Jesus said:

http://holyspiritwind.blogspot.se/2016/09/

I agree. Theists regularly look to god as the 'mysterious' explanation for the existence of events adverse to their interests, why not just do the same if the Democrats were in power acting laws that they don't like... It's just god testing their faith, right?

Interesting that you "agree" with a post that I refuted in post #22.

I don't think you refuted it.

Plenty of painfully ignorant people on both sides.

I knew a guy who used to think that theists were all idiots who just couldn't see the truth, that they abused their children by forcing their views on them, who always used to address any mention of god with the question 'which god', thinking he was making a great point and if he just could make theists see that they are simply influenced by their environment/culture they'd realise that gods don't exist, that there weren't any good arguments for the existence of god because god doesn't exist... it's that simplez...... that philosophy and logic couldn't help the argument because this is the real world...

What a dufus.

Please respond to my refutation. Thanks.

I'm not sure who qualifies casually as a theist, but specifically Theocratic totalitarians have a systemic need to specialize their process of faith to appear independent from the reports faith is perfectly experienceable independent of their specialized process to achieve faith. Otherwise they won't have total control of faith which means they won't be satisfied and wild free faith will constantly vex them. A sure sign of theocratic totalitarianism is an expressed need for near constant symbols and daily ritualistic activities for the act of impressing upon non-conformists.

Tonight I read an article about church life in Nazi Germany. Google that. Symbols get hijacked, intellectual content is removed, political speak and symbols appear. People are offered glory and enemies to punish for zeal and church leaders keep praising God ,plus National Power ,and Leader. It's not a mystery elements of religion are vulnerable to ignorance and corruption of the worst kind.

So true. And also true of all secular philosophies, governments and institutions.

You were attempting to refute this - "I question the faith of people who want or need God in government because such a want or need contradicts the experience that faith alone is enough."

And I don't think you did.

If we take "sanctification" as meaning "the state of proper functioning.", and we agree that god is both omnipotent and omniscient, and that he is incapable of making mistakes and that it's not possible for anything to occur that isn't his will, then what we have now must be 'proper functioning', it is, as is so often claimed by theists in other contexts, god's will and what he intended.

The USA was founded on the principle of religious freedom, and the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.”. Since that's what we have, it must be god's will. Therefore there is no need for god in government, even if there is a biblical requirement for civil institutions. (Are you a biblical literalist?)

In any case, the idea that a universe creating, all-powerful, all-knowing deity would even need churches, let alone the protection of the worship of him by civil institutions, is ridiculous. Unless of course he is vain and insecure, authoritarian and demanding, which would resolve the question of why he needs constant worship in the first place.

Thank you for your thoughtful response, Mightboosh. Sorry it took to so long to respond.

Yes, I suppose I am a "biblical literalist", unless the literary genre (e.g. poetry) suggests otherwise.

The Bible says that God sometimes uses civil government as a means for Him to actualize some of his decrees. God dictates both the ends and means. That's part of what it means for God to be sovereign over His creation. God doesn't "need" worship, but He knows that mankind is most joyful when they are worshipping God. In other words, God doesn't "need" my worship, but I need to worship God to be fully joyful.

If God decrees something, then it automatically isn't "ridiculous."

And if there is no God, then the concept of "ridiculous" is meaningless, along with everything else. The very fact that we're having a rational discussion proves that God exists, because if there is no God, then the universe and everything in it is an accident, and rationality is a purposeful (i.e. non-accidental) enterprise.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Just because the bible mentions civil government isn't carte blanche to support whatever you happen to agree with. Civil government in the US decreed that church and state be separated. Presumably then, this is the will of god.


Never said it was.

Well.... no it's not, and no it doesn't. The universe could be an 'accident' (I prefer 'formed naturally') and beings finding themselves in that universe could impose order on elements of that universe, and none of that means that there's necessarily a god.

Hi, Mightyboosh. Thanks for your response.

1. I think don't think that separation of church of state is inconsistent with the New Testament view of the role of modern civil government. (Of course, the Jews in the Old Testament did live under a theocracy.)

2. If the universe is a cosmic accident (or "formed naturally"), then everything in it is an accident, including our thinking about the universe, ourselves and everything else. There is absolutely no reason to trust our cognitive faculties in such a universe.

I started to write, "In an accidental universe I suppose one could defend some form of functionalism", but even that doesn't fly because there's no basis for "defending" anything, since even our thought processes are an accident.

