Monday, 29th June 2009
The God I believe in, and the University students'
Somewhere in my library, I have a copy of the book by Juan Arias titled "The God I do not believe in." It was very popular when I was still a student. I remembered the book when I read the definition or description of God that John Falzon reproduced from The New Advent Catholic Encyclopaedia.
The definition ran as follows:
"God is a simple being or substance excluding every kind of composition, physical or metaphysical. Physical or real composition is either substantial or accidental -- substantial, if the being in question consists of two or more substantial principles, forming parts of a composite whole, as man for example, consists of body and soul; accidental, if the being in question, although simple in its substance (as is the human soul), is capable of possessing accidental perfections (like the actual thoughts and volition of man's soul) not necessarily identical with its substance. Now it is clear that an infinite being cannot be substantially composite, for this would mean that infinity is made up of the union or addition of finite parts -- a plain contradiction in terms. Nor can accidental composition be attributed to the infinite since even this would imply a capacity for increased perfection, which the very notion of the infinite excludes. There is not, therefore, and cannot be any physical or real composition in God".
I do not blame you if you started reading it and stopped half way. This was what happened to me. The God described here is cold and distant. This God seems to be very complex - though the definition starts by stating that "God is a simple being." This is the God as described by philosophers.
The God revealed by Christ
I prefer the God as revealed to us by Jesus Christ. This God is the Father, creator of things seem and unseen. This God is the Son, who became man and is the only redeemer of sinners like this writer. This God is the Holy Spirit who is the healer and consoler. This God is Love. He is crazy in love with us; so crazy about us that He gave His live for us.
He is a Father and, as Isaiah said, a Mother. This God is so powerful that omnipotence is one of His characteristics. He can hold the whole universe on the palm of his hand as you and I can hold a walnut. However, He is also so weak that He was not able to carry His own cross. Where it not for a weak human being He would have stopped half way. This God understands my weakness because He experienced weakness. He laughed as well as cried. He was loved and betrayed. This God is close to us and cares for us. He knows each and every one of us by name and tattooed our name on the palm of His hand.
This is the God I believe in.
University students: beliefs and actions
A few days ago the University Chaplaincy published Religious Beliefs and Attitudes of Maltese University Students Revisited - 2009. This publication gives us the results of a study conducted last year and compares the results with those of study conducted in 2005.
Look at some of them compared to three years previously.
Today fewer students believe in the Trinity, in Jesus as the Son of God, in the Incarnation, in the Holy Spirit, in heaven and hell, in Mary as the Mother of God and in the Church to mention a few points. Belief in the Trinity fell by 18%, in the Incarnation by 24% and in the sacraments by almost 23%. Only half of them believe in the Church.
Nine one per cent of respondents say that they are Catholics. The belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation are at the base and foundation of Christianity, let alone Catholicism. This means that many students consider themselves Catholic but do not believe in the basic tenets of Christianity.
Franco Farrugia commenting on my piece in The Sunday Times says that these are senseless dogmas. What we need, he writes, are good people who care for others.
His comments are totally off the mark.
The beliefs in God as Trinity and in the Incarnation are the basis of our anthropology and of our private actions and political commitments. Our dogmas form the foundation of our belief in the dignity of each human person who is created in the image and likeness of God. The Incarnation means that as God shared in our humanity we are invited to share in His divinity. These dogmas are the basis of our belief that solidarity is a constitutive element of our humanity and therefore, caring for others and loving them is the only forward for humans.
Far from senseless dogmas, these beliefs provide us with the strength and impetus needed to dedicate ourselves for others.
Some sex please, we are University students
Our University students are becoming more sexually active. The percentage of those who practiced sexual intercourse during the past year was 44.3% compared to 30% in 2005.
Many, included myself, would have expected the figure to be higher especially since only 24% (34% in 2005) consider pre-marital sex morally wrong. Forty-three percent (60% in 2005) consider divorce morally wrong and logically there is now a good majority for the legalisation of divorce i.e. 56.7% (48% in 2003).
The writing is clearly on the wall. I remember surveys showing two thirds of the Maltese against divorce. That number is going down and a particular survey showed a tie between the two sides; but the majority of those under forty are in favour.
There were no surprises about artificial contraception. Just one sixth thinks that it is morally wrong. It is interesting to note that while the vast majority of the respondents (73.5%) approve of premarital co-habitation, the vast majority prefer marriage. Only 5% said that they would opt for co-habitation. Only a sixth would consider opting for divorce. These are not contradictory choices. It is perfectly logical for someone be in favour of others having extra options though one is not interested in using them oneself.
I am pretty certain that if the same survey would be made among other young people the same trends would be registered. On the morality issues, I also suspect that the views of University students would be very similar to the views of the population at large.
This survey was held for the first time in 2005. What was the follow-up? Did the University Chaplaincy adopt some particular strategy? Did the Church make an attempt to see what is the situation at large? Very little follow up, if any, happened.
After some noises here and there every thing will settle down and every one will live happily ever after.
On a lighter note
Though this is quite a serious piece let me end it on a lighter note with some "naughty" observations about some of the survey findings.
- FEMA - the Faculty that churns out accountants - is the most staunchly Catholic faculty with a whopping result of 96.2%. It seems that the accountants did their calculations well considering possible options in the next world.
- Lawyers are the greatest believers in the devil (80% compared to a general average of 63%). It is so cute when members of the same profession publicly stay together.
- Members of the Institute of Health Care are the most sexually active. Almost two thirds (compared to a general average of 42%) say that they had sexual intercourse during the last year. It seems that the stereotype of nurses projected by the Carry On.... series was not terribly off the mark after all! We were not given the same statistics for students in the Faculty of Theology. We could perhaps find that surprises have no end!
- Doctors are those who most believe in angels and almost those who pray most. How lucky we are! They despatch us hurriedly from this world with a short prayer in the conviction that we meet nice angels. The undertakers hide their mistakes and angels host their victims!
- Teachers are the staunchest believers in fortunetellers and horoscopes. No wonder that many object saying "I don't need no education."
Comments
This discussion has been going on for a month and a half now and I can agreeingly understand your feeling that it is reaching its end.
I thank you for engaging in a discussion about the topic and hope we will find ground for further discussion in the future.
Have a great weekend.
The gods you mention and many others prove to me that mankind, throughout its history has always felt the impelling collective need to believe in a creative God. Different cultures gave very different visualizations of that god. I respect these honest but wrong visualizations even though I do not think that there are elephant gods, norse gods or any other God except the Christian God.
According to you the possibility of winning the Super5 is so remote that hoping for a win will not make your win come true. True enough! But you cannot deny that the lottery itself is there. You draw an analogy with an afterlife and you declare that hoping for it will not make it come true. Again true enough, but just as Super5 exists whatever your hope, so it is with our after life – it is there whether he hope for it or whether we fear it.
I think that I have now said enough for any bona fide enquirer to proceed with his quest for truth in the direction of the Christian God. If I have failed I beg to be excused but I now have to call it a day.
“The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world.”
Georgia Harkness, Theologian
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca, philosopher
“Idiosyncratic belief systems which are shared by only a few adherents are likely to be regarded as delusional. Belief systems which may be just as irrational but which are shared by millions are called world religions. Anthony Storr, psychiatrist and author
“In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point.” Friedrich Nietzsche, philosopher
“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate
“Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day. Give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish.” Timothy Jones, comedian
I can't see what you think is wrong with my analogy though. Betting on the super 5, or betting on a God is all about betting on probability, although as I explained earlier I don't think we have a "bet" to make in this case. It was an analogy to show that hoping for something doesn't make something true, not an analogy whether you should bet on God or not.
My apologies for not reading your post earlier in regards to me lacking an uppercase "C" in Christianity. It's an oversight from my end.
There is no denying that your global rejection of the existence of God embraces all theistic religions. My different point is that the existence of God is not exclusive to Christianity and my conflict with other theistic religions is in their description of the attributes they assign to the same real God who created the universe.
The Super 5 lottery is not the proper analogy for your hankering for an ultimate justice at the end of time. In spite of the admittedly small chance of winning it, there can be no shadow of doubt that the Super 5 lottery exists. Assiduous practitioners of the Christian faith believe that they are maximizing their chance of coming out on the right side of God on judgment day.
As God is not real to me, it's very hard for me to pretend we can't judge the concept of God. But I do understand what you mean. For someone who believs in God, the judgment of Him would be arrogant.
I can't understand your second statement though. Of course you reject the existance of these other Gods, not the culture around them. If you say that there is ONE God, namely the christian God (in three parts, but I won't go there as it gives me a headache) then the other Gods can, by definition, not exist to you. They are as unreal to you as the christian god is to me.
On the last part we definitely disagree. Yes, we can always HOPE for an ultimate justice, but that doesn't mean we have reason to believe there will be. I can hope to win the Super 5 this week (it's up to some 750k by now, right?), but that doesn't mean I will. And we certainly don't "have to believe that there will be a God to deliver it". God either is or isn't, no hope, belief or faith can change that fact.
I do not find it “insulting” for you to exercise any “right and duty” to speak out against what you believe to be “unjust and immoral”. I do consider it arrogant (not insulting) for any human being to presume to sit in judgment over his God.
Your “rejection of God” is your personal affair, not mine. I distinguish between that total rejection and the admission of the existence of god by different religions even though his description varies considerably due to cultural differences. What I reject is not the gods of other cultures but their human constructions of the true God of creation
I share your ‘want’ of a God to provide the world with a sense of “ultimate justice”. You have to admit that for your “ULTIMATE justice” to materialize we must necessarily wait for a judgment day at the end of time – otherwise it would not be “ultimate” at all. In the meantime we have to believe that there will be a God to deliver it.
That is simply not true. I have repeatedly tried to just understand the nature of the God you believe in and have a discussion on that God's merits, both in terms of existance and morality.
It's not about preferring to deny his existence. Either you believe or you don't. I don't. Just as you don't believe in the holy Quran, or in Ganesha the elephant God, or in the flying spaghetti monster. Why is my rejection of God so difficult for you, when you have no problem rejecting all those other Gods?
I also dare say that the one thing which makes me WANT there to be a God, is to provide the world with a sense of ultimate justice. I think it's appalling that good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. Were there a God to judge at end times, that justice would be delivered. But here is where I have to be honest and admit that just wanting something to exists, doesn't mean it does.
The insuperable difficulty of the atheists on this blog is that the only version of God that would be acceptable to them is that of a caricature of the God described by Christ. He would not exhibit the justice at the end of time ascribed to Him by Christ. He would have to be immeasurably compassionate and merciful to the incredible extent of rewarding the unrepentant sinner for his sins to the same measure as he would reward those who believed in Him and who would have repented ever falling short of his commandment to love God and neighbour. In the absence of that travesty of a just God they would prefer to deny his existence for as long as possible.
You are making my “Spelling & Grammar” facility go berserk with your spelling of “christianity” with a lower case “C”!
The difference between those who never heard about Christianity and those who reject it after being born in it is that the former could not possibly be blamed for their lack of faith. The same cannot be said for any “unrepentant sinner” who chucks away his faith.
I am not challenging your “right and duty” to speak out against the God in whom I believe. I simply do not want to be associated with those"rights and duties" .
Of course it doesn't worry me. To me it's complete nonsense. I'm just trying to get my head around what you really believe in and also argue why I think it's immoral to keep this teaching going.
Also, what difference does it make whether you were never in touch with christianity, if you were brought up as a christian and reject it, or if you are brought up in another faith but with full knowledge of christianity. At what point will you be judged? I'm asking rhetorically, as you stated, fairly, that you can't answer for God.
I don't ask you to judge or criticise your God, but you can't tell me that I can't. If I find a certain belief as unjust and immoral, I have both a right and duty to speak out against it. I know you find this insulting, but remember that I make no demands, I simply try to argue my case. I have not taken out anything on neither you or your fellow christians. My wife is a christian. I think our relationship would have been long down the tubes by now if that were the case.
Patrick Larsson was spot on in stating "God has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with vanity and self love". Or narcissism, to use the technical term. A God as vain and ego centric as some of those who worship him. That is the appeal of religious belief to the third type of believer, the egocentric who projects his own ego onto God. Seeing himself in God - omniscent, omnipotent and would take no nonsense, always right and woe betide those who do not subject themselves to his (and His) will. Being one with the almighty, who can be against him? This represents the less acceptable versions of faith as it breeds intolerance and arrogance. It is the dynamic behind inquisitions and crusades, interference with civil rule and suicide bombers, all in the name of serving a loving God.
Your phrase “who simply don’t believe” would need elaboration. For example, it could refer to someone who never came into contact with the Christian faith and who could never have had the opportunity to believe in that faith. It could also mean someone diligently brought up in that faith but who consciously rejected it later on for reasons that would be best known to himself and to God. It is God who would reward or punish. I do not judge my fellow man – but still less do I presume to criticize, let alone judge, my God on the strength of anybody else's opinions.
You consider yourself as “a fairly moral and good person,” but also as a definitely unrepentant sinner. I do not condemn you – that is way out of my competence and my religious belief. Of course I do not speak for my God – but that should not worry you unless, deep down, you may have some niggling doubt about His existence. Just do not take it out on me and on fellow Christians.
Continued...
And to clarify, when I say that God "very unlikely exists", I mean what I say. That it is very unlikely that he exists.
In my accusation of his vanity and self love, I think it becomes quite apparent when you realise that four out of ten so called commandments - something which is very central to most christians - is about his own glory. I have a daughter. I hope to build rules and teachings for her to make her a good, prospering and happy person. None of those rules will be based on unconditionally loving and worshipping me. Such vanity is just profane. Further, as I mentioned before and what I actually based my statement on, condemning sinners for eternity if they don't bow down to you, no matter what kind of person they are, is extremely self centered and, I repeat, vain. Arguably, if this isn't quite the God you believe in, as you seem to hint at, then that accusation fail, which is why a definition of God is vitally important to base a discussion on.
Ok, point by point...
You were the one who said that unrepetant sinners are condemned. Hence, if I'm a sinner - as we all are according to your claims - and I don't repent, then I'm condemned. I think I'm a fairly moral and good person, but I'm still condemned according to what you said. I do accept your humility in accepting a lack of authority on the subject though.
With the evidence I still stand though. There has been no clear evidence presented in favour of God, that is not based a form of assertion or fallacy (as far as I have seen admittedly). These assertions and fallacies are in general quite easy to point out. For something that affects our life as much as a God would, I think it would be nothing but pragmatic to request some evidence. While it might be true that I don't need evidence for everything in life, I still think my life and my decisions are largely evidence based.
Other believers display other traits. Most common are dependency needs coupled with feelings of social inadequacy and vulnerability, "Who will I turn to in my hour of need?" and "Without You I will be lonely and lost!". God becomes a crutch to those unable to take responsibility for their own actions, needing to be protected or guided, finding the prospect of standing on their own two feet threatening. Once issues are resolved, God takes the credit, the subject unable to see solutions came from within, once their anxiety was sufficiently allayed.
Also common are unresolved primordial cravings for parental affection leading to fantasies of boundless love and potency. Fantasies that remain unchallenged in the face of hard evidence of suffering all around us. That suffering is neatly dissociated from the concept of an all loving celestial parent. Fantasies that are constantly reinforced by "feeling His presence" - a sense of tranquillity induced by meditation. Some do manage to find some fulfillment through their faith but for most it at best provides a straw to clutch at whilst trafficing with life. Perhaps if it works but there are better alternatives.
Enough about your qualifications please! Fine...you are a medical doctor who graduated in 1949. Great! I don't see how this has any relevance to the issue. Mr Sant is right to keep you guessing about his qualifications. Except for you, nobody has made any reference to his/hers ...because acquiring knowledge is only a small part of how smart we are. Wisdom is far more important, and there are many knowledgeable people who are very unwise.
This brings me to the central issue:
Quote “The God of Christianity is immeasurably compassionate, merciful and forgiving but He is also supremely just."
I am flabbergasted how a knowledgeable/qualified man like you cannot see the glaring impossibility of this statement. How the devil could your God be "immeasurably compassionate, merciful and forgiving", yet be “supremely just” and condemn to ETERNAL torture "unrepentant sinners", to whom he will then NEVER EVER extend any of his immeasurable compassion, mercy or forgiveness?
It's illogical, irrational, nonsensical, contradictory, preposterous, incomprehensible and absolute rubbish. Anybody with one iota of wisdom, with any logic /reason, with any common sense, will surely see the ridiculousness of your statement. Your God almost certainly does not exist....except in your mind.
The End.
You are not as clear as you think you are. If by “There is no evidence for God” you mean that according to atheists there is no evidence for God I would not dare to contradict you. If on the other hand you mean that there is no evidence for the existence of God acceptable to the millions who believe in Him then I would not agree with you because intelligence is not the sole prerogative of atheists. On that understanding, yes, let us leave it at that.
My God is the one whose Son and Messiah willingly allowed himself to be crucified so as to convey his message of love of God and neighbour. Where do you see “vanity and self love” in that sacrifice?
You are also very unclear when you say that the “largest problem is that (God) very unlikely exists”. Do you mean that very likely God exists or that it is very unlikely that he exists? In either case your and my preferences would be totally irrelevant.
You continue to make wild assertions about me when you have shown that you are completely unacquainted with my curriculum vitae abroad and locally. From your comments one can only safely deduce that you are not competent to discuss any matter connected with academic medical studies and that you are only trying to bluff your way out of your predicament. I will not waste any more time on your pretentious bluff.
"perhaps not even realizing that you were really accusing me falsely of being a pretentious fraud".
Any honest and sane person reading the relevant posting should tell you what it was all about. But let me ask, would yours be an accurate description of a medical practitioner who misrepresents his experience and qualifications to give himself an advantage with an unsuspecting public? The description you were requested to provide but so far have not? Hope not, because that is something Medical Boards normally take an interest in. And the Medical Profession a dim view of.
You are the one who stated that you hold "degrees - not doctorates". Questioning clarification of a blatant inconsistency is legitimate and amounts to an accusation only in the minds of those caught red handed, who then want to bend the truth in the hope of gaining an advantage. No I do not have the slightest misgiving about making that query. I am very glad I did. Now we all know exactly what your authority is based on - an MD obtained in 1949.
You have failed to suggest what would be the appropriate description for a medical practitioner who publicly claims to have knowledge and qualifications or experience in highly specialised fields of medicine he could not possibly have.
I do not think that you are quite right in assuming that the Christian God condemns anyone who truly “has lived life as a good and honest person but who unfortunately does not believe”. I have always thought that culpability resides in the fact of knowingly acting sinfully and obstinately refusing to seek forgiveness. There are people more qualified than I to give you an authoritative answer.
Let the readers judge that I did not try to "rub your nose in what (your {my} words)”. I rubbed your nose precisely in the clean pages of the Registers of the Medical council as a last ditch attempt to make you admit that your allegation that I did not have a doctorate in medicine was a lie, or as you prefer to call it a “misinterpretation”. Winston Churchill’s euphemism for that same sin was “a terminological inexactitude” – you may care to use it next time you are caught out.
I do not know how to say it any clearer. I ACCEPT THAT FAITH IS A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR BELIEF. I demand nothing. I simply declare that faith is personal and if you want to convince me, or any other rational minded person, then evidence is a necessity. There is no evidence for God. That's the end of it. I accept that and as you have produced none yourself I think you accept that too. Why can't we leave it at that?
Your God has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with vanity and self love. A literal reading would reveal that a life of murder, theft and profanity is ok, as long as you are willing to repent in the end. On the other hand if you live life as a good and honest person, who simply don't believe, your are comdemned. Some justice.
Although, that's not the largest problem. The largest problem is that he very unlikely exists. I prefer no God over the other, as I don't think we have a choice in the matter.
You have admitted that your challenge to my degree in medicine was based on your “wrong impression”. For numerous comments beforehand you had spread a lie about my real possession of a doctorate in medicine. That means that you were accusing me of being a fraud, even if you did not use that precise word. It is a hopeful sign that you are now showing misgivings about your failed attempt at defamation perhaps not even realizing that you were really accusing me falsely of being a pretentious fraud.
These are my words:
“There are a lot of young Maltese graduating overseas, who see no point in flaunting their degrees, this is 2009 doctor, not the 1940s...... I personally would not dare to guess neither the age nor the qualifications of the other contributors”.
This is your interpretation:
“When you speculate about the hidden ages and imaginary qualifications of unidentified commentators from abroad you are making unwarranted assumptions”.
Let others be the judge who is making “idle assumptions”, meanwhile keep “opening new doors discovering that it leads to still more doors and more unexplored rooms”.
If you had your way I would spend my life refuting your idle assumptions. To may previously existing tribulations I am now expected to assume that when you write one thing you mean the exact opposite.
When I wrote that none of the mysterious overseas students had claimed responsibility for any of the outlandish comments on this blog I was stating an easily verifiable fact – I was not making any assumption. When you speculate about the hidden ages and imaginary qualifications of unidentified commentators from abroad you are making unwarranted assumptions.
The most important thing I learned during my education is that the quest for knowledge is a never-ending task and no sooner do you open a new door than you discover that it leads to still more doors and more unexplored rooms. Keep you Socrates and Einstein quotations for use where they are most needed.
It is futile to discuss the “qualities” of God with those who do not even believe in his “existence”. They demand an impossible proof of God’s existence restricted to physical laboratory certitude. Mankind does not demand that certitude in any other sphere of life. It manages its affairs and plans its activities on the basis of a pragmatic assessment based on an imperfect state of knowledge and related possibilities and probabilities. It plans for next week, next month, next year on reasonable assumptions, not the certitude. As far as atheists are concerned the belief of millions in God’s existence is an outstanding exception to that pragmatic approach to life.
You admit being a sinner like the rest of us but you insist in an adamant refusal to repent. It is not surprising that you would prefer a God who would not include justice among his attributes but only a mercy so bountiful that he would wink at the unrepentant sinner who deliberately keeps on flouting his laws to the very end. That is not the version preached by Christ and I prefer to stick to that version.
"The atheist commentators on this blog..do complain repeatedly that God’s punishment for the unrepentant wicked at the last judgment is much too harsh for a loving/caring God".
Misrepresenting facts again! Noone is complaining about anything. The question is the inconsistency and illogicality of considering God omniscient, knowing past,present and future, and also being infinitely just, but would still go ahead and cavalierly create beings knowing full well He will have to condemn them to eternal punishment (according to believers) for ultimately no reason other than that they behaved in the manner in which they were meant to behave. Equally ludicrous is the proposition that God would create a Hitler of a Genghis Ghan, knowing the consequences. Unless of course He is a sadist. Do not bother with the free-will nonsense. Behavioural sciences show that to be a myth, with human behaviour having a very organic basis and being largely predictable.
Let the readers judge who is trying to rub whose nose in what (your words). I will not stoop down to engage in an exchange with you on the matter, which is what you want! We all know you got an MD in 1949. Terrific. But how amusing to see the thought of anyone being better qualified irking you so much. Keep on guessing doctor. As for lack of insight, it is usually accompanied by projection, attributing one's motives to others.
"I must respond when some local atheist stoops to calumniate me as a fraud"(FS). The search function on my browser cannot detect the word "fraud" in anybody's postings other than yours. Now, when someone claims "I do not accept your glib assumption that you are more knowledgeable than I am about Behaviour Modification, psychotherapy, psychology, psychiatry etc– for obvious reasons...I simply want to point out the fact, obvious to all practitioners of these specialties..." when no doctor gets any training or experience whatsoever in these specialities (save basic psychiatry), what would be the most appropriate adjective to describe that person. We value your suggestions. Meanwhile let the readers judge who is bluffing.
You are upset about having to repeat yourself, yet you force me to do so over and over.
I did say that philosophy ultimately does not prove anything, yet I do accept it as a suitable ground to propose descriptions of reality. I do not discredit philosophy. Science can't "prove" anything either. Both systems simply propose constructs that we can use to describe and understand the world around us.
I do not reject faith as "blind and only fit for gullible people". I have several time said that I accept faith as a reason to believe in God. The only problem is that faith is personal and can't be used as evidence of God for another person. I thought I had been quite clear about this already.
I wish you did propose a philosophical case for God and that would give us a ground for discussion of his existence. In lack of such I do accept faith as the main reason for belief. Also, I do not find it that important in this discussion as the topic is the nature of God, not whether he exists or not.
Albert Einstein: “Wisdom is not a product of schooling, but of the lifelong attempt to acquire it”
Doctor you are evidently a very an intelligent man, graduating from medical school in 1949, holding doctorates, degrees and diplomas, no question there.
Socrates: “I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing”
My quote: “whilst assuming that one other contributor who challenges you has a university education” should have read “whilst assuming that NO other contributor who challenges you has a university education”, my typing error.
Your quote: “I do not see the relevance of your “lot of young Maltese graduating overseas in 2009” because not one of them has claimed to have made any contribution”. This is your assumption. I personally would not dare to guess neither the age nor the qualifications of the other contributors.
I take your word for it that “Atheists in general … do not worry about final judgement”.
Possibly, the atheist commentators on this blog are an exception to that generality because they do complain repeatedly that God’s punishment for the unrepentant wicked at the last judgment is much too harsh for a loving/caring God to inflict on his creation!
If I were you I would let parents worry about their own children being taught “something that is wicked” and whether that wicked something was the belief in a Christian God or the denial of his existence!
I don't feel threatened by atheism – I must respond when some local atheist stoops to calumniate me as a fraud. That hat fits my detractors, not me. At other times I have answered the same questions repeatedly and as often as they were addressed to me. Enough is enough - I will not do so any more.
Atheists would never accept my reasons for the existence of God. They reject “reason” because “philosophy does not prove anything”. They reject “faith” as being “blind” and only fit for gullible people. The scientific method is useless because God cannot be subjected to scientific enquiry. Atheists illogically misinterpret this absence of proof, either way, as positive proof that God does not exist. The root of the problem does not lie with any lack of honesty on my part – it is the atheist’s steadfast rejection of all the above methods of proof that are conclusive to millions of believers.
You declare that you have no intention of repenting. The “condemnation” you mention does not come from anything I “propose”, but from the God described by Christ himself. Understandably, you would prefer that such a God did not exist at all.
I wish you would have been more open to an honest and speculative exchange, but I still thank you. My biggest concern with you is the numerous misconceptions you have about atheists in general and I have tried to address at least some of those misconceptions. You seem very threatened by atheists in general (admittedly I can be wrong here) and I hope I have not given you any reason to feel threatened. I have simply tried to challenge your arguments for a God.
Have a nice continued weekend.
While I do think you could be a lot more specific than you have been, I thank you for at least putting forward a somewhat better specification of the God you believe in.
I can't resist informing you that I'm happy that there is not an iota of evidence for the God you propose though. As we are all sinners and I have no intention of repenting, I am condemned by the God you propose. I will not further query you for evidence for your God, as it is quite clear you do not have any. Yet, please do not see the above as some smug comeback, as it is not intended as such. Our world views are both different and incompatible. If you are happy in yours, then I'm happy for you. I'm very happy in mine.
One thing I have to clear out though. Atheists in general (as I can not speak for all) do not worry about final judgement. It would be ridiculous to worry about something you don't believe in. What we worry about is the impact this have, primarily on children, who are taught something that to us is wicked.
I wiped the floor with your false allegation that I do not have a doctorate in medicine. I exposed your bluff about your pretence to well concealed academic medical qualifications. I would never call that “Wallowing in self pity in the hope of arousing sympathy”. Your failure to appreciate that simple fact would raise the suspicion of loss of insight.
It is true that the God of Christianity is immeasurably compassionate, merciful and forgiving but He is also supremely just. He is not some heavenly version of a doting parent of spoilt undisciplined offspring supplying them with everything they demand including powerful cars with which to kill themselves, pedestrians and cyclists and other motorists and to reward them with still more sickening pampering when they survive an accident in which innocent persons are killed - instead of disciplining them.
Christians believe in Christ’s version of a day of judgment when the good and the repentant sinners will be rewarded but unrepentant sinners will be condemned. Christians are also enjoined not to pass judgment on others – let alone to try to pass judgment on God himself and on His punishment or reward. I lack the pride and the presumption to judge my God on the request of atheists. They say they do not believe in God anyway; I cannot fathom why they worry so much about his final judgment. Is it the fear that, for all their bravado, they are not so sure that after death “Kullhadd jibqa’ billi jkun ha ma tul hajtu?”
Nowhere have I stated anything that could be twisted into my assumption that “ … one other contributor who challenges you (i.e. myself) has a university education”. That is another fabrication typical of this smear campaign. I do not see the relevance of your “lot of young Maltese graduating overseas in 2009” because not one of them has claimed to have made any contribution.
“spare yourself typing a long sequence of exclamation marks, where one would do among intelligent people............ arrogantly penned by bluffers who themselves have no qualifications to pontificate about a university education”. Doctor you are the one who arrogantly and bombastically pontificate your university degrees, whilst assuming that one other contributor who challenges you has a university education. There are a lot of young Maltese graduating overseas, who see no point in flaunting their degrees, this is 2009 doctor, not the 1940s.
You have failed to answer the question put to you by Mr Soler, myself and others. How do you logically reconcile your God's omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence with the existence of evil and the myth of free will with God's justice and compassion? The unavoidable conclusion is that you have no answer and that you know deep in your heart your concept of God is full of holes, inconsistencies and illogicalitis that make it most unlikely your God exists.
Wallowing in self pity in the hope of arousing sympathy will not win you the argument. It merely underlines the fact you have none.
I am nobody's fool and no puppet on any atheist's string churning out the same replies that I had given before. I will not allow any atheist to accuse me again of "quote mining" by obeying your request "please be kind enough to repeat the answer." , No sir, look for my answers yourself and when you pretend not to discover them, look again more carefully.
I do not feel sorry for myself at all - so spare yourself typing a long sequence of exclamation marks, where one would do among intelligent people. I will staunchly defend my good name against malicious lies intended to create the impression that I am a fraud a defamation arrogantly penned by bluffers who themselves have no qualifications to pontificate about a university education. That is not self pity. You may be right about one point though - I really should ignore with contempt to these slanders and those who resort to them.
Incredible !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You did it again. You did not answer the question(s) that I posed. Instead, you just keep repeating that the atheist bad guys have belittled your university qualifications. It really is a shame that you feel so sorry for yourself and your good name.
But dear doctor...this blog is not about you...get it? It is about God's existence. So, let me ask you one more time... and this time, I'll keep it to one simple straightforward question....
"How could one LOGICALLY reconcile a perfectly loving/caring God with an eternal Hell for his own creations?
Please give us an answer based on logic and reason...but please, not on faith, as that is not an answer at all.
This is as simple as I can make it. The ball is now in your court. Just one last thing….if you feel that you have already addressed this question, please be kind enough to repeat the answer.
Thank you.
Oh poor you! Our heart bleeds for sweet innocent you! All the "time and effort" you had to waste! All the "unwarranted attacks" you had to fend off. On top of nobly defending the existence of God! Too much for any other ordinary man if you ask me! All over a simple query about seemingly contradictory statements you had made that could have been cleared in one simple sentence! Not your style though is it? Never miss an opportunity to charge phantoms. Just like Don Quixote. Do you really believe yourself?
You are fascinating you know! A fascinating study that is worth documenting.
You are right that a life time would not suffice for you to convince me that God exists. You are the best reason I have ever encountered that says otherwise. So many have tried to reason with you and offer you an opportunity to engage in civilised debate. You have rejected them all. Goodbye.
Of course, this blog is supposed to be about God not me. It is you who diverted it into an unwarranted attack on my doctorate in medicine. That is now proven beyond a shadow doubt – in spite of your manifest wishes to the contrary.
After taking into account the time and effort that I had to waste in order to persuade you of such a simple matter as the real existence of that doctorate I have now convinced myself that a life time would be much too short to convince you that God exists just as much as my M.D.
You are a glutton for punishment, aren’t you! Stop deluding yourself that not having a university education actually increases your potential to pontificate about anything and everything under the sun. Try to acquire some credibility about the existence of your presumed qualifications “in pectore”.
It was not I who introduced the irrelevancy of a defamatory lie about my doctorate in medicine. This was done deliberatelyand with a definite purpose so as to create the false impression that I was a fraud and to discredit my comments in favour of the existence of God. That is the reason behind the malicious persistent attempt to defame me forcing me to defend my good name. That is why all atheist contributors to this blog connive to complain about the successful defense of my reputation by calling it “flaunting” and that is why they feign ignorance of the preceding malicious lie about me.
Other university graduates, with qualifications equal or superior to mine, wisely choose to ignore with justified contempt the jealous pretensions of those who really have no qualifications worth mentioning but who vaguely pretend that they are somehow better qualified but who take the precaution of hiding these phantomatic qualifications "in pectore". I am satisfied that I have cleared my name where it matters and that I have exposed my detractors. I will now join choose to join the ranks of those who ignore these atheists.
Gee!! Such vitriolic language! Sure to be noticed! Another illusory victory! Just as with the leopard and the tiger! Huffing and puffing to hide your blatant errors and appear right, at least in your eyes. Yes you did get an MD back in 1949, 60 years ago, after the War. Experience only proves beneficial when gained in a professionally nurturing environment that provides accurate feedback. And then only to the extent of one's ability to profit from it. That means insight into one's limitations plus the ability to acknowledge and learn from mistakes. Without such qualities you will be excluded with a "Not you Dr Suleeba!"
Compulsory recertification ensures concurrent knowledge. Most doctors enbrace it and most can tell the difference between the prefrontal cortex and the frontal lobes, do not consider all psychiatric patients to be out of touch with reality, are aware of primary disorders of will, and do know something about the neuroanatomy and neurophysiology of human behaviour and of emotions and about behaviourism. So keep on guessing or "know the answer" like you undisputedly know everything else. Move on. This blog is about God not you.
Do you realize that throughout this blog, not one person, other than yourself, has talked about or flaunted his/her qualifications ? Be that as it may, let me say congratulations for having graduated as a medical doctor in 1949.
As others have indicated however, it is difficult to understand the relevance of this "doctorate" to the issue at hand. University degrees are obviously of some value, in particular because they are a means for acquiring knowledge. However, many people have lots of knowledge but are lacking in wisdom. Wisdom, or in effect, logic and reason, are considerably more important assets. On these latter criteria, any independent observer reading your various posts in this blog would seriously question your "qualifications". You have been evasive at every turn when challenged on your beliefs based on logic or reason. Your standard strategy is to deflect awkward questions by either not answering them, or by playing your "blind faith" card.
No loving/caring God would create an eternal Hell for his own creations...or a Spanish flu virus that kills millions of innocent people....or a tsunami that drowns thousands etc. Logic and reason cannot explain or justify these horrible things....only "blind faith" can.
I can "flaunt" qualifications because I have proved my possession of a doctorate in medicine, among other degrees and diplomas. You now admit my 1949 M.D. doctorate and the 60 years experience after that - but only because you cannot do otherwise and only because you were driven into a humiliating corner of having to admit that your attempted defamation was based on a "wrong impression" and only after I rubbed your nose in the official Medical Council Registers.
The only outstanding issue is your guess that I may not have kept myself up-to-date with the advances in medicine. This false allegation is no more credible than your debunked challenge to my doctorate in medicine based on a "wrong impression". I do not feel the need to guess whether you have any qualifications worth mentioning. I know the answer and it is confirmed by the contents of your verbose comments. I can smell the stench of bluff from a mile off. Someone is trying to pull down the wool over the eyes of the readers - but it not I.
There is no trace of yours - and that is not my guesswork
Unlike you I feel no need to flaunt my qualifications. I base my arguments on knowledge and logic and want to be treated as an equal by other contributors. I appreciate their criticism of my viewpoint, when it is sound and honest, and consider I have something to learn from everyone, irrespective of how qualified they are or are not. I will not consciously attempt to ward off disagreement with my point of view by adopting a superior attitude and by brandishing my qualifications or experience, real or imagined. I know many contributors will identify with such an attitude, though I also appreciate that others, with a narcissistic bend, may have difficulty comprehending it. In any case doctor I am not going to enlighten you about my qualifications and experience. Use your intelligence and draw your own conclusions. Maybe I do not have any qualifications, as you would like to believe. But then maybe I am even better qualified than you can imagine. Keep guessing. But the next time you consider pulling wool over your unsuspecting readers eyes, remember to ask yourself whether you are feeling lucky enough to get away with it.
