Save us.

[Karlis]

This is exactly why I think it's likely that our reality is nothing more than a learning experience for an intelligence that we can't even really imagine.

That's my belief also, Godsnmbr1 -- except I would say that this "intelligence" you mention is the God of the Bible. Also (as I have posted elsewhere) it is clear to me that God is in the process of creating His Family of immortal spirit children through Mankind. ... And yes, there are Scriptures that show this truth.

And before these children can be born, they have to grow spiritually and develop a Godly character. Why? Because I can't see that God will have rebellious immortal children in His family.

Kind regards,

Karlis

[Wootloops]

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

But in the general sentiment of your post, I cannot say I could be wrong. If I didn't believe with 100% certainty that Jesus was the only way to God, then why would I follow Jesus? I am absolutely certain taht Jesus is the only way to God. I am absolutely certain that God exists and put into motion a plan to save humanity. I know this with as much certainty as anything I have learned. The Muslim, as beautiful as their religion is (and yes, I see it as a beautiful religion, despite the fanatics that misuse it) is not a follower of God because they have not accepted Jesus as their Lord. While I certainly respect their views, I can't say they might be right because all my evidence in life to this point has led me to a contradictory conclusion.

I do get what you are trying to say, but just because a Muslim might be as convinced of their rightness as I am doesn't by extension mean that I should not be so certain. Jesus' death and resurrection is just so obviously true to me that to claim doubt where it is not is entirely dishonest to who I am. It's not a matter of breaching the Faith-wall, it simply is what it is. I'm sorry if this leaves you shaking your head, but I can't change who I am simply to appease others. Nor would I do so, even if I could.

If that forces us here and now to depart ways and respectfully disagree with each other, then so be it. I do of course wish you all the best in your life's journey.

~ Regards, PA

That's as far as we can really get .

[Godsnmbr1]

I think there's two things you need to think about Woot.

1. Even if every single religion on Earth is wrong in some way, that does not mean that God doesn't exist. It just means we have limited knowledge. Which we do.

2. What would you accept as evidence of your god's existence? Because you're clearly looking for a particular god, not God. And why do you insist that most spiritual people believe in some sort of hell? I don't see how truly spiritual people possibly could believe in hell, at least not in the traditional sense. I personally believe that it's possible for a soul to choose nonexistence by always choosing itself over the group but that's a conscious choice with a predictable outcome so I see it as just a natural part of the pattern. This fire and brimstone **** that you keep basing all of your assumptions on isn't even close to the truth. I'm sure that even most of the professed Christians on here would agree with me on that much.

[3rd rock resident alien]

Don't let some religious text constrain you from learning more. Don't let any human abuse your right. Fight for an equal right for everything. The Sun will guide you in your journey to freedom and eternal life.

[eight bits]

This does surprise me because the only response I get to counter mine is a circular one. I would like to know why they are satisfied with their beliefs given what I have said, and I get a circular answer of them believing because they believe. I point this out over and over and over and over, but it just goes nowhere. Or rather, maybe a more fair expectation would be a non-circular answer to why they are so unshakably certain?

They reject (according to their words, I cannot vouch for the particulars of anyone else's actual thoughts) that what you say is a reason to disbelieve.

Many of them believe that faith is a gift, and that received faith is a sound basis for belief in particular propositions. That is not circular. It is a premise. Premises may be criticized for being contradictory, if they happen to be, but there is no issue of circularity about them. Premises agreeable to one person's taste may be abhorrent to someone else.

Every attempt to prove any premise must necessarily be circular, unless some premise can be derived from other premises already made. Whichever way the exercise turns out, we learn nothing about the truth of the premise.

Further, there is a little bait-and-switch in this thread. That an argument is ineffective in convincing you ("Save us") is no reason at all for the argument not to have convinced the advocate (What you complain about in the body of the thread).

You and the advocate differ about the nature of faith. You have incompatible premises.

We would all prefer that our premises be apodictic, self-evident and uncontroversial. One of Euclid's premises is that there are no fewer than three points in space. Yes, I think so. I am even tempted to wave my arms and say "here, here and over there."

In all fields of inquiry, however, it reliably turns out that our desire to have apodictic premises conflicts with our desire to say interesting things. And so, another of Euclid's premises is the parallel postulate (coplanar parallel lines never intersect).

At best, such premises are tenable. But Euclid knew perfectly well that "locally parallel" lines may intersect when they lie on other surfaces (a sphere, for example). So we think we can imagine that a plane would be different, but... No, it is not apodictic. And, of course, by now, non-Euclidean geometries are routine and realistically useful.

Nevertheless, Euclidean geometry is also realistically useful.

It is faulty logic to conflate the non-apodictic character of some premise with the inevitably circular quality of any argument intended to justify it.

You cannot promote a difference of personal opinion, as the choice of admissible premises always is, into an impersonally recognizable error.

Edited November 2, 2008 by eight bits

[Rosewin]

As far as the OP goes:

Save yourself.

[Mr Walker]

name='Wootloops' date='Nov 2 2008, 01:35 PM' post='2585603']

So this is a bit like a sorting game is it? The people of all other faiths have the same evidence and certainty that you do, and so, for what reasons would they possibly switch religions?

You seem to have read my post quite thoroughly which i appreciate as they are lengthy and sometimes complex, but you dont seem to appreciate that i am christian by cultural choice but see one universal god who is accessible through most faiths from abrahamic ones to pre christian to modern spiritual concepts I dont want any one to switch their religious beliefs simply acknowledge the power and reality of god then work from there

It seems to me, that it's a moral sorting. Those who are truly the ones God is looking for, will look at your version of Christianity and follow it. All those who fail to, are not up to par, and are discarded.

In a way it is a moral sorting of peole who choose to do good and those who chose to do harm. the difficulty lies in our definitions of good and harm. I persoanllly cant accept a belief system which would choose to drop a child off a cliff rather than a dog, Even without any belief as an athiest i could not see that as a logical conclusion to reach.

