People never make mistakes, because their premises are incorrect, or because they’ve misunderstood something they thought was evidence? Well, if we are not God, we are not omniscient, omnipotent, and so on, this would imply we have needs that God can supply. And “it’s more blessed to give than to receive”, parents know that, it’s good to give to your child, it’s in fact part of the relationship.
Well, yes, negatives can be proved, “A car is not an elephant”, lots of reasons can be given to support that.
The rewards mentioned here are in the next world, but there is refinement in this life, and also the ability to encourage people who also are going through difficulty. And knowing God, that is one result of suffering, too, it’s actually participating, fellowship in his suffering (Phil. 3:10). That accords with my experience, Hannah Smith tells of a woman she knew who had had a remarkably pain-free life, even giving birth wasn’t very difficult. And she had no clue about what to say to people in difficulty, nothing to say to people who were suffering.
“Torture” implies a malicious intent.
He received “his good things” is the text. So they were his, just not to be received totally at the time Lazarus was in need at his gate. So self-denial was required, resulting in purification, and if not now, then later, is my view, “everyone will be salted with fire” (Mark 9:49).
No, “he one who conquers will not be hurt by the second death” (Rev. 2:11). That implies that those who do not conquer, who do not overcome, will be.
Well, you can read his book “The Great Divorce” for his depiction of both.
Here is the full exchange:
So “God being asked for release from suffering that he himself has caused” is a different topic, I was talking about our abilities, or lack of them, not about release from suffering. The goalposts have moved, this was not the original topic, so I objected. And what you say is not a reason I believe God wants us to ask for help.
Actually, they don’t all say that. Some say they don’t focus on causes at all, when evaluating reasoning. And what I hold is that what X says is not to be taken seriously because X is insane, or delirious. Though there might actually be snakes in the room! But we don’t go look for them, once we know the man is delirious, and this is not an ad hominem argument. Of course we feel sorry for the man, and try and comfort or distract him, but not believing him is not some sort of attack on his character. And again I challenge you to find one psychiatrist who doesn’t keep in mind that his or her client’s complaints may be due to irrational causes!
Oh, what a refutation! Such solid evidence, and examples. But in your view, people are being moved around by the movement of atoms in their head, which is indeed aptly described by being puppets.
But you just used the puppet argument! So it’s not just me using it. And my view is that our reason comes from a self-existent reason, not that God causes our thoughts, which you seem to be asking if that’s my view.
But speculation is not using logic! And what makes no sense is saying I have a logical reason to engage in mere speculation. Unless someone points a gun at my head, and says, “Speculate!” Or something like that.
But they don’t examine my reasoning, when they say such things. They point to the supposed cause, and then reject what I say. This is not backwards.
I do believe some authorities, though I like to examine evidence for what they say, too, and I try and find people whom I have reason to believe are trustworthy, and have training and other qualifications in the relevant area.
But you still believe them on authority! We were just discussing how to pick good authorities, yes?
Sure, but I don’t pick statements just because I like them! And nobody believes in infallible human authorities, and every sensible person tries to evaluate further what they hear.
So why bother with picking good authorities, if all we can conclude from them is that somebody said or believed this or that?
So I’ll do what I said! This is only evidence that you believe these are not your standards. This is only evidence that you believe I am quoting claims, not arguments or evidence. This is only evidence that you believe these are different things.
I think I might keep this up, this is kind of fun. And it requires no effort at all.
You’re the one who’s getting this backwards, they don’t say I’m stupid because of this argument I made, or that I want to be important, because of this reasoning. Point me to one example of that! They say I’m stupid, or I want to be important, and so on, and that is why they can reject my statements. That’s ad hominem.
You claim to be an atheist, right? Your position is that there are no gods? So you have looked in every possible place, all at once, and you haven’t found any gods? This is a virtual claim of omniscience, as well as omnipresence, even.
Well, it’s good if you acknowledge being limited, I can go a step further, then, and say that self-sufficiency is bad, too. Even corporate self-sufficiency, together, we can do it. Well, sometimes, we can’t. So that would bring us to God, which is indeed, good for us, if God is good, and has resources we don’t, and that we need. And if coming to him and receiving develops a relationship, so this is more than about just getting stuff.
How does your statement not imply that, though? I need more than a mere assertion.
But I don’t say that it is. Now I’m really confused, I have no idea how this can be the core of your argument, if I don’t hold this view.
Well, a perfect machine might be required to be suitable in all possible environments. I expect there are tradeoffs in any design.
Well, I’ve given other reasons, and being uppity, well, if you’re looking down all the time, you’re not going to see something, or Someone who’s above you. C.S. Lewis’ point, on pride.