I never questioned your licence to practise medicine. I only queried your claim for a "legitimate doctorate" in a recent posting, in the light of your earlier comment in February that you held "two degrees and two diplomas - not doctorates". And that is all it was - a legitimate query of an ambiguity. Anyone interested can verify the facts to their satisfaction. So please spare us your hurt indignation act.
This dialogue has gone far enough. The obective has been reached - that of establishing what the "obvious reasons" behind your incessant claims of superior knowledge and authority are. We now know for a fact you are referring to an MD you obtained in 1949. How adjourned, knowledgeable, honest and credible contributors are can easily be judged from the content of their postings. Your claim of knowing "facts obvious to all practitioners of these specialities", namely "Behaviour Modification, psychotherapy, psychology, psychiatry etc" are not substantiated by your qualifications or experience.
Your logic baffles me. Did you not say that God directed the course of evolution with a purpose? You did. Does it not logically follow that he also created the Spanish Flu virus, which killed millions prematurely, with some purpose? Did you not say that it was arrogant for us to question God's purpose? You did. Why is it arrogant? You did not answer this question. What possible purpose would a loving/caring God have to act in a genocidal way? You did not answer this question either.
What you have done instead is speculate on the problems that I must be having as an atheist!!!!!! Totally irrelevant. In any event, I am generally a very happy man. But, I do feel sorry for people like you who, though well educated otherwise, fail to see the obvious delusion of God /religion. They cast aside logic/reason in favour of blind faith.They are no different from those who from time immemorial believed that the Earth was flat and in the centre of the universe... until science proved otherwise.
Of course, science cannot prove/disprove the existence of nothing. But, your “proof” of God’s existence is non-existent either.
Your reference to the superstitious religious beliefs of primitive man is absolutely irrelevant. The point at issue is the question: “Why do most people believe in God?” Indubitably, there was an ingrained, ancient, collective, widespread belief in some form of deity or another extending well into the pre-Christian era and even to pre-historical times. You cannot attribute primitive man’s belief in god or gods to the much later Christianity of “our formative years”. This could not possibly have played any role whatsoever in the beliefs of primitive man about the existence of god when these beliefs antedated the birth of Christ by millennia.
You did not query my doctorate in medicine on anything I wrote. You based your defamatory allegations on your usual tampering and manipulation of my written word, by taking a selection out of its proper context, creating a wrong emphasis by typing part of it in upper case, giving it an unjustified interpretation and meaning and ignoring my prompt clarification. I have no control over your “wrong impression” – blame it on yourself not on me. If you were honestly interested in establishing the true facts you could easily have checked in the Medical Council Registers. But that was never your intention, was it?
You cannot deny any more that I obtained my doctorate in medicine in 1949. In your usual irresponsible presumption you judge that I have not kept myself informed of developments. And all the time you have the effrontery to ignore appeals to disclose any medical qualifications. Until you do so, your readers will assume that you do not have any.
Sorry for the long post, it was just a lot to say about just a few things... I really appreciate your tone in your last post though and hope we can continue this discussion on this level, something I assure you I will endeavour to do.
You also claim that belief is a choice, but this does notconvince me, although I'd be the first to admit that this also puts some strain on the concept of free will (in both secular and theistic terms). It's true I can "choose" to accept or deny something, but if that acceptance or denial is based on an honest perception of the construct, then am I really free to make that choice? The only choice we really make is in the acceptance of proposals made in favour of the hypothesis. If you say there is an afterlife and show certain evidence, then I will need to make a choice if the evidence is good enough. Belief could be defined as a result of that choice, but in my book that's a bit of a stretch.
Continued...
Fair enough. The line between knowing and believing are very thin. I can not know there is no God, but the real question is, how certain do you have to be before you can say you know something?
If I were to say I know there is no santa claus, noone would raise an eyebrow about it, but for a person (I dare say such as me), the knowledge/belief that there is no God can be as high as the knowledge/belief that there is no santa claus. You use an excellent example in regards to life on the moon, but even then we can't "prove" that this is so. If someone makes a claim that there is life in the core of the moon, who obviously produce cheese (as the moon is made of such) and lives of spacedust, there is no practical way to disprove it. This non-falsifiability is also what makes the argument weak though, which is why people like me find the God hypothesis weak.
Continued...
Answering your intervention o.b.o. ArthurSoler . I think that you should be distinguishing between “knowing” something and “believing” in something. You can say that you know something, for certain, because you are satisfied with the standard of proof at your disposal. You can “believe” in something that goes much beyond that certainty by taking into account possibilities and probabilities. We know that the moon does not support life as we know it, because it has been visited. We can only believe and speculate about that possibility on distant planets.
The same with the concept of life after death. You may honestly claim that you do not know anything for certain about it but you are free to form a considered opinion based on possibilities and probabilities. These are evaluated differently by different persons. You may choose to believe in an afterlife or you may choose not to believe in it. That is your free personal choice and it is bound to affect your subsequent conduct of affairs and your equanimity. Honesty does not come into it al all.
Would you please read GeorgeMSant’s comment, submitted just 126 minutes before yours, for the latest instance in the long sequence of attacks by the confraternity of atheists challenging my legitimate right to claim a doctorate in medicine? Thank you, very much.
Incidentally I must thank you also for your helpful example of the “millions in South America” who believed in a sun god even before the advent of the Conquistadores. Perhaps you do not realize it but you are unwittingly confirming my contention that the belief in god existed universally even before any possible indoctrination in our formative years by Christianity. Similar examples are legion. Fellow atheists will not easily forgive your false step.
Please read the postings carefully. I queried whether you had a doctorate in medicine, on the basis of what you yourself wrote a while back, not alleged you did not, as you are insinuating. A legitimate query, since one can be licenced to practice medicne without having a doctorate degree. The only one obsessed with your university degrees is you. You are simply unable to make a comment without referring to your medical degrees, resting your authority on your qualifications and stating on more than one occasion that you know better, have superior knowledge or expertise. It therefore becomes imperative to ascertain exactly what your superior qualifications are. Especially when you go about declaring "obvious reasons" as to why your opinion about behavioural medicine should be preferred and claiming you know "facts obvious to all practitioners of these specialities", specialities in which GP's still get no training today, let alone in 1949. That is what is pitiable! We now know for a fact that you obtained an MD 60 years ago, after the War. I am truly happy for you.
Do yourself a big favour and stop drawing attention to your chagrin at my university qualifications that you cannot deny any longer and that so evidently stick in your throat.
It is not my fault “If anybody got the wrong impression” although I may have overestimated the intelligence of some reader. My “not doctorates” in the context used by me could only mean that not all four of my degrees were doctorates. The “two degrees” could have been Baccalaureates, doctorates, Masters etc. Mine were one doctorate (M.D.) and one baccalaureate (B.Sc).
After I demolished your initial false allegation that I did not have a doctorate in medicine and after proving that I had never conceded that false allegation you are now reduced to pitiably hoping that someday “recertification” would be made compulsory in Malta and again hopefully that I would not obtain your “recertification. Could anything be more pitiable!
Your obsession with my undoubted University degrees and diplomas worries me no end because it is taking the character of an idée fixe. For your own health’s sake try to concentrate on something else! How about presenting the overdue proof of any University degrees in your possesion?
Why do you keep insisting that contributors to this blog deny you of your possession of a medical doctorate?
Quote: “You cannot deny that in the recent past you have denied my possession of the highest medical degree conferred by the Royal University of Malta, an M.D. doctorate” addressed to George Sant.
Where and when was this denial to your Medical Doctorate? Please produce evidence of this denial, by quoting who made it and when.
I am bewildered that someone like you, a trained medical doctor, whose medical training is all based on the modern concept of “evidence-based medicine”, would make the above statement without any evidence.
Moreover as a professional trained in “evidence-based medicine”, one would think that of all people, you would empathise with people that would not believe in a God, afterall you admitted yourself that your belief is based on faith and not on any evidence of any existence of any god.
Is your "belief" is overriding your “evidence-based medical” training?
You posted the following reply to a query on what you hold doctorates in, in the article "Gozo Bishop condemns 'offensive' behaviour at Gozo carnival" (TOM 26/02/2009):
"Dr Francis Saliba (on 16/3/09)
@StephenBorgCardona
I said two degrees and two diplomas - not doctorates. Three are from the Royal University of Malta (as it was then known) and one from the University of London. You are welcome to inspect the original certificates in my home, since you are rashly questioning them....."
Note your wording: "two degrees and two diplomas - NOT DOCTORATES". If anybody got the wrong impression, blame yourself. An entry in the Malta Medical Register for a Saliba Francis (only 1 SF, presumably you) lists the Title to Registration as MD(Malta)1949. Whether you would still be on that register if recertification with continuing medical education and professional development was compulsory in Malta, as it is in most developed countries, is another matter. As for your experience all new graduates have to serve a few months in medical and surgical disciplines before being registered.
Just a quick reply to what you said to Arthur Soler.
"You choose to believe that your life on earth is the “beginning and end” of your existence."
Is this really always a choice? I believe what I believe, depending on what I have made of the world around me. Even if I were to think that believing in God was the greatest thing ever, with the added bonus of a blissful afterlife, it wouldn't automatically mean I would believe it, unless I found a reason or evidence for it. To choose would be to be dishonest. This is where Pascal's wager fails so miserably, something I hope you have comprehended by now.
Was meant to be:
"You should be even more upset due to the fact that you haven't even presented a philosophical case for God."
And
"I simply claim that such a huge lack of evidence, for such extraordinary claims, leads me to believe that he does not exist, is a more reasonable stance."
was meant to be:
"I simply claim that such a huge lack of evidence, for such extraordinary claims, leads me to believe that believing he does not exist is a more reasonable stance."
Unfortunately some errors done in haste.
You seem to be labouring under the impression that “nature” has allotted to everyone an unknown fixed and unalterable adult span of life and any shortening of that undefined and hypothetical life expectancy by disease or accident must be some heinous crime for which God must be held to blame.
You choose to believe that your life on earth is the “beginning and end” of your existence. When it is ended, according to yourself, prematurely in the normal course of natural events, you feel cheated and must blame someone. Judging by your comments you pass through life shaking your fists impotently at the heavens venting your spleen against those who believe in a God that, according to you, does not exist at all. That is a bed of your own making but that is your free choice and you must learn to lie on it.
Sorry, I do not know how to help you except in my prayers. Certainly not by answering differently worded questions that had been already answered. I can never comprehend your philosophy and therefore I do not feel competent to solve your difficulties within your terms of reference.
Again you display your failure to read. I have declared repeatedly that I accept that you believe on faith. It's the one premise of yours that I can accept.
You also fail to see that the failure to present any scientific evidence for God is good reason to dismiss him altogether. This does not mean you, or anyone else, should. I'm simply saying that it is a good reason. Further it doesn't mean I conlude he absolutely does not exists. I simply claim that such a huge lack of evidence, for such extraordinary claims, leads me to believe that he does not exist, is a more reasonable stance.
Also, you are still upset that I claim philosophy can't prove anything. You should be even more upset due to the fact that you haven't even presented a philosophical case against God. So even if I were to admit that philosophy is sufficient proof, which I don't, you'd still be left holding an empty sack.
In the end it comes down to faith. I'm fine with that. I just wish you'd stop inventing other reasons to believe without backing them up.
Many in their millions in South America stopped believing in the “Sun God” and converted to the “Christian God”, or would have had their heads chopped off. Many in Indian sub-continent converted to the “Christian God” rather than die of hunger.
Dr Saliba, your choice, unlike mine, is to keep feeding your belief system to support your “truth”.
@GeorgeMSant
Do yourself a big favour and stop exposing your chagrin at my proven university education that so evidently sticks in your throat. You cannot deny that in the recent past you have denied my possession of the highest medical degree conferred by the Royal University of Malta, an M.D. doctorate and that you persisted in defaming me until I rubbed your nose in my inclusion in the register of the Medical Council. You compounded this lie by another lie that I had even conceded that I did not have a doctorate in medicine! I have had experience in medicine, surgery, midwifery, gynaecology etc. far above that described by you as that of someone who had somehow acquired on the way some ill-defined license to practice as a GP. I will ignore you until YOU PROVE THAT YOU DO HAVE SOME COMPARABLE MEDICAL DEGREE because I cannot trace any evidence of that in your verbiage that would justify my involvement with you. You have the effrontery to accuse me of flaunting my qualifications when I defend myself from your persistent attempts to defame me even after I expose your tricks.
I have no particular desire to present arguments in favour of God’s existence to those who dismiss arguments based on reason because “philosophy does not prove anything” and who dismiss arguments based on faith because that is “blind” and only for the gullible. That leaves arguments based on scientific investigations when God cannot be examined in any laboratory by any scientific enquiry.
I do not want to discuss God with anyone who concludes illogically that this impossibility of laboratory proof justifies the conclusion that God does not exist at all. Things do not come into existence only after scientific experiments prove the correctness of previous held theories; they would have been in existence even before. The force of gravity did not come into existence only after Isaac Newton’s discovery of its laws. I do not want to discuss the existence/non-existence of God to those who a priori absolve themselves from the chore of proving their presumption that God does not exist.
What I wanted to do is to expose the proselytizing attempts of local atheists and my comments are really aimed at their intended victims. So will you please stop asking questions that I have answered before?
You state that "Bacteriological warfare is something altogether different because that means a human intervention deliberately shortening the natural span of life of many victims – and that would be genocide."
Well, if you believe that God exists and that he is therefore the creator of all things, including the Spanish flu virus, then we can logically conclude that this pandemic "was a divine intervention deliberately shortening the natural span of life of many victims -- and that would be genocide"
I do agree with you on one thing however....all people die sooner or later. However, the reality with the Spanish flu pandemic, and many other diseases, is that these millions of people who did die, did so well before their natural life span. Of course, it would be arrogant to even question why God would be so cruel as to deliberately shorten the lives of many innocent millions. No, that would not be proper!! But, I'm sure that you're sure that God had a perfectly good reason, albeit mysterious, why he caused so much pain, suffering and misery, and killed prematurely, so many innocent people.
I look forward to your "logical" response.
How can there be any credibility in God's commandments if he himself does not live by them. As far as I know "Thou shall not kill" is a commandment by God that says very explicitly, killing is a crime. Why is it arrogant to question why the creator of the Spanish flu virus indiscriminately killed millions of people? Should the creator not practice what he preaches? Should he not be bound by the same rules as his own creations? Did he not give us the capacity of free will and the use of reasoning and common sense?
If one is a believer, there are two possible answers to this riddle. The first one is the one you came up with, i.e. it is arrogant to question the creator. The second possibility is that it is a mystery. Both answers reflect 100% blind faith, because there is certainly no logic nor reason which could justify such a horrific act of mass killings.
The more logical answer is that God is imaginary. He did not create the Spanish flu virus, nor did he create the multitude of viruses/bacteria that have killed countless millions over the centuries. Natural evolutionary processes were responsible.
Widening your horizons you would discover people who were never in their formative years “constantly reminded by direct and indirect references to a God” but who consciously drifted into that belief much later in life. Many millions, in their adult life, make the conscious decision to continue to believe in God whilst dropping wholesale their childhood belief in Santa Claus, fairies etc.
You find “charlatans ... promoting untruths" distributed throughout all walks of life.
It is "your" logic that escapes me. With or without the Spanish Flu virus your “tens on millions of innocent people” would have died just the same from some other cause. Natural law means that death is the unavoidable conclusion of life on earth, innocent or not. If you meant to ask why did those millions die from flu and not from some other fatal condition e.g. cancer, cardiovascular disease etc then my silly answer to a silly question would have to be “Saqsi l-Imghallem”.
Bacteriological warfare is something altogether different because that means a human intervention deliberately shortening the natural span of life of many victims – and that would be genocide.
"The God of Christianity is lord and master of life and death. It is arrogant to demand that He justifies himself to his creation how these are controlled through the natural law that He has created."
This is the problem with your argument. You make a statement, such as the one above, which have no defined arguments to back it up. Then you draw conclusions based on that assertion. You say he is the lord of life and death, but how can we know that. We can't.
Further, if he exists, I think it is reasonable to demand justification for his actions, unless you are talking about a non-personal, non-interfering deist God, which I know you don't.
So really, after over a months arguing back and fourth you are back to making empty assertions. Can you blame us for getting irritated?
If you want to discuss your God, present a case for him and then perhaps we can have a meaningful conversation. If not, just go back to acting hurt over us mocking your unfounded beliefs and perhaps you will gain some pity from someone. Just not from me.
Why do most people believe in God?
Primarily because we were brought up by people around us that believe in God, and in our formative years we are constantly reminded by direct and indirect references to a God. We then make the assumption that believing in God is normal. This is followed by a creating a belief system to support that “truth”.
Although not evidence-based, this so called “truth” has the support of a whole industry of charlatans who seek to promote this untruth, in their own interest to the detriment of the interest of humanity.
The God of Christianity is lord and master of life and death. It is arrogant to demand that He justifies himself to his creation how these are controlled through the natural law that He has created. Man can never appropriate for himself the right to kill (except in legitimate self defense) either by creating weapons of mass destruction or wholesale abortion etc. There is no reasonable parallel between natural occurring processes that are inevitable for the survival of successive generations on an earth with man's interference wit that process by murder.
I have to come back to your comment that ....."We do not arrogantly demand that God, justify himself to atheists for the occurrence of pandemics and other natural disasters or for the life and death of anybody – not even our dearest ones."
Frankly, your logic escapes me. You first insist that the Evolutionary Process is God directed, with a purpose in mind. However, when I then challenged you to explain the purpose of the creation of the Spanish Flu virus which killed millions, you simply state that it is arrogant to question God's motives. On the other hand, throughout your various posts you have fervently asserted that God is infinitely loving and caring. So, here is the question again, "What possible purpose would a loving/caring God have to create a virus which indiscriminately killed tens on millions of innocent people?
If scientists on Earth were to develop in a laboratory such an organism for use in warfare, surely we would consider its use as genocidal. So, if God did indeed create this virus, would he not be equally guilty of genocide? The logical explanation is that God is imaginary. He did not create this virus....natural evolution did.
The insinuation that I am somehow not qualified in medicine buttressed by the blatant lie that I have admitted somewhere that I do not have a doctorate in medicine has been repeated so often that the local atheist blog commentators have come to believe it!
This repeated false allegation is a psychological “reinforcement” method in Behaviour Modification applied to experimental animals, children and sufferers from sundry psychoneurotic conditions. In this case the experiment seems to have misfired because auto-suggestion and self hypnosis have modified the behaviour of the amateur therapist himself so drastically that he has persuaded himself that I have conceded what I have never conceded. My authentic doctorate in medicine is proven beyond any shadow of doubt by simply consulting the Registers of the Medical Council – Malta.
Tkomplix tmieri fis-sewwa u l-maghruf”
Just correcting your latest false allegation, in case there is still someone who takes your word for granted. It is not true that I have ever conceded that I “do not hold a doctorate” in medicine because that would be telling a blatant lie. I hold a doctorate in medicine, another degree in science, and another in pharmaceutical chemistry all from our University and another diploma in Tropical Medicine from the University of London. Now do us all a favour and do not accuse me of flaunting my qualifications after I had to clear my name from your latest false allegation and while I am still waiting for your account of your qualifications, if any!
"What worries me intensely is the deliberate slaughter of millions of unborn babies every year being carried out today by those who do not believe in God"
You are of course entitled to voice your worries, though the histrionic and emotive language you use speaks volumes about your objectivity and impartiality. It might ease your anxiety however, if you were to recall that the vast majority of Medical Practitioners the world over, including those who do belive in God, do not share your concern. Nor is it shared by any major Health Authority world wide, nor by the UN which continues to consider declaring a basic human right, that of a woman to terminate her pregnancy to safeguard her health. Nor is it shared by the Catholic governments of Italy, France, Belgium, Portugal and shortly Spain. Nor does it worry other Christian governments like the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, and Greece though perhaps not being Catholic they do not really count. What these Christian countries consider as evil is the arrogant and bigoted imposition of proscriptions by those who hold a different view. But then there are always those who are more Christian than Christians.
"My alarm bell starts ringing like mad...a sure indication that the atheist dirty tricks department is about to distort what I had actually written".
Your statement there were "obvious reasons" to consider you were more knowledgeable than other contributors on disciplines like psychiatry, psychology, BM and psychotherapy and further that you knew "facts obvious to all practitioners of these specialities", remains unexplained despite repeated requests for clarification, given that medical practitioners get no training in these specialities. One is therefore forced to conclude your statements were misleading, an attempt to deceive unwary readers. People in glass houses?
Thank you for your reminder of what awaits arrogant atheists like myself in the afterlife. Perhaps you should also reflect on what awaits a practising Christian who habitually deceives his fellow men, calls black what is white, has no hesitation in belittling those less fortunate than himself with no consideration of the traumas they had been through, in true Christian spirit, while exalting in being a defender of his God while habitually attributing to others what he dishes out himself. Isn't there a parable about a pharisee and a tax collector? Please remind us.
Why don't we end it here? I am sure that you are not going to change my mind, nor I yours.
From all your various and numerous posts, it is abundantly clear that your belief in God, and the Christian God in particular, is based overwhelmingly on Faith. And that's fine if that's what makes you happy.
My rejection of God's existence is based on the lack of any evidence whatsoever, of anything or anyone that is "supernatural". The concept of an "Uncreated Creator" (thus a supernatural being) who loves us, cares for us, etc. and who will grant us eternal life in Heaven or Hell can only be believed with faith. There is simply no hard evidence. A loving God who would damn his own creations for eternity is completely nonsensical and illogical, except to those who have faith.
As Carl Sagan said (and I quote him again), "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". There is no extraordinary proof of God's existence....certainly nothing tangible....just a lot of faith.
You state that “Death is a bleak prospect for atheists – not Christians”. Regrettably, death is a bleak prospect for everyone. It is the end of the only life we will ever have. But, even if I am wrong and God does exist; and if he is loving and caring and just; and if indeed he has given me free will to apply logic and reason…then I need not worry at all. God will know that throughout my life I have searched for the truth. Within that search, proof of his existence is next to negligible, except if one discards logic and reason and sticks to blind faith.
Speaking of which, you further state that “We believe that life on this earth is a mere evanescent blip and a necessary prelude to an all-important eternal afterlife. We do not arrogantly demand that God, justify himself to atheists for the occurrence of pandemics and other natural disasters or for the life and death of anybody – not even our dearest ones. Christians believe that a better “life” awaits those who deserve it.” WOW!!!!!! If that is not a perfect example of “Blind Faith”, I honestly don’t know what is.
I'm not too concerned about your worries, we all have our own. But what a ridiculous proposition to hint that abortions are carried out by non believers or, as you so deviously put it, those with elastic beliefs in Him.
I don't find death a bleak prospect. Again you try to attribute your own delusions about atheists to the people around you (while obviously thumping your chest claiming this is what people do about yourself). I demand nothing from God, I simply don't believe in Him/Her/It. I demand the same amount of proof from God as I do from the leprechaun not living under my bed.
I admit this is posted in shear irritation and I really do not intend to take this further now.
Hello! Like a Rip Van Winkle emerging from a very long sleep you make reference to a comment of mine that I made about two whole weeks ago! Please scroll back to four and a half days ago to rediscover my reaction.
What worries me is not the inevitable natural cycle of life and death whether you attribute that to spontaneous evolution or to a God directed one or to long past pandemics like the Spanish flu. What worries me intensely is the deliberate slaughter of millions of unborn babies every year being carried out today by those who do not believe in God or whose belief in Him is very elastic!
You need something much better than a dictionary before you could discuss “sidekick” intelligently. That is a neutral word in itself. It acquires a positive connotation when one is sidekick to a worthy person. On the other hand it acquires a negative connotation when the association is with unworthy persons. I am saying that the sidekick association Larsson-Soler is innocuous. You deny this insisting that it is derogatory when applied to those joining the fray on your side! Do you realize what you are saying?
P.S. Is it the green eyed dragon that induces you to keep emphasising caustically my legitimate doctorate?
My alarm bell starts ringing like mad when an atheist writes something like: “So what you are saying is that … “. That is a sure indication that the atheist dirty tricks department is about to distort what I had actually written into something that I had NOT said or implied. I asserted that I have been the victim of unjust disparaging remarks by some atheists and you rushed in to support them. You DID criticize my Christian behaviour because I had replied to criticism because, according to you, a good Christian would have turned the other cheek and asked for more! You may associate with other atheist commentators as much as you like but then don’t complain about the consequences.
Death is a bleak prospect for atheists – not Christians. We believe that life on this earth is a mere evanescent blip and a necessary prelude to an all-important eternal afterlife. We do not arrogantly demand that God, justify himself to atheists for the occurrence of pandemics and other natural disasters or for the life and death of anybody – not even our dearest ones. Christians believe that a better “life” awaits those who deserve it.
Could not agree more with you about inner beauty. That is what life is all about - evolving and maturing in better more decent human beings, better able to serve humanity. How we get there is up to us I guess!
Incidentally I had some difficulty with the postings yesterday. There were delays between submitting and displaying so that some of our postings crossed and were written without knowledge of the already posted reply. They have been printed out of synch so that reading them in order they sound a bit "not quite right". Considered posting you an explanation yesterday but thought you would have experienced similar difficulties and would have figured it out.
Have a good day.
re: "What you are talking about is the interpretation of the truth."
Definition and interpretation can be used interchangably.
There are different theories regaridng the meaning of truth, so I believe we are both right.
I am not trying to prove any truth to be such...in fact I posed only questions to you!
re: "There is a thing called plastic surgery."
Yes and can be very beneficial in certain instances..but there is also a thing called inner beauty! Unfortunately we are becoming too blind to see it imma.
Fortunately, I do not need a dictionary to understand the meaning of "side-kick". It is, in any event, a derogatory term particularly in the context that you intended...which is to insult me. Fortunately, I am quite immune to insults from people like you, who flaunt their qualifications (Doctor !!!!!) to try a convey an aura of superiority. You have no idea whatsoever of the qualifications that I, or others on this blog might have, because we need not state them to support our positions. We rely instead on knowledge, reason, and most importantly, on common sense. We are also not blinded by religious faith when it clearly contradicts logic.
This brings me to the challenge, relating to Evolution, which I extended to you but you have conveniently ignored, specifically.....
"Suppose we assume that you (Doctor!) are correct, and that a loving/caring God did indeed create/direct the evolutionary process with a purposive direction. Therefore, what possible purpose would God have had to create the Spanish Flu virus which in 1918 killed more that 50 million people worldwide?....or the Ebola virus, or the thousands of viruses/bacteria that over the centuries have killed countless millions? "
I await your "logical" response.
I would be delighted if we stopped going back and “fourth” about this anymore. By the way, I am quite satisfied with my epidermis because a “thick skin” would be required by those who take umbrage at being called a “sidekick” when they do not understand the meaning of that word and instead of reaching for a dictionary waste their time pitying those who need no pity. On the other hand any atheist who insists that a Christian should turn the other cheek to make it easier for atheists to continue to slap him could very well already possess the skin of a pachyderm.
You are missing the point. The point is not the meaning of words. Words often mean what you want them to mean. The point is that distorting reality, and we all do it, can lead to, and often is, the source of inappropriate behaviour. It does not matter whether you are softening your perception of deformity or physical ugliness. Unless you are aware of your bias you can act in a very inappropriate manner.
Incidentally not all deformities require medical intervention while ugliness can be assisted medically. There is a thing called plastic surgery.
There can be but one truth. Hard, objective, verifiable. What you are talking about is the interpretation of the truth. There can be as many interpretations as there are people on this planet. Each will proclaim his is the absolute truth. Proving it is a different matter. Diversity of opinion is good when it prompts research with an open mind. Relied on blindly it can only lead to conflict and grief. Once the scientific method is applied, sooner or later one irrefutable verifiable truth will be defined. That is not going to stop those relying on faith from claiming they are still right when everything says they are wrong.
I am sorry but I disagree regarding 'ugliness' and 'deformity' and their meaning. As if they mean the same thing! Indeed that is why so many succumb under pressure because lack of beauty is mistaken for deformity. My line of thought is different from yours. Which ironically enough emphasises my point that words (language) and their communicative powers are perhaps the reason why there is much disagreement on many issues. Deformity requires medical essistance yes, I fully agree, but ugliness does not necessarily require intervention. Allahares kulhadd l-istess, although the culture of today is to be idealised and silicone enhanced, photocopies of popular icons. But where is the individuality?
I assure you I am not 'on about anything', anyway no harm done until the next debate. I think this descussion has been long exhausted, so I think we should end it.
Good day:)
PS..
Truth is an elusive term..also relative.. even the dictionary gives various meanings:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Truth
truth (trth)
n. pl. truths (trz, trths)
1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5. a. Reality; actuality.
b. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.
Perhaps for scientist there is but one truth.. the objective truth, but if you have time to research more you find that it is relative, subjective and objcetive and above all having more than one meaning.
If you have time have a look at these sites:
...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth
or
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/
Humanity has been wrestling with the meaning of the word for time immemorial. So I can assure you that it not due to any confusion that I posed that question, it was rather rhetorical.
On the contrary, the sense is the same. Deformed or perfect, ugly or handsome, short or tall or whatever. I do not know what you are on about. A mother is entitled to distort reality when it comes to her offspring and most mothers do. All parents, myself included, can be very blind to their children's shortcomings. The point is that such distortion of reality can be a help and it can be a big hindrance. It can stop a parent from taking corrective action when required. Likewise belief in the almighty. It can be a help and a source of comfort. It can prove very destructive and has in fact proved destructive on several occasions in the recent past, here and overseas.
So what you are saying is that you want me to admit that SOMETIME, in this blog, SOMEONE, who is also an atheist, have insulted you. Is that what you are saying?
I have not even tried claiming you have not done your duty as a christian. What a ridiculous thing to say. Why would I impose any duties on you, based on a belief system I do not adhere to. If someone else did, take it up with them. I'm not going to have you continually bash me because I happen to agree with other people who might have.
Listen, I'm not going to go back and fourth about this anymore. As I said in my last post, just grow some skin and move forward. If you feel insulted by someone, for whatever reason, then tough. As an adult you should be able to stand above that and move on.
Present some arguments we can base a discussion on if you want to take this forward, if not I suggest neither of us wastes any more time on this.
For the record..I never mentioned any form of deformity..I merely said 'ugly'. Deformity was never on my mind and I regard it a separate issue altogether. But ugliness and beauty has many levels and perspectives that is why I chose it as an example. The sense is completely different.
I do not want anyone to be offended, neither want my posting and the ensuing discussion to be misunderstood, I think you'll agree on this.
Good day
:)
You stated: "I do not accept your glib assumption that you are more knowledgeable than I am about Behaviour Modification, psychotherapy, psychology, psychiatry etc– for obvious reasons.
In the present context I simply want to point out the fact, obvious to all practitioners of these specialties...."
In reply it was pointed out that general practitioners may have a basic working knowledge of psychiatry, but hardly any expertise in psychology, especially if they graduated a while back, and get no training whatsoever in psychotherapy, behavioural or otherwise, to this very day. Anywhere in the world. The question therefore arises what are the "obvious reasons" behind your claim that you are knowledgeable in BM, psychotherapy and psychology? Furthermore, when declaring "facts obvious to all practitioners", are you declaring yourself one such practitioner. If so can you justify it? These questions have been posed several times and remain unanswered.
Still justifying your transgressions by defining yourself the champion of the Christian God, the hero, dismissing your critics "a small group of local atheists", the villians. It is interesting your mentioning Don Quixote earlier on.
I will agree with you that we should be “trying to have a reasonable discussion on the nature of God …” BUT ONLY AFTER you stop denying the obvious truth that in the recent past I have been subjected to arbitrary insults by atheist contributors to this blog and ONLY AFTER you withdraw your accusation that I have been remiss in my duty as a Christian. That accusation is being made unfairly by those who pretend the freedom to continue to insult whilst denying the right to self-defense to the injured party. Until you do so in unequivocal terms I will continue to doubt the sincerity of your appeal for a "reasonable discussion".
Incidentally “sidekick” is an innocuous American word that means a close companion with bonds of loyalty and friendship. That is undoubtedly your relationship to some other atheist commentators whom you defend. You are wrong to take umbrage and demand an apology. Perhaps you are making the mistake of mixing “sidekick” with “henchman”. Don’t waste your pity on me – just consult a good dictionary.
May I suggest you grow some thicker skin doctor. You were the one flaunting your medical qualifications and trying to discredit those without.
Several people have tried to engage you in debate and repeatedly you hide behind your false sense of hurt, trying to blame everyone else for being uncivil. Fact is, you have given no credence to your beliefs and we can dance around in circles forever dissecting who said the worst thing to whom. I have already denounced ad hominen attacks and even apologised if you experienced any of my post to be of that kind. What else do you expect. A pat on the back. A comfort blanket.
I'm sorry doctor, but I have really tried to stay reasonable and thought there were hope of fruitful discussion. Your latest blurb of self pity have shown that this just can't be the case with you. I will simply conclude that you have no reasonable arguments in favour of your God and is now honest enough to admit you base it on faith alone.
Have a good day.
PS - If DNA testing is being conducted on the body or other artfacts of Christ, it will be ipso facto evidence of his humanity and a biological father. Scientists will not jump to conclude he was alien. They are not given to indulging in fantasy, have their feet planted firmly in reality and generally adopt an intelligent approach. The public nature of scientific findings, conducive to criticism and discussion, ensures truth prevails, in contrast to the authority-centric and dogmatic nature of religions.
"What is the definition of truth? Perception, affect, emotion, reason science? Subjective or objcetive?". Sounds a touch confused? There is but one truth. That is objective, measurable and verifiable. A mother who regards her deformed offspring perfect IS distorting reality and her view is not the truth. If that distortion helps her to ease her pain and cope so well and good. But if that distortion blinds her to physical problems in her offspring that require medical attention, then it becomes destructive.
Some find belief in God's existence comforting and choose to conduct their lives accordingly. Nothing wrong with that just as there is nothing wrong with the mother of a deformed child considering her offspring gorgeous and finding delight in looking after it. Equally, acting on that belief inappropriately does constitute a problem, especially if it justifies oppressing others of a more considered view.
Scientific proof of maternity/paternity is available if necessary, but most of the time it is not required. Observable facts, current or historical, make it obvious. All emotions are "valid". And subjective. Having your feet planted firmly in reality is all the authority required to define delusions.
You state that ....."Anyone who aligns himself with those who were indubitably hurling personal abuse at me earns the label of sidekick". I should feel insulted by your remark addressed to me...but, frankly, I am not. I just pity you. Despite my several attempts to engage you in civilized debate, you continue to display an air of arrogance and lack of sensitivity.
The Christian values that you espouse and/or say you are defending are certainly not evident in your attacks on my persona and others too. Every opinion expressed by me and others, which is contrary to your beliefs, is interpreted by you as an personal attack on you and/or a mockery of your God. This is simply not the case. We are simply stating opinions which differ from yours in the spirit of a robust and candid debate about God’s existence, or lack thereof.
In my earlier post, I respectfully asked you for an apology. Instead, you simply "slapped me on the cheek" one more time. Is that what your Christ would have done? I’ll leave it up to you to ponder.
You state that there was a "purposive direction" in the evolutionary process, and thus a creator/designer driving it. I suspect that you are not an evolutionary biologist and neither am I. However, your view is not supported by the vast majority of Evolutionary Scientists of repute.....except, of course, the Christian fundumentalists in the USA who believe in Intelligent Design. (By the way, the Supreme Courts of a number of States in the USA rejected a motion for the teaching of ID in Public Schools on the basis that it was "bogus science".
