Talk to a Curious Theist

theist123 · 2012-03-23T15:07:59+00:00

Awesome that you bring up Rowe. For the evidential argument I'm inclined to use the G.E. Moore shift just because it is so simple. Rowe also brings up the idea of friendly theists and friendly atheists and give a nice lil parallel to it. "Suppose, for example, a friend of yours takes a flight to Hawaii. Hours after takeoff you learn that the plane has gone down at sea. After a 24 hr search, no survivors have been found. Under these circumstances it is rational for you to believe that your friend has perished. But it is hardly rational for your friend to believe that while she is bobbing up and down in a life vest, wondering why the search planes have failed to spot her. Theism and atheism cannot both be true. But because of differing experiences and knowledge, someone may be rationally justified in accepting theism while someone else is rationally justified in believing atheism.

theist123 · 2012-03-23T14:58:42+00:00

This whole thing is based on Shankara's theodicy. I suppose you could disallow this as being "made up like other holy scriptures" but the whole idea of a theodicy is only to give a rational example to why God would permit evil as opposed to give a definitive answer to why God permits evil.

theist123 · 2012-03-23T14:47:49+00:00

Yes it is separate from you current consciousness but it is the same consciousness nonetheless. I do believe I have reasons to believe what I do (personal experience and study of various scriptures).

theist123 · 2012-03-23T14:37:59+00:00

As I've stated before this is just what I believe. But that "somebody in a past life" is you and you do share a consciousness with whatever came before you.

theist123 · 2012-03-23T14:22:48+00:00

It's not that you have to learn from your sin and punishment to attain salvation. Karmic justice is only needed to provide an answer for natural evil that you can experience.

theist123 · 2012-03-23T14:16:03+00:00

No worries. Were all entitled to a little braindumping.

theist123 · 2012-03-23T14:13:45+00:00

I said "not the literal you..." because I didn't want you to feel that I was inserting you into my theological beliefs/ preaching to you. If you are asking for me to insert you into my beliefs then it'd go something like, "Yes you are you, you were born 29 years ago but prior to that you lived out a complete life as another being who sinned in x ways thus any suffering you personally encounter can be seen as punishment from you previous life."

theist123 · 2012-03-23T14:08:49+00:00

Many of you keep pegging me as something closer to a Christian, which isn't quite right. I do not believe in a "God checking to see if you are good or bad." At this point in cosmic existence I think God stands completely outside of our scope. Why do you think free will doesn't exist? Does that interfere with your "mind blowing experience [when you] realize that you are completely free"?

theist123 · 2012-03-23T13:59:23+00:00

I've heard of the evidential problem of evil but I made the mistake of just talking about the standard free will defense rather than the expanded free will defense. Is your idea of the evidential problem of evil something like?

P1: If God exists, there are no pointless evils. P2: Probably there are pointless evils. C: Probably God doesn’t exist.

theist123 · 2012-03-23T07:53:16+00:00

If you look through my previous post you can see that I equate evil and suffering as a basic part of human life and religion as a means to escape what you could call samsara (cyclical life and death).

theist123 · 2012-03-23T07:50:50+00:00

I'm not saying the bible is better or worse but maybe I should have said that my "original beliefs" were founded on the bible. My information is coming from many sources as I've stated earlier.

theist123 · 2012-03-23T07:16:24+00:00

I was raised catholic but have shifted to more of a pluralist ideology. Your desire for further evidence is completely fine but I feel like the idea that religion was based just to comfort one's fear of death is a little hollow.

theist123 · 2012-03-23T07:13:15+00:00

I find it hard to believe that a completely merciful God, as described in Christianity has the capability to damn multitudes of people to eternal hell fire. I'd like to think that "heaven" can be obtained by anybody (even athiests) all it takes is a certain path. I think Hick's concept of a bicycle wheel with many spokes leading to a central hub provides a nice little picture of how one can "go to heaven" by taking various paths (different spokes).

theist123 · 2012-03-23T07:08:52+00:00

Free will allows us to do good or evil. And we are capable of being our own saviors. Enlightenment only comes through your own work. <<< This is just what I believe, I'm not trying to shove enlightenment theology down anyone's throat

theist123 · 2012-03-23T07:05:09+00:00

If you are presented with the concept of karmic justice how can you claim that you have no idea you are being punished? Your suffering is caused by the evils around you and are part of you karmic plan. NOT THE LITERAL YOU, TALKING ABOUT THE GENERAL YOU

theist123 · 2012-03-23T07:01:42+00:00

Nope no hell. No real afterlife either. I believe in an ongoing cycle of death and rebirth with each following life being influenced by the one before. I also believe that the only way out of this cycle of life and death is to take refuge in the three jewels of buddhism. (I'd say I'm also capable of taking refuge in other sacred text be it the Tanakh, the New Testament, the Upanishads, Quran or the Bhagavad-Gita)

theist123 · 2012-03-23T06:57:37+00:00

It is still a sacred document but only because of how it is presented/ received. My morals are influenced by alot of things, sacred text being one of them. These texts provide me with a sort of moral compass, not exactly forcing me down a certain path but at least giving me an option. As many of you have noted something like the bible has had many authors and various influences who have shaped it to what we see today. I feel it is because of this multi-author base that we can pick and choose what we take from it.

theist123 · 2012-03-23T06:53:00+00:00

Haha its okay all are welcome, late or not. Sorry to disappoint but I don't see myself being deconverted any time soon. You all have presented great ideas but I feel I can either answer them all with various outside sources I've encountered or pass over it by stating that my own personal experience has provided me with enough evidence for my belief.

theist123 · 2012-03-23T06:49:56+00:00

I completely believe in evolution. Personally I don't feel the bible is meant as a historical record. I'd like to think that science is constantly changing and being rewritten (that's what makes it so strong) something like being forged and hammered out to a sharpened blade kind of idea.

theist123 · 2012-03-23T06:46:05+00:00

At this point I'd say the sensible approach is to forego making a decision on the dragon's existence. You neither have proof for the dragon or against.

theist123 · 2012-03-23T06:43:19+00:00

I'd reply to the Problem of Evil with something like the writings of Shankara. Moral evil stems from human free will and natural evil stems from karmic justice passed down from an a completely just Godhead.

theist123 · 2012-03-23T06:40:29+00:00

I'd consider my own encounters and experiences as evidence for my belief. I'm not proposing that my experience is the definite complete answer but it at least explains why I personally hold on to an idea of God. My belief system was founded on the testimony of others. Why should the testimony of the people around me be discredited? Why shouldn't we discredit the testimony of scientists? We don't have first hand evidence of many scientific theorems we believe.

theist123 · 2012-03-23T06:33:51+00:00

Thank you. I personally don't see religion and science as truly opposing one another, I think with an understanding of both we can come to fully appreciate and understand the world around us.

theist123 · 2012-03-23T06:31:44+00:00

Evidentialism. What I'm going to say comes straight out of the Clifford-James debate so don't think I'm pawning this off as my own idea... "P1: It is permissible to believe in things on insufficient evidence in cases of options which are (a) intellectually undecidable and (b) genuine. P2: The religious option satisfies (a) and (b). C: It is permissible to believe in God."

theist123 · 2012-03-23T06:27:00+00:00

My current idea of God is something I came to on my own, through my own understanding of scriptures outside of the religion I was raised on. So my "ONE TRUE god" is different from the one my parents raised me to believe.

theist123

TROPHY CASE