And of course the reason that these people who fail to see the light of your religion, is because of how they were created, because of God.

You're okay with this?

I think people see god differently because of their personal filters, their cultural backgrounds, their level of education and scientific knowledge. And yes im perfectly ok by this. Its a natural function of humanity when it encounters anything unknown.

I'd say that the story of your house burning down is quite a direct intervention. Would you say that as a result of that you became less confident, less responsible, and developed and grew less? Or was it more?

Ive explained in my posts before that im not the best person to argue this pov because of my somewhat unique experiences. I will reiterate that the first time i encountered an angel and a physical miracle at the same, it nearly destroyed me. I took a long time to discover that i was perfectly well and healthy, and longer to fully appreciate what happened.

IT then changed my life utterly. I do not know how many people would be willing to change every physical and emotion aspect of their life at gods. appearance. And if they cannot/will not do so, then his appearance will more probably bring them harm than good. For example it would be impossible for you to decide to drop a baby rather than a dog, or to accept abortion where the womans life was at risk If you knew god was there watchiing and judging your motivations and actions. Not only does gods presence validate his existence, but also the sacredness of human life an the social and human responsibilities which go with that.

I would imagine that every god you have read about has had a purpose similar to that because without such teachings, there would be no reason to follow the religion. As I said to Karlis, it sounds “fantastical”, because if it wasn't, no one would follow it.

If god is simply a construct of man thios view is correct. As i know god has a real independent existence than logic dictates he serves a similar function/purpose in each society and individual he encounters because he is expressing one consistent goal.

It would be hard to lose faith in God when he is right in your face. If people could pray and get a positive statistical result, then I am rather sure that there would be a rise in faith, not a loss.

You missunderstand the critical nature of faith. Faith is a choosing to believe. A person does not have faith their car exists. They know it does. if peole knew god existed they would not have the opportunity to believe in faith and so could not physically have faith in gods existence.

I assume that you pray. But if God doesn't intervene in human affairs, then he doesn't answer prayers. So why do you do it then?

I dont pray to god >We talk to each other. I ask him what i can do to help him, and to show me what his purpose are for me. We also talk about many subjects, from my relationship with my wife, to the nature of the universe.

MY assumption, after nearly 40 years with god, is that he knows what hes doing with my life and i dont need to pray to him. I will talk to him, if requested, about the needs of others and how i, and he, might help them

After hearing what you thought was his voice, could you choose not to believe in God? Doubtful. It seems by your logic you were forced.

True. This makes me unusual but not unique.(Take saul/pauls conversion for example). I dont believe in god, i know he exists .There is an important difference. I assume god did this for me for a purpose both for my benefit and to his own grand design.

If God would make his existence indisputable, then he would save everyone who would otherwise not reach salvation. It's a simple decision for a moral being, especially for one of absolute perfection.

Tis is an absolute fallacy and the basis of a common misconception about god, man, and our relationship.

We are not saved by the physical existence of god, we are saved by our belief faith in him AND the relationship we develop from that faith. Our hearts and our actions must be modified by belief to be saved. We cannot be saved by the imposition of gods will.

I sometimes wonder if not having belief in god might make my own salvation harder, but i make a choice with heart and mind to act as god wills me to. And hopefully this conversion of the heart and mind is enough.

I believe in free will in a practical sense, but in an all around sense no. I have free will to do whatever I choose to, but in reality, every variable in my environment and in my mind lead me to every choice I ever made and ever will make.

From my perspective, I have free will. From God's perspective, in his omniscient wisdom, I do not. God should not judge anyone on their choices because he himself knew every choice we would ever make before he ever made us.

The fact that this omniscient and omnipotent God made us the way he did, and judges us on that basis, makes him immoral in my opinion.

This part of the discuassion weve had before. My world view, my experiences, and logic informs me that you are wrong in your conclusions, but of course that is only my opinion. Each must honestly act on the best evidence available to them, after utilising all elements of human sentience fully to analyse and process that evidence.

Why don't you accept the promise of Islam hmmm? Just reach out in faith and accept it.

If i had been born in an islamic culture i would be an islamic believer. At heart the beliefs of islam in spiritual matters are not contradictory to my experiences. The same with jewish bhuddist gaean or other beliefs. I see the tragedy that we allow spiritual experiences to divide us rather than unite us as human beings.

You are saying that I should reach out in faith right now and accept that promise on the basis of nothing; out of the 30 thousand or so denominations of Christianity, the denominations of Islam, the denominations of Judaism, the variations of Hinduism, and variations of every single other religion of this planet Earth, when all of these other religions and religious denominations have just as much evidence as you? Do you realize the sheer madness of what you are proposing? And this is exactly what I was trying to get at in my OP. Everyone is choosing their religion on the basis of no real evidence, and then accepting it as absolute and unchangeable truth with an unshakable certainty.

No you miss my point. Have faith in god. His reality his physical presence and powers. It doesnt matter if you come to him in the guise of jew muslim christian hindu or whatever. Just have faith in him and develop a personal relationship with him. You dont have to adpot any particaulr religious format at all. I chose the bible because many people from similar cultures have had similar real experiences with god and the bible is a sort of contact history, analysis and summation of what we have learned as a culture from those contacts. Plus it works on a personal and cultural level in almast every way.

It's madness, and all of the believers should realize it.

Believing is not madness. Denying the spiritual element and dimension of humanity is the road to madness, both personally and for a culture. If not madness it leads to a dimunition of the full potential of people.

Would you surrender your will to any organism on this Earth? Any friend, any dictator, any benevolent ruler? Would you become a mindless drone for them? One who does not think for his or her self, and only obeys without question? Only a dictator would ever ask you to surrender your will to him, and if God would ask me to surrender my will to him, then he is no god worthy of recognition or liking.