Thanks for sharing, and have a blessed day.

I thought you originally argued for the place of religion in government and used the biblical reference to support that?


You're really just making an argument from design/complexity here and studies in the field of evolutionary biology have shown that order can arise from chaos and that complexity can arise from simple origins. Just because the universe may have been an 'accident' (and there are other options, such as it's part of a system but that the system isn't being run by a deity or any kind of intelligence) doesn't mean that everything in it is an accident. A baby being conceived can be an accident but everything that happens after that follows rules and couldn't be any other way.

Hi, Mightboosh.

I don't think that religion has a place government in the sense of forcing a theocracy on people who don't choose to be a part of it.

I do think that it can be beneficial for society as a whole when Christians participate in the democratic process, but nobody should impose their views on others by force. As a Christian, there are a number of behaviors that I personally believe are immoral, but I think it would be wrong for the government to impose my morality on others by force. I prefer the power of persuasion, while by its very nature government has pretty much a monopoly on power by the sword.

I'm not using an argument by design/complexity. I'm asserting that the rational begats* the rational, while the non-rational begats* the non-rational.

*I just love King James Bible words like "begats."

Have a blessed day everyone!

You keep repeating this idea in most of the threads you post in but, when multiple people have told you why they don't think it's a compelling argument, you just repeat it in almost the same words.

Why should we think rationality cannot arise in an "accidental" universe? This argument seems like one big category error.

Hi, DeuceKicker. (Sorry about your terrible kicker )

Yes, it is a category error to assert that rationality can arise from an accidental (or unintentional) cosmos.

Being rational is a purposeful activity, and, by definition, an accident is a non-purposeful activity.

I'm not giving some sort of "order can't come from disorder" type of argument, but rather I'm giving a "purposefulness can't arise from purposelessness" argument.

If you can give me a non-controversial counterexample, I will cry "uncle" and reverse my position.

Have a blessed day.

I accidentally fall into a pit, but I purposefully climb my way out. Purposefulness has arisen from purposelessness.

Why? Again, you seem to be answering a request for a justification of a claim by just repeating the claim.


This is interesting. Usually this is kind of a catch-all argument, where various "opposite" properties are used interchangeably. To clarify, are you saying:

Purpose cannot come from purposelessness, and;
Rationality cannot come from the irrational (or unintentional), but;
Order can come from disorder?


Your claim (rationality cannot come from the accidental cosmos, etc.) seems pretty controversial, and is probably a small minority opinion among philosophers and scientists. Why are you allowed to make controversial claims, but if I disagree with you, my counterexamples must be non-controversial? Even accepting this double-standard, as far as I know, my claim is the non-controversial one. Even most theistic philosophers and scientists say it's possible, though they think there is a better explanation.

Hi, Aaron.

Thanks for attempting a counterxample.

While your following into a pit was accidental, YOU were purposeful before you even fell into the pit. After falling in the pit, you directed your purposeful nature to climbing out of the pit.

Here's to hoping you all have a purpose driven life.

P.S. I have a lot of posts to respond to, but unfortunately I think I'm getting a cold, so that might slow me down a bit. (And make my brain even fuzzier than it is already. )

So it sounds like you're trying to hold to a first-cause type of argument. Is that correct?

Take your time. The internet should still be here when you feel better.

Hi, Aaron.

I can't really think straight right now (most people probably think I don't think straight EVER ), but I think I am holding to a first-cause type of argument.

Yes, the ubiquitous, omnipresent internet will always be with us.

Have a blessed day!

You are probably aware at this point that computers play chess far better than humans can. You might not know that humans are able to program computers to "learn" chess on their own. By this, we mean that we provide the computer with only the rules and no strategic content, and by playing the game against itself and analyzing the outcomes, it is able to determine strategies that can beat any human.

In your perspective, who derives the chess strategy? Is it a human strategy or a computer strategy?

----

I find the purposeful/purposeless argument to be rather weak from an intellectual rigor perspective. The underlying reason for this is that "purpose" is ill-defined and nebulous.

It's similar to cause arguments, in which you're always playing a game of proximal and ultimate causation. In the pit example, the proximate cause of climbing out of the pit was falling in. But, taking a cue from your perspective, the ultimate cause of me climbing out of the pit seems to be the fact that I am a purposeful being and can purposely cause myself to climb out of a pit.

So I don't think there's a lot to gain from this direction of argumentation.

Fair enough. I won't pursue it any further.

Have a blessed day.

lol, really? Why?