I 'm happy to recommend a number of books on Evolution that support my postion that there was no "purposive direction" . And, I'll be happy to receive your recommendations for any books that support your postion.
However, let 's consider an easier alternative. Suppose we assume that you are correct, and that a loving/caring God did indeed create/direct the evolutionary process with a purposive direction. Therefore, what possible purpose would God have had to create the Spanish Flu virus which in 1918 killed more that 50 million people worldwide?....or the Ebola virus, or the thousands of viruses/bacteria that over the centuries have killed countless millions?
It is futile to fly in the face of truth and to deny the frequent disparaging and disrespectful language towards God and all the believers of theist religions (including myself). I will not lay myself open to the accusation of quote-mining by identifying for your benefit which particular atheist wrote which particular insult because of their notorious habit of intruding on each other’s behalf and taking turns at congratulating each other on the excellence of their collective effort. To mention one specific instance, by no stretch of the imagination could you pretend that the denial of my medical and scientific qualifications or the doubts cast on my sanity by presumptious atheists with no medical/science qualifications as a justified “challenge to my belief”. If you pretend that “No one, as far as I can see, has done anything remotely like it” it is only because you keep your eyes tightly shut.
If you want to disassociate yourself from that uncivil recorded language that is all right by me – but please do not attempt to deny the written insults and mockery directed at me (unimportant) and at everything that is remotely connected with the belief in God.
re:
"Incidentally, obtaining DNA evidence of Christ's paternity is slightly complicated by the need to subpoena the Father to provide a DNA sample for comparison!"
That was not what I suggested.. I'm not interested to find if God the Father is indeed the father, of Christ (which He is and is not simultaneously, since they are one..but let's not get into that)..that leaves us in the same cul-de-sac.
BUT... if DNA testing (on the body of Christ, or something which might have His DNA) proves that there is NO possibility of the existence of a biological father!
ie as in Christ is the product of another life form unlike ours.
insomma probably scientists will say He was an alien :)
I knew all that but in lay terms! but thanks for the trouble:)
From a lay viewpoint: if an affect or emotion, results in wellbeing/tranquillity call it what you want..even if for some is a ‘deluded’ one.. what’s wrong with that?
Do you think that a mother will ever regard her offspring as ugly even if he is so?? Everyone can go around asking how come she does not 'see' the 'truth/reality'. But whose is the real truth/reality?? What is the definition of truth in this case? Perception, affect, emotion, reason science? Subjective or objcetive?
Also is scientific proof required for a mother/father to believe that a child is theirs?
This is the closest I can come to, in explaining to you the difference between 'belief in God as a subject for scientific scrutiny' and 'belief in God when one considers His intrinsic value'.
[I am taking into consideration only the non fundamentalist aspect ok halli we do not start again with the Dawkins dictums :)]
Who has the authority to distinguish between a valid emotion or a deluded fabrication of our imagination?
PS.. please do not give me another 3 part pedantic post ta! :)
"The atheists on this blog are not really interested in my “turning the other cheek” or practicing any other Christian virtue. Their main objective is to try and ridicule me and my Christian faith"
What an incredibly unfair assumption. Myself and others have tried to challenge you and your belief and all you do is whine and claim we mock you, insult you and ridicule your belief. Noone, as far as I can see, has done anything remotely like it. If we dismiss your arguments, we do it on their own merits. This is what you have failed to realise. Me denying your God does not mean I ridicule your faith, or you as a person. We are trying to have a reasonable discussion on the nature of God, which is what the topic at hand was.
I would be greatly embarrassed to complain that someone was not “turning the other cheek” so that I could slap him on the other side as well! The atheists on this blog are not really interested in my “turning the other cheek” or practicing any other Christian virtue. Their main objective is to try and ridicule me and my Christian faith. Under normal circumstances I would not even bother to answer. This time I make an exception because these calumnies are really intended to undermine the credibility of my arguments in favour of the existence of a Christian God.
From a personal point of view I do not allow these puerile tactics to upset me. I keep in mind the story of a renowned physician suffering from an aortic aneurysm who complained that his life was in the hands of any fool who would make him angry. Thankfully, I do not suffer from any aneurysm that I know of and I intend to live out my allotted span of life peacefully, calmly defending the God of Christianity without being unduly upset by any silly attacks on my medical and scientific credentials by those who do not have any.
Now the easy part. What do we do when the evidence is incomplete. We reserve judgment and keep an open mind, not rush into passionately enbracing any theory, physical or spiritual. From what we know of life on this planet and the nature of the universe, we can say that the odds are very heavily against another planet existing with life on it. But the universe is such a vast place, it still possible and indeed we can estimate the probability mathematically - definitely not zero. The same vastness makes it highly improbable we will stumble upon such a planet. So we keep an open mind. We do not fantasise about the inhabitants of this planet and start to change our lives accordingly. Similarly, the probability of a God existing is virtually negligible. Science accounts satisfactorily for the universe and should there prove to be a primary process, it is far more likely to be an inanimate physical process than a conscious intelligent omnipotent living being.
Incidentally, obtaining DNA evidence of Christ's paternity is slightly complicated by the need to subpoena the Father to provide a DNA sample for comparison!
Another important concept is that of conflict. A strong driving emotion (genetically determined) clashes with an equally harsh and unforgiving inhibitory programming (upbringing). Some interesting defence mechanisms come into play here. A highly sexed individual who had a puritanical upbringing may choose to become a censor, thereby satisfying both basic urges at once and getting esteem to booth. Or he may choose to enter the seminary as a young man, bolstering his defences by seeking shelter behind its walls with all male company.
Behaviour borne out of conflicts is labelled "neurotic", an unfortunate term as it is part of the normal repertoire of human behaviour and not an indication of a psychiatric disorder. It does however detract from effectiveness and can cause a lot of unnecessary unhappiness and maladaptive behaviour. We have all caught ourselves making the same mistake over and over again and keep asking ourselves "why do I do it?" or "what's wrong with me?". These are clues that something is amiss, a prompt to understand the underlying emotions/conflicts and come to terms with them. That is the emotion we have to subjugate to our intellect if we are to mature, not affect.
Should have guessed anything coming from you would be complicated! Bear with me. What follows is a gross oversimplification.
First of all it is important to distinguish between affect and emotion. Requires volumes but for present purposes we can say that affect is the emotional colouring of our perceptions. Affect relates to normal feelings (satisfaction of an accomplishment or disappointment of a failure) and is conscious (we are aware of our joy). It is secondary to our actions (happy because of something that happened). Affect is normal and healthy. It can be lost, however, a condition known as anhedonia. It is invariably associated with serious psychiatric disorders and when present carries a significant risk for suicide.
Emotions are primitive, mainly concerned with survival (e.g. fear, aggression, possessiveness). They are MOSTLY subconscious, and are a primary driving force. They cause us to act (e.g. fear->run away). They are intense and overwhelming so that the conscious mind spends a lot of time suppressing them or disguising them before they intrude into consciousness in a form that is acceptable to the individual and to society. The mechanisms involved are known as defence mechanisms.
You missed the all-important inverted commas enclosing my word “assumption” to denote that I was assigning to it a special meaning as a sop to Cerberus and so as not to ruffle anybody’s feathers (especially yours).
You assume that the belief in evolution by believers and atheists/agnostics is the same. That is not so. Theists agree that Darwin’s evolution of species is a generally accepted process, but they do not believe that this process invented itself out of nothing. It would require an outside agency to explain its purposive direction, from nothingness to subatomic particles to inorganic matter, to simple unicellular organisms and to more complex living organisms up to mammals and to fill in the “missing links” in that long chain. Contrary to what you assert there is no “material evidence (that) points to natural causes” that could give rise to anything out of nothing – let alone to themselves and to such a complicated universe, as we know it today. That is only idle speculation waiting for confirmation when “... one day we may find out.”
Anyone who aligns himself with those who were indubitably hurling personal abuse at me earns the label of sidekick
as you might know, the eye is only sensitive to green, red and blue frequencies of the light spectrum as well as light intensity (rods and cones). We 'see' many colours that do not exist in fact but are the result of the eye's and brain's limitations in perceiving the world. I would search wikipedia for purple: you get the frequency of Red(480-405THz) but Purple and violet amongst many others don't have a frequency.
What rationalists do is accept that their perception is limited and being 'blind', prefer to be guided by facts and evidence derived through exhaustive experimentation. The rest is just conjecture, hearsay and memes that become fashionable from time to time.
ps to all: I would recommend wearing a thick skin on blogs as sometimes we will all slip into name calling. On the other hand let's focus on the message and relieve the messenger, at most ignore what you don't like
There is really nothing to rebut. Proof of the existence of God based on reasoning and faith that are adequate for me are not acceptable to you. I will not contest that right of yours. Where we part company is when you deduce that the absence of any proof acceptable to you, and to agnostics/atheists in general, justifies the illogical conclusion that God does not exist for you, for me and for everybody else. You postulate that perhaps, one day, proof acceptable to you will materialize: for me that proof already exists here and now.
You write “Today, we are virtually certain that natural evolutionary processes over eons were responsible for all earthly life.” You should clarify that your “we” means “we atheists/agnostics” only to the complete exclusion of millions like me we who believe otherwise, namely that God created the universe and that includes the evolutionary process as understood today.
There is no harm in tolerating our different “assumptions” without resorting to the ad hominem cheap invective to which I have been subjected and which forced me to defend myself on top of my defense of the belief in the Christian God.
You bet women are included too. "Men" used generically meaning all human beings of good will!
Bear with me and I will get round to commenting on your posting about emotions and free will (1/2 finished). It is just a wee bit complicated and I have my hands full at the moment.
Have a good day too.
Re your closing comment: "All the best to all men of good will."
What about women, [political correctness and all that :)]..and those indeed lacking the mentioned 'good will'?
I'm sure it is not intended..no?
Good day to all
:))
I thank you for clarifying the basis of your belief in God ,beyond your faith-based reasons. Specifically you state that " I based my proof (of God's existence) on the wonderful complexity of the universe that surrounds us." Fair enough...we now have the basis for a civilized debate.
As you well know, this "complexity" argument to support God's existence in not new. Certainly, before Darwin, life's immense complexity was often cited as proof of a designer. Today, we are virtually certain that natural evolutionary processes over eons were responsible for all earthly life. There is no need to inject supernatural intervention into this equation.
This same reasoning would apply to the complexity of the universe . At this stage of human knowledge, we simply don't know how the universe happened...but one day we may find out. You, however, conclude that God must have created it.. I would argue that this is not "proof" but merely an assumption. Surely, it is more logical to say that "we don't yet know", rather than assume the existence of an "Uncreated Creator" who operates outside the laws of nature. Are you not simply creating an even bigger mystery?
I'd appreciate your candid rebuttal.
Last part - after this I'll shut up :)
I don't have a problem with being called an agnostic. I'm agnostic to many things, God included. I cannot know if he exists or not (unless onthologically), but in this regard I am an atheist, as I see no reason to believe he does. I don't need to ultimately prove he does not exist, but I find it reasonable to ask believers (who are willing to step up to the challenge) to provide some evidence for their God and in this regard we can discuss further and find grounds of disagreement and agreement. I don't demand you provide this evidence. You are entering willingly in the debate.
So, as I had stated before, I feel this discussion have seen better days and perhaps it's time to let it expiry fully, but if you are up to further civil discussion, I will be here.
We disagree on a great deal of things Dr. Saliba, but that does not prevent us from having a friendly conversation and for the times I know I have been heating up, I apologise.
Richard Dawkins blind watchmaker reference is in many parts philosophical, but is in no way offered as a proof for anything. It simply refers to natures own mechanics (the BLIND watchmaker) being able to account for complexity through natural processes. The scientific method, as Dawkins himself would be fast to point out, deals with constructing hypothesis, which can then turn into theories, which in turn can provide a structure to review the evidence on. No scientific theory is regarded as an absolute proof.
Faith can provide the necessary element behind personal belief. I have no doubt of it and I think believers should proudly stand behind their own faith as the reason to their belief. It is when rationality is being put forward as something pointing towards the existence of God that the ground start to shake.
Continued...
I do feel we are moving forward and perhaps this is a good opportunity to just sort out a few misconceptions, which I believe has been lingering throughout the whole discussion.
I will leave the whole USSR thing out, it's a sidepoint and not a very productive one at that.
But, in regards to proof for various things, with either science or philosophy as a channel, I think it comes down to semantics. In my book, neither science or philosophy can supply proofs of anything, it's simply not in their endeavour. They deal with constructs of the world, both on their own merits. Proofs is really only practical for mathematicians. This does not exclude evidence though. You can put forward philosophical evidence, as well as scientific evidence. Neither deals with absolute certainty. And I cannot repeat enough that this is not to their discredit.
Continued...
Re your assertion that “Both philosophy and science are subjects which simply does not deal with proofs. This is not to neither's discredit. I think someone with your qualifications should realize that.” That is a howler of the first magnitude. Philosophy “deals with proofs” continuously in trying expand knowledge so much so that Dawkins himself uses philosophy in his “Blind Clockmaker” argument. With regard to science the scientific method is of the essence of providing proof by experimentation and continuously updating the result.
You are falling into a trap of your creation by demanding proof of God’s existence and at the same time insisting that neither science nor philosophy (let alone faith) could provide the necessary proof. You are not a convinced atheist. You are an agnostic who believes that God’s existence cannot be proved and – here follows the glaring non sequitur – therefore He does not exist.
I reply to your intervention of behalf of ArthurSoler.
It should be obvious that I was comparing the treatment received by atheists in Christian countries with the treatment meted out by atheist countries to Christians. For his benefit I quoted Stalin’s USSR and I could have mentioned North Korea also. I was very explicit in what I had to say. Please do not take liberties by suggesting that, may be, I was saying something else. When I need your help I will ask for it.
Glad to oblige, Sir. The terms “Hard Knock” as an institute of learning giving degrees to those attending a Gay Pride Parade (with a capital P) in Lower Regent Street was introduced into this blog by a self proclaimed atheist and homosexual over two weeks ago. He gloried in that description. Why should you feel that it is “insulting and perhaps homophobic” when I repeat his words?
I am entitled to draw the legitimate conclusion that an interlocutor does not possess any academic qualifications when he chickens out when I dare him specifically to prove that point more than once. You may conclude differently, that his reticence is due to an overdose of modesty but this not borne out by his dogmatic style in diagnosing mental weakness in others.
I would be concerned, not appreciative, to gain the respect of the atheist commentators on this blog when they show no respect for my God and my religious beliefs.
My apologies, in the last post I stated it was a new low, but your next post really took the cake. Arthur Soler declared the difficulties he had having to grow up with a belief system which was not in line with the majority and you somehow think that is ok, as other regimes have oppressed people worse. If your model society is one that only need to be weighed against tyrannies such as Stalins Russia and not against true secular states, which are becoming plentiful in western Europe, then you must be able to see how weak that argument is. Or are you suggesting that people who are of different faith, or who lacks faith should be oppressed, as long as the oppression is not as bad as in certain tyrannies?
Why don't you take a small step back, see what people have been trying to engage you in and proceed in a humble, honest way and perhaps this discussion can rise to a meaningful outlet of the topic at hand.
You then further claim that the atheists on this board is not interested in proof, which speaking in regards to myself I am not, although I think some evidence would be very interesting.
You declaring you believe out of faith is more than acceptable for me and is an hoenst answer. I have already declared this some time ago. But to go from there and claiming that you have presented philosophical proofs for the existence of God is ridiculous. To simply claim that because you think nature and the universe is full of complexity and wonder and therefore God exists is not even remotely a philosophical proof, it is an opinion.
To further try to discredit someone who is admired by the large scientific community, have been an extremely successful orator of science and that have opened up the fields of biology and evolution to the public by declaring he is simply an atheist zoologist popularising science is a new low for your Doctor. You may not agree with Prof. Dawkins methods or views on theology, but trying to discredit him as a scientist just makes yourself look foolish.
You address me and declare I have engaged in "ad hominem". I have done no such thing. I have in post after post engaged your arguments and comments and tried to challenge you on that. You reply by repeatedly claim you answered things you never answered and by declaring the critics of you as a handful of atheists with some sort of personal agenda.
You seem highly irritated that I claim that philosophy can't prove anything, not realising that this is not a critique of philosophy. Both philosophy and science are subjects which simply does not deal with proofs. This is not to neither's discredit. I think someone with your qualifications should realise that.
Quote: “The glib insults regarding my medical and scientific academic qualifications, not by my peers, but by graduates of the Hard Knock Gay Parade “University”, or by graduates of the Dawkins school of popular science, are patently personal and have to be taken personally.”
Any reference made (incidentally by others and not by myself) to your qualifications were made in response to your assumption that other people challenging you were not qualified to do so.
Quote: “@GeorgeMSant&Kenneth Cassar Let me guess. You have absolutely no medical qualifications or any other medical training worth mentioning but you are too proud to admit it! You excel only in your unbounded pretensions and presumptions”
How dare you make assumptions of people not being qualified, just because they choose not to flaunt their qualifications?
What do you exactly mean by “Hard Knock Gay Parade University”? Is that not being insulting and perhaps homophobic?
You might stand a better chance in earning the respect of atheists by responding to comments addressed to you like a true Christian that follows the message of Christ not in “unbounded pretensions and presumptions” (your own words).
When you disclose your qualifications in psychiatry (unreasonably assuming that you have any) I will start paying attention and I will start pondering on your snap diagnosis of my mental status – but not before.
A famous doctor once said that "you can take a mule, and a blinkered one at that, to a horse trough but you cannot make it drink". I believe we have all proved that to be so very true. Reason is not going to prevail here. Whatever rational argument is produced will be twisted around and pretentiously boomeranaged back without a soupcon of humility or the slightest hint of insight or the ability to learn from experience.
As I see it our options now are to abandon this blog with the satisfaction of knowing that no hard evidence to substantiate the God hypothesis has been produced, or to continue the debate in a sane and rational manner ignoring completely the empty rhethoric from certain quarters as if it is never made.
All the best to all men of good will.
It is not true that I have not given proof of God’s existence that is not faith-based. I based my proof on the wonderful complexity of the universe that surrounds us. Atheists would dismiss that kind of proof because according to them “philosophy does not prove anything”. But you cannot pretend that I have not posted that proof.
I do not find it at all hard to accept that others might have a different opinion from me. I object to the disrespectful tone and ad hominem vilification adopted by those who seek to proselytize their atheistic “religion” in this Catholic country.
I am not happy about any difficulties you may have encountered in growing up in a fervently Christian country. But, please, admit that these difficulties would pale into insignificance when compared with the state sponsored persecution of Christians in an atheist state (e.g. Stalinist USSR).
@JohnFalzon
The glib insults regarding my medical and scientific academic qualifications, not by my peers, but by graduates of the Hard Knock Gay Parade “University”, or by graduates of the Dawkins school of popular science, are patently personal and have to be taken personally.
a) not involve faith – because that is blind and only for the gullible,
b) not depend on reason – because philosophy does not prove anything
c) must be scientific – because everyone knows that God cannot be analyzed by scientific methods.
Anyone foolish enough to embark on this “mission impossible” is personally vilified as, lacking in humility and other Christian virtues and being incompetent and oudated in his profession of a medical doctor and a physicist. And by whom? By amateurs whose only claim to competence appears to be restricted to reading popular science authored by an atheist zoologist whose main attraction is that of writing books popularizing science among the hoi polloi!
Your grip on reality is getting weaker and weaker. You continue to confuse yourself with God. Noone has mocked your God. It is you who is attracting criticism and deservedly so with your behaviour. Still like a drowning man clutching at straws, you attempt to turn things around, redefine youself as a Defender of the Faith, thereby reframing yourself a hero, your transgressions justifiable and your critics "a small group of local atheists". Have you heard about grandiose ideation, denial, rationalisation, projection and lack of insight doctor? The only one you are fooling is yourself. Noone else. Noone has come to your defence, Saliba, neither atheist nor believer.
As for being commanded by Christ, perhaps you could ponder whether Christ also commanded you to intrasingently and punctiliously insist on calling black what is white, etc, etc, etc. Or is it a case of anything goes for a just cause? Since Christ is commanding you, who should be held in contempt - you or Him? The question is meant for you to ponder on not reply to.
Why do you insist that being an atheist makes a mockery of Christianity and its God? I do not believe in a Christian God, nor in any other God. Christians, like yourself, do not have to take it personally, after all you will all be proved right on Judgement Day!
I do not find the fact that you choose to believe in a God offensive, why should you find the fact that I do not believe in a God offensive? Is it so hard for you to accept that others might have a different opinion to yours?
I “may pretend that God does not exist because the posted proofs are not acceptable” and you can keep on pretending that God exists based on what?
I was hoping that we really could have had a more civilized debate about God's existence, or lack therof. But, true to form, you've done another great job in avoiding the issue by simply attacking those who are genuinely trying to seek the truth. I simply asked, politely, that you list two or three reasons for your belief in God, which are not faith based. Instead, you chose to sidestep the challenge by claiming that you have already addressed this matter.....which you have not. Your response is nothing but a cop-out....an excuse for inaction.
You are wrong in stating that atheists flaunt their lack of faith. Hardly !!!1 Do you know how difficult it is to be an atheist when you are brought up, as I was, in a fervently Christian country? Do you think it is easy to admit to your close friends that you do not believe in God?
Atheists are a small but rapidly growing minority who are courageous enough to state that God's existence is highly improbable. We do not go to war and blow people up" to flaunt our lack of belief". But we do seek genuine debate....however, not with people like you.
The unjustified and offensive mockery lies in the sarcastic tone adopted in an insincere and taunting demand for proof of the existence of God from the followers of Christ. You may pretend that God does not exist because the posted proofs are not acceptable to those who glibly dismiss not only faith but also philosophy. Being an atheist you may delude yourself that when you mock our God you are mocking nothing that exists (only because you say so). But you cannot pretend that the Catholic contributors to this blog and their religion do not exist and you cannot pretend that when you mock them you are mocking "nothing". You cheekily demanding the facility to ridicule and to mock them as you will but at the same time you have the effrontery to claim immunity from an adequate riposte hypocritically invoking a Christianity that you have just been mocking! Could anything be more unreasonable?
What several people have been demanding is proof indicating the existence of God.
You erroneously choose to see this legitimate demand as mockery to the Christian faith and its followers. How would it be possible for someone like myself to hurl insults at a God who I do not believe exists? As an atheist, how can I insult “Nothing”?
What you are demanding has nothing to do with humility. You are demanding servile acquiescence with a persistent atheist campaign of mockery and insults hurled at God, the Christian faith and any of its adherents who dare to complain.
A typical Christian response, either accept the cross or take the consequence of the sword. We can all “pick and choose” which statements of the gospels suit to be “hyperbole” and which statements are to be taken at face value.
You choose to completely ignore the message of humility, in a pretentious and pompous defence of the messenger.
I resent your unfounded accusation that I “hate” anybody or that I hold anyone in “contempt”. I do not believe that the persistent, false, vitriolic ad hominem venom directed against my person by an insignificantly small number of local atheists would ever be a sufficient reason for me to hate or to hold in contempt all atheists. I do not hate them but I do resent those who mock the Christian God and the “gullibility” of anyone believing in Him. That is not a “civilized debate’ at all and I have no regrets for defending the Christian faith and my good name from any calumnies.
You have accepted those calumnies and that excludes any possibility of a “more focussed and civilized debate”. I have already given proofs for the existence of God based on reason and on faith – but I expect you to deny this. They suffice for me but I do not expect them to carry any weight with those who hold philosophy in contempt and who flaunt the loss of their faith.
I do not have the time or the inclination to waste more time in indulging in circular arguments with such people. Sorry.
Your intense contempt for atheists, bordering on hatred, is hardly consistent with the teachings of Christ. Be that as it may, I think that if we can get back to basics we may be able to have a civilized debate, or at least, a less hostile one.
The core issue is whether or not God exists. Atheists generally believe that his existence is higly improbable inasmuch as there is no material evidence of anything or anyone that is "supernatural". The term "supernatural" pertains to an order of existence beyond the scientifically visible universe....or, something not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws.
You have expressed your belief in God, and the Christian God in particular, all through your various postings. However, despite repeated requests, you have not once stated why you believe God exists, beyond your faith based arguments. So, can you please list two or three reasons/proofs, which are not faith based, that can help us all better understand why you so fervently believe in this supernatural being.
I hope that a more focussed and civilized debate will then follow.
You are not exactly turning the other cheek now doctor are you? And you are most certainly not showing any humility in your defence of the God of Christ.
Furthermore where and how did Christ impose an obligation upon you to defend him?
Further, you try to shrug it off by claiming that the concept of God attacked is not the concept of God you adhere to, but have done very little to describe the attributes of your God. Is it the one as described by Fr. Borg above? I doubt it's the one as described by Christopher Grech.
Here lies the problem I mentioned earlier. There are so many versions of God and the vagueness by which most of them are described makes them impossible and at the same time we are expected not to criticise, question, or - heaven forbid - mock these blurry concepts. You believe in the Christian God, which is the God who have been challenged in the numerous comments below. In which regard have those challenges, to you personally, been directed at a concept incompatible with your God?
If that is what you think, then that is what you think. As I said before, I think the discussion is past its expiry date and, in all honesty, it smells a bit sour. There are so many things which we cannot agree on and you have shown yourself completely incapable of having an honest discussion about it.
Philosophy, by definition, deals with theoretical constructs of the world (and other subjects for arguments sake). How could such a construct ever prove something beyond any doubt. It's impossible.
I did read your comments the other day, as I mentioned to you, and the lack of the three properties I mentioned are incredibly apparent. The majority of your posts have been answered and challenged and not once did you give an honest attempt to rise to the challenge.
Again, thank you, thank you, thank you. Please note that there is really no need for you to keep on adding more proofs in support of my previous assessment of the succinctness, relevance and authoritative expertise in matters medical and psychological that characterize our comments.
really there is no need for more proof
If my interpretation of your analogy is incorrect, could you please explain what you mean. I am afraid I am unable to follow your analogy. What specifically are the things that are "just not physically/scientifically explainable, but make a lot of sense in theory"? I can only assume you are referring to subjective experiences and from my perspective, anything that makes sense in theory should be testable and verifiable, but then I could be wrong.
Nice to see you back contributing by the way.
"I have shown my preference for quality rather than quantity". Coming from you that is really rich. In your every posting we are regaled with a sumptuous display of distortions, uttered with presumptuous authority so incongruous with your qualifications and expertise. I do acknowledge your superiority when it comes to "red herrings and irrelevant side tracking". You are the absolute master.
"I do not seek anybody’s adulation". Every single posting of yours says otherwise. Always negating and putting down, as if yours is the sole authority. Never pausing to propose a thought in a manner that invites comment.
"I despise the cloying praise". Intelligent people appreciate intelligent comments and likewise despise those forever seeking to boost their egos by putting their superiors down. You conveniently fail to see that praise has been showered on those on your side of the argument too. If you feel forlorn ask yourself why nobody ever pours any praise on you.
"I am not spared that calumnious accusation whenever desperate interlocutors run out of logical arguments". We understand. Psychologists call such psychological manoeuvering projection.
To defend Christ before men is not any sign of lack of Christian humility. It is an instance of complying with the obligation that Christ himself imposed on his followers.
re:
"What I think you are trying to say is that..."
I only tried to say what I said.
:)
I am not deceived by your latest dirty trick contribution starting with “So your comment was …” and which then fades imperceptibly into an opinion that is totally yours, and that I deny absolutely. No, sir, I do not agree with you at all that all “thinking persons” believe that philosophy cannot prove anything!
If that is your measure of “honesty” please count me out and do not try to locate that travesty of “quality and honesty” in my comments. I am proud to declare that you will never find it and you will only make your headache worse.
Quote: “My concept of God is that updated and described by Christ – not Deuteronomy, not Genesis, not Leviticus etc.” Believing in such a God one of the qualities that one would be required to adhere to, is that of Christ’s humility:
Philippians 2:3b, “but in humility consider others better than yourselves.”
Philippians 2:3a, “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit,”
Philippians 2:5, “Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:”
Never mind proving the existence of God, or following Christ’s example and teachings, what seems to be important to you, doctor, is having the last say on any blog.
My last two comments (addressed one to you and the other to Patrik Larsson) were submitted before I had the “pleasure” of reading your posting in 3 parts addressed to me.
I thank you from the bottom of my heart for being so prompt to give a such a profuse and a such a convincing illustration of the regrettably low standard of comments that I mentioned in my last comment addressed to your good self.
Thank you once more and goodbye until better times.
So, your comment was for those who claim philosophy cannot prove anything which is, in practical terms, any thinking person. There was nothing clear about who the comment was aimed at.
Consistency, quality and honesty is unfortunately qualities which have lacked in your posts below and skimming through them again just makes my head hurt.
There have been so many attempts at engaging you in a reasonable discussion and your constant failure to do so is not exactly to your credit.
I did read through all your comments on free will again and there is nothing clear about your position in the matter, despite your numerous attempt at claiming it was all summarised previously. You were challenged on the christian view of free will and all you can resort to is claiming people view your God as an old testament God.
You are in a corner and you are not even trying to get out of it. I think we can all see that this discussion is way past its expiry date.
Dear Sharon,
Before anyone pounces and starts to challenge our credentials in physics may I clarify that white light can be refracted into the rainbow colours and this "rainbow" can be refracted back into the original pure white by suitably placed prisms. It is difficult to produce the same result with pigments because of the difficulty in mixing all the constituent wavelengths in the correct proportions. The infrared part of the spectrum is perceived by the skin as heat and not by the eye as a red colour,
Your perplexity does not arise from any “loss of memory” on my part. You fail to appreciate that there is nothing “impractical” about addressing my comment at a particular individual and letting him understand in advance that I would not be participating in any future Pascal Wager’s comments by him and by anyone else similarly inclined. Please understand that there would be other people who might appreciate a simplified clarification of Pascal’s Wager as given by me.
“Enlightened” atheist commentators on this blog dismiss out of hand the important university discipline of philosophy that they rubbish glibly as being unable to prove anything whereas I attach great importance to the widely respected university taught subject of philosophy.
I refer to the God as preached by Christ but they insist on confining themselves to an older version because it suits their purpose to remain stuck irremediably in the Old Testament.
I do not intend to waste any more time in this sterile exercise. I should have realized a long time ago the futility of a “dialogue” between the deaf and the dumb. Hopefully they may heed my warning and save their own time also.
I have never judged any argument solely by its brevity. That is a malicious distortion. I have shown my preference for quality rather than quantity. I prefer relevance to red herrings and irrelevant side tracking. I prefer succinctness to any vague meandering and unnecessary prolixity. I prefer logical argument instead of pointless and despicable ad hominem vilification. I never run away from responsible argument but I draw the line at having to repeat my replies at anybody's arrogant dictation. I do not seek anybody’s adulation and I despise the cloying praise poured on each other by the same members of any mutual back scratching society. I assess the value of any comment after taking into consideration all these factors (and more). I am entitled to do that without being accused of “judging”. Above everything else, I disagree openly with atheists and anti-Christians, but I do not judge them - I leave that to God himself. Even so I am not spared that calumnious accusation whenever desperate interlocutors run out of logical arguments.
What I think you are trying to say is that some things/attitutdes/beliefs are realised at an intuitive level. We just know that is the case. If you will allow me to use a comment from the past, we may "know" that God exists because we have felt His presence on occasions when we directed our attention to Him. That is a subjective experience at an emotional level. To the subject it is real and convincing. But it has no basis in reality outside that individual. Through a process of conditioning over the subject's lifetime, a particular emotional experience has come to be triggered when certain conditions are met (the stimuli). An explanation is attributed to that experience depending on past experience, cultural factors etc. The positive affect reinforces the experience and makes it that much more likely to happen again under similar conditions in the future. It also further entrenches the explanation (belief) held by the subject. Such experiences are scientifically explicable, are definable and quantifiable. That is what psychology, dynamic psychology in particular, is all about.
Ok, as far as I can see, I have not seen anyone grasping your version of free will. Better?
I have read your comments on this subject and I still fail to see anything comprehensive about it, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now. I have compiled a list of your comments and will take the time to read through it and make a summary of what you have said in regards to free will. I will comment further once done.
In regards to your continued advertisement of Pascal's wager, I can assure you that several people in these comments understand perfectly what the wager suggests and have responded to this repeatedly. Perhaps you are the one who need to read the answers properly.
Also, congratulations to Fr. Borg for creating yet another post with a close to record breaking post count.
"I have already dealt exhaustively with the problem of free will". Really? The only arguments you proposed are: 1-It stands to reason; 2-You believe it is so; 3-The gospels say so; and 4-It would not be right if "Kullhadd jibqa billi ha"! Very persuasive.
You have failed to address the arguments from biological and behavioural sciences. You presumed to dismiss them, typically by dishonestly pretending you had qualifications/experience in psychology, psychotherapy and Behaviour Modification, when you have none. Those sciences have no use for your concept of free will or determinism and show human behaviour to be predictable.
You have failed to address the incongruity of God's omniscience and omnipotence with free will and evil. Your references to God's justice and unrepentence are circular in nature assuming a god exists in the first place. Because you think god exists does not make it so.
The "Kullhad jibqa billi ha" argument betrays immaturity. Your behaviour is directed at flattering the policeman in the sky, an attitude that inevitably leads to intolerance. Atheists are led by their convictions, helping fellow human beings without being judgmental or coercive.
Mr Cassar, and anyone else, is perfectly free to intrude on any comment I make. Mr Cassar has proven himself to be intelligent and informed with logic irrefutable to rational people. I value his opinion and have gained from it, as I have benefited from others, including those on your side. Regrettably one cannot say the same about you. Your postings invariably betray an abject lack of basic scientific knowledge in all branches of science coupled with a presumptiousness that will see you boldly misrepresent established facts in these sciences. Always pointing to your basic medical qualifications obtained decades ago. Always driven by an insatiable thirst for adulation. As W.C.Fields put it "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance blind them with b...s..t". That is the way you have always been. Have you ever stopped to wonder why that poor demonstrator in London, so many years ago, kept excluding you with "Not you Dr Suleeba"? Your bragging suggests you thought it reflected your superior standing among your peers. Those who have been priviledged to tutor and examine students would think otherwise.
You always end up understanding whatever you want to anyway. Mr Cassar and I are both telling you the same thing. Judging an argument by its brevity is a ridiculous proposition. By that criterion the most substantial argument is the one that is never made. In your case, many would consider that to be virtuous. "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than open one's mouth and remove all doubt". Heed Samuel Johnson's admonition well. It might earn you some merit points for judgment day.
The only one with a superiority complex is you. Your ego will never let you admit you are wrong, let alone apologise and learn from your mistakes. Failing to address disarming arguments, excusing your failure by attempting to dismiss the proposer, is your speciality. Characteristically you will go off at a tangent, engaging in a litany of punctilious diatribe to confuse issues and pretentiously claim victory. Let readers judge for themselves my competence and that of others, to criticise you. Since you are into counting, just count the number of readers making hostile comments at your postings and compare that with others.
Now you fail to even remember what you wrote yourself. You say:
"I hope you do understand that I addressed my comment re Pascal’s Wager “only for those who do not rubbish philosophy as unable to prove anything” and only to those who, like Pascal, believe in the Christian God."
While the post actually started out with "@KennethCassar". Seems a bit impractical to adress a comment to a group of people, while starting with addressing someone outside that group.
No matter what, I think the fatal flaws and weaknesses of Pascal's wager has been shown too many times, mainly on the premise of it's acceptance of people waging on God just in case.
My experience with your previous comments tells me that you may be making another silly and ineffectual attempt at inappropriate sarcasm. I never jest on this blog and whenever I am driven to “fight fire with fire” I leave no doubt whatsoever whether I am being sarcastic or not. That is why I never had the need to explain that I was “only jesting” or only “being sarcastic”. Please don’t blame me for any deficiency in your “powers of cognition” whether that deficiency is real or only sarcastically pretended.