God is the only one i surrender my will to. I wont try to exlain why. Other than to say it brings incredible benefits on every level to a human being and to human culture. You only have to look at a world which operates by human will and desire to understand that this is not working as it should. Its your choice and the inability to surrender self to god is tprobably the most common reason why peole wont accept god. Given your attitude how would you react if a real and powerful god appeared before you and asked you to do just that.

This perhaps is the reason why god simply appearing in person will not solve all the worlds ills. People will still choose not to accept that he is wiser, more loving, and compassionate than themselves. That he understands them better than themselves, and knows what is best for them better than they do. If you cant accept that, then you will never truly be able to accept the reality of god in any spiritual form.

[Mr Walker]

name='Wootloops' date='Nov 2 2008, 01:49 PM' post='2585617']

The choice to believe in your God is identical to that of any other God. It's not a choice at all, it's a blind gamble.

You missed my point (again) faith /belief is a choice we make and it says somthing about us. If we know something the chance to utilse faith is removed from us and we will never be able to know what that part of us would hav been/decided.

As i said earlier, i dont think it matters greatly what sort of god you adopt (as long as it is not one which sacrifices humans, destroys the environment. or reduces rather than enhances human potential to give some examples.)

There is a gigantic difference between a parent and God. Your version of God is perfect. The parent is fallible. The parent did not personally create the child in every facet of its existence. God could have made us so that we did not need to be disciplined, the parent could not have, and has no choice but to discipline. God created us so that he could discipline us. To enjoy to discipline is to be a masochist, and so God must be a masochist because he was entirely capable of creating us without the need of discipline.

I dont think god is perfect, or omniscient or omnipotent. My god is real and real beings probably cannot be any of those things.

The rest of your points hinge on free will. God canot do any of those things with out taking away free will. Sentient beings with free will cannot be compelled. They can be educated, shown encouraged persuaded etc but as long as they have ferr will they cannot be made a certain way , to do certain things or even to think certain things. Thus god(and this is a very common image in many religious faiths fills those parenting roles as educationg, seting wise limits, explaining natural consequences etc. He may reward good behaviour and punish bad behaviour(or simply show that all behaviour has natural consequences concommitant with its nature.)

While god could create us as clones of himself, why should he. Perhaps god himself only got to be as he did through the nurture, education, love and uplift of another, earlier, god. Perhaps we must learn how to be good parents ourselves, so that in turn we may uplift other sentient beings to be wise enough to survive the natural perils of sentience and material knowledge.

God could just as easily come out of the sky and tell us what to do as he can in which ever way you seem to be implying. His discipline would be much more effective if his existence was indisputable

True, but as i said this begs the question of the true nature of god and man, and the natural relationship between the two. What makes you think the end result of good behaviour is more important than the process by which we learn to be good people. We have to learn this art/ability purselves. God can guide, and help us, but to compel us would reduce the effectiveness of how we learned, and thus our true commitment to good behaviour..

The only true and effective motivation for behaviour is internal motivation. ie free and conscious choice, based on knowledge and understanding.

[Wootloops]

You seem to have read my post quite thoroughly which i appreciate as they are lengthy and sometimes complex, but you dont seem to appreciate that i am christian by cultural choice but see one universal god who is accessible through most faiths from abrahamic ones to pre christian to modern spiritual concepts I dont want any one to switch their religious beliefs simply acknowledge the power and reality of god then work from there

That'd odd. So do you actually think that Jesus rose from the dead? Do you think both that Jesus rose from the dead and that Mohammad flew into heaven on a winged horse? Or do you think neither, and that all concepts of God have some innate truth in it, but that none of them, including your own, are the complete truth?

In a way it is a moral sorting of peole who choose to do good and those who chose to do harm. the difficulty lies in our definitions of good and harm. I persoanllly cant accept a belief system which would choose to drop a child off a cliff rather than a dog, Even without any belief as an athiest i could not see that as a logical conclusion to reach.

The decision between the dog and the baby should be a real one. By dropping the dog, you are discriminating by species. It's similar to being racist. A white racist holding onto a black baby and a white baby would drop the black baby. I don't care if you have black skin, or if you have four legs and fur. I care about what's in your head, because that's really who you are.

When I am looking at the dog and the baby, I am looking at two minds. One mind is more sentient than the other, and in this case it would be the dog's. And this isn't a decision I like. The situation is an impossible one, but a choice has to be made. No matter what choice I make, it will be a bad one. I can drop the dog, I can drop the baby, or I can hang on as long as I can and drop them both. No matter what I do, I come out of it feeling horrible.

Of course, if I choose to save the dog, I become shamed by all of society; a society that has an innate human bias towards life. If I choose to save the baby, I would be praised. A typical person would not have a seconds thought after dropping the dog, even though they should. The dog had a mind, a mind that likely understood its situation far greater than the baby ever possibly could.

The situation is similar to that of having to choose between dropping a normal person, or a mentally handicapped person. In this situation, society would expect the normal person to willingly sacrifice himself for the mentally handicapped person, but what do you do if they both want to live?

I think people see god differently because of their personal filters, their cultural backgrounds, their level of education and scientific knowledge. And yes im perfectly ok by this. Its a natural function of humanity when it encounters anything unknown.

So do you think that those who do not follow Christianity, will not gain immortality or would be separated from God, or face whichever punishment/reward situation you believe in? If you do think one of those things, then how could you be okay with that? Especially with you yourself saying that if you were born in an Islamic culture, then you would likely be a Muslim.

Ive explained in my posts before that im not the best person to argue this pov because of my somewhat unique experiences. I will reiterate that the first time i encountered an angel and a physical miracle at the same, it nearly destroyed me. I took a long time to discover that i was perfectly well and healthy, and longer to fully appreciate what happened.

If I saw a miracle, I would be awestruck! I don't know how that could possibly destroy you.

