Original Sin?

Quote: Evenbob

If you don't even know the definitions,
how do you know they're fallacious and
illogical? In other words, you know FrG
and I are wrong, you just don't know why.

Present your logical and truthful arguments,
then.

Ok, here we go. We'll start with this one. Just because I don't know the terms and definitions doesn't mean that I don't recognize them when I see them - I just don't know what to call them. They have names like ad-hominem, begging the question, circular reasoning. Much of the time, I'm posting from a portable device, and it just isn't that easy to use for cutting and pasting, and referencing other websites. Here is a list of fallacies from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

backing up,

Quote: EvenBob

noun: sin; plural noun: sins
1.
an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.


Have you thought this out? Sin is an insult
against a creator god. It means a god
created the entire universe, billions of
galaxies and trillions of suns and planets,
as a moral experiment.

Here, you start with a definition, present an interpretation of the definition, argue against your re-definition. I think that one is called a straw man.

However, without the exact definition of a straw man, we'll take what I see as the logical problems here line by line.

First, the definition of sin. That's good.

Sin is an insult against a creator god. Ok, that is starting down the path. You are setting up the argument that you are going to disprove or argue against. It may be true or generally accepted that sin is an insult against a creator god.

It means a god created the entire universe... as a moral experiment. Here is the big problem. You are presenting your conclusion, that god created the universe as a moral experiment, as a fact.

So, you have gone from a simple definition of sin, and used it to claim that god created the universe as a moral experiment. Each of the links in this argument are weak, and I wish I knew the words to describe exactly what you did.

Quote: EvenBob

It's a concept wirh a limited understanding
of what the universe really is. When the
idea was invented, they thought the earth
was it, everything revolved around us. So
they came up with a small, quaint creator
god and laid it all on him.

I'm having even more trouble describing this one. I think, though, that the belief in gods came before the believe that the earth was the center of the universe. They originally saw the sky as a painting, more or less. Alternately, or additionally, you are assigning motivation to the invention of god that I think is incomplete or only from one perspective.

Quote: EvenBob

That people still choose to worship this
ego centered, tyrannical, thin skinned,
hard to please quaint god, that's the
real paradox. You keep trying to take
millennial old ideas that worked perfectly
for the times they were invented for, and
jerry rig them to fit modern times. It fails
miserably.

First sentance, you don't understand why people still workship god. That isn't a paradox, you just don't understand their reasons.

"Fails miserably" is a very disputable opinion. There are many christian religions in the united states that are in a state of change, growth, adaptation, interpretation, etc. They aren't jerry rigging the ideas to fit modern times, but are applying the things we know now to the lessons from the past. Even the Catholic church is modifying their position on some things, to adapt to modern times.

So, either a religion is stuck in the past and is refusing to adapt, or they are changing their views and invalidating their foundation. I think these are not the only options - they are taking what we now know, and are correcting errors which were understood to be correct from the past.

I might as well offend FrGamble, too - this is the most recent one I paid attention to:

Quote: FrGamble

I'm curious if God is so ego centric; why did He create us? If God is tyrannical, thin skinned, and hard to please; Why did He enter into a relationship with us? Why did He become one of us to serve us and lay down His life for us?

This one pre-supposes that god did all of the things that he is asking Why? for, and that god exists. I believe you have called this circular logic, and that might be it. The bible says god did all of these things, and the bible is the word of god and is true, therefore god did all of these things.

It also claims knowledge of god's mind and his motivations. This is in conflict with claims that you can't know god's mind, and god works in mysterious ways. You can't have it both ways, depending on the situation. you either understand god or you don't, and if you don't, you can't say whenever you want to that in some special cases you do understand.


I think the main problem, though, is both of you are laying out opinions as if they were facts, and are drawing conclusions from those opinions that you insist must be correct.

The argument about the origin of the universe is a good example of that - on one hand is the opinion that the universe has always been here and therefore doesn't need a creator, on the other hand is the opinion that the universe was created at some point, and that an intelligent supernatural being was responsible for creating it.

I try not to go after people's opinions, because unlike facts, opinions can not be disproven.

Again, if I knew the words and the definitions better, I could just point them out that way and the internet is filled with examples of why the argument is illogical.

Quote: Dalex64

Ok, here we go. We'll start with this one. Just because I don't know the terms and definitions doesn't mean that I don't recognize them when I see them - I just don't know what to call them. They have names like ad-hominem, begging the question, circular reasoning. Much of the time, I'm posting from a portable device, and it just isn't that easy to use for cutting and pasting, and referencing other websites. Here is a list of fallacies from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

backing up,


Here, you start with a definition, present an interpretation of the definition, argue against your re-definition. I think that one is called a straw man.

However, without the exact definition of a straw man, we'll take what I see as the logical problems here line by line.

First, the definition of sin. That's good.

Sin is an insult against a creator god. Ok, that is starting down the path. You are setting up the argument that you are going to disprove or argue against. It may be true or generally accepted that sin is an insult against a creator god.

It means a god created the entire universe... as a moral experiment. Here is the big problem. You are presenting your conclusion, that god created the universe as a moral experiment, as a fact.

So, you have gone from a simple definition of sin, and used it to claim that god created the universe as a moral experiment. Each of the links in this argument are weak, and I wish I knew the words to describe exactly what you did.



I'm having even more trouble describing this one. I think, though, that the belief in gods came before the believe that the earth was the center of the universe. They originally saw the sky as a painting, more or less. Alternately, or additionally, you are assigning motivation to the invention of god that I think is incomplete or only from one perspective.



First sentance, you don't understand why people still workship god. That isn't a paradox, you just don't understand their reasons.