You may be straining desperately to appear clever but to me you are only being plain silly.
If you might allow me one last comment :)
We all know that the purity of white is made up of all the colours of the rainbow..no? we do agree at least on this :) we also know that it is physically useless to mix the pigments of the colours of the rainbow to get the same pure white, because all one gets is murky browns .Is it not the same white that we see?? Yes and no! The difference is our perception of 'light', 'refracted' and 'reflected' light, on reaching the eye.
Newton proved that the colours of the rainbow can be restored through refraction, into pure white by using a prism, yet it is impossible to restore whiteness from colour pigments.
White light is the presence of all colors in the spectrum . We see various colors because of what a surface absorbs - example we see red because the other colours in the spectrum have been absorbed by the surface if falls upon and only the infrared is left to bounce back to our eyes.
Some things are just not physically/scientifically explainable, but make a lot of sense in theory.
Knowing you, this will probably be my final comment unless you choose to reply seriously to my 3-part refutation of Pascal's "Wager". Failure to do so will indicate that you are only interested in "shooting the messenger" and not discussing the message.
So if you are not willing or able to participate in an adult rational discussion, without childishly resorting to tactics such as "I didn't ask you" or "let others speak for themselves" when you are put in a tight corner (as evidenced by your refusal to address my reply), then I will waste no more time on your infantile games.
Feel free to distort and misrepresent any of my comments. You may also feel free to create many more "straw men" for you to beat. You seem to like that so much. Who am I to spoil your fun.
Goodbye and may your conscience let you sleep well.
I have never felt the need to plead "I was only being sarcastic" as did other contributors who when when challenged take refuge under the pretext that they were only being sarcastic/joking or that they did not write exactly what they had meant and proferring copious "explanations" that are radical revisions not clarifications, or that they had used one word when they meant to use another with a significantly different meaning. Another despicable trick is to make vague false and damaging ad hominem insinuations disguising them as rhetorical questions so as to avoid any consequence of their eagerness to harm reputations combined with a cowardly fear to striking openly. It is not my cognitive powers that should be questioned but the deliberate in-built obfuscation of these malicious tactics.
The people who read and respect philosophy, and think philosophically, know philosophy's limitations, such as the fact that philosophical though can lead you to a rational conclusion about a philosophical matter or problem, but it cannot claim with absolute certainty that the conclusion is proven to be the best or the only true one.
If this were not so, all philosophers would be in perfect agreement (and they obviously are not).
By the way, I hope you have realised by now that when you put comment on a public forum or blog, you're actually addressing it to anyone who cares to read it.
Here's how your devious tricks won't work on me. You think you can fool me by asking questions to people the characteristics of whom I claim not to share, and then, if I answer, you gain a weird satisfaction in thinking you tricked me.
Well, two can play at your game.
This statement is only for people who do not believe in God: Since Dr Francis Saliba has not replied to my refutation of Pascal's Wager, it is to be assumed that he concedes that the "wager" is silly.
Careful, now, dear Doktor...if you reply, people will think you're an atheist.
I only "complained" about you trying to shut me up after you wrote: ""Would you mind allowing Mr J Borg to reply for himself and thus spare me the annoyance of having to explain to third persons that they had not understood my comment?", following which you described me as an "avukat tal-fqar" (not too gracious, were you?).
In any case, I did not ask (or wish) for you to shut up. I only asked you to mind your own business since it is not up to you to decide (as if you had any authority) if and when I will participate in the debate.
I also do understand you addressed your comment re Pascal’s Wager 'only for those who do not rubbish philosophy as unable to prove anything' and only to those who, like Pascal, believe in the Christian God. However, since I do not need your permission to answer questions, even if not addressed to me, I still decided to expose your dear "Pascal's Wager" for the absurdity that it is.
Of course, since you've nothing to say following my debunking of the wager, you conveniently say the question "wasn't for me". Typically evasive.
"I disagree. It means that there is little difference between that which is being said in seriousness and that which is being said in jest".
I know the feeling, particularly when I read your posts.
Why on earth do complain about me “trying to shut up people in a public debate”. It was you not I who wrote: “Would you mind minding your own business”. I only asked you to graciously allow others to speak for themselves when I was specifically addressing them, not you.
I hope you do understand that I addressed my comment re Pascal’s Wager “only for those who do not rubbish philosophy as unable to prove anything” and only to those who, like Pascal, believe in the Christian God.
I disagree. It means that there is little difference between that which is being said in seriousness and that which is being said in jest.
You would also like to note that philosophers or people who talk philosophy, do not use "technological" language. We are not discussing technology.
Cont...
Pascal was wrong because he assumed that God would not be capricious, but would be benevolent and just. Only people who believe in a just and benevolent God can make that assumption.
Pascal fails miserably.
Cont...
The claim that if God does not really exist, but man acts as if God existed, means no loss and no gain is not necessarily true. It assumes that to act as if God existed is to act morally or justly. That is an assumption only people who believe in a just and moral God can make.
The claim that if God really exists, and if man behaves as if God really existed, results in a positive, gainful result, is also not necessarily true. It assumes that God would want us to act morally and justly. Again, an assumption that only those who believe in a just and moral God can make.
The claim that if God really exists, and man behaves as if God did not exist gives a negative result is also demonstrably false. It assumes that people who do not believe in God necessarily act immorally, and also assumes that people who act morally but disbelieve in God would be punished by God anyway (only those who believe in a vain God would make that assumption.
Cont...
Your concept of God is irrelevant to Pascal's Wager, since the wager applies to people who either doubt or deny the existance of God. So essentially, Pascal's Wager cannot assume that God is the one "described" by Christ.
I also see that you still insist (wrongly) that philosophy "proves" anything. I shall leave you to wallow in your ignorance on this question.
Back to Pascal. Yes, the wager is not meant to show whether God exists or not (once again, beating a straw man), and it does assume that God “may” or “may not” exist. But for the wager to be true to itself, it must not assume that God is either benevolent or just. People who have already decided that God is benevolent or just, have already decided that God exists - hence the wager is not intended to them.
Cont...
My concept of God is that updated and described by Christ – not Deuteronomy, not Genesis, not Leviticus etc.
Briefly and in non-technological language (but only for those who do not rubbish philosophy as “unable to prove anything”), PASCAL’S WAGER is not an attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God or to discuss his attributes. It starts by assuming that God “may” or “may not” exist.
a) If God DOES NOT REALLY EXIST, and if man ACTS AS IF GOD DID NOT REALLY EXIST = no loss, no gain.
b) If God DOES NOT REALLY EXIST, and if man acts as if GOD EXISTED = again no loss, no gain.
c) If God REALLY EXISTS, and if man behaves AS IF GOD REALLY EXISTED = positive, gainful result.
d) If God REALLY EXISTS, and if man behaves AS IF GOD DID NOT EXIST =negative loss result.
Pascal concluded therefore that it is reasonable, in any case, to wager that God exists.
p.s. Trying to shut people up in a public debate is a sure sign that one has weak arguments.
If I believe (and I do) that your arguments are weak, I would give you the opportunity to reply to any question (like I always insist you do), the better for me to refute and debunk all your weak arguments and replies.
On the otherhand, if I feared that your arguments are strong (I don't), I would seek to limit your responses to the least possible...seeking feeble excuses like "the question was not addressed to you".
"You may have noticed that he has appointed himself as some “avukat tal-fqar” for fellow atheists with absolute authority to intrude in everybody else’s comments while ordering the others to keep out and “mind our own business.”
We've already been through this. Public blogs or forums are not for private conversations. People who reply to questions addressed to someone else are not intruding, but participating. When I asked you to mind your own business, I was only doing so after you expected that I should not reply to questions addressed to someone else, as if you have appointed yourself to some kind of "Holy Inquisitor" or "Speaker of the House".
Nobody needs to consult with anyone else. In case you haven't noticed, this is a blog, not a private conversation. But perhaps, instead of consulting with me before making submissions, he should ask for your permission (in your dreams).
Of course Mr Sant was being sarcastic! So no, unlike you, I did treat it as a sarcastic comment. Mr Sant's sarcastic point is that if what you were implying is true (that is, brevity is positively proportional to sense and truth - you will of course say that this is a red herring), saying nothing would make most sense.
I obviously also replied sarcastically when I told you that we are dealing with subtraction, and not multiplication or division.
If you did not find Mr Sant's comment to be sarcastic, that says a lot about your power of cognition.
Please do not say, “NOONE seems to have understood” when you mean only the handful of atheist commentators on this blog. You must know that your small group is not everybody. As I have already pointed out, I have already dealt exhaustively with the problem of free will, prescience and predetermation. I have discontinued my useless habit of identifying my previous comments with precision because after rubbing the noses of my challengers in my previous comments I was only accused irrelevantly and unjustly of “quote-mining”.
I am not getting frustrated in having to paraphrase comments that were always clear enough ab initio. I have decided not to continue to be a stooge and not to comply with the request to keep on repeating myself for the benefit of anyone who is unwilling to make the effort to trace my previous comments and to make a serious effort to understand them.
No, I did not think that you were being sarcastic, but I admit that I find great difficulty to decide when you are trying to be serious and when you are trying to be funny. By the way, Kenneth, like me, did not treat your comment as being only “sarcastic” because he rushed precipitately to your defense insisting that you were right - not that you were only being sarcastic. You may have noticed that he has appointed himself as some “avukat tal-fqar” for fellow atheists with absolute authority to intrude in everybody else’s comments while ordering the others to keep out and “mind our own business.” You may care to advise him to consult with his client before making any submissions discordant with your intended reply.
I do not consider that you have any competence to pass your judgments on me or to tender advice. I ignore them completely. They are a bad reflection on your superiority complex, not mine.
Here's a major problem with Pascal's Wager:
Deuteronomy 13: "If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;...
...Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people".
Pascal's Wager rests on the "What if" question. Well, to play it safe, what if God is the God of the Old Testament? Should you obey the above, just to play it safe? And what if Jesus is God? How can you kill and not kill at the same time?
Pascal's Wager is silly and cannot work.
There is no unique atheist meaing of "wishful thinking" and "hope". Everyone knows that wishful thinking and hope are different from belief.
"Final Judgement" is not a question of preference. It either exists or it does not. Anyone, atheist or not, who lives a moral life, has nothing to fear from a "Judgement Day", provided God, if he exists, would be just and fair. However, the benevolence and justice of God is as much an assumption as "Judgement Day" is. It makes no difference to me at all. I simply live my life as morally as possible. What happens (if anything at all) after we die is not within our power to determine ourselves.
"DRAFT I used to think that atheists did not believe in God – full stop. Now you suggest that there would be some sort of acceptable back-up version in case atheists discover too late that they had wagered wrong way about His existence..."
I suggested no such thing. I have only shown how Pascal's Wager makes several assumptions, one of which would be the absurd assumption that if God exists he can be fooled by atheists or agnostics feigning belief. As usual, you are an expert in misrepresenting people. Also, I prefer bottled beer to DRAFT.
"On second thoughts, I will stick to the version of God according to Christ - not the one postulated by you".
I did not postulate any version of God. Pascal did...he postulated a God who can be easily fooled. I appreciate the fact that this is not the God you believe in, but then why would you use Pascal's Wager that only works if God is not omniscient?
Actually, this dialogue has degenerated into a comedy of nit-picking on words, avoiding questions by claiming they have already been replied, and counting words.
If your "Pascal Wager" is not the one I know, I would be grateful if you would give me your own interpretation. "My" Pascal's Wager is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
"I agree with you that the HOPE (wishful thinking) that there is no judgment day would never make God and judgment day actually disappear. Tell that to those who need to
believe that after death “kullhadd jibqa’ bli jkun ha” and who would drift into the self-serving delusional state that God and his judgment day do not exist - a situation very much in keeping with the views expressed by atheists on this very blog".
I will tell "them" no such thing, since your claim is a misrepresentation of atheism. Again, people who HOPE there is no God are not atheists. Belief and hope have entirely different meanings. You should know.
And since when was truth irrelevant when two people make conflicting claims?
Please, stop waffling about any unique atheist meaning of “wishful thinking” and “HOPE”. As the proverb says: “Dum spiro, spero”. Anyone, atheist or not, who opportunistically would prefer that there will be no final judgment day must keep his fingers crossed, hoping against hope, that his hope/conviction is correct and that there is no other prospect after death except that of “kullhadd jibqa’ b’dak li ha”. You dismiss as “absurd” the notion that this is “a generally accepted opinion INSIDE atheist circles”. Go the whole hog, please, and enlighten us what exactly is the “generally accepted opinion” held INSIDE atheist circles about judgment day or afterlife. The general impression is that atheists do not believe at all in God or in an afterlife. In that case it must follow inevitably that they are convinced that “kulhadd jibqa’ b’dak li jkun ha” during his lifetime. It is immaterial if this conviction is the cause of, or, the result of their adoption of atheism as their way of life. The end result is the same.
Live and learn. I used to think that atheists did not believe in God – full stop. Now you suggest that there would be some sort of acceptable back-up version in case atheists discover too late that they had wagered wrong way about His existence and in case they come to regret having summarily dismissed Pascal’s Wager as “idiotic”. This back-up version would be a silly caricature of any judge because (always according to you) he would be expected to be a namby-pamby sort of a softie god who would be expected to reward the “honesty” of atheists who had spent their lifetime debunking his existence and mocking the “gullibility” of those who had believed in Him and who had devoted their life time obeying Christ’s demand that they spread His good news.
On second thoughts, I will stick to the version of God according to Christ - not the one postulated by you.
I think you have to have realised by now that noone has understood your explanation to the existence of free will. Whether you have explained it and it was too obscure for the rest of us to understand, or if we are just being daft is beyond me, but NOONE seems to have understood it.
The premise is that free will is incompatible with omniscience, something you claim it is not. Our view is that if something is predetermined, we are forced to act according to it, whether we like it or not, removing our free will.
I know you are getting very frustrated with us asking you to repeat yourself, but please just clarify this bit for us once and for all and we can put this matter to rest, as several parties here (you included) is expousing a great deal of irritation.
Me losing my cool and my bearings? Not at all. I pity fundamentalists. They do not rile me at all.
Let me teach you something, if you are willing to learn. A blog or forum is not for private conversations. So when someone answers a question addressed to someone else, one would not be intruding. One would be participating. I'm sure you don't really believe you were intruding when you reply to questions about God directed to someone else.
And yes, your comment absurdly implied that brevity is relevant to the truthfulness of a claim. You can deny however you want, but if you do, you must then explain the relevance of brevity in the topic we were discussing. You have not. So if truth was my red herring, then brevity was yours.
I still insist that you have not presented any arguments about free will. The onus is on you to show that I'm wrong. Of course, its always easier to avoid questions by claiming you have already answered them.
As for like with like, that's what I did. You compared brevity with verbosity. So did I. The Bible is an example of verbosity.
This dialogue has degenerated into a comedy of the absurd with words acquiring weird, peculiar meanings.
The “Pascal Wager” of the philosophy books is not the same as the one butchered by you.
The “scientific method” mentioned by you has no semblance to the one generally accepted by scientists the world over. After I pointed that out to you, you admitted as much but you add to the confusion by insisting that you are using the term with a different imprecise meaning peculiar to yourself. I am supposed to know what you mean – well, I don’t.
I agree with you that the HOPE (wishful thinking) that there is no judgment day would never make God and judgment day actually disappear. Tell that to those who need to
believe that after death “kullhadd jibqa’ bli jkun ha” and who would drift into the self-serving delusional state that God and his judgment day do not exist - a situation very much in keeping with the views expressed by atheists on this very blog.
I never said that truth itself is a red herring. I accused you of dragging in truth irrelevantly and as a red herring to confuse the issue.
"I disagree with your supposition that taking my “argument to its logical conclusion” a word count of zero would result in “maximum quality”.
In case you did not notice I was being sarcastic. Your ego has been more than bruised. Your credibility has been shattered. Anyone can claim to be reading recent textbooks on science and "medical and scientific literature and periodicals of academic standard". Your postings indicate otherwise. The only backing to your arguments you ever produce is that you are a medical practitioner and everyone should take your word for it. Would you still be able to make that claim once continuing medical education and recertification become compulsory, as they should be, and indeed are, in most Western countries.
You have managed to turn a debate about God into a debate about you, from the moment you opened your mouth. Are you God Saliba?
Heed your own advice. Since you are an ardent believer consider how your God will judge you on judgement day.
Now, a little thinking would reveal this complete non-sequiteur. If anything, someone would HOPE there is no God if the only reason for doing so is to live as they please.
Someone who HOPES there is no God is not an atheist. Belief is not something one chooses. Belief is the result of conviction. By implication, so is unbelief.
The absurd belief that they would much rather prefer that after death “Kulhadd jibqa’ bli jkun ha” is not even a generally accepted opinion INSIDE atheist circles.
Watch out Kenneth! You are losing your cool and your bearings.
YOU intruded into an exchange between Mr J Borg and myself. If anyone was not minding his own business that character was you - not I.
My comment was about BREVITY when submitting comments. I never mentioned truth at all. That was just one red herring introduced by you irrelevantly and solely to divert attention from the real point at issue i.e. the desirability to be concise.
I presented my arguments in favour of free will exhaustively and a long time go. Just who do you think you are demanding that I repeat myself whenever you order me to do so? If you are too lazy to look them up and to refresh your memory, that is your problem, not mine.
When I compared my comment with your comment I was comparing like with like. When you compared your four words with the entire bible you were NOT comparing like with like – unless you delude yourself that your words are comparable with the bible in anybody's estimate apart from yourself and the usual local atheists.
Regarding "scientific method", I do know that it usually has a specific meaning which is not the one I used. However, taken in context, you know that what I mean is "the way (method) a scientist would support claims he does not demonstrate himself to be true.
You have neither proven free will, nor supported your claims with citations from people who did. You simply expect us to take your word for it. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way, especially what claims that falsify yours have been made by distinguished scientists (including a psychologist) whom I quoted or referred to.
"Truth was an irrelevant red herring deliberately introduced by you to confuse the issue".
I claim that there is little if any free will. You say that we have absolute free will. And then you go on to say that "Truth is an irrelevant red herring"?
Incredible!
Do you even understand what you're writing? If I wish for anything, I would wish for eternal bliss, and not annihilation (wouldn't we all?). However, the afterlife is just wishful thinking. Wishing something does not make it true.
In any case, I am not "terrorized that there may be a day of reckoning". If it turns up (it won't, but anyway) that there is a God, and he is just, he would appreciate my honesty in my unbelief, as well as the rule I live by, which is to do as much good and as little harm as possible (to both humans and non-human animals).
Pascal's Wager, dumb as it is, has already been exposed as idiotic, ages ago. It assumes that if there is a God, he must be just, and it assumes that God would appreciate the dishonesty of feigning belief (as if an omniscient God wouldn't find out).
The afterlife is not a generally accepted belief outside of theist circles, and theists cannot themselves at least agree on what constitutes heaven! They all have their own imaginary version.
In any case, true morality does not expect reward.
"My word count is concerned with brevity/loquaciousness. It has got nothing to do with truth/falsity because both may be found irrespective of the length of any comment".
Brevity is just a convenient demand of someone who fears a lenghty debunking of all his claims.
"When used by you, “citing sources” is an earnest appeal for big brother to come to your assistance when you are unable to produce original arguments yourself".
Not citing sources when requested is a cowardly escape from someone who cannot be expected to back up his claims with corraborating evidence, simply because his claims are a matter of blind faith.
I'm not a child...I won't do a word-count. Go play with someone else, or no lollypop for you.
“Annihilation after death” is the cherished hope (wishfull thinking) of those who are terrorized that there may be a day of reckoning. They would much rather prefer that after death “Kulhadd jibqa’ bli jkun ha”. That is their wishful thinking and not any proven truth by any means; it is not even a generally accepted opinion outside atheist circles. There are many others who rely on Christ’s prediction that there will be a day of judgment. Both versions are earnest beliefs and pious hopes but after death it will be much too late to mend matters if “annihilation after death” turns out to be a delusion and one really finds himself in confrontation with God. Reflect on Pascal’s Wager without the preformed bias that it has been “disproved” – reason it out for yourself. Of course I do not believe that there will be an eternal punishment for those who disagree with me – that is you at your most childish.
My word count is concerned with brevity/loquaciousness. It has got nothing to do with truth/falsity because both may be found irrespective of the length of any comment. Truth was an irrelevant red herring deliberately introduced by you to confuse the issue.
“Citing sources” has got nothing to do with “scientific method” - this has a different and specific meaning. When used by you, “citing sources” is an earnest appeal for big brother to come to your assistance when you are unable to produce original arguments yourself. It is the equivalent of a drunk person using a lamppost for support rather than illumination. (100)
"Would you mind allowing Mr J Borg to reply for himself and thus spare me the annoyance of having to explain to third persons that they had not understood my comment?".
Would you mind minding your own business. Ir Mr J Borg finds a problem with my posts, he will tell me himself. However, I doubt it.
I know perfectly well what Mr Borg wrote about citing your sources. It was a very reasonable thing to ask from you. I also understood your comment perfectly well. But you won't fool either of us. The 200 word limit is no excuse. You could always produce a link (which takes exactly the count of one word).
I know you did not mention sources, but if you are so sure that the scientific view is that there is free will, I am sure there would be plenty of sources you could cite. Choose one and provide a link. Otherwise, it is just your faith-based opinion.
"I disagree with your supposition that taking my “argument to its logical conclusion” a word count of zero would result in “maximum quality”. It would result in “zero” quality because anything multiplied by zero would give a result of zero, not infinity".
When the "argument" is for the quality of less words, one would be speaking of subtraction, and not multiplication or division. Your knowledge of mathematics would appear to be at just about the same level as your knowledge about God and free will.
Regarding using "word count", it still exposes a childish attitude. "Hey...I can say in in less words than you...nar nar nee nar nar....I win!" Grow up.
Would you mind allowing Mr J Borg to reply for himself and thus spare me the annoyance of having to explain to third persons that they had not understood my comment?
Mr Borg tried to ridicule me by writing ironically “you're so highly qualified you will certainly be familiar with the absolute requirement for papers to cite their sources”. I had to point out to him patiently that we were not dealing with any “papers” on any subject, only a short blog comment, restricted to less than 200 words, and this short comment did not mention any sources that I could possibly “cite” because I had not mentioned any.
Honest congratulations about a marked improvement in succinctness.
I disagree with your supposition that taking my “argument to its logical conclusion” a word count of zero would result in “maximum quality”. It would result in “zero” quality because anything multiplied by zero would give a result of zero, not infinity. Your knowledge of mathematics would appear to be at just about the same level as your knowledge about God and free will.
P.S. Using “Word Count” it was no trouble at all measuring the relative length of our latest comments and my ego is not bruised at all.
"Those who nourish the wishful thinking that after we die “Kullhadd jibqa' bli jkun ha” cannot be expected to have any genuine enthusiasm for “free will” and for a God who would sit in judgment at the end of time".
Even you will understand (after perhaps a second reading) that this does not make sense. If you understand the meaning of "wishful thinking" at all, you will notice that annihilation after death cannot conceivably be "wishful thinking". On the otherhand, eternal life (and eternal reward) is or could. So could be the wish for "judgement day" and eternal punishment for others who disagree with you.
"Wishful thinking" - bad choice of words. You're getting yourself tighter and tighter into your own corner. Sometimes its better to concede defeat and call it quits.
Man is inquisitive and rational (often but not always). But he is definitely not omniscient (as distinguished from being a “know-all”) and therefore a soupcon of humility would not be amiss.
"I never said that truth is somehow directly or inversely related to your verbosity".
So what was the point in giving a word-count? Why not simply give evidence for your "truth" and criticise mine? Is it perhaps because since you have no evidence, you can only delude yourself (childishly, I must add) that you have scored some points by your brevity? I thought we were discussing free will and determinism, not brevity.
If you are in a tight corner, change the subject. Interesting.
I did compare like with like. However, I also did expect you would try to evade that point with prolific exuberance and verbosity.
My point is simple: It takes fewer words to make a simple statement that is not backed by any facts, than to explain oneself and show how one's statements are correct.
Now how about some evidence to back up your claim of your free will? All I read from you are statements showing an obvious religious bias.
I am interested enough to have provided at least one quotation on free will from a distinguished psychologist (Steven Pinker). Incidentally, I know about him because I read his books. I assume you have read none of his books. You're missing a lot.
Please be relevant and compare “like with like” i.e. my comment with your comments. I commented on your comments (and Sant’s) and their habitual prolific exuberance . I never said that truth is somehow directly or inversely related to your verbosity.
There is no point in repeating once more my previous arguments in defense of “free will”. If you are interested – and I presume that you are not really interested at all - please take the trouble to scroll down this blog and trace them yourself. Those who nourish the wishful thinking that after we die “Kullhadd jibqa' bli jkun ha” cannot be expected to have any genuine enthusiasm for “free will” and for a God who would sit in judgment at the end of time.
"Never mind the quality - feel the width", more precisely count the words, Saliba (128) versus Sant (326) and Cassar (207)
So childish. You make it sound like a wrestling match. Saliba in the blue corner, Cassar and Sant in the red corner! Fancy going to all the trouble to count words in submissions just to pour some balm on your bruised ego!
You should take your argument to its logical conclusion. You will have maximum quality when you say nothing at all!
"Never mind the quality - feel the width, more precisely count the words, Saliba (128) versus Sant (326) and Cassar (207)".
1. There is no God (4 words).
2. The whole Bible (count the words in the Bible yourself).
Would this make statement 1 true just because the Bible has thousands more words?
"I have never quoted or mentioned any papers by anybody else “on the scientific basis of free will”. Therefore, it is not necessary, and it is not even possible, for me to cite “sources” that exist only in your imagination and for the benefit of the “nincompoops” mentioned by you".
Of course you haven't. That's the whole point. Your claims are just your opinion. Prove us wrong. Cite sources that back up your claims. That is the scientific method - you should know.
I have never quoted or mentioned any papers by anybody else “on the scientific basis of free will”. Therefore, it is not necessary, and it is not even possible, for me to cite “sources” that exist only in your imagination and for the benefit of the “nincompoops” mentioned by you.
"Never mind the quality - feel the width", more precisely count the words, Saliba (128) versus Sant (326) and Cassar (207)
Plod throught the verbiage if you have the inclination, and the time to waste, and spot the old questions that have already been answered, the irrelevant red herrings, the personal attacks and the devious explanations by Mr "X" for what Mr "Y" must have meant.
On the other hand, there may be a sense of free will that we need as a construct, or an idealization in our system of moral reasoning, to get the answers to come out right. We may want to distinguish between people who are literally in a fugue state and hallucinating, and people who are compos mentis and who can be held responsible for their actions in the mundane sense that punishment may deter them and others. It may be that free will is the most convenient way of summarizing that difference, in which case it would continue to exist, but in a scientific translation, that is, a brain state within certain normal conditions.
Steven Pinker ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pinker )
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dawkins_pinker/debate_p12.html
since you're so highly qualified you will certainly be familiar with the absolute requirement for papers to cite their sources. Would you be so kind as to illuminate us nincompoops on the scientific basis of free will, amongst other assertions you were pontificating about?
"I keep abreast of medical advances by reading recent textbooks and medical literature aimed at a higher academic level".
Your carefully worded reply to Mr Cassar, contrasting with your usual pretentious style and smacking of legalise, does not address the issue you enbroiled yourself in. You asserted to all readers how you wanted "to point out the fact, obvious to all practitioners of these specialties", namely "Behaviour Modification, psychotherapy, psychology, psychiatry etc". No medical practitioner gets any training in psychotherapy, behavioural or otherwise, and only basic training in psychology and only the recently qualified and not in all Medical Schools. You therefore must specify where your authority derives from. Are you claiming to be one of these practitioners. If so how come? If not which "medical and scientific literature and periodicals of academic standard" are you relying on. Otherwise you are declaring yours was nothing other than exuberant verbosity, a bit of tortuous prolix and irrelevance.
Mr Cassar's "guess" was a reference to your rhethoric but in fact was an assessment of the way you portray yourself in your writing. My assessment happens to be identical to his.
"I keep abreast of medical advances by reading recent textbooks and medical literature aimed at a higher academic level".
So basically (you think) that means that on science issues, you cannot be wrong while I be right.
I find it suspiciously funny how comments of mine were deleted, while your latest reply to one of them has made it online.
I mentioned Dawkins as an example of one from whom I get my facts. Even if I did not read any medical literature you assume I would not understand, I'm confident you don't believe that Dawkins does not read the updated medical literature you allude to.
So, what I am basically saying (and which you conveniently ignore) is that if having some scientific qualifications makes you more credible (and less error-prone) than those who don't, similarly, a person who is much more qualified than you (like Professor Dawkins) would be more credible and less error-prone than you could ever be.
Richard Dawkins does not agree with most of what you said on this blog. Richard Dawkins is more of a scientific authority than you could ever be. By your own standards, this would "prove" you wrong.
"Let me guess. You have absolutely no medical qualifications or any other medical training worth mentioning but you are too proud to admit it!".
We know what you are thinking doctor. "Are they qualified or are they bluffing?" Keep on guessing. To tell you the truth, we do not think it matters. Knowledge, credibility and integrity are the most powerful weapons known to man. They will blow any diatribe full of tortuous prolix, irrelevance, illogicalities and deceit based on pretentious presumptions clean off. They do not necessarily accompany university degrees. So, before you indulge in your habitual childish attempts to shine by belittling your opposition while frivolously trying to dazzle with your basic medical qualifications, you have to ask yourself one question. "Do I feel lucky today? Will I get away with hoodwinking the readers or will I get caught out, and risk shattering my credibility further?". Well do you, doctor?
You may then wish to address another question "In consideration of common decency, should I exercise a soupcon of humility, and apologise to the readers of this blog for my repeated attempts to deceive them". Well should you, doctor?
My brief relevant answer:
My “guess” (that you have not got any medical or scientific qualifications at all) is 100% correct - otherwise you would give a specific answer to my straight question.
Your “guess” that I have not read a science book for ages, is absolutely wrong. I keep up to date with medical and scientific literature and periodicals of academic standard – not the popular type aimed at lay people.
Richard Dawkins is recognized for his ability to communicate science in simple language easily understood by laymen. That much is evident from your Iist of honours received by him. I keep abreast of medical advances by reading recent textbooks and medical literature aimed at a higher academic level
Cont...
In 2005, the Hamburg-based Alfred Toepfer Foundation awarded him its Shakespeare Prize in recognition of his "concise and accessible presentation of scientific knowledge". Won the Lewis Thomas Prize for Writing about Science for 2006 and the Galaxy British Book Awards Author of the Year Award for 2007. In the same year, was listed by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2007, and awarded the Deschner Award, named after Karlheinz Deschner.
Cont...
Elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1997 and the Royal Society in 2001. Is one of the patrons of the Oxford University Scientific Society. In 1987, received a Royal Society of Literature award and a Los Angeles Times Literary Prize for his book, The Blind Watchmaker. In the same year, received a Sci. Tech Prize for Best Television Documentary Science Programme of the Year, for the BBC Horizon episode entitled The Blind Watchmaker. Other awards include the Zoological Society of London Silver Medal (1989), Finlay innovation award (1990), the Michael Faraday Award (1990), the Nakayama Prize (1994), the American Humanist Association's Humanist of the Year Award (1996), the fifth International Cosmos Prize (1997), the Kistler Prize (2001), the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic (2001), the Bicentennial Kelvin Medal of The Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow (2002) and the Nierenberg Prize for Science in the Public Interest (2009). Topped Prospect magazine's 2004 list of the top 100 public British intellectuals, as decided by the readers, receiving twice as many votes as the runner-up. Has been short-listed as a candidate in their 2008 follow-up poll.
Cont...
"Like computer viruses, successful mind viruses will tend to be hard for their victims to detect. If you are the victim of one, the chances are that you won't know it, and may even vigorously deny it."
Professor Richard Dawkins,
Formerly Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford and was a fellow of New College, Oxford. Awarded a Doctor of Science by the University of Oxford in 1989. Holds honorary doctorates in science from the University of Huddersfield, University of Westminster, Durham University, the University of Hull, the University of Antwerp, and honorary doctorates from the Open University, the Vrije Universiteit Brussel], and the University of Valencia. Also holds honorary doctorates of letters from the University of St Andrews and the Australian National University.
Cont...
"I insist that I be informed of any qualifications held by anyone who blissfully and arrogantly pontificates about medical subjects".
Here's an interesting thought. You seem to suggest that the claims of people who don't have qualifications (but get their facts from people who do), have less weight than people who do. You also seem to suggest that people with some qualifications must be factually correct when their views do not agree with those of people who don't have any.
Now here's where this becomes interesting. If what you are suggesting is true, then it stands to reason that we should take as truth the claims of scientists who have several qualifications (and international recognition to boot), when their claims do not agree with doctors whose qualifications are much inferior.
So here's the deal. If I quote you, word for word, a scientific claim from a scientist who is much more qualified than you, would you bow and unquestioningly accept his scientific claims as true?
If the answer is no, please do us all a favour and stop acting so childishly, bragging on and on about your qualifications. We're not impressed.
PS - The only charge you have to answer is whether you are being honest and telling the truth or whether you are being carried away by exuberant verbosity or worse, whether you are guilty of a deliberate attempt to hoodwink other readers after finding yourself unable to grit your teeth.
Please specify where I have taken liberties with your comments.
You asserted to all readers how you wanted "to point out the fact, obvious to all practitioners of these specialties", namely "Behaviour Modification, psychotherapy, psychology, psychiatry etc", based entirely on your authority with no factual backing. Given that general practitioners do not get any training in BM and psychotherapy, and only basic training in psychology, it is imperative for you to specify where your authority derives from, so that we can evaluate the weight of your argument.
Arguments are won on honesty and merit. Based on facts not pomposity. Those with substance have no need to brandish their qualifications. You are lost without yours, living in the vain hope of blinding your uninformed audiences so you can feed them nonsense.
Short comments would suit you as you can wriggle and twist them readily. It is not that easy when the facts backing an argument are spelt out is it? TUnfortunately you will have to put up with detailed refutals of every mistruth you dish out.
Quote : “Now that you have disclosed gratuitously that your "on-going postgraduate graduation" is taking place/has taken place in the streets of London at a Gay Pride Parade would you please satisfy the curiosity of the "spouters" of "Christian values" where exactly you obtained your original degree? Let me guess - Hyde Park corner!” addressed to Joe Xuereb
Quote: “I suspect that I could have been holding a medical dialogue with some “graduate” of a Gay Parade Hard Knock university” addressed to George M Sant & Kenneth Cassar.
Dr. Saliba have you got an issue with the gay community in Malta or indeed anywhere else?
Can you please be less prolix and vorbose and perhaps more relevant and succinct when you allege that you are being misinterpreted?
As for asking for our qualifications, perhaps we could refer you to the qualifications of the eminent scientists whose work we would have read and would be sharing. Perhaps we might then match their qualifications with yours. If you are willing and up to the challenge, please let us know.
When you quote my comment, take liberties with the way you interpret it and when you digress from what I had said you will be tilting at windmills like a latter day Don Quixote. I am no Sancho Panza – even though that character showed more innate wisdom than his knight errant because he recognized that Quixote’s malevolent giants were only windmills. In future I will only answer comments that are short and relevant – not your habitual meandering serpentine red herrings. One more thing: before answering any more medical comments comments I insist that I be informed of any qualifications held by anyone who blissfully and arrogantly pontificates about medical subjects and cavalierly question my own evident medical qualifications. I suspect that I could have been holding a medical dialogue with some “graduate” of a Gay Parade Hard Knock university, some similar D.I.Y. center of learning or even no recognized medical institution at all. I do not fancy having to answer a charge of “associating” with unlicensed persons.