IT then changed my life utterly. I do not know how many people would be willing to change every physical and emotion aspect of their life at gods. appearance. And if they cannot/will not do so, then his appearance will more probably bring them harm than good. For example it would be impossible for you to decide to drop a baby rather than a dog, or to accept abortion where the womans life was at risk If you knew god was there watchiing and judging your motivations and actions. Not only does gods presence validate his existence, but also the sacredness of human life an the social and human responsibilities which go with that.

The existence of God would not change my decision with the dog and the baby. I would be horrified to know that this God sees us as special over any of his other supposed creations. If animals and humans both go to live on after death, then my decision should remain the same. If however, only humans live on after death, then the decision to drop the baby becomes the only moral decision. Conversely, if animals lived after death, and not humans, then the decision could only possibly be to drop the dog.

And concerning abortion, the choice is even simpler. With and without God's existence it remains the same. The fetus before 22 weeks has no capacity for thought or pain, and if a girl's life is in danger and she wants it removed, then there should be absolutely no moral block at all in removing it. However, even past the point where the fetus begins to develop the capacity for thought and pain, the decision should remain with the mother. If the baby lives, she dies; if she lives, the baby dies. Either way, someone dies, and the mother is the host and the most sentient creature. And besides, that far down the line, and I'm not sure about this, the baby should be able to survive being taken out.

You missunderstand the critical nature of faith. Faith is a choosing to believe. A person does not have faith their car exists. They know it does. if peole knew god existed they would not have the opportunity to believe in faith and so could not physically have faith in gods existence.

What about people who have faith in multiple gods? It sounds like you're saying that as long as you believe in God in any form, then you are good to go. But what about people who are polytheistic, such as Hindus, who are not believing in God, but are believing in multiple gods?

And me, even though I have never killed anyone, never even got into a fight with anyone, am damned because I don't have faith? Because I choose not to believe in God on the basis of seeing no evidence for his existence, I am damned? How can you be morally okay with this? If I were in your place, and you were in mine, I would think that to be unjust. I could not morally follow a god who would damn you for such a thing.

You are telling me to believe in any God whatsoever, even though I have seen no evidence for any of them on the basis that if I do not, then I will be damned or not granted immortality. But, on what basis can you tell me that anything will happen to me? If you only believe in Christianity because it is culturally convenient for you, then how can you look at anything in there, and speak any of it to anyone? If God never personally told you that those of no faith shall be punished, then you should not think it because the Bible is just one text out of who knows how many.

Why are you even reading the Bible if what's in it is different from other religious texts? You say that all paths lead to God, and so you can't believe anything in the Bible if another religion somewhere contradicts what it is saying; or even if just some random person who believes in God says something contradictory. If you say that all of these paths are legitimate, then you shouldn't believe anything in the Bible over anything any other religious text or religious person says or believes.

I dont pray to god >We talk to each other. I ask him what i can do to help him, and to show me what his purpose are for me. We also talk about many subjects, from my relationship with my wife, to the nature of the universe.

MY assumption, after nearly 40 years with god, is that he knows what hes doing with my life and i dont need to pray to him. I will talk to him, if requested, about the needs of others and how i, and he, might help them

Just a curious question: Does he actually talk back? Do you actually hear him? Like a voice separate voice speaking words?

Tis is an absolute fallacy and the basis of a common misconception about god, man, and our relationship.

We are not saved by the physical existence of god, we are saved by our belief faith in him AND the relationship we develop from that faith. Our hearts and our actions must be modified by belief to be saved. We cannot be saved by the imposition of gods will.

I sometimes wonder if not having belief in god might make my own salvation harder, but i make a choice with heart and mind to act as god wills me to. And hopefully this conversion of the heart and mind is enough.

Those men on the planes of 9/11 were damned sure they were acting out God's will. Their hearts and minds were as converted and surrendered to God as they can get. They trusted God so much that they sacrificed themselves for him. Do you think these men were not faithful and deserving of God's reward after death?

People can do whatever they like if they believe that what they are doing is God willing.

This part of the discuassion weve had before. My world view, my experiences, and logic informs me that you are wrong in your conclusions, but of course that is only my opinion. Each must honestly act on the best evidence available to them, after utilising all elements of human sentience fully to analyse and process that evidence.

How are we to exercise any will at all, if we have no base to exercise anything on? You only start to choose when something happens that causes you to make a decision. You then utilize past experiences, the current situation, and future predictions to calculate your decision. Every variable in your environment has an effect on your choice.

Do you not agree with this?

If i had been born in an islamic culture i would be an islamic believer. At heart the beliefs of islam in spiritual matters are not contradictory to my experiences. The same with jewish bhuddist gaean or other beliefs. I see the tragedy that we allow spiritual experiences to divide us rather than unite us as human beings.

In Islam it is okay to have sex with any girl who has had her period. Mohammad, who lived his life in the perfect wisdom of God, married a 6 year old, and had sex with her at 9. Being that the Qu'ran is supposed to be timeless, pedophilia should be legal in today's world.

Is that contradictory to your experiences?

By saying that only the heart of the spiritual values of every religion are what matters, you are essentially saying that all of religion, including your own, is obsolete.

No you miss my point. Have faith in god. His reality his physical presence and powers. It doesnt matter if you come to him in the guise of jew muslim christian hindu or whatever. Just have faith in him and develop a personal relationship with him. You dont have to adpot any particaulr religious format at all. I chose the bible because many people from similar cultures have had similar real experiences with god and the bible is a sort of contact history, analysis and summation of what we have learned as a culture from those contacts. Plus it works on a personal and cultural level in almast every way.

So do you actually even believe in Christianity? And as I said before, if you don't, and you say that only faith matters, and that it doesn't matter what form it comes in, then where do you get the authority to say that faith is what is necessary? And if you do believe in Christianity, then you must believe that the other faiths are wrong, and that your path is the right one; or else you don't believe it.

