that's what my reasoning rest on; we cannot even adequately define what is immaterial...
So, I am not sure why you jump to 'Rubbish' when I say that all that is immaterial is concepts, but since they are not immaterial in a strict sense then nothing is immaterial. What part don't you agree with? Do you believe that some immaterial things exist here in our objective reality? Or do consider that it's only God that is immaterial so I am not "allowed" to conclude that nothing immaterial exists since God must exist in your worldview? I am not sure where you disagree...
Again, the point is that, in common language, we label as immaterial things that are a product of the mind, i.e. concepts (or anything else you can think of? I cannot...), but since the mind is a produc of matter, it follows that concepts are a product of the mind, and it thus follow that concepts/mind are material, in a strict sense.
It's not a proof that immaterial things don't exist simply because it is a proof that the term immaterial is meaningless. Define it in another way if you don't agree, but you are the one who labels his god as immaterial and cannot leave it out of the conversation...
Plus, as I mentioned earlier this week, you never define God in terms of positive attributes, which are required to prove existence; your response to that would also be interesting.
“and then you construct a bunch of other beliefs out of it.”
ReplyDeleteYou and I don’t “construct a bunch of beliefs” out of our most important premise i.e. God does or does not exist / the material is or is not all that exists. The other beliefs, eg. This life is very important because God does or does not exist, is a natural progression of each premise, not a construct.
=====
"For you there is a link, and I fully understand why... it's because you claim that if there is the mere possibility of an immaterial world existing, then God must exists. That's unconvincing to say the least."
I thought you said you were interested in philosophy? Never read Plantinga’s Greatest Conceivable Being?
=====
“And then you'll try to convince me that you are not afraid of hell?”
I have zero reason to be afraid of hell. I'm already a citizen of heaven. You, on the other hand have every reason to be afraid of hell. In fact, according to Jesus, the road that you're on can lead nowhere but straight to hell. John 3:18, 36
=====
“I would be curious to know what you consider to be immaterial.”
Spirit
“we cannot even adequately define what is immaterial...”
I agree.
=====
“So, I am not sure why you jump to 'Rubbish' when I say that all that is immaterial is concepts,”
Are you suggesting that the laws of logic and mathematics are just concepts instead of objective realities? They don’t exist unless we can “conceive” of them with our material mind? And on this flawed logic you base your eternity?
=====
“Do you believe that some immaterial things exist here in our objective reality?"
Absolutely. The whole spiritual dimension beginning with Creator God. He is not just a concept. He is THE objective reality that transcends all other realities.
=====
"Or do consider that it's only God that is immaterial so I am not "allowed" to conclude that nothing immaterial exists since God must exist in your worldview?"
You can conclude anything you want. It was my suggestion that you do exactly that. If you love your girlfriend you'll not try to convince her to join you in hell.
=====
“It's not a proof that immaterial things don't exist simply because it is a proof that the term immaterial is meaningless.”
It’s not a proof of either, and on this flawed thinking, you base your eternity.
=====
"Plus, as I mentioned earlier this week, you never define God in terms of positive attributes, which are required to prove existence; your response to that would also be interesting."
I most certainly have defined His attributes. If that wasn't good enough, give me some examples of what you’re looking for.
First, there is a misunderstanding I think. You wrote:
ReplyDeleteYou and I don’t “construct a bunch of beliefs” out of our most important premise i.e. God does or does not exist / the material is or is not all that exists. The other beliefs, eg. This life is very important because God does or does not exist, is a natural progression of each premise, not a construct.
and
on this flawed logic you base your eternity?
and
...on this flawed thinking, you base your eternity.
...but I need to insist: I do not base any of my beliefs on what I wrote in this thought exercise.
The fact that I don't believe in any gods is a CONSEQUENCE of all my other beliefs.
The fact that I believe your God does not exist is a CONSEQUENCE of all my other beliefs.
The fact that I believe the material is all there is is a CONSEQUENCE of all my other beliefs.
Got it?
Seriously, please answer, because I have been telling you this probably since I first started to write on your blog. You are either lying on purpose to misrepresent my position, or simply forgetting that it is the case because of the context...
*********************
Second, no I am not aware of the book 'Plantinga’s Greatest Conceivable Being'. It's suppose to explain why the mere possibility of something immaterial, in a strict sense, makes your God real?
*********************
Third, yes, you are afraid of hell, at least more than me, because I cannot even be afraid of hell since I don't believe it exists. I understand that you just feel justified to say that you are not afraid to 'go to hell', but you cannot claim that you are not afraid of hell -at all- because you believe it exists and you would not want to go there. Plus, you might be 100% convinced that you will avoid hell, which I doubt, but you will never be 100% sure for anybody else, so you are going to afraid of hell at least with respect to them. All of that is fear; do you really deny that?
*********************
Are you suggesting that the laws of logic and mathematics are just concepts instead of objective realities? They don’t exist unless we can “conceive” of them with our material mind?
For the laws of mathematics it's obvious; yes, they are just concepts, depend on the context, and would not exist without minds. If you don't understand why I could try to explain...
For the laws of logic it's more subtle, and I was myself convinced of that only recently so I don't think it's even worth trying to explain it here. But the general idea is that we have concepts in our minds that are the 'laws of logic'. Just like any other concept, it can point to a real thing or non-real thing. Obviously, the actual laws of logic are real because they don't depend on minds, right? Wrong. The laws of logic are merely a representation of how we perceive the real world. 'A is A' is a concept we have in our mind. The actual fact that A -is- A is always true and dependant of our mind, yes, but it does not need the concept 'A is A' to be A. A is A because it is literally A, not because some abstract law states that 'A is A'. A being A does not depend on 'A is A'.