Your argument for free will, based on the imperfect results of Behaviour Modification, betrays such a lack of sophistication. No procedure in the whole of medicine is 100% effective. BM is no exception. Consult textbooks on behavioural therapy for a list of technical reasons as to why BM may fail. Free will is not on that list. When BM fails, professional therapists would not rush to draw any philosophical inferences. They analyse the situation and reconsider, either refining their target behaviours and reinforcers or try alternative techniques.
I do agree with you that the central nervous system of human beings is a lot more sophisticated than present day computers. It has the ability to learn, acquiring behaviour and thought patterns that prove successful in reducing discomfort or which generate a positive affect. Likewise it extinguishes patterns associated with a negative affect. And it interacts constantly with its environment, having the ability to modify it. It also uses intelligence and an ability to rehearse potential scenarios in its efforts to solve novel problems. It is much more than reflexive. It is adaptive and constantly evolving. Nothing mysterious. Regrettably not all humans are equally endowed.
Back to your habitual tactics, dodging factual information that sees you out of your depth by pointing to your qualifications. We have been through this before but you have such a short memory.
The only one who is being glib about knowledge and qualifications doctor, is you. General practitioners should have a basic working knowledge of psychiatry but most would prudently not presume much expertise in psychology and hardly any in psychotherapy, behavioural or otherwise. You may of course, as always, consider yourself exceptional. So doctor, when you start "point(ing) out the fact, obvious to all practitioners of these specialties"(sic), are we to assume you are one of those practitioners? If so could you please justify it? Or is this just exuberant verbosity?
As for my style doctor, I consider intelligent readers deserve respect and strive to provide them with sufficient information on technical matters to enable them to follow and criticise the argument, research it further if they wish, and avoid getting hoodwinked by less scruplous contributors. The feedback I have received has been generally positive but again you may construe yourself outside the category of readers I am addressing.
That explains a lot. I would say that someone who skimps through comments would not be expected to provide a fair and reasonable refutation or criticism of the same comments.
1. The existence of god is a legitimate subject of debate. Because some believe in god passionately it does not follow that god must exist.
2. No one is under any obligation to read this blog. Those who lack the maturity to debate the subject intelligently and dispassionately are free to move on to other subjects.
3. Those believers who take offence at having their god questioned are often not shy to impose their beliefs on others who hold different views. They may wish to consider how offensive that may be.
I share your appreciation of Zeitgeist though it pays to check most statements and make your own mind up. I should also think most share your enthusiasm for plurality of opinion and tolerance.
The analogy would be nearly correct, though irrelevant. Nearly correct because the President is the head of a democratic institution, while the Archbishop is head of a non-democratic institution (no elections). Irrelevant because Mr Falzon never disputed the existance of either the Presidency or the Church.
You say that "Mocking" the belief in God and mocking our State Religion are inseparable and indistinguishable. Did John Falzon mock the belief in God? I don't think so. If you think otherwise, a quote and explanation would help, otherwise you must concede that your "analogy" is irrelevant, and as often, you were beating a straw man.
"The atheistic insistence that God does not exist is not some absolute truth".
We never said so. We would convert as soon as sufficient evidence is produced. However, the Christian insistence that God exists also is not some absolute truth.
Atheists do not assume that they have some monopoly in the quest for that truth. However, atheists do know that many Christians are not interested in the truth, or at most, seek for truth in a backward fashion: They read a conclusion (in the Bible) and seek "facts" that point to that conclusion.
There is a radical difference between "Criticism" and "Mockery". Criticism is admissible and even laudable when constructive. "Mockery" is something totally different.
"Mockery is different from merited criticism. That is why you now feel the need to be sly and to shift the argument away from the Presidency to the totally different case of a hypothetical President who abuses his position".
I see. So apparently only Christians such as Dr Saliba have the right to mock.
"What surprises me is your incongruous demand that we behave according to the gospel as interpreted by you - a classic case of the “devil quoting the scripture” but only when it suits his purpose".
Have I demanded anything? I only pointed out a fact, and produced a direct quotation from you to prove that fact - the fact being that you basically enjoy thinking about others' "misery" if the others are perceived by you as "the enemy". I would expect that you don't be a hypocrite and follow the same teachings you preach, but I would never demand that from you...I know you would never heed the advice of an "evil" atheist.
You are deliberately confusing criticism and mockery, to wriggle out again from another corner, “the wrong analogy corner”.
Mockery can be offensive; criticism and evaluation are prudent, common sense and justified. If, by asking for proof of the existence of your God, you choose to see it as mockery, then the issue is all yours.
Please show some respect for the Malta Constitution. CHAPTER IV of the Malta Constitution deals with “Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Individual”, particularly Section 40, “Protection of freedom of conscience and worship” as Amended by: LVIII. 1974.12, and Section 41 dealing with “Protection of freedom of expression”. To the bewilderment of the rest of Europe, some have canvassed in vain to change these basic human rights, by trying to enshrine anti-abortion laws in our constitution. Such action makes mockery of the Republic of Malta, its Constitution and its people.
Agreed “atheists do not have the monopoly for the quest for truth”. It is however extremely difficult for someone biased and prejudiced with “blind faith” and “blind cultural/social loyalty” to have any quest for truth at all, specifically when the search for truth is for cultural and religious matters.
The more prolix and verbose the comment (as opposed to what is strictly relevant and succinct) the more difficult it is for me to find the grain of wheat in the bushel of chaff. Please, do not be carried away by any exuberant verbosity if you want others to grit their teeth and to plod through your entire comments – not everyone has the tenacity and the time. I certainly do not - so I skimp through them.
I do not accept your glib assumption that you are more knowledgeable than I am about Behaviour Modification, psychotherapy, psychology, psychiatry etc– for obvious reasons.
In the present context I simply want to point out the fact, obvious to all practitioners of these specialties, that the application of these skills does not inevitably produce the same result when applied to different individuals or even to the same individual at different times. That is due to the patient’s fee will to comply with or to rebel against the therapist’s efforts. The individual is not a piece of computer hardware that activated by the appropriate software will always produce the same result if the same keys are pressed. Not by a long shot.
The analogy is perfectly correct and it is between the office of the Presidency on one hand and the State Religion on the other. Both exist and both are officially recognized in our Republican Constitution and for that reason no decent person would glibly show disrespect and mock either of them. “Mocking” the belief in God and mocking our State Religion are inseparable and indistinguishable. The mockery of any monotheistic religion is only aggravated by the silly pretext that what is being mocked is a god that does not exist in the mind of the mocker. What exists in the minds of those who are mocked is just as important.
The atheistic insistence that God does not exist is not some absolute truth, as they would like us to believe – far from it. That is a moot point. It is the tenet held by a sectional minority whilst the majority hotly contests that tenet. Atheists must not assume that they have some monopoly in the quest for that truth.
I would recommend you all watch the film Zeitgeist, simply to put religion into perspective. I say this as we talk about our Malta and our Religion. We have now entered a phase called gloabalisation, where countries will undoubtedly be cosmopolitan, retaining culture though accepting (i.e. more than tolerating) new religion and beliefs.
Before I receive a multitude of criticism, I consider my self agnostic and have no problem with people having different beliefs.
Your disagreement does not change anything. No one with any self-respect and no one with the slightest pretence of civilized behaviour would pretend that he has any automatic right to mock or show disrespect to the office of the President of the Republic, (or to anybody else, for that matter). Mockery is different from merited criticism. That is why you now feel the need to be sly and to shift the argument away from the Presidency to the totally different case of a hypothetical President who abuses his position.
As self declared atheist, it is no wonder that you also reject a particular chapter of the gospel. What surprises me is your incongruous demand that we behave according to the gospel as interpreted by you - a classic case of the “devil quoting the scripture” but only when it suits his purpose.
In repy to your comment:
"Regarding God being a fortune teller, we've already been through this. I've conceded that God wouldn't predict (that is, he wouldnt speak out all his foreknowledge), but the fact remains that he is supposed to know, second by second, our whole future (which would leave no room for free will unless we could in effect prove him wrong. Of course, because you are not willing to understand this simple truth, you choose to mock. "
Mela :).....
1. I purposely did not address my final comment to anyone because I extracted comments from all, and wanted to put them together for brevity's sake as a conclusion.
2. If you felt I came across as mocking you I assure you it was never my intention to do so. It is not the first time that what is written is taken the wrong way. Moreover, just because you saw my point does not mean that others do too.
re your comment: "Showing your true colours?"
3. My true colours were always the same..and I made it a point of showing them even when it required criticizing my own kind ie Catholics/Christians!
good day :)
"Anyone who does not believe in the republican type of government does not acquire any right to mock and be disrespectful towards the President of the Republic. Similarly, anyone who does not believe in God has no right to mock and insult the God who is the cornerstone of the Christianity that is the official religion of the Republic."
No government or President has an automatic right for respect. Good governance does. Just look at those countries ravaged in the grip of their despotic Presidents, all "democratically elected" in accordance with tradition. Similarly, religious leaders are not automatically entitled to respect when they irresponsibly abuse their moral authority to put pressure on vulnerable followers to act in a manner injurious to their health, or to pressurise and threaten politicians to ensure their power base is not threatened by liberalised legislation. They cannot expect their abuse to be protected by tradition and majority. People are educated. We are living in an era of enlightenment, freedom of thought and accountability. Challenging the power base of any despot, civil or religious, is the only way of ensuring democracy, freedom and justice for all, notwithstanding majorities and tradition.
If "there is a dark cloud hovering over...theists", they have themselves to blame. So long as religious leaders (Christian and non-Christian) have the arrogance to exert their moral authority to instruct the world to behave in a manner that is irresponsible and detrimental to their health, to pressurise if not threaten politicians when legislating, or to protect their kind from prosecution, they are going to be challenged. Let them prove their authority, their god, is real not a mere political tool underlying their power. Let them prove their god is rational and loving when he appears whimsical, impotent even malevolent. This is the Achilles heel of theists - a god so full of illogicalities and contradictions. An all loving god who fails to use his alleged omnipotence to obviate horrendous suffering or goes ahead to create you knowing you would end up eternally damned. Theists are free to ignore these contradictions or make allowances if they choose, so as to preserve their concept of a "good" god. They have every right and their decision has to be respected. Others have as much right to disagree and follow a way of life based on their insights and understandings.
Freedom of Choice operates at a social level. Free Will at an individual level. The two are distinct. Freedom of choice implies that those individual members of a society whose life experiences led them to embrace choice 'A' should not be oppressed by those whose life experiences led them to consider only choice 'B' will do.
"Equality...should not (and rightly so) mean acceptance of that equality with a grudge". Absolutely. Everyone is equal, the alumni and the illiterate, the theist and the atheist. All should be guaranteed freedom of thought, freedom of worship, freedom of expression, the only transgressions disallowed being those that jeopardise the physical welfare of society. What we should be teaching our children is that there are other systems of beliefs besides the one we chose to adopt. Maybe no system is perfect and it would be great if we could learn from one another.
There are so many points you raise in your last posting. Language first: Terms in science have a very precise meaning and are immaculately defined. Unfortunately scientists occasionally have to use common everyday terms, though their scientific meaning would be different and this can cause confusion. Yes languages do evolve over time and the meaning of words changes for better or worse. I suspect we all regret the adulteration of a weaker language by a stronger one. Pity the Maltese language. Political correctness has been a major influence in promoting certain terms and suppressing others in all languages. Like it or hate it, one can understand its necessity at times. If words serve to lessen "cognitive impact", they serve a useful purpose indeed. Emotions are an obstacle to logic and reason and we can only think things through clearly once emotions are neutralised. "We cannot be only rational, or only emotional". Ideally we should be strictly rational. It is the hallmark of the professional. It is not that easy in practice. All we can and need do is appreciate our attitudes are being influced more by emotion than reason and make allowances - or exercise tolerance.
Your fallacy is your attempt to dismiss that about which you know so little. Behaviour Modification is well known, well understood, practised universally and intuitively and with spectacular success by those who can harness its power. Examples abide in all aspects of life, in clinical practice, in rehabilitation and within the corrective services, in the classroom and everywhere you look in industry. There are consultancies to industry specialising in analysing workplace behaviour and setting in motion programs of behaviour modification to improve efficiency. No it is not always successful. It is but one mechanism through which behaviour is shaped and can only be as good as the understanding of the target behaviour on which it is based, the extent to which other competing factors can be isolated and on the resources available. Behaviour modification occurs at a subconscious level, out of the subject's awareness. Once a target behaviour is modified, the subject retains it unquestioningly. The point is that behaviour, human behaviour included, is subject to forces the individual is not aware of, which sway it one way or another without the subject even knowing it is happening. Call that free will!?
Are’nt we created as God s image? So can’t we ask about God? Do we have a right to try and understand Him, after all He revealed Himself to us and scriptures were written for us humans! 2000 years ago people found it difficult to believe in Him and they saw His miracles! Till the present day mankind saw famine, war, pestilence, loved one dying, heartbreaks...you name it, what have really changed after His coming? Does it reflect with what Fr Joe Borg said “This God is Love. He is crazy in love with us; so crazy about us that He gave His life for us.” I think that this is hard to gulp down.
I think you have misunderstood John Falzon. He is not disputing Christianity's existance (this would be silly), but remarking that your analogy of President of the Republic / God has an obvious fallacy. There is proof that the President of the Republic exists. There is not a single shred of evidence that God exists.
Doubting the existance of the President of the Republic would be insane. Doubting the existance of God (particularly one version or other of God) is a reasonable option.
No..."family" may not be substituted by "behaviour modifier", even though family is obviously one of the millions of behaviour modifiers. "Family" describes a basic unit. "Behaviour modifier" describes it in only one of its many functions.
As for "free will", it remains to mean "one's choice". However, some of us dispute that ultimately one has true choices if/when all our actions are determined by our genes and environment. People who argue so will tell you that at face level, I do choose an apple instead of a pear, but will also tell you that my "choice" was determined by other factors (taste being the most obvious).
Regarding God being a fortune teller, we've already been through this. I've conceded that God wouldn't predict (that is, he wouldnt speak out all his foreknowledge), but the fact remains that he is supposed to know, second by second, our whole future (which would leave no room for free will unless we could in effect prove him wrong. Of course, because you are not willing to understand this simple truth, you choose to mock.
Showing your true colours?
Cont...
"By the way, it may interest you to know that when disrespect was being shown towards God and His temple Christ himself whipped the offenders".
I don't believe that story, so no, it would not interest me. In any case, you are neither Christ nor God.
"You should not be surprised that today’s Christians express satisfaction and amusement at the identified confusion reigning in the ranks of some local atheists mocking the belief in God".
Of course I wouldn't be surprised. Nothing that fundamentalists do surprises me. But would they be following their own Christ's message? It would be more in line with Deuteronmy or Leviticus (oh how some Christian fundamentalists would have loved to live in those days!).
"Anyone who does not believe in the republican type of government does not acquire any right to mock and be disrespectful towards the President of the Republic".
I would disagree. If the President of the Republic conducts himself in a way that is deserving of mocking, everyone would have a right to mock him. But then again, God would not be a President of the Republic, so this would not apply.
"Similarly, anyone who does not believe in God has no right to mock and insult the God who is the cornerstone of the Christianity that is the official religion of the Republic".
When the issue in question is the existance or non-existance of God, everyone has the right to express one's views on the issue. I do understand that there is no way of saying "God does not exist" that would not offend some Christians, but it all goes along with freedom of (and from) religion.
Cont...
To be fair to other atheists, when speaking of an "insignificantly small number of local atheists" and saying that they are "indubitably mocking the God that most of the Christian population of Malta believes in", it would be only fair to the other atheists to name the minority you are referring to. Don't you agree?
Malta and its president are not fictitious; you have used the wrong analogy. Facts are facts, the Republic of Malta and its president exist.
The other fact is that some of us are still waiting for the proof of the existence of your God. In your eagerness to push your blind faith, you might choose to see mockery in such statements, but none is intended.
There was no need to take any deep breath to counter your "imaginary republic" argument. I am speaking about a real Malta, where we have a real Republic and a real President. And it is just as obvious that Christianity (and its God) are not "imaginary" and they are the real official religion of this real republic just as much as that its Head of State is a real flesh and blood President. Your wishful thinking may be distorting your concept of that reality and it may be unpalatable to you but facts are facts.
You may allow your imagination to run riot as much as you like and you may continue to speculate to your heart’s content but any silly questions you will have to answer yourself.
“Take a deep breath and try to understand this. Anyone who does not believe in the republican type of government does not acquire any right to mock and be disrespectful towards the President of the Republic”
Take a deep breath and try to understand this one:
What if someone believes in a far away republic, that nobody has ever been to, no one ever came from, and no one could proof that it exists, and an IMAGINARY PRESIDENT to go with it?
There is an obvious fallacy in the statement that “Whenever parents, teachers, spouses, employers etc approve or disapprove, they are acting as behaviour modifiers and they are shaping our behaviour. Your free will is taking one more kick”. The fallacious trick is concealed in the loose interpretation of “shaping” as if it that word meant restrictively “imposing” or “determining absolutely” our subsequent behaviour. Evidently, does is incorrect.
The educational attempts by “behaviour modifiers” do not produce the intended results at different times in different individuals or even in the same individual. There could be a positive response by compliance; at other times the response is negative and rebellious. If anyone is "taking one more kick" it is not those who believe in free will.
God is expected to be definable. In the year 2009 philosophers and scholars have not even found a definition for 'art', something which we touch and experience with all our senses. How can we then expect to find a definition for God?! We expect families to lay good pediments, for an utopian future, however without giving value laden instruction. We want to prepare responsible and mature adults however we seem to feel the need that if we teach them morals we will be inhibiting their growth and their future freedom of expression. How can want to teach our young to have tolerance and yet would like to create a rift between believers and non believers in God. How can we proclaim the right to be free to choose, and yet imply that our free will is not ours?
We cannot be only rational, or only emotional!
We cannot discriminate between freedom of expression and freedom of believing in God, because the former is a rational, and the latter is an 'illusion'. I always believe that in life one has to strike a balance and that there are always two sides to each coin.
Good day to all :)
In addition it is at times being advocated to manipulate words with established meaning to change that meaning. In this event the word ‘family’ may be substituted with ‘behaviour modifier’, ‘free will’ does not mean ‘one's choice’, God becomes a fortune teller who 'predicts' rather than 'knows', and in the process becomes 'malicious and malevolent'. Moreover, some words are being purposely manipulated and transformed so as to have lesser cognitive impact. So it is argued that for instance in abortion using the word 'terminating' as opposed to 'killing' should be more appropriate because the former is an evolved enlightened rational term implying freedom of choice and the latter is an emotive one harbouring guilt and discriminatory implications on the 'victim'. Equality also changes its meaning, because there should be equality of same sex choice, racial, political, etc which should not (and rightly so) mean acceptance of that equality with a grudge, but there is a dark cloud hovering over the validity of the equality of theists and the right to the respective freedom of speech, which seem to be nothing but ‘delusional’ who are none other than people who ‘want violence and destruction’ of their fellow humans.
cont......
It seems to me that the biggest issue is created by the choice of words which have changed (like many other things), and continue to change their meaning(s).... being a direct effect of humanity's evolutionary state of flux. We get a glimpse of this when we bother to look up the etymology of words. Today we are deliberately using already existing words to have dual meanings (meaning which is beyond metaphoric expression), let me give some trivial examples....whereas 'dog' used to mean a four legged domestic animal, it now means, buddy or friend; Its female counterpart went from meaning a female dog, to a woman of loose morals to a term of endearment between girls!! (how strange is that); 'lame' used to mean a person with some walking defect, now means an action considered to be silly or nerdy; 'cool' means hot and cold; 'hot' means hot and cool; 'bad' means good and bad. Desabled changed into challenged, challenged used to mean required to fight back!! These are some everyday examples to note how we are increasingly moulding and at times abusing (in the wider sense) words and their meanings to shape our cognitive communication.
cont..........
Take a deep breath and try to understand this. Anyone who does not believe in the republican type of government does not acquire any right to mock and be disrespectful towards the President of the Republic. Similarly, anyone who does not believe in God has no right to mock and insult the God who is the cornerstone of the Christianity that is the official religion of the Republic. That fact may stick in your throat but you will have to gulp it down as long as the Constitution is not amended according to your wishes.
By the way, it may interest you to know that when disrespect was being shown towards God and His temple Christ himself whipped the offenders. You should not be surprised that today’s Christians express satisfaction and amusement at the identified confusion reigning in the ranks of some local atheists mocking the belief in God.
An insignificantly small number of local atheists are indubitably mocking the God that most of the Christian population of Malta believes in - and that holds true independently of what these atheists themselves choose to believe. They have no right to be disrespectfully insolent and mocking of that God. Common decency, if nothing more.
Quote: “I will not be participating in any more dialogue with you because you habitually use English words with a baffling meaning peculiar to yourself and not found in any dictionary” addressed to George M Sant.
That will be the day Sulleeba! It might be a very good time for you to exit this debate, as no one can make any sense of your postings anymore.
Doctor you are one of the “chosen ”. All you have to do is stick to your blind faith in a “God that is everything that isn’t and isn’t everything that is” and just wait for your “final day of reckoning at the end of time after your freedom to exercise your free will on earth will have passed”.
The big question still remains, will there be a Judgment Day, or are judgments being made now, by humans with huge egos?
I gather that it is the term "behaviour modifier" that you do not like, and not its general meaning. Surely you must agree that the only things that do influence our behaviour (and they obviously do) are genes and environment (by environment one must include education, experience, etc).
You choose to call the environmental (not to be confused with its green issues meaning) good upbringing (which is so if one is lucky - bad parenting gives bad upbringing). I trust you do agree that good parenting effects and changes behaviour of the child. If behaviour is effected (positively or negatively) then the behaviour is modified. Hence the term "behaviour modifier".
You seem to put negative (undesirable) connotations to "behaviour modification" and ignore or overlook the positive (desirable) ones. Every parent who punishes her child when her child acts badly (steals, for instance), is modifying her child's behaviour (if she is successful). Similarly, every idea that impresses us and sticks to our minds, modifies our behaviour. We are all, essentially, behaviour modifiers to a lesser or greater extent.
Every time you pat your alsatian puppy, give him a biscuit for fetching a ball or tell him off for doing something naughty you are applying behaviour modification and you become a behaviour modifier. The same with humans. Whenever parents, teachers, spouses, employers etc approve or disapprove, they are acting as behaviour modifiers and they are shaping our behaviour. Your free will is taking one more kick.
"And also, I appreciate the irony of any atheist calling me unchristian because I defended the Christian God against the taunts of mocking atheists".
Who's taunting or mocking God? Have you forgotten that atheists do not believe in God, and one cannot taunt or mock that which does not exist? Unless, of course, you are referring to yourself when you say "God".
As for your not being unChristian, fine. So we have now learned that it is Christian to have much fun watching the "confusion" of others. And someone believes it is Christians, more than any atheist, who are moral.
What you are referring to is good upbringing, and enjoying the company of relatives and friends who also had the gift of good upbringing. Those around you who truly have your welfare at heart would never take a "behaviour modifier" approach with you. It is quite amazing what one (or the state or some organisation for that matter) can achieve with "behavior modifier" techniques. One could, for example, make someone leave their partner and cover their face with tattoos. One could sell them drugs, or even convince them to swim with sharks. Many men and women lose their career because they wouldn't allow their boss to "modify" their behaviour. Behaviour is a very personal thing. "Modifying" is not about "correcting", but is something which is potentially, and often inevitably, insidious. This is the reason why I objected strongly to Mr Sant's original comment in regard to Confession. Confession (which is also not religious counselling, as he keeps implying) follows a strict protocol with the sole purpose of undertaking the necessary measures in order to re-affirm the Faith of the Church member concerned. In fact, Confession unequivocally goes contrary to all forms of behaviour modification.
I will not be participating in any more dialogue with you because you habitually use English words with a baffling meaning peculiar to yourself and not found in any dictionary. To mention only examples from just one of your comments you use “to address” when apparently you intended to write “to solve”. Moreover, the example you give in an unsuccessful attempt to prove your charge of “hysterical gloating” or “pretentious congratulations” only prove that you do not know what those words mean.
I am convinced that you will continue to wallow in the exuberance of your own confusing verbosity but I will have no part in it from now on. Incidentally you may now accuse of being “sarcastic” but not of “gloating hysterically” or of indulging in “pretentious congratulations”. And also, I appreciate the irony of any atheist calling me unchristian because I defended the Christian God against the taunts of mocking atheists.
Whether we see it or not, or whether or not we call it that way, we are all behaviour modifiers of each other to a lesser or greater degree. Your first behaviour modifiers were probably your parents, and so were mine...followed by my immediate family, friends, school, etc.
The way you keep carrying on. "Behaviour modifier". "Behaviour modifier". You sound like a German Shepherd trainer. I wouldn't even let you do it to my Alsatian puppy.
"I personally believe that if God knows my future or not, i will still live in an impatient (the virtue) manner with the scope to enjoy each day"
A very pertinent comment. With or without God and religion, we would all continue behaving as we are. Most try hard to be decent human beings and leave the world a better place if at all possible.
When however, "believers" insist they are the only enlightened ones and society has to submit to their dictates, and woe betide those who do not, then we have a problem. Especially if they come haughtily looking down their noses at those who are different and full of pious threats to those who disagree. Then it becomes essential to demonstrate their beliefs are in fact fiction so that everyone's rights to behave and think as they please, so long as they do not harm society, are protected.
"To have a conversation for 2 weeks on the subject of G(g)od's foresight which at the end of the day, we know nothing about...".
We know nothing about - that is the key phrase. Some of us pretend otherwise, and think they can reconcile omniscience with free will, without even attempting to explain logically how this can ever be so. And in the absence of any logical arguments, childishly express joy and satisfaction at a simple "mistake" in a definition of one word.
I have no problem with people who do not wish to participate in lengthy debates. However, I find such debates mentally stimulating and particularly enjoy them when people with opposing views to mine at least debate in an intelligent manner.
That said, I might take a break soon enough...I often do after a long debate.
I recommend a long vacation for all of you!
I personally believe that if God knows my future or not, i will still live in an impatient (the virtue) manner with the scope to enjoy each day. :)
"You won't be seeing any comment from me unless it is in reply to some comment exhibitibg some originality spiced with an element of coherence and logic. Some hope!".
Actually, I don't expect any post from you that exhibits an element of coherence and logic. Some hope!
You (Simon Azzopardi) are absolutely right".
You mean that we have been arguing for two weeks? Of course he is. But what's the point exactly?
"Speaking for myself I should have realized some time ago that you can take a mule, and a blinkered one at that, to a horse trough but you cannot make it drink".
I have to agree with you here, although I have someone else in mind as the "mule".
"Our problem is that we are rationalizing God in terms of human limitations. I explained this in my last post addressed to you".
Not exactly. I would say that we are rationalizing the possibility of an omniscient God with human logic. To claim something that goes beyond (or contrary to) logic is to claim an unsuperable mystery - hence closing the debate. In this case, "faith" is the only answer to what appears illogical. But in this case, one must acknowledge that in this case, faith would be incompatible with reason.
"Identical twins growing up in the same environment can and do react differently to the same situation". You still do not get it do you? First of all identical twins, even those brought up apart, are a lot more similar in psychological attributes than dizygotic twins brought up together, and are virtually identical in thought, feelings, attitudes, personality etc when brought up together, invaiably showing virtually identical choices. That is irrefutable proof of the role of genetics in determining behaviour.
Secondly genes interact with environmental factors, especially those operative in the early formative years. Personality is formed long before we are able to reason. Further, behaviour is an ongoing process of adaptation, an individual formed by genes and nurturing constantly processing feedback from internal and external processes and selecting choices. Behaviour is predictable.
Legal responsibility and culpability have been addressed elsewhere and I will not repeat what I have already said.
If our will is entirely free we would have the ability to prove God wrong, so would be more powerful than God. If God is right and has foreseen our actions then we do not have free will.
You are absolutely right. Speaking for myself I should have realized some time ago that you can take a mule, and a blinkered one at that, to a horse trough but you cannot make it drink. You won't be seeing any comment from me unless it is in reply to some comment exhibitibg some originality spiced with an element of coherence and logic. Some hope!
"the problem of evil and free will has been abundantly “addressed” in this blog". You may think you have addressed them. You have not. The only argument you have stated over and over again is that you know better! You are a Christian! Those, who unlike you question God will end up badly! Good for you but where is your evidence. None of the questions raised by Mr Cassar, Mr Soler and myself and others have been answered in an intelligent, logical and factual manner, but only by derision and denial. No doubt true to form you will now inflict on everyone an interminable punctilious litany of denials and misquotations. Prove to us all that you do have free will and resist.
Sharon Abela need not explain any such thing (plus, she doesn't need anyone telling her what to explain to someone else apart from oneself).
But to answer the question you want to dump on her, the future as imagined by me, you and the rest of humanity cannot be known with 100% accuracy and certainty. That is why we see it as changing. If we knew the whole future, second by second, with 100% accuracy and certainty, then the future would not change from the way we would have foreseen it.
Dr Francis Saliba
"Naughty! You have ruined my reputation of being a “one man army” gullibly believing in the God of Christianity.
As if that were not enough you had to spoil everything by pointing out that “prediction” and “foreknowledge” were being used indiscriminately as if they meant the same thing!
I had been having so much fun watching the confusion being created in those who were clearly not aware of the difference between the two!"
How is that for starters. For other examples review your past postings.
Why don't we put a closure to all this by saying that the unusual compatibility of 100% foreknowledge of all our actions with our free will is just as much a "mystery" as is the birth of someone prophecied to be coming "from the seed of David" and yet being born of a virgin?
Why focus on Hitler. And Saddam, Genghis Khan, Borgias, Inquisitors, disasters, wars, plagues, etc. Tthat's what matters. The scientific method of testing a hypothesis is by attempting to disprove it. Only by doing that can you determine its veracity. The probability of that hypothesis being correct increases the more it resists attempts to disprove it. Set out to prove the most fallacious of hypotheses correct and evidence will grow around you like mushrooms, blinding you to evidence to the contrary.
God is good and loving. Set out to prove it and you will end up with a long list of good people and things. But what about the equally long list of evil things and people. Where do they come from if not from the same God? The argument was that by allowing bad things to happen, including our damnation, when He had foreknowledge, He is acting irresponsibly, as much as the parent who does not take precautions to ensure its child will not do foolish things. That you have not addressed and cannot dismiss. I trust you are not seriously suggesting that God allows evil so that we can appreciate his better creations!
"Prevalent Christian belief is that what God has PREDETERMINED is that we be given the free will to choose between doing good or evil".
True.
"God has FOREKNOWLEDGE of the way we are going to use or to abuse that freedom".
So basically, if he has foreknowledge that I will abuse his freedom (or not), I cannot do otherwise than abuse his freedom (or not), since if I do, his foreknowledge would have been erroneous. Inserting "of the way" does not change this simple fact.
I read the first sentence of your last comment, (sorry; but I had to discontinue soon after that, stupefied by your verbosity!)
I do not see any evidence for the “hysterical gloating” or “pretentious congratulations from some quarters” mentioned by you. Would you mind devoting some of your profuse outpourings to specify exactly where and when – otherwise your readers would be justified to conclude that you are simply throwing mud hoping that some of it will stick to somebody, somewhere? The only place that will most certainly be dirtied during such an exercise would be the hand of the mudslinger.
Contrary to your claim, the problem of evil and free will has been abundantly “addressed” in this blog – if anything it has been super abundantly addressed, not always coherently, to the expressed annoyance of readers. By any chance have you any uniquely personal definition for your “addressed” that goes beyond that given in dictionaries?
"You may think foolishly that you are “doing something other than what God knows I would do” but you would be wrong".
For the umpteenth time, stop beating a straw man. I actually claimed the opposite. If God has foreknowledge of what I will do, I cannot do otherwise than what he already knows I will do.
"You would never be able to out-maneuver the Christian omniscient God. No matter how deviously you would have used your free will God would always be one step ahead of your tomfoolery, He would know all about it even before you indulge in your choices".
Again...straw man. See above.
"He would allow you to do whatever you choose to do. That is God’s prescience coupled with your free will".
Prescience is incompatible with free will. If not, explain the exception to the general rule.
"But there will be a final day of reckoning at the end of time after your freedom to exercise your free will on earth will have passed".
Dream on.
Life is about evolving. Growing up. Becoming better human beings. Better able to cope with life. Every creature is struggling to modify its behaviour, humans included. Neither confession nor religious counselling are effective in modifying behaviour patterns.
When you go to confession you are acknowledging you did something wrong. Presumably you want to stop doing what you consider to be wrong. Going to confession will not help you one single bit to achieve that aim. From a behavioural perspective confession is actually reinforcing undesirable (from your perspective) through the elimination of negative reinforcement.
Counselling is about modifying behaviour. Its sole aim and its sole purpose is to modify behaviour patterns. Good counselling enpowers the subjects to understand their goals and options and assists them in selecting the option that best suits them, from the subject's perspective. Religious perspective only encourages action along certain lines, completely disenpowering the subjects and narrowing their options. I trust you have got it.
"Do not blame me for the antics of atheists who freely interchange "predict" and "foresee" in their futile attempt to deny God's existence. Christians may choose to smile or to cry at that folly. That is the essence of the free will in which we believe".
True, except that you did not simply smile or cry. What you wrote is:
"I had been having so much fun watching the confusion being created in those who were clearly not aware of the difference between the two!"
So once again, thanks for clearly displaying your "Christian" charity.
"an omniscient God will foresee (not dictate) the way in which you use/abuse your free will and will hold you accountable on judgment day".
Nobody can foresee with 100% accuracy and certainty any action unless that event is predetermined. If you disagree, the onus is on you to explain your exception to the general, observable and testable rule.
"If I foresee that a car rounding a corner at excessive speed is going to crash I cannot be logically accused of predetermining the resulting collision simply because I had foreseen the result of that careless driving".
Straw man. Nobody is saying that. What I am saying is that I can only be 100% sure that the car will crash only if the car cannot do other than crash.
"What is the point of atheists obstinately asking the same question again and again if not to allay their niggling doubt that God may exist after all and that there is a final day of judgment?".
You may think that if that makes you happy. All I am saying is that an omniscient God would be incompatible with free will. This does not prove that God does not exist. It only shows that if we have free will, and if God exists, he cannot be omniscient.
"If on the other hand their hidden agenda is to proselytize then the blog run by a Catholic priest is an unhappy choice".
All it takes for me to go away is for Fr Joe to say "atheists are not welcome".
hihihi..off to the beach me:))
@the others who usually tell me to take sun cream..
I'm staying in the shade do not worry
:)
Please devote some time trying to digest and understand this comment before rushing, as usual, to declaim untruthfully that your questions are being evaded.
Prevalent Christian belief is that what God has PREDETERMINED is that we be given the free will to choose between doing good or evil.
God has FOREKNOWLEDGE of the way we are going to use or to abuse that freedom. That is NOT the same as predetermination or predestination. That knowledge is the result of our free choice not its cause.
Genes and environment are factors affecting our choices. They are not determining factors. Intelligent human beings have the ultimate responsibility to rise above any environmental or genetic handicaps and not to take the easy way out and succumb to evil.
Identical twins growing up in the same environment can and do react differently to the same situation precisely because each one of us has been given the freedom to make an individual and final choice how to react. Evidently, we are individuals not pre-programmed to behave robotically in a slavishly pre-determined way. Even our imperfect systems of earthly justice are all based on the elementary fact of individual responsibility and culpability.
I do not need to consult with any congregation to give you again the answer that I have already given you to similar questions. I predict that once more you will feign your chronic refusal to understand.
You may think foolishly that you are “doing something other than what God knows I would do” but you would be wrong. You would never be able to out-maneuver the Christian omniscient God. No matter how deviously you would have used your free will God would always be one step ahead of your tomfoolery, He would know all about it even before you indulge in your choices. He would allow you to do whatever you choose to do. That is God’s prescience coupled with your free will. He will not coerce you either way. But there will be a final day of reckoning at the end of time after your freedom to exercise your free will on earth will have passed.