Believing is not madness. Denying the spiritual element and dimension of humanity is the road to madness, both personally and for a culture. If not madness it leads to a dimunition of the full potential of people.

All I need to do is point out Sweden and compare it with Saudi Arabia. Sweden is one of the happiest countries in the world, with the highest, or almost highest levels of human development in the world. If that isn't human potential being fulfilled, then I don't know what is.

Saudi Arabia on the other hand, is stuck in the middle ages, still stoning rape victims to death.

Now, you may be talking about some undefined, unknown promise of potential from God....but if that potential is just having faith in God, then I don't see the spectacular fulfilling of potential.

God is the only one i surrender my will to. I wont try to exlain why. Other than to say it brings incredible benefits on every level to a human being and to human culture. You only have to look at a world which operates by human will and desire to understand that this is not working as it should. Its your choice and the inability to surrender self to god is tprobably the most common reason why peole wont accept god. Given your attitude how would you react if a real and powerful god appeared before you and asked you to do just that.

Sweden vs. Saudi Arabia

I rest my case.

This perhaps is the reason why god simply appearing in person will not solve all the worlds ills. People will still choose not to accept that he is wiser, more loving, and compassionate than themselves. That he understands them better than themselves, and knows what is best for them better than they do. If you cant accept that, then you will never truly be able to accept the reality of god in any spiritual form.

Why should I accept that he is wiser, more loving, and more compassionate than I, when all he has done is claim it, and has done nothing to prove it? Especially considering that I have seen no evidence for his existence.

You just say to accept it. Well, why should I accept it? And I don't see anything to accept from. You are telling me to accept candy from the driver in a car I cannot see and do not know.

[Wootloops]

As far as the OP goes:

Save yourself.

Unfortunately, and this was part of my point, I can't save myself. Every religion and religious denomination has just as much evidence supporting themselves as every other one. I can't save myself because I don't have a choice. All I have is a blind gamble.

Now, considering that you believe with absolute certainty that you hold the correct faith, then you should have something over the others. I would like to know what that something is. If you don't have that something, then maybe you should reexamine your beliefs or your certainty about your beliefs, and the morality of a God who expects people to choose his path when every opposing choice is identical to the correct one.

[Lilly]

When I am looking at the dog and the baby, I am looking at two minds. One mind is more sentient than the other, and in this case it would be the dog's. And this isn't a decision I like. The situation is an impossible one, but a choice has to be made. No matter what choice I make, it will be a bad one. I can drop the dog, I can drop the baby, or I can hang on as long as I can and drop them both. No matter what I do, I come out of it feeling horrible.

This is an absolute 'no-brainer' for me.

I'd drop the dog (wouldn't even hesitate). Now, I absolutely adore dogs (right now I'm back in school studying to become a Vet Tech), but a dog and a human being are not even comparable in terms of sentience. Also, I've experienced first hand the deaths of my beloved dogs; I've also experienced the death of my beloved infant daughter. There is no contest therein. Feeling horrible is relative and quantifiable. Any human baby wins 'hands down' over any of my dogs.

[TheKnight]

This alone should shake the foundation of your certainty.

Why should it? The two aren't mutually exclusive. I think that all religious people accept that different people's experiences will lead them to different conclusions. If you are raised in a Muslim culture and because of it you attribute your experience to Allah, then I do not think that God (who is above religion) would be angry at you. Especially if for most of your life you had never heard other views.

It would seem as if you're expecting everything to fit into some simple orderly view that makes you comfortable and makes complete total sense at the same time. Life doesn't operate that way. It's completely and totally complex with different variables that one has to consider. I am 100% certain that Judaism is true. However, I do not doubt that PA is 100% certain that Christianity is true. That doesn't shake the foundation of my certainty. The fact that another person has experiences which lead them to a certain conclusion doesn't mean that I should question the conclusions I have made from my experiences.

All it means is that we don't and can't know everything. We can only make reasonable conclusions based on what we have observed and experienced. Outside of that, it's all speculation.

[Wootloops]

This is an absolute 'no-brainer' for me.

I'd drop the dog (wouldn't even hesitate). Now, I absolutely adore dogs (right now I'm back in school studying to become a Vet Tech), but a dog and a human being are not even comparable in terms of sentience. Also, I've experienced first hand the deaths of my beloved dogs; I've also experienced the death of my beloved infant daughter. There is no contest therein. Feeling horrible is relative and quantifiable. Any human baby wins 'hands down' over any of my dogs.

But if you were hanging an infant over a cliff, and an adult dog, which do you think would be most aware of what was actually happening? I think it would be the dog, and if I am wrong, and the baby is more sentient than the dog, then I would choose the baby.

Feeling horrible is indeed relative, but we come to those feelings for certain reasons. To feel more horrible for the baby over the dog just because the the baby is human, I don't think is right. Rather, I would try and relate how horrible I felt to how sentient the creature was.

[Wootloops]

Why should it? The two aren't mutually exclusive. I think that all religious people accept that different people's experiences will lead them to different conclusions. If you are raised in a Muslim culture and because of it you attribute your experience to Allah, then I do not think that God (who is above religion) would be angry at you. Especially if for most of your life you had never heard other views.

It would seem as if you're expecting everything to fit into some simple orderly view that makes you comfortable and makes complete total sense at the same time. Life doesn't operate that way. It's completely and totally complex with different variables that one has to consider. I am 100% certain that Judaism is true. However, I do not doubt that PA is 100% certain that Christianity is true. That doesn't shake the foundation of my certainty. The fact that another person has experiences which lead them to a certain conclusion doesn't mean that I should question the conclusions I have made from my experiences.

All it means is that we don't and can't know everything. We can only make reasonable conclusions based on what we have observed and experienced. Outside of that, it's all speculation.

