How God works (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, January 20, 2013, 19:49 (4326 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

TONY: I have found answers to some of your questions regarding the logistics, but I need to research them further before responding, and my time is going to be limited for the next week or so. But I promise that I will reply in full asap.-Tony, I fear this may lead to more frustration for you. I don't want you to spend your time on such matters unless you feel they are of interest to you too.
 
TONY: The problem I have always had with this debate is twofold. First, as I mentioned previously, nothing is 'evil' separate from intent, and second, you consistently blame him for human actions.-I have answered both points. I have defined evil as "deliberate actions which cause unnecessary suffering to others", so that e.g. we can separate good pain from bad. I do not blame God for human actions. I am suggesting to you, through my subjective view of the earth's history, that the mixed nature of humans may mirror the mixed nature of the God who you think created us.
 
TONY: As to some of your other comments, the bible writers are no more unknown or unknowable than you, I, or David. We can know them through their writings [...] etc.-But the sources of their information, and their credentials for announcing to us the nature of God, his motives for past actions, and his future intentions are unknown and uncheckable.
 
TONY: As for YHWH being like us, I would say that he is to us what the best of men is to the worst of men, multiplied by an unknowable amount. There is no love, anger, or power greater than his, but neither is there any mercy or justice as great. -If he exists, I have to agree as far as the scale is concerned. Love and mercy are encouraging, anger and power are scary, and justice makes them even scarier since we do not know whether his idea of justice coincides with our own.
 
TONY: I do not shrink back when I think of the devastation that he has certainly caused in the past because I know, all things being equal, had their been any decency or goodness left in even one of the people destroyed, he would have found a means to spare them [...] etc.-And as you so rightly said, that is your faith. We should leave it at that.-TONY: In my research I found a quote here that pretty much sums up the crux of our argument. Though the original writer was talking about prophecy specifically, I think it is equally applicable. 
"But nothing is gained by a mere answer to objec- 
tions, so long as the original prejudice, " there cannot 
be supernatural prophecy," remains. Be the objec- 
tions ever so completely removed, unbelief remains 
unshaken, because these objections are put forward to 
delude others, scarcely to blind itself; for they who 
believe not, know well that the ground of their unbe- 
lief rests on their conceptions of God and of His rela- 
tion to man, not on history."~REV. E. B. PUSEY, D.D., DIVINITY SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD -This quote can be reversed en bloc to argue that the ground of belief rests on believers' conceptions of God and of His relations to man, not on history. Absurdly, Pusey assumes that unbelief is prejudice whereas belief is based on fact/history (in this case, prophecies, but you have extended his meaning to our own discussion). I would not insult you, however, by calling your beliefs prejudice, or even worse an attempt to delude me, and I had thought this respect was reciprocated. You have reached your conclusions through years of experience, study, and reflection. So has David. And I have failed to reach any conclusion though I have gone through the same processes as you. As you have so rightly said, the difference between us, and between the way we interpret life and the world you think God created, is FAITH, and faith is not based on fact/history (then it wouldn't be faith), but on a subjective interpretation of fact/history. Shame on you for quoting such derogatory nonsense!-TONY: This is part of my frustration with David as well, though that is tied directly to the nature of prophecy. I get frustrated because I know that no matter how much evidence I can present, getting beyond unbelief is not something that I can accomplish.-That is why I am very apprehensive about the continuation of this discussion. The arguments that I put to you ... if I may be permitted to analyse myself ... are not the result of prejudice or a desire to delude anyone, but constitute the reasons why I became and remain agnostic. Naturally I see them as a rational and coherent counter to the subjectivity underlying the "evidence" as it is presented by both sides. They are not, however, expressions of belief or disbelief. I do not (dis)believe God is a "tyrannical asshole". I do not (dis)believe God is all good. I do not even (dis)believe in God. According to whatever subject is under discussion, I can only explain why I do not believe whatever my interlocutor does believe. Agnosticism can only be negative, and so it might be seen as a testing ground for belief. That is all I can offer ... at least until such time as something tips the balance!