Since the statement was addressed to you, would you mind explaining to Kenneth that the future AS IMAGINED BY HIM AND THE REST OF HUMANITY can be changed and is being changed all the time in accordance with the exercise of our free will e.g. in waging war or avoiding war, living in peace with our neighbours or in civil strife, in protecting or destroying our environment etc. It is only the future as an absolute truth that is completely unknowable to us and that cannot be changed by any human agency. That future is totally beyond our manipulation and even beyond our comprehension - in spite of the claims of fortune tellers. The distinction is just as important as the distinction between "predicting" and "foreseeing".
Do not blame me for the antics of atheists who freely interchange "predict" and "foresee" in their futile attempt to deny God's existence. Christians may choose to smile or to cry at that folly. That is the essence of the free will in which we believe.
You know as much as I do that this debate of fatalism and freewill has been going on since time immemorial, and I do not suspect it will be solved soon..
I thought this link below might be of interest
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fatalism/#5
But madoff how negative you are ta! Why do you only say why did God create Hitler?, why do you not ask why He created, Plato, Aristotile, Alexander the Great, Mother Theresa, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Newton, Einstein, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, John Lennon, Bernini, Sir Temi Zammit, Madame Curie, Alexander Fleming, Colombus, Galileo, Bell, Nelson, Wright Brothers, Ford....
Good always coexisted with bad, even within that which is meant to be all good ironically!
How does one differentiate between light and dark, if there is only light or only dark? Wet or dry if all is wet or all is dry?
You are aware, by your own admission, that Confession and counselling are two separate activities; but you also choose to label both as "behaviour modifiers".
Behaviour modification is a matter for people like managers in the work place wanting to increase productivity or marketers wanting to sell products to consumers. Both the manager and the marketer are trying "to take" rather than trying "to help".
Neither the counsellor nor the confessor seeks to "modify" the behaviour of the person they are assisting. They have no interest whatsoever to do so. Rather, they assist with the perspective of a situation such as, for example, a marriage crisis in the case of counselling. Your adjective "religious" and your label "behaviour modifiers" are clearly inappropriate.
You are absolutely right: “you are unable to make God’s foreknowledge wrong”. You may decide to be evil or you may decide to be good because God granted you the free will to do so. But no matter what you choose to be, good or evil, no matter how frequently you change your mind an omniscient God will foresee (not dictate) the way in which you use/abuse your free will and will hold you accountable on judgment day.
If I foresee that a car rounding a corner at excessive speed is going to crash I cannot be logically accused of predetermining the resulting collision simply because I had foreseen the result of that careless driving. Atheists have a wrong idea about the omniscience of a God that can foresee the way in which man is going to use his free will. From the Christian point of view this foresight can exist concomitantly with man’s exercises his free will. From the atheist point of view it cannot.
What is the point of atheists obstinately asking the same question again and again if not to allay their niggling doubt that God may exist after all and that there is a final day of judgment? In this case the proper venue for their enlightenment is not a public blog but private consultation with knowledgeable persons.
If on the other hand their hidden agenda is to proselytize then the blog run by a Catholic priest is an unhappy choice.
"Essentially, I feel that we are disagreeing because you are looking at the argument in human terms and attributing human qualities to 'a god' while I differentiate between knowledge (or foreknowledge) as understood in human terms; and omniscience as understood in God's terms as taught through theology".
At least this shows you are honest. However, you must understand that logic can only be understood in human terms. Your argument can be summed up in the following terms: God defies (or is beyond, if you prefer) logic.
If that is your conclusion, then I will agree to forever disagree, since the way the debate is proceeding is in the manner of "if there is no rational explanation, explain it away by invoking theology - the clouding in mystery of beliefs that cannot be backed by logic.
Do any of you work?! :)
I know the speeding example is weak, especially when it is applicable to God. But it is the closest I could get to in human terms. Our problem is that we are rationalizing God in terms of human limitations. I explained this in my last post addressed to you.
In human terms and with our human limitations 'free will' and 'foreknowledge', I agree cannot coexist, but I thought we were discussing God.
When we discuss God we attribute humanly impossible states and achievments, how can any human be possible of all creation. We say God is male and female, is it humanly possible to be such? God is beginning and end, is it humanly possible to be so?
So human attributes are different from God's. So if one does not believe in God it is impossible to reason free will and onmiscience coexisting in a God one does not believe exists, although I understand that the only way for you is to see it in human rational terms. Please do not tell me that it is another loophole. If it is, I'm sorry but I'm sure you agree that philosophy is riddled with 'loopholes' and dichotomies.
Yes, I did read as far as the speeding fine example. However, it is not a good example, since the parent does not know for sure if his/her son WILL be speeding. The parent can know for certain that the son will be speeding only if the son HAS TO speed. If the son can choose whether or not to speed, the parent cannot be 100% certain that he will. At best, it can only be an informed guess.
Now replace parent with "God" and son with "any human", and you'll know what I mean. If, as you say, God knows the future, then the future cannot be changed.
"I had been having so much fun watching the confusion being created in those who were clearly not aware of the difference between the two!"
If anything, this clearly displays your "Christian" charity.
Despite the hysterical gloating and pretentious self congratulations from some quarters, neither the problem of evil nor the problem of free will have been addressed at all. Not in a factual manner that is logical and rational, based on hard, verifiable evidence. The only argument put forward is that the believer has no difficulty reconciling the various aspects of God. Subjective and back to "Blind Faith". Claiming their understanding is based on the gospels proves nothing. Besides the onus being on them to prove the reliability of the gospels, it is a circular argument: The gospels say that God exists. The gospels are the word of God. Therefore God exists. Logic and reason based on established verifiable facts argue otherwise. No aspect of physical science supports the contention there is some supreme being, conscious and intelligent, controlling the universe, while the scientific analysis of human behaviour does not support the concept of free will. Without free will there can be no sin, no need for redemption and no god. Sorry to disappoint those eager to stand on the right side of God on judgment day condescendingly smiling down at non-believers as they are cast into eternal flames.
5. "Our will is ours to shape". Are we free to determine who our parents are and what genes we are going to inherit, whether we will end up with a liberal dose of psychopathic genes or an inhibitory disposition? Are we free to determine what sort of upbringing we are going to have and where, the kind of indoctrination we are going to be exposed to? Are we free to determine who our teachers and other role models are going to be, the mores of the community we are brought up in? Our will is not ours to shape. It is shaped for us. You seem to understand these concepts but still insist on free will. Explain then how behaviour is so predictable.
3. Free will cannot be independent of God's omniscience. Either He cannot tell how you are going to behave, in which case He is not God, or we have been predestined to fit in with His omniscience. God would be proven wrong if you were to behave in a manner different to what He foresaw. If He foresaw your eternal damnation, why did he create you in the first place? To obtain the devious satisfaction of having to punish his beloved creations? Why did God create Hitler?
4. My 6 part posting was about FACTS. Facts that have been established science for well over 50yrs. Religion is biased. Science is not. Fundamentalism is the insistence on a set of beliefs and mores in the face of insurmountable evidence to the contrary. Looking at all the evidence and using one's logic to draw one's own conclusions is the enlightened and liberating approach. I urge all intelligent readers to conduct their own research into the biology of behaviour (psychology, psychiatry, neuropsychology and neuropsychiatry), disciplines that show how inadequate the concepts of free will, and for that matter, predeterminism are.
1. Knowing what is going to happen in the future, whether in broad or in minute detail, carries worse implications than predicting, as it implies certainty. In your own words "knowing the outcome of my choices in life". He knows what the end result of your choices is going to be. Your preference for words is irrelevant, and unfortunately betrays a bias on your part, an attempt to reconcile the unreconcilable.
2. A responsible parent will allow his child, recently fined for speeding, to drive again only after taking steps to minimise the risk of a repeat. Unlike God, a parent cannot see into the future and has to take risks. A parent who suspects his child might be foolishly tempted to borrow the family car whilst disqualified (e.g. to attend an important party while parents away) would be negligent if s/he did not do whatever it took to prevent that from happenning. God KNOWS the "outcome of my choices". If He does not take precautions to prevent those foolish choices that are against our best interest He is uncaring and negligent. If He then punishes us for making those choices then He is malevolent.
I am aware that confession and religious counselling are two separate things. That is why I listed the two separately in my posting. The point is that both are useless as behaviour modifiers. Confession might make you feel good that you have been forgiven, wiping the slate clean so that you can start all over again. Fill the slate again with the same items you had on it the previous week and have it wiped clean again the following Saturday. Religious counselling is biased and loaded, directing the subject along its lines rather than facilitating self awareness and self development and enpowering the subject to make his own choices. The common advice to "trust in Him" and to pray are both counter productive, disenpowering the subject and restricting his options.
If God knows my future, how can you reconcile the fact that I may choose to do something other than what God knows I would do, without making God's foreknowledge wrong?
Again, you may ask your congregation of non-participating assenters for their help if the question is too difficult for you. It shouldn't be, of course. After all, you know the difference between "prediction" and "foreknowledge". I'm actually very impressed, so I would expect a very convincing reply, even if it is very long in coming.
So I ask again:
If God knows my future, how can you reconcile the fact that I may choose to do something other than what God knows I would do (free will), without making God's foreknowledge wrong?
"Seems I have underestimated your cunning in finding a convenient loophole in my question.."
It is not a convenient loophole. And I am not using any cunning whatsoever. I am merely explaining the way I look at, and reason this issue. I do not feel the need or remotely wish to trap you or anyone else into my beliefs and convictions erroneously. You asked me a question to which I replied, with my version. Now if it was not what you wanted to hear it does not imply any cheating, merely different viewpoints. It is not like it has the most straight forward of answers after all. I thought this was a mature discussion, based on the wider meaning of knowledge.
Essentially, I feel that we are disagreeing because you are looking at the argument in human terms and attributing human qualities to 'a god' while I differentiate between knowledge (or foreknowledge) as understood in human terms; and omniscience as understood in God's terms as taught through theology. So, since I believe in God and you do not, I guess it's like speaking in two different languages, so we might as well once again agree to disagree.
:)
Naughty! You have ruined my reputation of being a “one man army” gullibly believing in the God of Christianity.
As if that were not enough you had to spoil everything by pointing out that “prediction” and “foreknowledge” were being used indiscriminately as if they meant the same thing!
I had been having so much fun watching the confusion being created in those who were clearly not aware of the difference between the two!
You will next point out to Kenneth that of course he would never expect that God would seek his advice as to who had been an unrepentant liar during his lifetime – has he not protested enough that there is no God in the Christian sense of that word?
You have ruined my day! I am glad that it is now sunset.
Today's last post. Seems I have underestimated your cunning in finding a convenient loophole in my question, since "predict" could mean (or actually means - I won't argue on this point) that not only does one know the future, but actually tells it.
However, this changes nothing. If God knows the whole future, he must know what I am going to do in about 10 minutes: I will switch off my computer. Do you agree on this point?
Now, let's say I choose not to switch off my computer at all...then God would have been mistaken, wouldn't he? His can only be foreknowledge (not an informed guess) if I cannot do otherwise...that is, if I have to switch off the computer in 10 minutes.
If, on the otherhand, I choose not to switch off the computer, if God knows my future, then he still would have known this, and I still would have no choice if his foreknowledge (not informed guess) is to be true.
Just to be clear (and to avoid any further loopholes) - by foreknowledge I mean knowledge in advance of what will happen in the future.
I think that I was very clear ..when I said... and will say agian that 'God knows'. So yes God knows the future. Where have I avoided the question??
God knows all...but will let ME choose ie let me have free will... so
if I choose to go to the beach tomorrow He (today) knows that I am going to the beach, and if I choose to stay at home tomorrow He (today) knows that I am going to stay at home tomorrow. I cannot tell you now what I will do tomorrow as I have not decided yet, but will tell you tomorrow which choice I make. You can try to predict if you like, but as I said yesterday you have a 50% chance of being right.
I shall exercise my free will tomorrow, but God already knows what my choice is going to be. Just because he knows does not make me lack any free will. Did you even read as far as the speeding fine example?
Please note that I am not one who avoids tricky questions I thought that I made that very obvious by now! :)
"God is not a person...does not claim the ability to 'predict', but 'knows' the future".
The difference is of no consequence. If God knows the future but keeps it to himself, it still means that if we act otherwise, we would in effect be making his foreknowledge wrong.
"It is unnecessary for you to idly speculate about what Christians “would like to believe” in God".
I suppose it is as much unnecessary as it is to idly speculate about what "atheists would like to believe in a God...", is it not?
2 cont....
I always maintain that freedom is itself enslaved in its own rules and boundaries. I also think that ‘choice’ and ‘free will’ are interchangeable words. I feel that your 6-part posting was more concerned with how and why this choice should be non-religious rather than free. So ironically you are in turn being biased as much as religious fundamentalists.
Re: “Our will can never be completely free.”
Only if we consider it within our own personal surroundings and abilities. Our will is ours to shape, accordingly and independently of what God knows.
1
Re: “Perhaps the point is that, being omniscent, God is the ultimate fortune-teller.”
I disagree on the following counts:
dictionary.com: a fortune teller is ‘a person who claims the ability to predict the future’. God is not a person and does not claim the ability to 'predict', but 'knows' the future.
With regards to the rest of the long thesis, we are not discussing free will as in 'one's choice' but free will as being independent from God's omniscience.
You address the fact that 'free will' is a choice based on many human encounters such as tradition, culture, science, knowledge and reason. And I agree as I said many times in other postings, that we are subjects conditioned to our surroundings. But that still makes us in charge and not God to exercise our choice. God simply knows what our ultimate choice will be.
cont......
"One more thing He would have no need to rely on you or anybody else, to identify for him those “who die unrepentant of their lies and misrepresentations of other human beings, no matter who they are”".
I would never dare do such a thing. You would make a better job at judging people yourself.
"Instead of ‘predict’ I prefer to use the word ‘knows’. So God knows not predicts".
Psalm 139:4 "Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD".
It's not a question of what you prefer. That is irrelevant. It is a question of what God knows. Does God know our future, second by second? It appears that Psalm 139:4 strongly suggests he does. That would explain why priests taught me so in Salesian secondary school.
Of course, if you want to believe that God cannot predict, that's your choice. It sure is a way of avoinding the question of omniscience/prescience vs free-will.
"You are making the allegation that God predicts what we are going to do, “second by second” – I do not agree with you".
For the benefit of Dr Saliba:
Psalm 139:
1 O LORD, you have searched me and you know me.
2 You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar.
3 You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways.
4 Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD.
"This freely chosen action of yours determines what form God’s FOREKNOWLEDGE will take regarding any merits or demerits resulting from your freely chosen actions".
Doesn't the above contradict the following?:
"God has NEVER PREDICTED how you will react. In the absence of such a “prediction” you cannot accuse God of predestining you to behave in a particular way and against your will".
"You are making the allegation that God predicts what we are going to do, “second by second” – I do not agree with you".
Oh...you surprise me. I would have thought that an omniscient God would even know what we are thinking, and that God knows everything, including the past, present and future. At least that is what they taught me in Catholic school. I guess the Salesian priests were wrong, and Dr Saliba is right.
There is hope for free will, after all!
It is unnecessary for you to idly speculate about what Christians “would like to believe” in God. Our God is the one preached by Christ himself and who, most definitely, at the end of time, will sit in judgment to reward and punish in justice. One more thing He would have no need to rely on you or anybody else, to identify for him those “who die unrepentant of their lies and misrepresentations of other human beings, no matter who they are”.
Instead of ‘predict’ I prefer to use the word ‘knows’. So God knows not predicts. The difference lies between the key words ‘knowing’ and ‘predicting’. God does not predict anyone’s behaviour or life patterns, to anyone. To predict involves a predictor and a receiver. As far as I know no one has as yet been given the prerogative of receiving daily e-mails from God regarding the itinerary of the day :)
I see it more as God knowing the outcome of my choices in life, whichever they may be. Rather than saying that God has destined me to be writing in this blog right now, I would say that God happens to know that I will choose to write this blog right now. I do not think that it is difficult to understand, if one already believes in God, one also believes that, that God knows the outcome of humans’ decisions. Not predicts, but knows.
e.g. A parent knows that if a son/daughter is caught speeding he/she gets a fine, but nonetheless allows him/her to drive where there are cameras, then the choice is up to the driver to observe the speed limit.
"And here is my short, clear and “predictable” answer. I have already explained...how God’s omniscience and prescience are compatible with his gift of free will to humanity without imposing predestination".
Interesting answer. I ask how one can reconcile a God who has the power of predicting, second by second, all our future actions with the concept of free will, when if we have the power to act otherwise than God's prediction, we would prove God's prediction wrong, and your answer is...
"I have already explained it".
No you haven't, and this is why I challenge you to explain. Once again, you may wish to ask for the help of those from whom you "get feedback" and who "do not bother to participate in this exchange of views".
You flatter yourself. Your question is neither complex nor difficult - you and other atheists have made it on numerous occasions, differently worded, of course. I have answered it – see my previous comment. For the benefit of any new comers, here goes:
You are making the allegation that God predicts what we are going to do, “second by second” – I do not agree with you. I do not know of any occasion when God made that prediction. I am convinced that the Almighty has better things to do. I now see where you get the silly notion that God is some kind of fortuneteller.
God has never predicted how you will react. In the absence of such a “prediction” you cannot accuse God of predestining you to behave in a particular way and against your will. It is the other way round. You exercise the God given freedom to choose to do good or to do evil. This freely chosen action of yours determines what form God’s foreknowledge will take regarding any merits or demerits resulting from your freely chosen actions.
Confession in the Roman Catholic Church is not "counselling" (religious or otherwise) as you are alleging. In fact, RC churches around the world provide counselling sessions to their members as separate activities which have absolutely nothing to do with the religious practice of Confession. Confession is a private, formal and most importantly frank exchange between priest and the receiver of absolution, followed by an agreed activity of repentance and the reaffirmation of the Faith. Please note that a priest, in general, is not trained to provide counselling. Counsellors are professional people trained to deal with trauma who may or may not be priests.
Regarding my last question (which I have asked you in different forms several times), if you find it too complex or difficult, you may ask some of those from whom you "get feedback" and who "do not bother to participate in this exchange of views".
I won't complain as long as I get an answer.
And here is my short, clear and “predictable” answer.
I have already, more than once, explained how Christians reconcile the attributes of mercy and compassion with that of justice and how God’s omniscience and prescience are compatible with his gift of free will to humanity without imposing predestination.
Don’t be lazy or evasive, trace them out for yourself – I have already done so. I will not tell you exactly where to find them and I will not rub your nose in them. That way I may avoid the nauseously repeated irrelevant accusation of script mining. If it continues to be made I will ignore that accusation also, from now on.
Silly me...I fell for your trick. When I asked "Could it be that the fact that no one has PUBLICLY agreed with you could be a sign that everyone (inluding Fr Joe Borg) knows that you have been driven into a tight corner?", you reply that you "do not presume to answer for anybody else".
It should be obvious to one and all that when I said "publicly" I obviously meant on this blog. So no, I am not presuming to answer for anybody else. I am only reading everyone's posts and noticing that you are an "army of one".
It must feel so lonely, being a Dr Saliba on a Times blog.
"I am not applauding myself - you asked me and I answered your prayer".
Well, how about answering this then (perhaps you missed it):
How can you reconcile a God who has the power of predicting, second by second, all our future actions with the concept of free will, when if we have the power to act otherwise than God's prediction, we would prove God's prediction wrong?
Note: I am not saying that God is not omniscient (or prescient), or that free will does not exist. All I'm saying is that you cannot have both. If you insist that you can, please explain how so.
Will you answer this?
"It may interest you to know that I get feedback from readers who do not bother to participate in this exchange of views. They make it clear that they should show pity and refrain from striking you when I have already put you down practically on my own".
Pity they are all too chicken to publicly share your/their views. It is also unfortunate that they feel pity towards me and then safely do not give me the opportunity to answer back. I call such people self-righteous cowards.
It is so easy to feel all holier-than-thou and self-righteous when your opinions cannot be publicly challenged.
"I never said or implied that all “atheists are basically evil”. That is your unjust and illogical attribution. Genuine atheists, and even more so agnostics, could be as good as any other human beings and I never said anything else".
I am sure you didin't. I am not so sure that Christians would like to believe in a God who after loving us, caring for us throughout our earthly life and forgiving us when we repent our sins, would also sit in judgment rewarding us for our good deeds and punishing those who die unrepentant of their lies and misrepresentations of other human beings, no matter who they are.
Please note that I am not saying or impying that all Christians are liars. Genuine Christians could be as good as any other human beings and refrain for lying, even if for a "Godly" cause.
Predictable as always doctor! When lost for an answer try to discredit the author instead. What is written in my postings is factual and well established. Basic behavioural science. Things that should be known by all medical students - if their career is to proceed that is. Indeed by most intelligent, well read lay people too. The best way of dispelling superstition is through facts doctor. They make you uncomfortable doctor because they do not fit in with your suppositions. Though they certainly justify the questions being raised by Mr Cassar, Mr Soler and others, questions that so far remain unanswered. And no we are not ganging up on you. So what can one say doctor: “Not you, Dr Sulleeba”.
You are correct. In hindsight, my comment about Harry Potter was inappropriate and may have indeed offended staunch believers. I therefore apologize to all who may have been so affected. I do not generally try to offend, and I honestly am not on a crusade to change those who are happy with their beliefs. My intent is to debate these sensitive religious matters in a civilized manner without putting down or offending anyone.
Nonetheless, my comments still stand as they relate to the disrespect, and the dislike bordering on hatred , that Francis Saliba has exhibited towards atheists throughout this blog. His very last post to George Sant, is merely one other example.
His continuing personal attacks on George Sant are especially odious, in my opinion.
You ask: “Could it be that the fact that no one has publicly agreed with you could be a sign that everyone (inluding Fr Joe Borg) knows that you have been driven into a tight corner?
My answer: I do not presume to answer for anybody else. It may interest you to know that I get feedback from readers who do not bother to participate in this exchange of views. They make it clear that they should show pity and refrain from striking you when I have already put you down practically on my own.
P.S. I am not applauding myself - you asked me and I answered your prayer.
I do not accept your distorted elaborations of anything I write. I was answering a direct question from ArthurSoler and I pointed out the very significant omission of "justice" from the list of attributes that, in Soler’s opinion, would render God acceptable to atheists. Evidently, SOME atheists participating in this blog regularly reject the idea of God that was simultaneously merciful and just, but I never said or implied that all “atheists are basically evil”. That is your unjust and illogical attribution. Genuine atheists, and even more so agnostics, could be as good as any other human beings and I never said anything else. Repeating that false insinuation would be sheer malice.
"At the risk of being accused, once more, of being driven into a corner I beg to be excused until I encounter shorter and more comprehensible contributions".
Fair enough, here's one:
How can you reconcile a God who has the power of predicting, second by second, all our future actions with the concept of free will, when if we have the power to act otherwise than God's prediction, we would prove God's prediction wrong?
Note: I am not saying that God is not omniscient (or prescient), or that free will does not exist. All I'm saying is that you cannot have both. If you insist that you can, please explain how so.
Moreover, if God knows our whole life process (second by second) before we are even born, this would be even more suggestive of determinism (no free will). Again, to do otherwise than what God predicts would show God's prediction to be wrong.
Do you believe in a God who knows our whole life process before we are even born? Dr Francis Saliba seems to do. Do you? And if you do, how do would you explain the possibility of free will without at the same instance negating the possibility of God's perfect prediction?
I admire deeply Ms Sharon Abela and any other “Free Willers” who would have the dogged perseverance to wade through your 6 x 200 word dissertation on Free Will. Speaking for myself I find the serial contribution to be overlong and discouragingly devoid of relevance and coherence and peppered with too many of your usual “ifs” and “perhaps”. Every other sentence contains some wild unsubstantiated allegation dressed up as a self-evident proposition and fundamental truth that cannot be questioned. Half way through reading the six comments I became apprehensive about retaining my sanity if I were to embark on a correspondingly long point-by-point reply. At the risk of being accused, once more, of being driven into a corner I beg to be excused until I encounter shorter and more comprehensible contributions.
"I know that that my reticence will be followed by the taunt that I have been “driven into a tight corner” – the intelligent followers of these blogs would be able to form their own independent opinion".
Could it be that the fact that no one has publicly agreed with you could be a sign that everyone (inluding Fr Joe Borg) knows that you have been driven into a tight corner?
You taunt others with applauding their own kind. What I truly find pathetic is someone constantly applauding himself when around him all one "hears" is complete silence.
"I am not so sure that atheists would like to believe in a God who after loving us, caring for us throughout our earthly life and forgiving us when we repent our sins, would also sit in judgment rewarding us for our good deeds and punishing those who die unrepentant of their evil deeds".
If that is not a thinly-veiled proclamation that "atheists are basically evil", I don't know what is. Putting it in the manner of "I am not sure" does not hide your inherent prejudice.
Let's say I concede the point (I don't) that I do not anticipate your replies. That's besides the point. You only claim to anticipate my replies because you got used to the way I reply. No fortune telling here, so I may have my free will and choose how I reply - I can even choose to reply otherwise and show your prediction to be wrong.
In the case of your version of God, this isn't possible. If God accurately and exactly anticipates my reply word for word, I cannot write otherwise than how he would have predicted, otherwise I would show him to be wrong. If God can predict exactly all I will say, word for word, then I have no choice in the matter. For him to be correct, I would HAVE TO write all that he predicts.
No matter how you try to evade this very relevant fact, an all knowing God (who hase foreknowledge of the future, second by second) would be the ultimate fortune teller. Fortune telling is not compatible with free will. University has failed you if you have not grasped this simple fact.
You seem to accept the fact (you said yes) that if someone can accurately predict your whole life, second by second, and you choose to act other than the pridiction states, you would be proving that the person made a false prediction.
Then you qualify your reply by saying that a fortune teller is not God. True, but an omniscient and prescient God would be the ultimate fortune teller. So you would be contradicting yourself if you first say that a human acting otherwise would prove a fortune teller wrong and not admit that a human exercising his free will would not be proving that ultimate fortune teller (God) is not really omniscient or prescient. If we have free will, God (if he exists at all) cannot foretell our whole life.
Just think about this for a moment: God, at this instant, knows (for instance) that I will go out today at exactly 3pm. If God is correct, what choice do I have to go out at another time and not prove his prediction wrong? God's foreknowledge of all our actions is incompatible with free will. You cannot have both.
I adjust the tone of my comments to the same approximate level shown by my interlocutors because I assume that that is the level they understand best. When that level sinks below the minimum accepted by me as worthy of “well educated” persons I ignore that comment completely because I refuse to degrade my own comments to that uncouth, uncivilized level. I know that that my reticence will be followed by the taunt that I have been “driven into a tight corner” – the intelligent followers of these blogs would be able to form their own independent opinion.
Reread and contemplate. To make it easier, knowledge fills one up with self importance. Wisdom make you a more insightful and better human being. There is something to be learned from everyone and everything, every bit of behaviour. A knowledgeable man, considering himself a cut above the rest, may well look at a parade and decry it as depraved. A wiser and more sophisticated man might well become intrigued by the humanity behind it and the symbolism it conveys, eager to deepen his understanding of humanity, to become more tolerant and ready to relieve suffering.
A quote from one of your favourite authors, Alexander Pope: "The learned is happy, nature to explore; The fool is happy, that he knows no more".
And another from Cicero: "It is the peculiar quality of a fool to harp the faults of others and be blind to his own".
If you still cannot understand read the gospels.
The more intelligent and sophisticated one is, the more likely one will accurately perceive the causes and consequences of one's behaviour and stand in better stead to modify that behaviour. They are more likely to, if necessary, seek effective counselling through which they can sharpen their understanding of themselves and make informed decisions. Religious counselling, including confession, is worse than useless as a behaviour modifier. Ask any confessor. It only offers momentary confort, the relief of believing you have been "forgiven" (but have you forgiven yourself?) usually coupled with the prompting to "trust in Him". As such, it actively reinforces maladaptive behaviours and disenpowers the individual. How more effective we could be if we accept that it is really up to us to extricate ourselves as best we can. Our will can never be completely free. But we can strive to deeper understanding in order to make our decisions more rational. Not error-free. But guilt free and more amenable to revision. That is all we can hope for.
"Why do not people like me?". The religious will deliberate on the injustices they are confronting and strive to find strength in considering there is a higher power that is just and knows about them. In turning to that higher power, they may well experience a reduction of tension, as with any type of meditation or relaxation. That experience confirms their conviction, leaving them feeling they have been in His presence and stand acknowledged. They then enbrace the anguish they are experiencing, offering it to their god, feeling smug they remain on His good side and are also amassing a reward in heaven that noone can cheat them of. In the meantime they go on to make the same mistake again and again. Or remain trapped in a soul destroying situation for fear of alienating that higher power and would then be left friendless, with noone else to whom they could bare their souls and seek comfort. Sad. Their faith proves destructive, stopping them from maturing, evolving and moving on through exercising suitable options, hard and painful as they may be.
Free will is but an ILLUSION. In making a decision, humans believe they are exercising their will consciously and deliberately. In fact they are responding to a host of forces from their past of which they are completely unaware. We behave the way we have been programmed to behave, mostly under the influence of our subconscious mind, where these forces reside. There is ample evidence from experimental psychology that individuals will keep making the same mistaken choice over and over again, despite feedback and their acknowledging it is the wrong choice. Especially when the context is emotionally laden. Equally, highly intelligent subjects (usually PhD students skilled in analysis and logic) are easily manipulated into making a patently false response in certain social situations and again especially when the context is emotionally laden. Behaviour can be modified but not that easily. It presupposes intelligence and insight. Since the roots of behaviour are emotional in nature and painful to confront, they are well covered, hidden from our consciousness by various psychological defence mechanisms. Faced with repeated failures it is easier to ask "Why do not people like me?" than "What is it that I am doing wrong?"
On top of that, role models in our lives, parents, older siblings, teachers, friends and the community at large, give us a framework for making sense of the world while coaxing and reinforcing patterns of behaviour (including thinking) that are likely to be rewarded (considered "good" and reinforced) or disapproved, even punished ("bad" to be extinguished). Consider an adolescent facing the challenge of his/her emerging sex drive. An inhibited individual, indoctrinated into believing anything sexual is evil meriting hell, will try to suppress his urges, striving in vain for the ideal of purity. S/He may well find the seminary/convent attractive, a haven from all the "temptations" of the outside world. Others, equally indoctrinated but less inhibited sexually, consider sex desirable though perilous to the soul if not totally controlled, and may end up a neurotic mess, going to confession several times a day. Fortunately many are insightful enough to strike a balance, enjoying what nature intended them to do with manageable guilt. That guilt however, may well exact a price later on and is known to be the commonest cause of sexual dysfunction in later life, in both men and women.
Human behaviour, at any given moment, is determined by an interaction between our genetic makeup, the way we have been programmed in our upbringing, our needs at that moment in time, and factors that facilitate or inhibit the selection of particular options, some internal, some external. Genetics are fundamental. Monozygotic twins, sharing identical hereditry material, even if brought up apart from birth in completely different environments, will still be much more alike, physically and psychologically (personality) than dizygotic twins, no similar in hereditary than ordinary siblings but brought up closely together. Our early upbringing has a lasting effect on who we turn out to be. A harsh authoritarian upbringing leaves us anxious, timid and lacking in self-confidence. An ambitious upbringing with others held as models for what they have achieved, leaves us competitive and selfishly ambitious. Given a set of options, the timid personality will invariably select what to him appears the safest, even if he acknowledges that a bolder action might prove more rewarding. A more competitive personality will invariably opt for the bolder choice that stands a better chance of making him outshine, even if it is riskier. Again and again, often despite self recriminations.
Perhaps the point is that, being omniscent, God is the ultimate fortune-teller. He has SEEN the future happen, remember? We humans have not seen the future but we have seen the past. We are able to detect patterns of behaviour, that keep recurring. And knowing what we do know about the causes of human behaviour, we can analyse the causation of those patterns. Armed with such knowledge, one can confidently predict how an individual will behave in a defined situation, with a high degree of probability. Just as knowing about weather systems and basing ourselves on current meteorological observations, we can predict tomorrow's weather with good probability and next week's with better than average prospects. Neither the weather nor behavioural predictions are 100% accurate (over 70% in both cases). There are too many intervening variables that we cannot and have no need to take into account. But both are predictable with a high degree of accuracy, meaning they are far from random, which is what you would expect if our will was free.
Your last comment does not make any attempt at all to justify the claimed superiority of any Hard Knock university, doing its stuff at the end of a Gay Pride Parade, over the more traditional centers of learning. It contains no trace of any attempt to vindicate or to prove the correctness or justice of the claim advanced by J Xuereb. You have only endorsed and reworded that outrageous claim.
Answering your question:
“Don't you think that most, if not all of us, would love to believe that there is a Creator that really loves us, cares for us, and that we shall live forever in Heaven after we die?”
I am sure you do. I am not so sure that atheists would like to believe in a God who after loving us, caring for us throughout our earthly life and forgiving us when we repent our sins, would also sit in judgment rewarding us for our good deeds and punishing those who die unrepentant of their evil deeds.
I have often expressed disagreement with atheists and agnostics but I have always done so by restrained arguments and counter arguments - very often defending myself from unprovoked personal attacks and caustic sarcasm directed against God and the “gullibility” of those Christians who believe in Him. “Well-educated individuals” atheists and agnostics would be expected to show due respect to Malta’s Christians practicing their faith in their own country. The same respect is due towards long established traditional Christian universities and their graduates that, to put it mildly, have demonstrated their worth much before the emergence of Hard Knock “universities” dispensing their wisdom at Gay Pride Parades.
I deny that I have any “intense dislike of all atheists and agnostics”. I do insist on my right to defend myself and co-religionist against ridicule and personal attacks from those who have sadly lost or thrown away their faith and would like the rest of us to follow suite.
May I remind you of your last remark before you decided to accuse Dr Saliba of not showing a "genuine respect" for atheist's and agnostic's opinions.
"Come on! If these stories are not the stuff of Harry Potter and fairy tales, I do not know what is. This is just blind faith...nothing more."
Your own "tone" is hardly the one you would want Dr Saliba to use as this blog keeps moving on.
All through this blog, and the previous one on "Saints and Sinners", you have done nothing but demonstrate an intense dislike of anyone who is an agnostic or an atheist. You talk about the need to respect all opinions no matter who states them, but you certainly do not follow your own advice.
Does it not occur to you that you are discussing the topic of God's existence with well educated individuals who are very genuine in their beliefs that his existence is highly improbable? Don't you think that most, if not all of us, would love to believe that there is a Creator that really loves us and cares for us, and that we shall live forever in Heaven after we die ? But, we honestly don't believe this and have very valid reasons which have been expressed countless times. You don't have to agree with us but you could at least show some genuine respect for our opinions.
I hope your tone shows a marked improvement in future posts, but I am not optimistic.
Not only do you fail to anticipate my replies to your comments but, even after they have been posted, you demonstrate an inability to understand them no matter how often I paraphrase them for your benefit.
I have never discussed “fortune telling” in any form and therefore there is no point in your question “What good are ancient and world-renowned institutions when their alumni cannot grasp the simple fact that fortune-telling is incompatible with free-will?”
Please do not embark on any of your usual elaborations because they only confuse the issue still further by their superimposed irrelevance. I am not questioning your right to reply to anything - I am only expressing my determination not to be involved further in any debate that plunges to this inane level of sophism.
cont....
"If someone can accurately predict your whole life, second by second, and you choose to act other than the pridiction states, would you not be proving that the person made a false prediction?"
Yes...
but a fortune teller is human not God..God albeit knows, alows us to exercise our free will to choose. So there is room for free will.
"And if the [fortune-teller's] predictions are all true, does that leave any room for free will?"
The answer to this is twofold:
1. mere coincidence, and the predictor said the same thing as the doer, hence free will may still be considered.
2. the predictor is right.
"Fortune-telling is not compatible with free will, or is it?"