What I am trying to get at is that when you see that someone else can believe in a different religion with the same absolute certainty as you, then this fact should shake your foundation of certainty because the way that person came to be just as certain as you is little different than the way you came to be certain.

Neither of you have evidence that could possibly convince each other, and each of you are absolutely certain. With your certainty, you are incapable of even considering yourself wrong, and so even if you were wrong, you would never know it, and never be able to know. All you need to do is put yourself in the other person's shoes. You know that you are right, and so put yourself into the shoes of the person who believes in something different than you with that same certainty and you will see how they will never see the truth of your beliefs due to that unshakable certainty. After that, you should see how you could be wrong and they could be right, but neither of you will get anywhere because you are incapable of considering any other possible version of reality.

I am not excepting everything to fit into some orderly and comfortable view. What I am saying is that because everything is not orderly and comfortable, you should not be so certain that you are right; especially when you have no evidence to support that you are right, and that so many other people with different beliefs feel the exact same way.

[Karlis]

But if you were hanging an infant over a cliff, and an adult dog, which do you think would be most aware of what was actually happening? I think it would be the dog, and if I am wrong, and the baby is more sentient than the dog, then I would choose the baby.

Feeling horrible is indeed relative, but we come to those feelings for certain reasons. To feel more horrible for the baby over the dog just because the the baby is human, I don't think is right. Rather, I would try and relate how horrible I felt to how sentient the creature was.

Hi Wootloops,

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean above.

Do you mean that a human being "is of less worth" if it is less sentiently developed in its growth, than a more mature animal of another species?

Pardon me if I am not making myself very clear in the above sentence.

Kind regards,

Karlis

[3rd rock resident alien]

Unfortunately, and this was part of my point, I can't save myself. Every religion and religious denomination has just as much evidence supporting themselves as every other one. I can't save myself because I don't have a choice. All I have is a blind gamble.

Now, considering that you believe with absolute certainty that you hold the correct faith, then you should have something over the others. I would like to know what that something is. If you don't have that something, then maybe you should reexamine your beliefs or your certainty about your beliefs, and the morality of a God who expects people to choose his path when every opposing choice is identical to the correct one.

You have a choice. Every Sun-Rise, go out and gain knowledge and experience. Sunset is a time for rest and review what you have found out. Once you do this everyday you will have more of something that all other religious denomination does not have. The Sun will give you what you are searching but you have to do it yourself. All others are just interested of what you have to offer to them.

[AquaMerina]

Hello religious people. As you know, there are a lot of heathens out there. All of which, according to most mainstream religions and religious interpretations, will suffer eternally for our insufferable misgivings. Help us come to the light then eh? Surely, because your religion is the absolute objective truth of existence and reality, the correctness of your religion should be obvious to all.

Please now, show us how your religion is the truth. What evidence do you have to show? How do you know that your religion is true? Though, rather than how you know, the question should be how should we know? Personal experience and emotional appeal mean nothing to people who have not experienced them. If your religion is really true, then there must be something more, more than faith.

You can tell me to have faith, and maybe I would try it, and maybe I would feel God, and then believe your religion to be true. But...what happens when I look across the world at other religions, and examine their stories of faith, which are just as genuine as yours and mine. What do I have to say to that? What do you have to say to that? Your phenomenon of faith is found in just about every religion in the world other than yours. So faith then, means nothing, and should play no part in the decision to hold a religion as absolute truth.

Oh but maybe, with that faith, God will give me an experience of him. A voice maybe, a weird unexplainable feeling, a vision; who knows? This should surely convince me, how could it not right? Well, again, what happens when I just look around; look around at all the other religions and faiths. They all have personal experiences as well, some perhaps, even more profound than yours or mine. There will always be someone who has a more fantastical story than you. What do I say to this? What do you? So really, given that this is absolute truth we're talking about, and the fate of our souls, we really can't gamble on personal experiences either.

What's left? What's left without faith and without personal experience? There has to be something. I really hope that God wouldn't just rest the fate of our souls on faith and personal experience, which are universal throughout the scope of world religions.

This is serious. Not only for me, but for you. Only one religion can be right, if any, and you better hope it is yours. And you better have some damn good reasons for thinking you are right, and you better be willing to share those reasons and evidences, or else you'd be indirectly damning billions of human souls to eternal torture and suffering and shame. The stakes are high, and this is no laughing matter.

Save all of humanity, and prove your religion. If you can't, then what the hell are you doing believing it? Because, as I've explained, your personal experience and faith are far from good enough in determining absolute truth, and the final fate of your everlasting soul.

God is a spiritual being therefore he can not be proven by physical means. All any of us can do is tell you what we believe and why. We cant prove that our beliefs are the right ones as our beliefs are our own and will conflict with anothers. It's human nature. We are all individuals.

Why do you believe that the color red is really the color red? Because to someone who is color blind it will be gray. Are they wrong for believing what they see? No more than you are for believing what you see.

As for one religion being right, I dont feel that is possible because we all have our own opinions on god and what he is and means for us. Religion in my honest opinion is nonsense. We have so many religions in the world because man has interpreted the bible in so many ways. Or is trying to explain divine beings with out using the bible at all. Through out most recorded history, many civilizations have believed in a god or gods. It's in the human foundation to believe that there is something bigger than ourselves, to explain where we come from, how we got here and most importantly what is our purpose for being here. Even Darwin's theory of evolution. So you are going to get conflicting stories of beliefs.

No where in the bible does it say that god will burn and torture all the bad people for all eternity. This idea came from the pagan religions at the time of the birth of the catholic religion when in an effort to turn pagans to Christianity the christian church adopted some of the pagan teachings and intertwined them with christian teachings.

How can anyone be totally right or wrong? Every part of who we are now and who we will become is formed from personal experiance.

If Iam wrong for believing in God then really I have nothing to lose. But if Iam right I have everything to gain. Iam just the type of person who would rather be safe than sorry.