You can conclude anything you want. It was my suggestion that you do exactly that. If you love your girlfriend you'll not try to convince her to join you in hell.
ReplyDeleteYou can drop the emotional appeal. You hate me so much, no sorry, you don't hate me, you hate me belief system, my values, my priorities so much that I don't believe you when you write sentences like this that seem to show you care about my life or the ones I love.
*********************
Finally,
I most certainly have defined His attributes. If that wasn't good enough, give me some examples of what you’re looking for.
...plus you gave Spirit as an example of something immaterial, but agreed that we cannot adequately define what it is.
This is not surprising but you still don't get the problems with all this. You cannot define immaterial because it simply means non-material. That's it.
Just like if I were to ask you to clarify what you mean by a spirit being immaterial, you would say that it's not material.
Same thing with God; God is supernatural (not natural), infinite (not finite), immaterial (not material), uncaused (not caused), and so on... you could then toss things like 'all love', 'all justice', 'all good'. All of these things are absolutely meaningless when it comes to proving that something exist, because you give negative attributes, i.e. you say what God is not, but you never say what God is. Then, when you pretend to say what God is, you give him attributes that are merely human emotions, feelings, or thoughts, as if God was the sum of all of these, oh and only the good ones of course.
So, no, sorry, I don't believe such a God exists and I won't because I know you cannot define God otherwise.
And just to be clear, unlike you, I don't think it's a problem to believe in such God. It gives hope, it gives comfort, it helped you realize that you were a douche bag before and so on... it's just sad that it makes you judge people who do not need faith in such God to go through life and it sucks that you mock and ridicule the belief systems of others.
Plantinga -
ReplyDeleteI’ll just give you the short version:
. Virtually all philosophers agree that if there is the slightest chance of God existing, then He does in fact exist. Alvin Plantinga has refined Anselm’s argument as follows. He asks, “What is the greatest conceivable being?” Our answer goes past me and you and the Dali Lama and any other "great" human being we can think of and we come to an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Being that we commonly call “God” If we could think of something greater than God, then that is what would be called God. We can call it a Mind or something else but it amounts to the same thing ie. The Greatest Conceivable Being That Can Possibly Exist.
Therefore we can know that God exists because:
. It is in fact metaphysically possible that a Greatest Conceivable Being exists.
. Because it’s possible that a Greatest Conceivable Being exists, a Greatest Conceivable Being does exist in some possible reality.
. Because of the very nature of a Greatest Conceivable Being, if a Greatest Conceivable Being exists in some possible reality, it exists in every possible reality.
. If a Greatest Conceivable Being exists in every possible reality, then it exists in actual reality.
. If a Greatest Conceivable Being exists in actual reality, then a Greatest Conceivable Being exists in our reality.
=====
“All of that is fear; do you really deny that?”
I’ve told you before that I do not doubt nor do I have any need to doubt my salvation. Unlike Roman Catholic and all other man-made religions, Jesus taught that we cannot work our way into heaven. Therefore we cannot fall short of doing enough. Only by faith in what Jesus accomplished on the cross on our behalf can we find a forgiven relationship with Creator God. I have placed my faith in Jesus the Christ. I have abandoned all hope of ever saving myself. If Jesus was a liar then I am lost, but His resurrection proves that He was not a liar. Neither hell nor the wrath of God hold any fear for me. I do fear for you and all others who are functional atheists, but I realise that people can do what they want. Sad but true.
=====
“For the laws of mathematics it's obvious; yes, they are just concepts, depend on the context, and would not exist without minds.”
You’re joking - right? The universe would not function as it does without the human mind coming up with a way of understanding and explaining (concept) how it functions? Are you serious?
The laws of physics, mathematics and logic only exist if someone is able to describe them? I can’t believe you’re saying this.
=====
“I don't believe you when you write sentences like this that seem to show you care about my life or the ones I love.”
I hate that which is going to destroy you. Atheism or meth, I hate them both because I care about you. I’ve told you before Hugo, if some kind of Religious State made atheism punishable by death, I would hide you to keep YOU alive. But if it was safe to talk in your hiding place I’d describe to your face the foolishness of your faith system.
=====
“I don't think it's a problem to believe in such God.”
You don’t think it’s a problem to believe in something that isn’t true? Of course, the end justifies the means - right? Taking kids from Christian parents to re educate them with atheist dogma isn’t pleasant, but it’s worth it because as we learned from Stalin, the end result is worth it.
It's unusual that you reply so quick... I don't want to take more time again so I'll just address a few things quickly, as I should always do I guess...
ReplyDeleteVirtually all philosophers agree that if there is the slightest chance of God existing
Absurd; why make an exception for God? You would not say that for anything else.
I don't believe a 'Greatest Conceivable Being' can exist, because being have minds, and we know what minds are made of. Science is on my side.
You’re joking - right? The universe would not function as it does without the human mind coming up with a way of understanding and explaining (concept) how it functions? Are you serious?
YOU are joking right? You really think that the universe could not work if the laws of mathematics did not exist? You really think that because we can describe the world using mathematics it means that it was designed using mathematics?
I'll give you a Hint: Nothing we measure and compute using math is precise, we always approximate... try to think about that for a minute or two.
Plus, try to analyze what I wrote about the laws of logic as well, it's not easy to grasp...
You don’t think it’s a problem to believe in something that isn’t true?
No belief by itself is a problem. It's what you do after with that belief that matters, or if that belief is strong that it makes you deny truth.
Of course, the end justifies the means - right? Taking kids from Christian parents to re educate them with atheist dogma isn’t pleasant, but it’s worth it because as we learned from Stalin, the end result is worth it.
Atheist dogmas don't exist. Stalin's dogmas were Stalin's dogmas, and I could not care less about what a dictator think.