I do not believe in fortune telling and do not think it has any thing to do with free will, it might influence a person to change his choices hence exercise free will, but not the fortuneteller is the one who changes it, the person does. Fortune-telling and predestination/free will in the religious context are completely different issues.
The argumant of predestination and free will is one of the hottest issues in my opinion regarding faith in God,
"Justify your claim..University of Hard Knocks...Wisdom superior".
Willingly! Those who attend "world-renowned institutions" may acquire knowledge, some more than others. Wisdom goes beyond knowledge and is not taught at universities. It is an intuitive understanding of life. It is insight into one's own limitations and the sense to not step outside. It is compassion for their fellow human kind, an understanding of the sufferings they have gone through. It is tolerance and being non-judgmental. To be fair, most knowledgeable people I have had the privilege to associate with are also wise. And humble too. They have no need to boast about being "The alumni of these ancient and world-renowned institutions". They know they have substance. But alas not all of those knowledgeable are wise. And not all have managed to grasp the essentials of "such matters as genetics, neurology, psychiatry, and psychology", either. They are the ones who look down their noses at others less fortunate, ready to condemn and judge without ever stopping to consider "what must they have gone through", let alone "how can I help". But they proudly proclaim themselves followers and defenders of a merciful and loving God.
Re:
"In a play, one has to follow the script (determinism). That's all I wished to imply."
In a play the actor follows what the director asks him to do, so there is no 'determinism' as such in my opinion since determinism is more applied to real life events, and applies to the way facts and events exemplify natural laws and how human choices and decisions, have sufficient causes. In a script humans do not have choices as in real life so I would prefer to call it 'obedience' or 'adherence' to the script or director. In fact such theatre would differ from one which is 'spirtu pront' wherein impromptu actions by the actors make up the performance, creating and changing the course of events as they go along making it more akin to real life. Perhaps you might find it interesting to look up Brecht's theatre of Alienation, (eg Mother Courage is one of his best) where the audience is alienated vis a vis the unfolding story, and consequently can draw diverse conclusions based on the character development and how this affected the viewers without necessarily spoonfeeding the audience to what his message is.
cont....
What good are ancient and world-renowned institutions when their alumni cannot grasp the simple fact that fortune-telling is incompatible with free-will?
"You explain that “We can predict sunrise because sunrise has no free will”. That is your unconscious and oblique way of admitting that we men do have free will".
We can predict sunrise with certainty because it has no free will. When and if individuals have free will, we cannot predict their actions with absolute certainty, because if they can act otherwise and choose to do so, they would make our prediction wrong.
"but you invoke it only when it suits your sophistry".
I invoke it when invoking it makes sense. If our whole life can be predicted with complete accuracy, then we cannot have free will. If on the otherhand, we have free will, then our entire life cannot be predicted with absolute and complete certainty. No sophistry here - just common sense, which I see is not so common after all.
"But, please, keep the result to yourself and do not try to involve me in any more of your circumlocutions".
Sorry to disappoint you, but I have as much right to reply as you do. I won't stop just because I am making you look bad.
You say that you frequently foresee my reply before it appears in print. So do I regarding yours. That is completely understandable, since we have followed each others' writings long enough to predict the manner each of us would reply.
Yet, if you were to predict correctly, word for word, complete sentences I would write (you wouldn't, but an omniscient God would), then the words I would write would have to be predetermined. If I choose to write even one single different word (including a spelling error) that God would not have predicted, I would prove that God is not omniscient after all.
If God is omniscient, all the words I write, including spelling errors, are preditermined. Simple. Do you understand now?
As for your straw man you persist in beating, once again, if you were to guess, word for word, complete paragraphs I would write, this would not mean that you would have made me write what I did. It would simply mean that my words were otherwise predetermined - nothing to do with you, except that you would have the powers of a fortune teller.
Fortune telling cannot go along with free will. Simple.
Could you please justify your claim that those graduating from your “University of Hard Knocks” somehow acquire a wisdom superior to that provided by traditional institutes of higher education in such matters as genetics, neurology, psychiatry, and psychology?
The alumni of these ancient and world-renowned institutions acquire their university knowledge over and above their "Hard Knocks" of life but without restricting their quest for knowledge to the attendance at any “postgraduate graduation” acquired at Gay Pride Parades.
I frequently accurately foresee your reply before it appears in print. Sometimes I even draft a rough anticipatory reply. That does not mean that when you submit your comment later and when it conforms to my prediction you had been coerced to right your comment according to my will.
You explain that “We can predict sunrise because sunrise has no free will”. That is your unconscious and oblique way of admitting that we men do have free will - but you invoke it only when it suits your sophistry. You are entangling yourself rather badly in your own two feet. Disentangle them as you think best to your own complete satisfaction and, but, please, keep the result to yourself and do not try to involve me in any more of your circumlocutions.
In a play, one has to follow the script (determinism). That's all I wished to imply. But I would like to know your thoughts on this:
If someone can accurately predict your whole life, second by second, and you choose to act other than the pridiction states, would you not be proving that the person made a false prediction? And if the predictions are all true, does that leave any room for free will?
Fortune-telling is not compatible with free will, or is it? If it is, how so?
"My comment is really aimed at a different audience who could possibly not spot immediately the fallacy in your original argument".
The fallacy is all your own, since I never said that if one can predict the future of someone else, then the actions of the latter are predetermined by the former. That was simply a straw man you naively chose to flog.
My point is simple. If fortune tellers are true (they aren't), then the actions the fortune tellers would predict would have to be predetermined. The ultimate fortune teller would be someone who could predict, second by second, all the actions of everybody. That can only happen if all the actions of everybody are predetermined. Someone having the ability to change course and acting accordingly would prove the fortune teller wrong.
Once again, elementary.
However, I do understand that dogma blocks the freedom necessary for rational thought free from pre-conceived conclusions.
Social and Legal accountability, moral responsibility and guilt are three separate concepts, though they may well be confused by the uninitiated. Aberrant behaviour has to be dealt with. In civilised countries it is dealt with humanely and compassionately, without grandstanding from the righteous. Society has to be protected from those who are incorregible and dangerous, while every opportunity should be given to those offenders with potential for rehabilitation. If with our understanding of human behaviour, conforming or discordant, human authority can be so compassionate and fair, you would expect that a god, who is said to be infinite in his wisdom and crazy with love for the least of his creatures, having their name tattooed on the palm of his hand, would be that much more understanding, forgiving and compassionate. In fact he would be sinning against himself if he were to punish his creatures for behaving the way they had been created to behave.
Many who have graduated from the University of Hard Knocks show more insight and wisdom than those who have to brag about their tertiary qualifications in the hope of appearing erudite.
Those acquainted with the basic sciences and disciplines of genetics, neurology, psychology and psychiatry appreciate that both free-will and determinism are redundant concepts. Behavioural scientists have no use for either concept and prefer to focus on the analysis of behaviour instead, the analysis of the chain of causation that culminates in a given piece of behaviour, some links being organic, some psychological, some social and environmental. Human behaviour is predictable. Not what you would expect from the concept of free will but malleable enough to not be pre-determined. The malleability stems from the constant feedback the human brain responds to, internal and external. Most is subconscious. The importance of the subconscious mind in determining behaviour is enough to make a mockery of the concept of free will. These issues have already been discussed in some detail below and in "Saints and Sinners".
Re:
"For God to punish anyone would be like imprisoning Gene Hackman for acting the part of Lex Luthor (the evil guy) in Superman."
No ta! ..I beg to differ (namely on the technicality of the line of thought) the arguments are different..
In a play one 'acts out' being evil, in reality one 'is' evil. In a play film the actor does not really kill (unless we are discussing the gladitorial fights from the Roman times). So there is a difference. It is more like testing a child, to see if he/she can do a task..the parent overlooks to see the outcome and then they act accordingly. Although the child is left to her free will in many things, the parent still knows that some events imply more danger and harm then others. Now if the parent sends a child to kill and then punishes him/her for doing so you argument is still not the same, becasue the event happens in real terms and not in acting.
I hope I am clear because I'm a bit in a rush :)
As for the resurrection, I already explained that a resurrection would have been worth recording (if true), even if one gets the name and place wrong.
"...in fact sunrise would happen anyway whether we know that fact or whether we are ignorant of it".
I can't believe that you have not yet got the point. We can predict sunrise because sunrise has no free will. However, if I can predict precisely all that you would do today, second by second, this would mean that your actions are predetermined. If you choose to do something else, this would falsify my prediction.
Therefore, either God is not prescient or omniscient (can't predict our future) or else we don't have free will. You choose. You can't have both. Elementary.
It is futile for me to continue arguing with someone who cannot grasp the simple fact that if someone can foretell precisely the future of another, than the future of that other must be predetermined.
You may indulge in self-applause now.
Now that you have disclosed gratuitously that your "on-going postgraduate graduation" is taking place/has taken place in the streets of London at a Gay Pride Parade would you please satisfy the curiosity of the "spouters" of "Christian values" where exactly you obtained your original degree? Let me guess - Hyde Park corner!
I chose the sunrise example precisely because it does not involve anybody’s free will. I know that the Christian concept of free will brings out an intolerable rash in some people. The sunrise example proves conclusively that the knowledge that a thing is going to happen is not the determining factor that actually makes it happen – in fact sunrise would happen anyway whether we know that fact or whether we are ignorant of it (as in some cases of imperfect lucidity or unconsciousness).
The Romans believed in and and recorded similar extraordinary phenomena that they associated with death but the deceased had to be some Caesar and not an obscure Jew in far away Jerusalem. And it was not only Christ‘s name that they got wrong but also his residence in Rome itself. How is that for reliability?
You did not understand (or you pretended not to understand) what I had to say about God's prescience, its relation to the Christian belief in man's free will, and any judge's belief that a criminal who admitted his crime would be culpably responsible for his actions in spite of the existence of a prescient God - unless, of course, defence counsel pleads insanity and unless the court accepts that plea.
I predict the usual chorus of applause from you know who, for the excellence of your logic . Very sorry but I will no longer paraphrase in simpler English my comment in response to your evasive sophistry. My comment is really aimed at a different audience who could possibly not spot immediately the fallacy in your original argument.
Before I proceed I want to declare that I am a devout Catholic, however I cannot resist not passing the following comment......
If the same is said of the Maltese version of Hotel California, we are going to heaven by means of a Jetta .. where we may find many 'iljunfanti zaghar and kukkudrilli kbar' :)
writers of pedigree. I said a few words of encouragement regarding his studies to the Ghanaian. The elder had stepped back a few inches and, as I walked away to join
the myriads in Trafalgar Square, he mumbled something about saying a prayer for me. London! Don't you just love it.
Last Saturday I was nearing the end of the Gay Pride (note capital P) Parade at the end of Lower Regent StreeZillions present. Between two Gentlemen's
Clubs was the usual group of bible-bashers exhorting us to repent. For their efforts, lesbians were photographed kissing and cuddling using the orators, and the police
cordon protecting them from the murderous homosexuals (as if we'd touch a Christian, even to maul him), as backdrop. I approached one orator who was grounded and taking a
lost-looking young Ghanaian under his wing. I asked him if he believed in evolution. He said God willed the creation in six days. I asked about the earth's flatness or rotondity. By now he had got wise and said it was round. Sights of relief! I said how could we give credence to words that were copies of copies of copies written by fishing, suddenly savants (with all due respect to fishermen) two thousand years ago. What's the issue he retorted. Livy and Cicero wrote then.
Come on! If these stories are not the stuff of Harry Potter and fairy tales, I do not know what is. This is just blind faith...nothing more.
While being of the opinion that Hotel California is one of the greatest lyrics ever written and greatly enjoying the multitude of ways to interpret it, I do find you relating it the Book of Revelations quite eerie.
The song is supposedly about the music scene in and around Los Angeles in the 60s and you seem to hint, in accordance with your other references, that the referenced lyrics and scripts are somehow ghost written by God. How do you come to this conclusion?
But I don't think you are suggesting it is doing so on its own free will. The sun is following its natural pattern and will do so until it burns out, or some external event will affect it to do otherwise.
If God knows exactly what is going to happen tomorrow, it will happen no matter what we choose to do, thus robbing us of our free will. This is the contradiction Kenneth Cassar is pointing out to you.
"I would like to be present and watch the result when a mentally normal accused person pleads before any judge that he committed his crime because he was obliged to do so by God’s omniscience!"
He wouldn't have committed his crime because God is omniscient, but if God is omniscient, he couldn't have done otherwise than commit his crime.
You were close to grasping this fact when you wrote that "God’s prescience means that God knows how each individual will use/abuse his freedom to do good or to do evil". If God knows how we will act, if we act otherwise we would show that God wouldn't have known how we will act. We would prove God wrong.
On the otherhand, if God is not omniscient or prescient (or he does not exists), that would leave some leeway for free will, although it still would not prove free-will. There are other scientific arguments for determinism and there is no scientific consensus on this issue yet.
Why do you "agree" that there is no physical proof? Should we not believe Mary of Magdala, also a child of Galilee? Was she not a real physical person and a reliable witness? In the same way the Father chose a virtuous woman to bear the Son, so He chose a virtuous woman to bear witness to the consummation of the Passion -- the ultimate Triumph over the ultimate Enemy. Pope Gregory made a neat little mess of Magdalene, but happily enough the truth is finally emerging as the canonical books continue to be studied and be better understood.
Yes, dear Dr Saliba, if someone can tell the future, then that future cannot change. Simple logic. If God is omniscient (or prescient), then "man" cannot change his mind and do otherwise than God would predict he would do.
The sun analogy is not valid since the sun always "rises" (actually it doesn't, but anyway), apart from the fact that the sun has no free will. If you are to use an analogy to demonstrate free will, next time use a subject that does have it.
However, if I have the power to predict that Mr X will die in a car crash, if I really have that predictive power, Mr X has no alternative but to die in a car crash. If he doesn't, then I would be wrong, and so have no such power.
Elementary.
"What about when Judas sold Christ for some pieces of silver..."
According to the Gospel of Judas, his betrayal was arranged in advance by Jesus himself. So it was a self-fulfilled prophecy.
"To his contemporary Romans, Christ was another insignificant Jewish religious freak who was instigating disturbances in Rome. They did not even spell his name correctly. (Suetonius – The Twelve Caesars). That shows how reliable and accurate was their “meticulous record keeping” regarding Christ".
And yet, a great earthquake and the rising from the dead of someone (insignificant as much as he was), would have been worth recording, even were they to get his name wrong, don't you think?
God’s prescience means that God knows how each individual will use/abuse his freedom to do good or to do evil. I would like to be present and watch the result when a mentally normal accused person pleads before any judge that he committed his crime because he was obliged to do so by God’s omniscience!
To his contemporary Romans, Christ was another insignificant Jewish religious freak who was instigating disturbances in Rome. They did not even spell his name correctly. (Suetonius – The Twelve Caesars). That shows how reliable and accurate was their “meticulous record keeping” regarding Christ.
"I hope that although this might be Mr Grech’s God, at the very least this is not the God of the majority of Christians".
Well, if the majority of Christians believe in an omniscient God, then, by the explanation I have already given, we would have no free will.
This means that to be logically consistent (that is, if God is omniscient), then they would have to believe that no one merits reward or punishment in an afterlife, since we would simply be actors in a play the script of which cannot be changed.
For God to punish anyone would be like imprisoning Gene Hackman for acting the part of Lex Luthor (the evil guy) in Superman.
Maybe He would make and use all-time classics (his influence again), and some other more
specifically targeted ones. See what you think of the messages coming through some of these
classics.
1. Hotel California – The Eagles (Song with link) – Page 2
2. Close Encounters of The Third Kind (Movie) http://www.jahtruth.net/closeenc.htm
3. Stairway to Heaven – Led Zeppelin (Song with link) – Page 4
4. Star Wars (Movie) http://www.jahtruth.net/starwar.htm
5. May It Be – Enya (Song with link) – Page 6
6. Dune (Movie) http://www.jahtruth.net/dune.htm
7. Waiting for the Worms – Pink Floyd (Song with link) – Page 7
8. They Live (Movie) http://www.jahtruth.net/theylive.htm
HOTEL CALIFORNIA - EAGLES
(Please play this or another link or another source to play the song, while you read)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQs5tbzmHGg
On a dark (wrong way) desert (absence of spirit) highway (travelling from heaven), cool wind
(lost spiritual fire) in my hair.
Warm smell of colitas (earths flora), rising up through the air
Up ahead in the distance, I saw a shimmering light. (blue planet earth)
My head grew heavy and my sight grew dim. (Nakedness after the fall from paradise. Revelation 12:7-12, Koran 7:24) ...
want the rest of it?
Would you make a book of rules and leave it at that, or maybe specially train some of the prisoners to hear and listen to you and use them to guide the other prisoners, or maybe even send your own Son, to be an example to the prisoners; maybe you would follow up with more books; maybe you would also have made everything around them to be a lesson, from which they could learn if they paid attention.
And if and when they stopped learning from the myriad lessons (and warnings) that you provided in the natural landscape, flora and fauna, because they preferred, their own inventions (or thought they were their own inventions), would you continue to teach them through those inventions. Would you inspire and influence their best entertainers to write your words, and your music and your stories (even though some mistakes were made); so that they (the prisoners) would constantly have access to your learning material and warnings. Would you sometimes (mostly) hide the meanings so that they would have to make an effort to find them, and thereby make the reward of knowing so much more fulfilling and the test alittle harder.
Prophecies are pre-set, because they are Divinely inspired and thus work like clockwork.
God gave us free will to choose to love God and His laws, or reject them. It is that simple. If we do not obey we perish, but if we do, we survive the next stage. Are you prepared for this choice?
If you were the Supreme Commander of the Universe and you had banished some of your evil
prisoners, who rebelled against you, to a prison reform school, where they had free will and by their
actions they could either progress, digress or regress, how would you do it?
REVELATIONS
12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon (Lucifer); and
the dragon fought and his angels,
12:8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which
deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out to the earth, and his angels (you - Luke 9:55) were cast out with him (Matthew 25:41) .
It was not just St Paul who said that Christ has arisen in three days.
Check out the gospel of Matthew 16:21 and 17:23, Mark: 9:31 & 10:34. Luke 9:22, Acts 10:40 etc
What is so extraordinary about Christ, to me is not just the resurrection. It is about the teachings of God's laws, which are in the Torah, and if we abide by them whole-heartedly, there would be peace, wealth and blessings for all.
One has to be prepared to understand all of this.
Now I understand you better. You want proof of Biblical prophecies which are independant from Biblical scripture.
I agree that there is no "physical proof" that Christ has arisen. You cannot hold a spirit anyway and in this case, it is just faith. There are other prophecies that however can be verified with geological and historic evidence. One such is Babylonia itself. You say that with time unlimited, probablity is maximized. Ok, so what is the probability that a thriving city, with plenty of people and water, would be a desolate place to live in now, and that no man can live there anymore? You do the maths/probability.
What about when Judas sold Christ for some pieces of silver and with that money the rabbis gave this money for a burial place, and is called till today the field of blood? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akeldama
Many people think that the Bible is "just" some story. Did you know that scientists found Egyptian chariot wheels in the Red Sea, when they chased the Israelities during Moses's times?
What about the flood in Noah's times? There is some evidence in that too, such as in ring circles (trees) and by geology.
The only conclusion one can draw from a “pre-determined divine plan” is that there is this imaginary god, getting some sadistic pleasure in creating creatures that He dooms to go to a haven or a hell, like an eight year old boy playing with ants.
I hope that although this might be Mr Grech’s God, at the very least this is not the God of the majority of Christians.
Interesting observation (about prophecy and divine plan). Now, I won't even dare entering into the question of free-will vs determinism (it would take me at least a book-lenght exposition). However, what is certain is that if prophecy is true, then the happenings that prophecy predicts are predetermined (and therefore, unpunishable). Similarly, if God is omniscient, then everything is predetermined (no free will), since for one to act otherwise than how God knows one would act, would be to prove God wrong in his knowledge of how one will act. The ultimate cruelty is that of a God who punishes someone who could not do otherwise than he did.
Of course, I know that Christopher's Grech is not Fr Joe Borg's God (or that of other Christians here) - He is simply a version of the myriad versions throughout Christianity (it would seem that every Christian has his/her own version of God). That said, I can't help but observe that one cannot escape the conclusion that Godly omniscience means complete determinism (no free will).
I do not think God changes or evolves, but humanity's perception of Him does!
As with many other human related activities, evolution and interpretation changes the manner by which a subject is approached understood and also doubted. This is probably the also the case with God. I do not see this change as being 'no consensus of the teachings', but rather as different interpretation, and treating different aspects of the same teachings. Some give prominence to the Old Testament while others give more weight to the New. Both are important.
An example..if we were to experience the same piece of music/performance/artwork we would probably attribute different adjectives to describe the sensation it creates within us and the manner by which we have perceived it. The same with religion. Albeit religion and its teaching have been revealed/inspired by God, it remains a human affair for humans, an invisible bridge if you will. So it is arguably bound to adapt itself over time. A good example would be to compare the era of the Spanish Inquisition and Catholicism now. 20th century Catholicism saw the birth of the ecumenical movement ...an now diverse religions are acknowledging the validity of the others'.
"An account of historical events written within 40 – 100 years of those events during which oral accounts (pericopae) had been actively transmitted among first generation Christians from actual witnesses to their successors does not lose credibility by the passage of two millennia".
I would expect that the contemporary (to the crucifixion) Romans, who were meticulous record keepers, would have recorded an unusual event where following a great earthquake, a crucified person rose up from the dead.
All we have to take for the resurrection's veracity is the testimony of a small cult with a vested interest in telling the story.
I have already explained why I did not quote the original comment. Let me repeat my explanation (and I quote):
"Of course I did not quote my first comment. This is because the issue was whether I denied having written something. The following comment (which is the one I quoted) shows how I have not denied and then admitted what you say I did".
To err is human, to persist in error is devilish. - St Augustine
Mr Grech you give the impression from your postings that there is some “divine plan”, where everything is predetermined. Prophecies are written and followed to a tee, and that your life and my mine are preordained and are already “written”.
Is there any room for free thinking and free will in the hallucination you believe in? It sounds like you were born destined to end up “basking in the glory of God” and someone like me destined for “hell and damnation”.
So what tools do we have at our disposal to separate the "true" teachings of one religion, to the "false" teachings of another? Even if we disected the bible and saw that these prophecies that Mr. Grech tries to justify, actually were true, but the actual book is written by a malicious God/demon/devil, with the intentions of providing us with a false teaching.
My point is that we can either debate made up arguments in favour of one God over the other, or we can move away from the whole concept and build a moral and worldly foundation based on being simply human. Being human, if you stop to think about it a bit, is not so bad to be.
Is it any wonder that as an atheist, looking in on one version or the other, one finds only noise and confusion. Even between religions there is no way to tell which one is more true than the other. Perhaps there is a God and he really wants us to be fundamental maniacs, killing in his name and obliterating anyone not adhering to our teachings. The case for such a God is as strong as for a loving, caring and forgiving God. In the end it comes down to what we have been taught to believe and what we want to believe, providing very little foundation for what is really true.
Continued...
Weren't you somewhere in Europe.... Ponte Vecchio, Hyde Park or was it Arc de Triumph??
...sand...was a self inflicted punishment as long as kids were small...pleeease no more! pebbles.... nice to look at not to thread on!
anyways welcome back :))
I do not need to “go back and reread what has been written” because I have consistently been reminding assorted atheists what they had written, where and when, quoting chapter and verse, only to be accused of quote-mining by those whom I exposed “with their hands in the till”. Who said what and where he said it may not be all that important. What is much more important is not to accuse others of deceit when it is they who are pretending to copy/paste the original comment and which I prove that it was not the original comment at all!
As to your latest expression of a renewed desire not to fuel controversy I am sure that I have heard that song before – differently worded of course. And also, that other refrain that I have been “driven into a corner” whenever someone else is desperately trying to squirm out of a tight spot.
Nowhere did I posit a question on the Trinity in this blog, as you have alleged.
I only pointed out the fact that Fr Borg named his piece "The God I believe in, and the University students", and then he veered off like a sparrow on a tangent to elaborate -- quite aimlessly, in my view -- on the Trinity.
I like to suggest that you redirect your numerous Biblical quotes to Fr Borg.
You state that Christ also said that he would rise on the third day and he did.
Do you realize that the biblical narrative of Christ's death and resurrection was written about 40 years after the event? And if I am not mistaken, although I stand to be corrected, it was written by Saint Paul who never met Christ. Thus this "amazing" event was transmitted through word of mouth for forty years, before Paul put it on paper. I would hardly consider this as conclusive proof that such an extraordinary event was in fact reality. One should also realize that resurections from the dead are not the sole domain of Christianity. Many Other older religions had it too, but nobody today believes them.
The bottom line is that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", to quote Carl Sagan yet again. I hardly consider the biblical text of 2000 years ago as conclusive proof of Christ's resurrection, especially when one also considers the extreme superstions that existed at that time due to ignorance of nature and science.
Thanks for your reply. It is true that from the single quote you mention, there is no mention of "beliefs and desires". But if you read all the other quotes I and others have submitted, you will find that there is enough evidence showing that Einstein's "God" has no beliefs and desires. Read them if you wish, and if you have the time.
It is true that, like you say, many great men and women change their minds. However, to form an opinion about a person, we must work with the evidence we've got. At the most, we could suspend judgement, but we should never claim the opposite of what the evidence shows. I trust you will also agree with this.
I also agree that whether Einstein was atheist, agnostic or Christian will not, by itself, change my mind. After all, while it is evident that Einstein was at most agnostic, Newton, for instance, was a Christian.
However, you will also agree that it would be as dishonest to claim that Newton was an atheist as it would be to claim that Einstein was a theist.
Thanks. There is hope of rational atheist-theist debate yet, after all.
You insist that prophecies can be verified. You have obviously misunderstood me. I already conceded that not only can vague prophecies happen, but that given that the time for them to happen is infinite, they must happen. But that is not a question of a fulfillment of prophecy. It is a matter of probability...and infinite time gives maximum probability.
You say that when Christ was crucified (if that actually happened), several prophecies came true (including his resurection after 3 days). And where do we find the "evidence" for the prophecy's fulfillment? Only in the Bible. It is like saying "the Bible is true because the Bible says so"...no evidence at all.
PS I haven't tested the filthy azure waters da trenta quarant'anni in questa parte. Dip your toes in dear and tell me the temperature. Grazie mille.
"I hope that you are not implying that I am delusional or mad!". Most definitely not and I would be very distressed if I conveyed that impression. The point I was making was that belief is an emotional not a rational process. To be clear all emotional processes, by definition, are irrational. That is why we speak of being madly in love for instance, or insanely jealous.
A statement like "I experience happiness when I am in the presence of God" requires clarification. The experience is emotional and subjective. How do you know you are in the presence of God? What it boils down to is that under certain conditions you experience certain emotions, happiness or a high. Your mind attributes that experience to the presence of God. However, you can obtain an identical reaction by meditating, practising yoga or smoking marihuana. It is a psychological not a spriritual process. You are the one giving it a spiritual meaning, reflecting your background and the sum total of your life experiences. Otherwise, I think we agree that the only verifiable truth is that which you can see with your eyes and touch with your hands.
According to your quote it is clear that (and I quote from your post of 3 days 3 hrs ago) below....Einstein said..
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. "
but now if one wants to really know if he believed this or not, one has to ask Einstein himself (who sadly is dead) or settle for interpretation from reading ALL his literature. So no I cannot tell you if I THINK Einstein's God is a personal one 'with beliefs and desires', especially because there is no mention of 'beliefs and desires' in the above original quote.
Many great men and women changed their stand on many different opinions/beliefs in their lives and I do not think it is a sign of a weak character if one changes one's opinion or convivtions.
Also whether Einstein's God is a personal one or not, does not reduce or enhance his scientific merits. Surely if there is a letter somewhere saying that Einstein said that he believes in the Christian God you will not readily embrace this belief just because Einstein said so. Would you?
I think you misunderstood my comment regarding what third parties (doubting those who have seen and touched)....otherwise you would not have replied with the following comment: "Misinterpreting what you are seeing and touching is a hallmark of delusions and madness."
I was referring to unusual but still mundane facts that happen and which are at times doubted by others, let me give you a silly example..I tell you I saw and touched a killer whale this morning at one of our beaches. Unless you see for yourself or you have the confirmation of many others you probably will not believe me. And this has nothing to do with God and religion, let alone if I tell you that I experience happiness when I am in the presence of God, I hope that you are not implying that I am delusional or mad! :)
Prophecies can be verified, of course. When Christ was cruxified several prophecies came true, on the same day and fullfilled. Christ also said that he would arise on the 3rd day and He did. Now that is precise dating.
Most are not prophecies with a date, but with circumstance that are so odd or having a minor probability by chance, that it cannot be luck.
Luck = is of Luc-ifer God does not play dice, and hence ALL is planned to the last detial.
If you still think of luck as chance, when their absolutely is not, then we do not have anything else to say about prophecies, because you see it in a totally different light.
Francisco, that you are a brilliant mind there is no doubt. As there is no doubt that even brilliant minds persist in investing their (non)existence in faith, the myopic kind per di piu`. in tooth-fairies. Amazing (Gracie - not Fields* - and men of good Will - not Young**).
* Gracie Fields was a Lancashire lass of yesteryear with a voice and a half.
** Will Young is a gay singer who won Britain's Got Talent or something. He has a brain and a voice obviously. He opted to enhance his brain and is pushing for career in politics. He should go far in pushing for the homosexual cause. He has a voice and his face is pretty and fresh. Eat your hearts out girls!
Enjoy the sun...don't forget to put on some sun-tan lotion ;) Perhaps you might consider answering the simple question of whether Einstein's "God" is a personal God (with beliefs and desires) some other time (maybe when there are no atheists around).
Those who nonetheless still want to shape their lives according to their understanding of "ancient traditions" are perfectly entitled to do so. They have to understand however, their beliefs have no foundation in fact and they have no right to impose their mores on everyone else. A statement like "(even 'seeing and touching' with one's eyes and hands) sometimes do not suffice as valid" betrays a conviction based on emotion not reason. Misinterpreting what you are seeing and touching is a hallmark of delusions and madness. A delusion is a false belief not amenable to persuasion and argument. The only thing that stops the belief from being a true delusion is the fact that it is shared by many. The eucharist would be a case in point.
Must it be restated that you have every right to your faith and beliefs and that you will find nothing but support should your right to mould your life according to your beliefs ever be threatened. I hope we agree that others of different persuasions are entitled to the same rights and expectations. Beliefs are just that - beliefs. They are not necessarily correct even if they are traditional and based on "revealed writings". The latter is but a circular argument - The gospels say God exists. The gospels are the word of God. Therefore God exists.
The scientific method is the only way, available to mankind, for establishing the objective, verifiable truth. Science does not take positions and could not care less whether God exists or not. It broadens knowledge by searching for the truth. At the forefront of science controversy reigns. That is how science progresses - by testing opposing hypotheses. There is however, a huge database of indisputable scientific knowledge that has been accumulated over the past few centuries. That knowledge does not support what you call "ancient and revealed writings". Those traditions reigned while ignorance prevailed. Presently they stand challenged.
"Isn't truth supposed to be a Christian virtue?". I am afraid the answer is NO. Faith and truth are incompatible. Indeed faith is the process of distorting facts and reality to make them fit into one's system of beliefs. Any evidence that challenges the cohesion of that system of beliefs will prove threatening to be neutralised through denial and rationalisation and other defence mechanisms.
I have gone through all the postings in this blog, one by one to extract all pro-theistic arguments. I cannot find a single one that argues from a basis of fact as opposed to emotion (Blind Faith), nor any that are logically consistent. This is very easy to see when the arguments are translated into syllogisms, as I have done in earlier postings titled GOD EXISTS. I would dearly love to be proved wrong.
As for our mutual friend, you need to consider whether it is worth wasting any more of your time. You and I both know it is futile trying to reason with the unreasonable. It is really hard to figure out why that poor senior demonstrator was so anxious to exclude "Dr Sulleeba" from replying.
:)
"Prophecies are not meant to give a precise date, but that it is to happen".
So basically, prophecies cannot be verified. They could well be a lucky guess. And since the time for the fulfillment of a "prophecy" is infinite (no precise date), vage "prophecies", whatever they are, are bound to be fulfilled even if made by a "false prophet".
"Kenneth, the problem is that the Einstein “controversy” has been beaten to death, and I for one, have lost track of who said what".
Who said what is not relevant to my question. I only asked for opinions. So let me rephrase my question. After reading the several quotations from Einstein, would you say that Einstein believed in a personal God (with beliefs and desires)? If not, would Einstein's "God" be indistinguishible from just a concept of the "unity of nature"?
Can you please tell me how I have prohibited you from "answering my latest query about Einstein" simply by asking the question to other people? Do you really know the definition of "prohibition"?
I only addressed the question to others because I already know how you would have replied. In any case, are you yourself prohibiting me from asking questions to others if I do not ask the same question to yourself?
Where did I mention "blind faith"? I never made such an interpretation of you here. I did not even mention the word "blind" once (the Edit-find feature in Windows is so handy). You must once again be mistaking me for someone else.
Also, I never rubbished philosophy (it is one of my favourite reads). All I said is that philosophy does not offer proofs (which you said it did). I assume you understand that you blundered here.
As for not answering my questions, I leave it to others to judge for themselves.
Of course I did not quote my first comment. This is because the issue was whether I denied having written something. The following comment (which is the one I quoted) shows how I have not denied and then admitted what you say I did.
As for "personal God", no, he does not have to be bearded or flitting among clouds. Again, stop beating a straw man. I never made such a claim.
And regarding Einstein, since you admit that he was an agnostic, you must also admit that he did not believe in God - that is if you use the common definition of "belief". If you don't, please define belief. The rest of us do not consider doubt to be belief.
As for the God described by Christ that you believe in, that God is a personal God, no matter if you do not admit it. Ask a priest.
Matthew 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but [it shall be given to them] for whom it is prepared of my Father.
If Christ WAS GOD, then he would have the authority, to sit on Christ’s right or left hand, but according to Matthew above, he does not. Hence God the Father is supreme, and Head of Christ, and therefore NOT GOD. Can you get any clearer passage than that?
On your Trinity question, I can help you to answer it right now, via Biblical scripture:
Zechariah 14:9 And the "I AM" shall be King over all the earth: in that Day shall there be one "I AM", and His name One [not a trinity].
Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou ME good? [there is] none good but One, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into Life, keep the Commandments.
Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?
Luke 18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou ME good? none [is] good, save one, [that is], God.
Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The First of all the Commandments [is], Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
Continued
Prophecies are not meant to give a precise date, but that it is to happen.
Take the Judgment Day prophecy. In Matthew we are to have this when k ingdom rises against kingdom, earthquakes, pestilences, strife, etc.... Now the combination of all these things happening at the same time, is extremely remote, but only until now we are having "pestilences" which are propagated the world over.
Christ would come in the clouds, and thereafter, ALL men would know who HE IS. Unfortunately this prophecy would not be taken seriously until it would be too late.
The main message is this, you either obey God's laws or perish. No half way, measures. It is very precise. Timing is in God's hands and at that time the moon would be red!
The book of revelation confirms what Matthew says and hence it is up to Jah=2nd coming of Christ to break the codes of the Bible to give it, its full and proper meaning.
I am not going to give you the satisfaction and the fuel you require to commence another lengthy acrimonious debate of who said what, where and when, guaranteed to keep the blog at the top of the most commented. Armed only with superficial and fragmented knowledge and lacking in substance, you try to gain the higher ground by attempting to cast doubt on your opponent, through punctilious and pretentiously indignant allegations that you are being deviously misquoted. Your game is to imply that if your opponents can deal with you so deviously, one can rest assured that their argument, by now forgotten, must be suspect too. It is a puerile game inspired by unbridled narcissism. Everyone should be able to see through it and your credibility is shot. Besides, you are becoming increasingly incoherent, emotional and paranoid and need to calm down.