What you are asking for no one can give you except yourself. Because only you will know what absolute truth is to your own ears.

[Splodgenessabounds]

Why do you believe that the color red is really the color red? Because to someone who is color blind it will be gray. Are they wrong for believing what they see? No more than you are for believing what you see.

This reminds me of what my mate told me a few years ago. First off a colour blind person does see colour, but they can't differentiate between certain colours. They have trouble telling red and green apart or blue and orange etc etc. Let's say a person sees red as blue, even though they see blue they would recognise it as red because from when they were very young if they saw the colour red (which they'd see as blue) and asked their parent what colour they were looking at, the parent would say it's red.

So from then on whenever they see the colour blue (which is red) they would call it red (even though they see blue). So if I and the person were watching a football game and the team played in red (which I see as yellow), even though I see yellow and he sees blue, we would both say the team are playing in red.

Edited November 3, 2008 by Splodgenessabounds

[TheKnight]

I think it would be the dog, and if I am wrong, and the baby is more sentient than the dog, then I would choose the baby.

You base the value of life of a being on sentience?

What I am trying to get at is that when you see that someone else can believe in a different religion with the same absolute certainty as you, then this fact should shake your foundation of certainty because the way that person came to be just as certain as you is little different than the way you came to be certain.

Why should it?

Neither of you have evidence that could possibly convince each other, and each of you are absolutely certain. With your certainty, you are incapable of even considering yourself wrong, and so even if you were wrong, you would never know it, and never be able to know.

That's not true. It's easy to convince a person who is certain that what they believe is wrong. When the belief itself doesn't work. I was a Christian, and was 100% certain that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world. That he was God incarnate. Nothing could convince me of it being wrong. What did? The fact that Christianity doesn't work. It doesn't add up. If aspire to spiritual heights, and desire to follow the Bible as the first Christians follow it, then you come to realize that Christianity can't work an isn't true. This is something that can be easily demonstrated.

You're trying to say that because an external source doesn't exist that could change a person's mind, that person is wrong. I say, even if there isn't an external source, a false thing doesn't need one. If something is truly false, you should be able to show it from within the context of that thing, with an internal source.

I am not excepting everything to fit into some orderly and comfortable view. What I am saying is that because everything is not orderly and comfortable, you should not be so certain that you are right; especially when you have no evidence to support that you are right, and that so many other people with different beliefs feel the exact same way.

There's nothing wrong with being 100% certain that you are right. So long as when the evidence comes along making your beliefs impossible, you recognize it.

[MagicJaxon]

You can't prove personal experience...because it's personal, if it was meant for everyone then it wouldn't be very personal now would it?

You can't prove the spiritual through physical means. That's like trying to count by using letters.

If there were proof there would be no faith.

Sorry but I just have to be a smart aleck and respond to this comment by showing you the "Impossible" :

Edited November 4, 2008 by MagicJaxon

[MissMelsWell]

This is an absolute 'no-brainer' for me.

I'd drop the dog (wouldn't even hesitate). Now, I absolutely adore dogs (right now I'm back in school studying to become a Vet Tech), but a dog and a human being are not even comparable in terms of sentience. Also, I've experienced first hand the deaths of my beloved dogs; I've also experienced the death of my beloved infant daughter. There is no contest therein. Feeling horrible is relative and quantifiable. Any human baby wins 'hands down' over any of my dogs.

Agreed... a dog is just a dog. It is what it is, and don't get me wrong I ADORE my dog. (Just look on the pets gallery, she's plastered all over it) ...

However, in the end, the dog is nothing more than a companion, albeit a fine one. The child is of no comparison... It is hopes, dreams, prospects, potential, the future. A dog is just a dog, it's to be cared and we should be grateful for our companion pets but they aren't children, pets aren't the future, they aren't a piece of us... children are.

[momentarylapseofreason]

God is a spiritual being therefore he can not be proven by physical means. All any of us can do is tell you what we believe and why. We cant prove that our beliefs are the right ones as our beliefs are our own and will conflict with anothers.

Of course he can. God can do everything remember ? I used to think the same but then one day.............."hey wait a minute" I realized one day that I was accepting others answers -and then when they failed, I started replacing them with my own excuses/rationalizations -because my excuses seemed more reasonable-- but then eventually under further internal scrutiny and sleepless nights they also failed (except from Deist viewpoint). My standards are higher now in sorting out fact from fantasy-but I am still open to the concept of god existing. Just the excuses people make are interesting to say the least.

God cold have come down here (in a burning bush or whatever) in our lifetimes also.

But I guess he refuses

Edited November 4, 2008 by momentarylapseofreason

[Wootloops]

You base the value of life of a being on sentience?

Agreed... a dog is just a dog. It is what it is, and don't get me wrong I ADORE my dog. (Just look on the pets gallery, she's plastered all over it) ...

However, in the end, the dog is nothing more than a companion, albeit a fine one. The child is of no comparison... It is hopes, dreams, prospects, potential, the future. A dog is just a dog, it's to be cared and we should be grateful for our companion pets but they aren't children, pets aren't the future, they aren't a piece of us... children are.

Hi Wootloops,

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean above.

Do you mean that a human being "is of less worth" if it is less sentiently developed in its growth, than a more mature animal of another species?

Pardon me if I am not making myself very clear in the above sentence.

Kind regards,

Karlis

In an ideal situation, and in a typical day of life here in the western world, I would view all humans with equal worth. But, when you are in an impossible situation, like the one of dangling off a cliff, you have to make decisions that you would never wish to make, and you have to look at things in ways you would never wish to look at them (Like with war, as HaParash pointed out to me).

If it were the case that I were hanging on to two children, one normal, and one mentally handicapped, then I would choose the normal child. Any choice I can make is a bad one, but I have to make a choice, and in order for me to make a choice, I have to look at the variables. Concerning the situation with the two children, whether you make your choice on the basis of potentiality or sentience, you will likely choose the normal child. It sounds horrible, yes, but you have to do something.