The rich man in the fire I believe is purgatory, so this isn’t part of the three threads I mentioned. And I disagree with C.S. Lewis, when he says (through a character in a book) that “the door of hell is locked on the inside.” I don’t see this in scripture, Jesus says he has those keys (Rev. 1:18). And I believe all three threads will be true, and accomplished, the statement of a professor I heard about comes to mind, “The people in Jesus’ day thought they had his first coming all figured out, and they were all wrong!” Well, they were, and God did what he had been telling us, all along, but in a very unexpected way.
Not if you bear suffering, though. People usually miss that, but it’s shown in the cross, that’s God, bearing suffering, showing mercy. And as has been discussed, there are other purposes for suffering, too.
But I seemed to have missed the part where you explain how my application is a misunderstanding. Could you start posting more context, so I don’t have to continually be trying to remember it, or keep scrolling back and forth to get it? But from what you say, I don’t believe the soul is like a puppeteer of my thoughts, I say the soul is the source of them.
Nobody claims to know the mechanics of thinking, exactly how that works, though this does not somehow disprove the conclusion, either yours or mine.
But saying “My thoughts are the result of things happening in my brain” clearly means they are caused, and your view also entails believing what happens in your brain is all motions of atoms there, correct? So I don’t see how you avoid the conclusion.
And pointing to your brain still leaves us clueless about the mechanics of thought, which neither you nor I claim to understand. So asking this question gets us nowhere. And I can point to evidence for the soul, I’ve done so.
But if you ask why he claims there are snakes, he will give you a reason, no doubt. And similarly with the man in paranoia, who doesn’t call the police when something bad happens to him, because of course, they are out to get him, too. So he is even more clearly doing reasoning, and being quite logical, given his premises.
How so? I must ask. I don’t see how you did.
Because all you mention is the cause! This is very straightforward.
But now you are requiring 100% proof! But no evidence of anything of importance is like that. Existence of God, no, you can’t get a mathematical proof of that. Similarly, the courts require proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.” For that very reason.
If you insist on 100% proof all the time, you won’t believe much of importance. One more example, you won’t trust anyone, and you certainly won’t get married! I guess that’s two examples.
I can certainly point to salamanders as examples of limbs being regenerated! So someone might well point to this as evidence that this could possibly happen in humans, too. People do take refuge in remote possibilities, when they don’t like a conclusion. As in your explanation of my being healed from mitral valve prolapse, taking refuge in the unlikely chance that I was misdiagnosed. And what I could feel in extra beats, whenever I took my pulse, was some sort of misperception, which mysteriously cleared up along with getting a clean bill of health. Occam and his razor might help, here.
I do have medical records for another healing, though. So I think multiple documented events are credible, and don’t affect my credibility. And there are indeed reports of miracles from many sources! See Craig Keeners two-volume set on “Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts”, which also covers accounts of miracles happening today, for instance, or his smaller book entitled “Miracles Today”. Are you willing to investigate evidence for them? And C.S. Lewis’ book, “Miracles, a Preliminary Study” deals with a number of objections to them that people do make.
But children were healed, who probably could be consulted! And a claim is made that many were raised at the time of Jesus’ death, who “appeared to many”, which would be an odd claim to make, if this story was way after the fact, and could not be verified. This appears to be a claim of a verifiable event, as was Paul’s claim that Jesus appeared to more than 500 after his resurrection, most of whom he said were still living (1 Cor. 15:6). Paul is saying you can check this out! Writing around AD 55, it seems, which is within the lifetimes of people who could have been at the resurrection, about AD 33. Not to mention Paul claiming to have seen Jesus! His eyewitness account is in his letters and in Acts, so this is not some account written via hearsay after many years.
I heard from someone that they had gotten through seven bouts with cancer, he didn’t mention miracles, so I expect this was through medical treatment. Seven! That seems unlikely, so it didn’t happen?
Well, fine, if there is a god, I would like to know! That seems eminently sensible. Or if you mean why should we start with a given god, such as the Christian one, I may have mentioned Keith Green, who surveyed religions when he was searching, and found that they all had good things to say about Jesus, and many of them said Jesus was a way. Only Jesus said he was the way. So this was kind of a no-brainer for him, he started with Jesus. Or I could mention the resurrection, there is nothing like this in any other religion, and there are several books, Lionel Luckhoo and Lee Strobel could be mentioned, who set out to disprove the resurrection, and would up believing it!
Well Richard Lorenzo did this, you might have seen me mention him, but “God if you’re real, please reveal yourself to me” doesn’t even require half-believing. Or starting with investigating the resurrection might be good, as I mentioned several atheists doing, setting out actually to disprove it! So again, no faith is required.
Yes, there certainly must wrong answers to the question of a real God, since religions don’t actually agree, they can’t all be true, as some will claim. And the Christian claim is that he does give evidence for himself to everyone: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” (Rom 1:18-20)
And this has been made plainer, as science advances, as in most people now believing the universe had a beginning, see Stephen Meyers’ book “The Return of the God Hypothesis” for more along these lines.
Right, that is my view, I’m not sure what the problem is, or how that is backwards.