So doctor, to find out who said what, where and when, go back and reread what has been written - once you have calmed down and can see reason. Goodbye.
Now, what is the description Einstein gave of his concept of "God"? I shall use the pronoun "he" for brevity's sake.
1. He cannot and does not perform miracles.
2. He does not punish and reward or demand obedience.
3. He is simply orderly harmony, and does not concern himself with humans or other beings.
4. He does not even have a will.
5. He does not offer an afterlife.
6. He is not a personal God with beliefs and desires.
7. His effects are not random (he does not play dice).
Now, if anyone (like Einstein), wishes to call that God, then I too believe in that God.
I am most gratified by your prohibition that I answer you latest query about Einstein and addressed to the rest of Christendom. It is a welcome reminder of my younger days when I was attending a postgraduate medical course in London. The senior demonstrator taking us round the hospital wards and testing our medical knowledge soon developed the habit of prefacing his questions by “Not you, Dr Sulleeba”
The timing of my reply to a different but similar Einstein question, was purely accidental and not a deliberate act of disobedience. Even so I beg forgiveness.
Kenneth, the problem is that the Einstein “controversy” has been beaten to death, and I for one, have lost track of who said what.
Again, please refrain from “interpreting” me. I rebutted accusations of a “blind faith” by explaining that my belief in God based is based on my reasoning and observation of our universe. and when that is not enough I buttress my reasoning by faith and systems of knowledge other than the physical sciences. I referred specifically to the ancient university-taught discipline of philosophy and the arguments advanced by renowned philosophers, for and against the possibility of discovering God. In your wisdom you choose to rubbish, flippantly, philosophy and its contribution to the enquiry about God’s existence. I choose differently, namely to ignore your rash and preposterous opinion. May I, please?
Since you have the time, please go patiently through our previous comments diligently and conscientiously, and you will discover that I have not avoided any of your questions. I refrained from repeating the same answers whenever any Tom, Dick or Harry asked questions that I had already answered. You may consider it wiser to back out of your promise to waste some of your available time in checking that out. That decision is yours but it leaves the rest of us with the option to draw our conclusion
You are NOT quoting your “originally written” comment but one of your later modified comments. It was I, not you, who quoted the more pertinent original comment of 1 day 22 hours ago, second paragraph. You see I am capable of reading beyond the first sentence – you are not.
Please do not “assume” anything in my regard – I do not trust you to understand my plain English. I assert that anyone calling God a personal god by attributing to him human personal attributes e.g. an old white bearded man flitting among clouds, etc. is definitely speaking pejoratively of God.
Regarding Einstein, I attach tremendous weight to his scientific opinion – not to his theological opinions. My opinion is that he emphasizes his agnosticism (which is different from atheism) meaning that as a scientist he cannot prove God’s existence by scientific methods – neither do I for reasons that I have given repeatedly.
I have repeatedly defined my God as the God abundantly described by Christ. Consult the New Testament for more details. It will do you good but only if you do so with humility and rectitude.
Isn't truth supposed to be a Christian virtue? Then why is everyone else silent on the Einstein "controversy", despite the evidence provided through quotations of what he wrote? Is there perhaps a new Christian commandment that says: Thou shalt not make an atheist look good?
Regarding my supposed denial and supposed later admission, here is what I had actually originally written (in full, and not selectively quoted):
"As for me saying that Einstein "made a mistake" when he wrote God, please note that this is nothing but a fabrication of yours. I did not say such a thing. What I actually said is: "As for Einstein's "mistake", it is only so in the sense that he apparently didn't forsee that (some) theists would selectively take his use of the word "God" literally". There is a difference".
I'm sure you are perfectly capable of reading beyond the first sentence.
I regret having to waste my time looking for what I had written ages ago, but if it serves to expose your intentions, then so be it. For the moment, I do have the time.
What truly puts one in a corner (and not some imagined denial of having written something):
1. You assumed that calling God personal is speaking pejoratively of Him, when even Christian priests speak of God as a personal God. The personhood of God is one of the characteristic features of monotheism. When corrected, you said that Einstein had a "version" of a personal God, when the evidence (several quotations) explicitly show he did not believe in any kind of personal God.
2. I gave you several quotations showing Einstien’s views on what he means by God (which is not any different from using the word to describe the unity of nature. You insist, despite the quotations, that this is not so.
3. When challenged to define what you mean by God, you completely ignored the challenge.
4. When I remarked that belief in God is a question of faith, and interpreted you as meaning that God cannot be weighed by any method, you made the absurd claim that philosophy can prove or disprove God, when philosophy cannot prove anything. Seeing I had put you in a corner, you ignored this.
Need I go on?
Regarding your latest reply to George M Sant, actually it appears that it is you who are confused, and George is not suffering from any identity crisis after all.
In fact, if you really did write (I don't think you did before now) that "Kenneth Cassar, not you (George M Sant), had passed a comment that, if accepted, could imply that Einstein was a hypocrite saying one thing in a private letter and something else on other occasions", then you would have been lying.
In fact, I never commented on any letter being private. It was George M Sant who did. His exact words were "The quotation from Einstein you quoted was from a personal letter to his friend Max Born", to which you remarked that "When a correspondent in this blog (George M Sant) asserts that Einstein said what he said about God only because it was a private correspondence but this differed from his utterances elsewhere, he IS implying that Einstein was a hypocrite and a fraud – which he was not".
I think you need to take a break. You're mixing names.
I am not aware that I ever accused you that you had said that “Einstein made a mistake and even less so that he was a hypocrite” and therefore you should not accuse me of making that “misrepresentation”. Are you sure that you are not suffering from an identity crisis because I did write that Kenneth Cassar, not you, had passed a comment that, if accepted, could imply that Einstein was a hypocrite saying one thing in a private letter and something else on other occasions.
You did intrude on that Saliba-Cassar exchange and you did appoint yourself as spokesman for the small coterie of atheist commentators who periodically cross swords with me but that is your problem and it is not any “misrepresentation” by me.
I never denied I wrote that Einstein had made a mistake in referring to nature as "God". That's all that matters, and I still stand by what I wrote.
However, I am not surprised by what you think of me, seeing that you have confused yourself with Einstein (thinking that I was referring to you when I referred to a belief in a God "stripped from volition, purpose, will, authority and a particular interest in human affairs"). But of course, you still evade this fact (as you slyly fail to admit the sentence's relevance to your selective quote), just as you keep evading my countless questions.
My reply might have been late in coming but I will not hold my breath for yours.
The contortions, false accusations and red herrings are all yours. When you start replying to questions (I've lost count) that put you in a corner, I will start taking you seriously.
But if you would like to believe you won ("...to conceal (my) defeat"), if that will spare us the stamping of feet, like I used to say to my younger brother when he was a little child..."ok, fine, you won".
"...the Trinity is beyond my understanding..."
I cannot blame you. In my view, in his haste to write a blog, Fr Borg made sure that this will surely be the case.
Cont...
You also say that "true godesses where the rage of the day in Babylonia, but never were they crowned". Perhaps (I won't even check...I'll take your word for it). However, you will note that the crowning of deities in a future is not such an improbability, is it? And seeing that such prophecies never give an exact date, the time for a prophecy to be "fulfilled" is infinite. Infinite time is amply sufficient for a highly probable event.
Attention to detail is paramount, but only if the detail supports the case. Only exact dates and names (knowable to an omniscient God) would.
You say that most prophecies are carefully worded and in most cases very precise. Can you name just one, complete with all the details such as exact names, exact date, etc. Surely an omniscient God would know such precise details in advance, and being omnipotent, would make sure the prophet got all the details right.
It is not a case of finding "excuses" and saying that nature did it. It is a case that if one expects prophecies to be taken authoritatively as truth, one should ensure that there is no other more probable and logical explanation that that which a "prophecy" would give. To give an example, if it is known that a human can make a car, there is no reason to suppose it was created by an alien, unless one has supporting evidence showing that a particular car could not have been created by humans and is more likely to have been created by aliens.
Cont...
Your undeniably late admission that you had written the quotation about Einstein making a mistake was definitely “belated and grudging” because it was only extorted out of you after I had metaphorically rubbed your nose in your comment and after I pointed it out to you with precision. After your denials proved futile you immediately indulged in a puerile attempt to retouch your exactly quoted comment be referring to other comments as if these could expunge what you admit to have written - when you could not do otherwise
It is to be expected that someone who so glibly denies the existence of his own written word with such misplaced tenacity would also have no difficulty in denying that the God of Christianity exists.
Are you implying that there is a corrolation between atheism and criminality? If that is so, I would appreciate some supporting evidence. No "hearsay" or "old wives' tales" please. Some statistics on the percentage of theists and atheists in prison would suffice.
Any illegalities such as drug use, theft, violence, can be controlled by having the appropriate laws and most importantly enforcing those laws.
Whether it is Malta, Britain or indeed any other country, believing in a god or religion will not make any difference. Please have a look at the two reliable websites I posted earlier, the evidence speaks for itself.
Malta is still classified as being 95% catholic, and it seems like that factor has not been of any help to curb drug use or crime in general. Without singling out Malta, policing the ports of entry and eliminating corruption might be a good start, and that is not the parish priest’s job.
Most prophecies are carefully worded and in most cases very precise. The timing of it all, is in Father's hands.
If you always find an excuse that "nature" did it, rather than Father (God), then there is no point of continuing this discussion.
True godesses where the rage of the day in Babylonia, but never were they crowned, were they? Pay great attention to detail, it makes all the difference. Nowadays a big fuss is placed on Madonna figures and crowning them. So on one hand there were godesses, but on the other they were not crowned as now (like queens). Madonna figures nowadays are crowned. Most parishes are dedicated to the Madonna.
Attention to detail is paramount.
John Falzon's statistics show that, at the very least, there is no direct corrolation between loss of belief in God and criminal behaviour. There are several other contributing factors for criminality. Attributing it to loss of faith is very simplistic.
I think that this aspect (trying to convince others to one's belief/thought either way) is a characteristic of humanity which is & will probably remain embedded in its genes, forever! In fairness if we take away the emotional/passionate discussions we would be cold and robot-like in our behaviour, something which is definiteley not akin to mediterranean temperament, that's for sure:)
Are you familiar with HG Wells' Eloi/Morlocks characters? Both sides needed eachother albeit selfishly!
Anyway.... scientific methods (even 'seeing and touching' with one's eyes and hands) sometimes do not suffice as valid, and consequently be treated by third parties as being insufficient proof, let alone if it is empirical, or traditional truth based on ancient or revealed writings.
I think that the effort has to come from both sides. I have a right to my faith and my beliefs (Cathoilc in my case) as much as you/others have the right to theirs. I do not see anything evil in trying to defend that belief, as long as there are no insults or feelings of superiority.
However, the lack of, or the possession of, scientific proof, does not instantly make something/one to be automatically good or evil either way.
I hope that I will be permitted to answer your question once it has been posted.
You accused me falsely of fabricating your statement. I copy/paste the entire sentence that you deny having written and give you details when and where you made that statement. After I demolished your false accusation you have no other choice but to admit grudgingly that you had really made that statement. You proceed to give it a new twist and then brazenly and untruthfully accuse me of “?purposedly” “very selective” “mine quoting”.
To quote a favourite phrase of Mr George Sant when you have “driven yourself into a corner” and when you do not have any relevant logical arguments, why don’t you also unobtrusively retire from the fray with your tail tucked between your legs? That would spare everyone the discomfiture of having to watch your painful contortions, to reply to more false accusations and to reply to any more irrelevant red herrings that you drag in as a smoke screen to conceal your defeat.
Mr Falzon, for someone who likes everyone in their blogs here to provide detailed scientific evidence, I am afraid your hearsay and old wives tales do not constitute as such.
NB. Malta back then ,when God was worshipped, was a law abiding, polite and safe society
Malta now is like Britain, becoming a drug ridden, corrupt and amoral place where God does not have a place in most people's hearts anymore. Nobody will ever convince me that this is a coincidence.
I know it won't change back and that's the heartbreaking truth of it all. Perhaps those who have turned away from God for most of their lives, like me, might discover the great joy He can bring, no matter how old they are when they re-discover Him.
"When scientists try to prove something wrong in the Bible, they end up believing!".
Care to mention names?
"Why dont you try to take ONLY (notmore) one item and prove it wrong!"
I already explained how all prophecies are worded so vaguely that there is a high probability that they would be fulfilled given enough time. And if they are not fulfilled in our lifetime, there would always be the chance that they would be fulfilled after we die. Nothing supernatural. It all has to do with probability of vague "prophecies" to be fulfilled.
If, on the otherhand, one finds in the Old Testament something like "In 1953, Francis Harry Compton Crick and other scientists will discover the structure of DNA", then that would certainly be a prophecy, since the prophet could neither have know about DNA, nor about Francis Crick.
Desertification, or other natural phenomena, on the otherhand, do happen...and so, unless an exact date was given (when no scientific instruments had existed to deduce it), the Babylon "prophecy" is not a prophecy at all.
As for the "Queen of heaven", you must note that during Jeremiah's time, Goddess-worship was common.
"My point is that in my opinion, there are arguments wherein we need to realize that some questions are unanswerable".
Very true, and I said so in my previous reply. We are in complete agreement here.
The problem is when people (not necessarily religious) demand that we believe their answers to questions that are unanswerable, and see us as irrational or evil if we don't accept their answers to the unanswerable questions.
My (not Sant's) "admission" was neither reluctant nor belated. I always reply to your challenges as soon as I read them. If the online appearance of my reply was belated, it is not my fault, since I sent my reply only a few minutes after yours appeared. So reluctant it certainly was not. However, your reluctance to admit that you quoted me out of context does not flabbergast me. I expect that from someone like you.
And yes, I do know what selective means. And yes, your quotations are selective and purposedly out of context. Quoting a full sentence does not make the quote unselective. You may believe the following sentence was irrelevant if you like. But while it is true that you do not recognize the God who was being "stripped of volition, purpose, will, authority and a particular interest in human affairs", you surely must know that we were discussing Einstein. And my several other quotations from Einstein clearly show that he believed in a "God" who does not have volition, purpose, will, authority and a particular interest in human affairs. But of course, you evaded this fact.
In these discussions, I aviod jokes so as not to confuse anyone. I cannot tell you to believe in the Bible, and that is your choice.
What you err is the way you stated that the prophecies are written and then always stated in the Bible, like a loop to cover up its tracks.
Try to be the only one living where Babylon is today. God will have you out of there in no time! God said that He will leave it desolate and with no people living there. Try and directly challenge that statement.
What about prophet Jeremiah ,who wrote of people not to adore a queen of heaven! It was only after medieval times (over 1000 years after Jeremiah has written it) that this can clearly be seen and understood. It was only about 2 or 3 centuries that priests now crown the Madonna, in direct contradiction to the Bible. Jeremiah's statement is not a prophecy but a warning to us all, and especially to the priests!
When scientists try to prove something wrong in the Bible, they end up believing! Why dont you try to take ONLY (notmore) one item and prove it wrong!
I never said that Einstein made a mistake and even less so that he was a hypocrite. Those are your words and your misrepresentation. The point I made was that Einstein at times used the vernacular to express himself, as all human beings do, knowing that the party addressed understands very well what they mean. Einstein was a man of his times, living in the first part of the 20th Century, speaking the language that was spoken then. He made his views clear and labelled "liars" those who, for their own ends, were saying he held any belief in a personal god. Seizing on a solitary quote without regard to context, let alone background detail, for the sake of (mis)proving a point, is either glib or dishonest or both, apart from being a child's game. But then your interest is to emerge victorious, irrespective of whether your view is right or wrong, of whether it is supported by evidence or simply based on narcissistic say so. Religion and God suit you and will prove useful tools in your hands.
My apologies for the delay in replying to your postings. I too have to be away from my computer occasionally. As it turns out it is now rather superfluous of me to bother, as your queries have already been very aptly addressed by Mr Cassar, but since you posted me twice, I shall go ahead. Incidentally doctor, intelligent people do appreciate intelligent arguments and are courteous enough to compliment those who made them. It is not only "fellow atheists" I have complimented. On more than one occasion I have expressed appreciation of the comments of theists as well. As usual you have selectively failed to notice that.
As for my comment "We all agree on what Einstein said", by "we" I meant all those who had reacted to your misquotation of Einstein. Everyone was saying the same thing, but you had to differ of course and punctiliously insist on your misrepresentation of facts just to suit your own ends. It is the effort needed to refute intransigently held absurdities, not rational argument, that inflates blogs like this one, detracting from the enrichment to be found in rational argument.
By 'margin of error' I meant that it coud be either way, (50% chance right/wrong) until there is concrete scientific proof, thus providing an answer to the 'unanswerable question'. In fact before you offered your conclusion..I had already checked a number of sites and many give the same explanation you did ( indeed you put it as a joke but these sites present it to be an 'establised theory')..so the 'unanswerable question' is in fact being 'answered' perhaps right perhaps erroneously we cannot be sure..giving favour to the egg, despite the fact that the question is as you say, one which is unanswerabe :)
My point is that in my opinion, there are arguments wherein we need to realize that some questions are unanswerable. And it is pointless to rationalize certain matters out because there is simply not enouth avalable tangible/scientific proof to establish either way, the scientific truth, (until then one usually hangs on to that truth which is subjective and relative to one's own beliefs/thought and which is the result of various and diverse aspects of his social and cultural life and education or accumulated knowledge).
Good day :)
My whole point was that the region is not barren, as you claim, as it is placed on the shore of a river. The lack of irrigation to the area will obviously dry it out, but that does not make the whole region dry, as described by you. Also, as you may know there are already plans, supported by both UN and provincial government, to rebuild the area around Babylon as a cultural center. Perhaps your prophecy will put an end to that, now we will see...
In regards to your other list of prophecies, as Kenneth Cassar already pointed out most of them are self fulfilling prophecies. I have already tackled circular arguments in a post further down and won't repeat myself on that matter.
Then we have the obvious problem of your previous statement that 99% of all prophecis in the bible have taken place, leaving only the ones for judgement day (which should have happened within the lifetime of at least one person that lived to see Jesus). Listed are 13 prophecies, where are the remaining 86?
If you knew what selective means you would not accuse me of being "very selective" in my quotation in full of the whole sentence where you said explicitly that Einstein had made a mistake - something that, flying in the face of reason and manifest truth, you were obstinately denying.
I did not include the other sentence quoted by you because it was irrelevant and because it is I do not recognize the God who was being "stripped of volition, purpose, will, authority and a particular interest in human affairs" when that stripping is being done presumptiously by you and your mates.
The mystery of the Trinity is beyond my understanding, and so is Jesus the man/god complex duality.
Perhaps some other “believer” would be best to answer your queries, some seem to have all the answers.
Mr Wirrich, firstly you are exchanging comments with someone over sixty, who knows well what crimes happened in Malta in the 1960s and failed to get reported to the authorities, let alone acted upon.
If you would like evidence of 1950/60s domestic violence, rape, paedophilia, gay-bashing, please consult any truly sincere catholic priest over the age of seventy in Malta. These were unreported crimes, and when reported, the victims of the crime were told they were in the wrong:
Domestic violence - Stay in the marriage, do not defy your husband – it is a sacrament.
Rape – you asked for it, by wearing too short a skirt! In any case best that no one knows!
Paedophilia – No it cannot be true, he is a man of God.
Gay-bashing – Serves them right for acting “un-naturally”!
Not to mention unreported cases of incest and sexual child-abuse.
God-worshipping and religion did not prevent the above crimes in the 1960s. If today’s young Maltese generation is opening up to questioning religion and the existence of a god, it is only showing signs of a mature, intelligent upcoming society.
You fail to "see", but I can certainly see how well you have been "tutored" by Fr Borg. It's OK, Jessica. I have nothing against Fr Borg. "Challenging", I feel it is my duty, and please don't take me wrong. I sure admire the way you stick up for the Reverend.
I must thank you for your belated and reluctant admission that you really had written what I said you had written. It is a great pity that you only conceded that evident fact only after I had metaphorically rubbed your nose in your comment.
Your brazen cheek flabbergasts me.
I only made my conclusion regarding the chicken/egg paradox as a joke.
In evolutionary terms, the question does not make sense, and so the question has no answer.
To answer the question, one would need to provide a definition of what constitutes a chicken (what mutation/s in her offspring made a pre-chicken the mother a chicken)...and evolution (which comes through gradual steps in thousands or millions of years) shows us that no such exact definition is possible.
So scientifically speaking, it is not a question of a margin of error. It is a matter of an unanswerable question (if evolution is true).
I fail to see why you should want to challenge Fr. Joe for saying that Jesus was so “weak that He was not able to carry His own cross”. It is so crystal clear that he only wanted to stress the humanity of Jesus.
Jesus cried – Jesus was joyful – Jesus was angry – Jesus got exasperated when misunderstood – Jesus felt pity and helped – Jesus felt fear – Jesus needed companionship – Jesus was tired …..
I am sure I do not have to elaborate about the above points. They are all well known human emotion that Jesus experienced in various situations during his mission on earth. He was the son of God born of a human mother, the Virgin Mary. Jesus was like us in every way except sin.
Can’t you accept that, as a man, He could get weakened from such a terrible ordeal as His Passion?
Until now, the egg is winning, yes:) however the method of assesment is an empirical one
ie not yet scientific, no? so a margin of error exists in my opinion as to which indeed came first.
Regarding your (very selective) copy/paste version of what I wrote, as usual...quote mining out of context. You ignored (purposedly?) the fact that I followed that sentence with "When a God is stripped of all volition, purpose, will, authority and a particular interest in human affairs (including reward and punishment), why call "him" God? Why not simply call it nature?"
Once again, care to answer that question?
When I wrote "which is not to say you are crazy - just so you know.", what I wanted to say was "just so you know (that I did not mean that), and not "just so you know (that you are not crazy) - as if you needed telling.
Just so you know ;)
Fine, I will be precise, if nit-picking is what you're after. You did not call all atheists a clique, but you did refer to some people as "the atheist clique on this blog". The same reply applies here. I shall not refer to you and your kind as the "christian clique on this blog", since I understand that every one on this blog is speaking his own mind. I would expect reciprocity in this regard...but I guess I'm probably expecting too much.
As for "patting each other on the back", what's wrong with that? It doesn't make one a part of a "clique". But if you want to believe that publicly agreeing with someone makes you part of a "clique", "De gustibus …"
Your claim that philosophy is a method that provides proofs, shows that you have no idea on philosophy. Not even philosophers make that absurd claim. Only science or the scientific method can provide proofs. And no, I did not misquote you. In fact, I did not even quote you. If anything, I paraphrased you, saying what I thought you meant. That was obviously before you made the absurd claim that philosophy provides proofs.
As for nature/God creating itself, the problem remains, no matter what you call the creator. The question remains: Who created God? And if the answer is nobody, a similar answer can be given to the question of who created nature.
It is true that I wrote that "His only mistake was to use the term "God" to mean "nature". But I already explained that what this means is that his mistake was in failing to predict the consequences of using the word God (due to the existence of religious fundamentalists who twist meaning for their own personal agendas), and not that he made a mistake in writing "God" when he actually meant to write "nature".
So no, I do not regret writing that. However, considering that you actually take pains to distort Einstein's message, I am not at all surprised that you seek to distort my own.
Please be precise. I did not call atheists a clique – that is a fabrication. Check my exact words as they appear in my comments of 1 hour 56 minutes minutes ago (not the later one). I am paraphrasing that original comment into simpler English. I referred to a small clique of atheists who took it in turns to submit comments patting each other on the back and complimenting each other on the excellence of their contributions. I asked Mr George M Spiteri if these were the lot that he was referring to when he wrote “We all agree ….”
I do not understand your zeal to appoint yourself to the membership of that group but “De gustibus …”
True; the blog is about the God Fr Borg believes in -- or rather "prefers". But unfortunately, Fr Borg shifted his argument from "God" to "Trinity", which I find extremely confusing. He should, instead, have named his piece "The Trinity I believe in, and the University students", but for some reason he didn't.
It is unreasonable to ask me the question: “How do you conclude from the Jesus’ 40 days in the wilderness, Judas’ betrayal and the crucifixion as a proof that there is a God?” -- because I clearly didn't conclude anything. What I have done is to simply challenge Fr Borg to explain his suggestion that "[Jesus] is also so weak that He was not able to carry His own cross", to which I wanted to object very strongly. 40 days in the wilderness, for example, is hardly the mark of a weak man. Not reacting harshly towards Judas in the garden, but remaining calm instead and compassionate towards His student, again is hardly the mark of a weak man. I simply wanted to highlight the fact that Fr Borg's depiction of this man from Galilee being "weak" is totally off the mark.
Here is a copy/paste version of what you wrote in this very blog 19 hours 46minutes ago: "His only mistake was to use the term "God" to mean "nature". You may now regret having written that, you may wish to re-phrase or to withdraw your written word but in the name of elementary decency you cannot accuse me of fabricating it
Thank you kenneth. I'm so relieved!!! :-)))
As expected, the site you provided the link to, lists prophecies which are self-fulfilling (prophecy and its fulfillment are both found only in Bible texts).
As regards my own "prophecies", as I expected, you did not get my point (or are feigning ignorance), and only latched to the Spaghetti Monster (perhaps because he sounds tasty).
I am not George M Sant, but I gather that by everyone (except you) agreeing, he could well have meant "anyone who commented on the issue in question". If that is the case, he would be correct.
As for calling atheists a "clique", I won't reciprocate since it would be unproductive and a sure sign of weakness of proper arguments.
As for me saying that Einstein "made a mistake" when he wrote God, please note that this is nothing but a fabrication of yours. I did not say such a thing. What I actually said is: "As for Einstein's "mistake", it is only so in the sense that he apparently didn't forsee that (some) theists would selectively take his use of the word "God" literally". There is a difference.
So no, Einstein's insertion of the word "God", in itself, was not a mistake. The mistake was in his failing to predict the consequences of using the word (due to the existence of religious fundamentalists who twist meaning for their own personal agendas).
Please do not misquote me. I said that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God because He is not suitable material for the recognized methods of scientific enquiry. That is not the same as your adaptation “the existence (or non-existence) of God can neither be proved or disproved” because, apart from science, there are other methods available, for example philosophy.
The problem of God creating something else i.e. creating the universe and nature as we experience it, is absolutely different from the problem of Nature creating itself – what has still to be created cannot create anything else, least of all can it create itself.
Please specify; who do you mean by “We all agree on what Einstein said and meant”?
On whose authority do you claim that when Einstein wrote “God” in the quoted letter he made a mistake (as Kenneth Cassar insists) and that he must have meant something totally different?
Please specify; who do you mean by “We all agree on what Einstein said and meant”. Do you mean the atheist clique on this blog, who ever so often, feel the need to bolster each other’s efforts by taking turns to congratulate each other on the excellence of their respective contributions?
On whose authority do you claim that when Einstein wrote “God” in the quoted letter he made a mistake (as KennethCassar insists) and that he must have meant something totally different? Is it on the authority of the same clique? In that case I am very relieved that we disagree.
"Man was created in the image of God."
That is what the Bible says. One may choose to believe in the Bible or not. One may choose to centre his religion (as the Catholic Church did) around the Bible. However, the fact that you think that 'Man was created in the image of God', does not make it so.
"How do we expect to understand the ways of the Lord who is infinitely intelligent, and what if God is all and everything that we can experience physically/mentally/spiritually?"
Again, that is what you believe. This passive aggressive attitude in which the Catholic religion is the only viable way of attaining religiosity --- I say religiosity because that is what most Catholics really are, not spiritual, far from that --- is misleading and intolerant.
I myself take a more 'pantheist' approach with regards to my own personal spirituality, that does not mean that I go around making such statements, in which I insuiate that my beliefs are the only correct ones and that they are only viable path for one to take.
Man is not at the centre of things. Christianity teaches otherwise.
You can quote stats 'till you are blue in the face; ask any Maltese over the age of 50 whether your society (equally applying the same to UK) in Malta was a stable, family orientated, and yes - crime free place [even if I concede some horrid crimes may have been hushed up]according to you - where's YOUR evidence?] then when more people believed in God and worshipped Him than the place it is now, when fewer believe and worship and family life is breaking down and with drugs and crime rife. Pure coincidence, I think not!
Cont...
You say that "we are made in the image of God and not God made in our image". How do you know that? And please, no Bible quotes since the Bible is no evidence of the truth of its own claims. The same applies to the claim that "the Lord" is infinitely intelligent. How do you know that? Even if some God created the world, "He" does not have to be "infinitely" intelligent.
As for "out of body experiences", there are psychological explanations for that (which is not to say you are crazy - just so you know). Actually, the mirror thing you mention happens to everyone, including me...and if you stare long enough, the image you see is quite "devilish". But just like the Necker cube, its an optical illusion.
Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
see: http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible
Dr. Hugh Ross makes also a chance of probablity ratio (I do not know how he does it) but if this site does not make you think hard about the reliability of the Bible, nothing will.
Prophezing to others about the spaghetti monster does not get you anywhere.
@ John Falzon
May God bless you. I hope that you do not judge anyone so badly as you have done, on Jah's site, and browsing and not seriously reading anything. You are not paying attention.
@ Patrick Larson
Cannot believe you made those statements. Babylon was overflowing with water, in the times of Jeremiah the prophet. This was many years before Babylon was dry. Timing is critical, and now Babylon is completely barren. What point do you not understand?
A prophecy is something that comes true, and stating that many years before. Thus the Babylong prophecy was completed.
Just google "Bible prophecies" and you get plenty of them, dont worry. Is 2000 enough?
200 words here is certainly not enough.
In regards to your out of body experience, I think most people have experienced something of the sort, but can't see why it would be so hard to explain. Meditating people experience it regularly and putting your mind in such a state is not too hard for many people (actually very hard for me, I'm in a way sad to say). Having a feeling of something and actually doing something is two very different things. You feeling like you are floating away from your body is a valid feeling, but it does not mean you actually do.
I had read of a hospital which had put up an image (or a text, my memory fails me) above the beds in the emergency ward, so as if someone had an out of body experience close to death, they wanted to test if someone had seen the image (/text). Many people do get this experience as they face trauma, or when in a comatose state. Needless to say (or is it?), there has not been any positive result as of yet.
The comparison lies in the falsifiability of both claims. When someone claims anyone disbelieving in God to prove He/She doesn't exist he/she makes the fallible mistake of insisting on something that can not be done, hence the comparison to fairies (unicorns, celestial teapots, spaghetti monsters (yum!) etc).
In the end I actually agree with you. Belief in God is up to faith and nothing else. Rational justifications can hardly (very tempted to say "not") be done in favour of said being. Thing is, believers would be doing themselves a favour by admitting it is a matter of faith. The problem for a believer is obviously the evangalising part of most faiths, as without rational arguments the ability to "convert" (in lack of a better word) others would be so much harder.
Saying that, I see nothing arrogant in actually pointing this out, so please be careful with your allegations.
The mistake you then make is another assertion ("How do we expect to understand..."). You make a positive proposition, with nothing to back it up.
Cont...
The point in the fairy "analogy" (although I seldom use it) is that one cannot prove that something does not exist, provided the thing in question has any properties of "invisibility".
However, fairies are not "obviously" a figment of the imagination. Eminent persons such as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed in fairies, and strictly speaking, all we can say about fairies is that there is no evidence that they exist. I don't believe in fairies simply for lack of any evidence.
That a concept is embedded in our psyche from time immemorial does not necessarily make it true. All people see Necker cubes as three-dimensional objects, and if we stare at a Necker cube for a few minutes, we all see it changing direction. And yet, it is neither three-dimentional, nor does it move by itself.
Arguing for the inexistence (or existence - please note that this applies both ways) of God is not ranting when the debate is conducted with the use of rational arguments, and your suggestion that arguments for the non-existence of God are an attempt to "shut up a niggling doubt that God might in fact exist?" is only a baseless prejudice.
In Malta in the 1950/60s the crimes of paedophile priests, the physical abuse of some married women, rape, gay bashing etc were all conveniently hidden away from the public eye.
According to Nationmaster website and the CIA World fact Book (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/RS.html and http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita) in 2006:
In the USA, with 84% belonging to a religion, mostly Christian, the crime per 1000 people was 80.0645.
In Russia, with only 32% following a religion and believing in a god, the crime per 1000 people was 20.5855.
Please do your research and produce your evidence showing that religion or the belief in a god reduces crime. My evidence concludes the total opposite.
Part 2
We are made in the image of God and not God made in our image.
How do we expect to understand the ways of the Lord who is infinitely intelligent, and what if God is all and everything that we can experience physically/mentally/spiritually?
- Have you ever had an out of body experience? I used to have it a lot when I was young. It is such a weird feeling that I shrink from it.
- Stand in front of a mirror and fix your eyes on the image. You will start to feel yourself detaching from your surroundings almost as if you are just a mind in space. - It is a scary feeling and I never dwell long enough to find out or understand this (phenomenon???)
I would welcome anyone who can explain it to me, and why I feel so scared when in that state. You might say that this has nothing to do with what we are discussing in this blog and you would be right but it is something that I do not understand and which frightens me a lot, and it is something that I want to understand but cannot.
Part 1.
I find it rather silly comparing the existence of God to the existence/non existence of the tooth fairies.
The latter is obviously a figment of the imagination whereas God whether you believe in Him or not is a concept embedded in our psyche from time immemorial. He (in whatever form or substance He exists) can be experienced in a very personal way. “Methinks thou dost protest too much….? (Shakespeare) Could it be that all the ranting about the inexistence of God is really an insistence to shut up a niggling doubt that God might in fact exist?
Just because we cannot prove in a tangible/factual way that He exists, is an arrogant attitude which we mere mortals with our limited intelligence should do well to reflect upon.
Continued…
Doctor you are as slippery as an eel! I hope I got my biology right this time.
“These comments have degenerated into futile interpretations of what Einstein must have meant when he mentioned God and a nit-picking dissection of what he actually said on one occasion when contrasted with the opinions expressed by him on other occasions”
When all else fails, and you have no answers to the likes of Mr Sant, Mr Soler and Mr Cassar just to mention a few, you resort to generalising your responses, calling them futile interpretations and nit-picking dissections.
I am sure you will concede that witnessing the faith of Catholics in Malta is an insufficient reason for conversion (I trust there were more compelling reasons to account for your conversion), since if witnessing the faith of a relgion is sufficient reason for converting, you could (or possibly should) convert to Islam or some other religion.
That said, even though I disagree with you that atheists "choose" to be so (there is a difference between personal disbelief and just claiming disbelief...true atheists are among the former, and belief - or disbelief - is not something one "chooses"), that said, I appreciate your acceptance of atheists as possibly good persons. I have no quarrel with people like you.
Incorrect doctor. We all agree on what Einstein said and meant. He made it distinctly clear himself. Only you disagree.
Science provides an alternative, credible and verifiable explanation of nature, including human nature, to that offered by religion. There exists no rational need to invoke the intervention of some supernatural being, let alone a personal one with our names tattooed on the palm of his hand. All the assertions made by the religious, summarised below, seem unfounded.
You say ignorance: Ok that's your word, but all I say is that there was only one person in prison in Malta for murder those days, unlike now and my teenage sister could walk down the street without being molested. Moral standards were of the highest then and crime non-existent. I am afraid with Malta copying countries like Britain with its own secular moral void, your islands are going to descend into the same morass as mine has. Give me "ignorance" any day!
Very well put Mr Soler, indeed a mystery how religions still get away with it.
No thankfully, the ignorance of the 1950/60s is no longer so evident.
Converting from The Church of England to the Roman Catholic Church, is like jumping from the frying pan into the fire. Enjoy or journey or should I say your experience!
The futile interpretations of what Einstein must have meant are only your own (Einstein has been very clear on what he actually meant), and in essence, what you are saying in the last post is that the existence (or non-existence) of God can neither be proved or disproved. After all, "He cannot be weighed or analyzed by any scientific apparatus, methods or calculations".
So in essence, belief in God (in all his varieties) is just a