Now, I recognize that potentiality is a legitimate variable to make a decision like this on, but I think it would be most moral, to decide mostly on the basis of sentience. The reason I believe that sentience is the more appropriate variable to base a decision like this on, is because it relates the most to reality. As in, when you make a decision on the basis of what someone or something could do, you are predicting the future, and you are not talking about reality. When you make the decision based on sentience, you are trying to empathize with how much physical and emotion pain the creature is going to go through when you drop it.

With the dog and the baby, for me to discriminate between the two simply because of their physical form, I don't think is right. The dog is likely more capable of understanding its situation than the baby, and so regardless of my human bias, I should morally drop the baby. I understand that this sounds horrible, but this is an impossible situation (Most of you think it's not because we are talking about a dog and a baby, but just swap the dog and the baby with a normal child and a mentally handicapped child and you might get what I mean.), and I have to make a decision. What the baby could have done, it's potentiality, should be irrelevant because that baby's future has not occurred. The future child that may have been, is not crying over what it could have been, because it never was.

So would I assign less value to a human being that is less mentally developed than a more mature creature of another species? No. However, I would assign more value to a creature of another species whose mental development and capabilities were superior to that of a less mentally developed human being. Its maturity does not matter, it's the sentience that does. I assign value on the basis of sentience. What you are physically, and whether you are a human being or a dolphin or a monkey, does not matter to me.

In times of "peace" I should live by holding the value of just about all of life, not just humans, in equal value. Only in times of "war" should I ever break out the system of assigning value on the basis of sentience and use it to make decisions. Though in order for me to truly live my philosophy, and not be a hypocrite, I should become a vegetarian; and perhaps I will.

Edited November 4, 2008 by Wootloops

[MissMelsWell]

Really? You'd drop the Handicapped child over the normal one? But you couldn't choose between a dog and a child? really? I guess I thought about the problem in an entirely different way.

I can tell you what I'd do, I'd hang on to both the handicapped and normal child for all I was worth until the situation was out of my hands and in Gods hands. The one that goes was suppose to be the one that goes. That's faith. It would SUCK, but that's what I'd do, hang on until it was out of my control. In effect, I would refuse to choose, even at the risk of losing both.

If it was a handicapped child and a dog... ya, I'd let the dog go. But I place far higher value on humans and human potential than I do animals. I love animals, my dog is snuggled right here with me right now, and I will be profoundly distressed when her time comes to die. however, her death would have nowhere near the impact that my daughters would or even my neices or my friends children, or any child in my care.

We raise and care for kids to inherit the earth from us adults. They are not here solely for our amusement and companionship as our pets are. We raise our pets to never leave us, to obey our commands and to provide us with companionship. That is not our childrens job--we raise them to do quite the opposite in fact. Their job is to grow up, move away and hopefully make a positive impact in our world...

Edited November 4, 2008 by MissMelsWell

[Wootloops]

Really? You'd drop the Handicapped child over the normal one? But you couldn't choose between a dog and a child? really? I guess I thought about the problem in an entirely different way.

If I absolutely had to choose, I would regrettably choose the normal one. It sounds really horrible, and it is, but the reasons for hypothetical situations like this are to make you really think. And I could choose between the dog and the child. I chose the dog, hypothetically.

I can tell you what I'd do, I'd hang on to both the handicapped and normal child for all I was worth until the situation was out of my hands and in Gods hands. The one that goes was suppose to be the one that goes. That's faith. It would SUCK, but that's what I'd do, hang on until it was out of my control. In effect, I would refuse to choose, even at the risk of losing both.

If you do that, like you said, you risk losing both. But in the situation I am talking about, you are already at the breaking point and you have to make a decision. If the choice was equal between the two, then I would likely use some sort of random process to decide which to drop. Even if it were my child versus someone else's child, in order to be morally fair, I would have to randomly choose between my own child and the other child.

If it was a handicapped child and a dog... ya, I'd let the dog go.

If it were a choice between a handicapped child and a dog, I too, would likely let the dog go because the dog, even though the human child is mentally handicapped, is most likely less sentient than the child. The choice in the original scenario is that of a newly born infant, and an adult dog.

But I place far higher value on humans and human potential than I do animals. I love animals, my dog is snuggled right here with me right now, and I will be profoundly distressed when her time comes to die. however, her death would have nowhere near the impact that my daughters would or even my neices or my friends children, or any child in my care.

Surely if it was your own infant child hanging off cliff with the dog, the impact of letting your baby fall would be astronomically greater than that of the dog. How much that baby may mean to you though, should be irrelevant. If you were to choose your child over the dog who was more sentient than the baby, then you are being selfish. In reality, there is no correct moral decision, and there is no right or wrong choice. All I am trying to argue is that in order to be the most selflessly "moral", it would seem to me that the "proper" decision to make would be to drop the baby.

We raise and care for kids to inherit the earth from us adults. They are not here solely for our amusement and companionship as our pets are. We raise our pets to never leave us, to obey our commands and to provide us with companionship. That is not our childrens job--we raise them to do quite the opposite in fact. Their job is to grow up, move away and hopefully make a positive impact in our world...

Do you know what you are saying here? You are saying that the animal's sole purpose is to serve you, and no matter how intelligent it is, it remains your servant and you value it less because of that. It's like with slavery. People who were enslaved were just as capable and alive as the rest of the society, and yet they were viewed as inferior because they were slaves. Now, dogs are not smarter or even as smart as most humans, but they are smarter than some, notably children under 5 (I think). What I am trying to say is that we should value the dog just as much as a human, and conversely we should value the children under 5 just as much as the dog in the majority of situations in life. The only time this should change is when we are in impossible situations such as the one of hanging off a cliff.

Edited November 4, 2008 by Wootloops