"Fails miserably" is a very disputable opinion. There are many christian religions in the united states that are in a state of change, growth, adaptation, interpretation, etc. They aren't jerry rigging the ideas to fit modern times, but are applying the things we know now to the lessons from the past. Even the Catholic church is modifying their position on some things, to adapt to modern times.

So, either a religion is stuck in the past and is refusing to adapt, or they are changing their views and invalidating their foundation. I think these are not the only options - they are taking what we now know, and are correcting errors which were understood to be correct from the past.

I might as well offend FrGamble, too - this is the most recent one I paid attention to:



This one pre-supposes that god did all of the things that he is asking Why? for, and that god exists. I believe you have called this circular logic, and that might be it. The bible says god did all of these things, and the bible is the word of god and is true, therefore god did all of these things.

It also claims knowledge of god's mind and his motivations. This is in conflict with claims that you can't know god's mind, and god works in mysterious ways. You can't have it both ways, depending on the situation. you either understand god or you don't, and if you don't, you can't say whenever you want to that in some special cases you do understand.


I think the main problem, though, is both of you are laying out opinions as if they were facts, and are drawing conclusions from those opinions that you insist must be correct.

The argument about the origin of the universe is a good example of that - on one hand is the opinion that the universe has always been here and therefore doesn't need a creator, on the other hand is the opinion that the universe was created at some point, and that an intelligent supernatural being was responsible for creating it.

I try not to go after people's opinions, because unlike facts, opinions can not be disproven.

Again, if I knew the words and the definitions better, I could just point them out that way and the internet is filled with examples of why the argument is illogical.

Thanks for your opinion. Much of it
is disjointed, I have no idea how to
respond. Maybe FrG has the time,
I do not.

Quote: Evenbob

Atheists refuse to take that step because we need
proof, actual scientific proof that god and sin exists.

You are asking too much. What in your life that really matters do you have proof, actual scientific proof of? We live our lives by trust not proof. We take converging probabilities based on multiple forms of evidence and reasonably act on them. Imagine if we had to live our life by requiring actual scientific proof before forming a belief or acting?

Quote: Dalex64

I might as well offend FrGamble, too - this is the most recent one I paid attention to:

No offense taken.

Quote:

This one pre-supposes that god did all of the things that he is asking Why? for, and that god exists. I believe you have called this circular logic, and that might be it. The bible says god did all of these things, and the bible is the word of god and is true, therefore god did all of these things.

This would be circular logic if I was using the Bible in this case to prove God's existence. However, in this circumstance I am simply using the Bible to show that God is not egotistical, tyrannical, or thin-skinned. I assume that EvenBob was using the Bible to come up with those characteristics of God, I am simply pointing out that his interpretation is flawed.

Quote:

It also claims knowledge of god's mind and his motivations. This is in conflict with claims that you can't know god's mind, and god works in mysterious ways. You can't have it both ways, depending on the situation. you either understand god or you don't, and if you don't, you can't say whenever you want to that in some special cases you do understand.

One of the amazing generous gifts of God that Christians believe in is that of revelation. We cannot know God's mind, unless He chooses to reveal it to us. This is what the Bible, the Tradition of the Church, and the official teaching office of the Church (Magisterium) hand down to us. God is still always greater but we can be confident in understanding who God is through His revelation.

Quote:

I think the main problem, though, is both of you are laying out opinions as if they were facts, and are drawing conclusions from those opinions that you insist must be correct.

This is why it is so important when possible to support one's opinions with facts or evidence or logic.

Quote:

The argument about the origin of the universe is a good example of that - on one hand is the opinion that the universe has always been here and therefore doesn't need a creator, on the other hand is the opinion that the universe was created at some point, and that an intelligent supernatural being was responsible for creating it.

This is a bad example as many of the facts of modern cosmology point to the overwhelming probability that the universe did indeed have a beginning. Here you are wrongly suggesting that if the universe was created it had to be by an intelligent being. While you are correct that the evidence seems to suggest this, it is not the only possibility, there could have been a supernatural impersonal force.

Quote:

I try not to go after people's opinions, because unlike facts, opinions can not be disproven.

I believe you can disprove someone's opinion if they are based or misinformation, false facts, void of evidence, or illogical.

Quote: FrGamble

You are asking too much. What in your life that really matters do you have proof, actual scientific proof of? We live our lives by trust not proof.

Trust that cars and planes and pre packaged
food and elevators have been manufactured
and tested by people who know what they're
doing. How do you test for a god? Pray to
him? That's a joke. Take for granted books
written a couple thousand years ago are true?
I don't think so.

People believe in god because they want to
believe in him, not because they can prove
he exists. Once you cross that line, you give
yourself permission to believe a host of other
unproven, preposterous ideas.

Never cross the line unless you're really sure
about it, and atheists are not.

Quote: Evenbob

People believe in god because they want to
believe in him, not because they can prove
he exists.

I think the same thing about atheists. They don't believe in God because they don't want to, not because they can't prove he does not exist.

Quote:

Never cross the line unless you're really sure
about it, and atheists are not.

This is awful advice that would stop people from falling in love or ever going on an adventure.

Quote: FrGamble

I think the same thing about atheists. They don't believe in God because they don't want to, not because they can't prove he does not exist.

Absolutely true. I've said several times
here that if god was a given and could
be proved scientifically, I would be a
fool not to accept that. But not even the
smallest thing about god is provable.
Again, you think you see a creation
so you invent a creator. I see what's been
here forever and have no need of one.

Quote:

This is awful advice that would stop people from falling in love
or ever going on an adventure.

It's very good advice, actually. Falling in
love and taking trips should be taken
seriously, without your eyes wide open,
you can easily get in over your head.

Quote: Evenbob

Absolutely true. I've said several times
here that if god was a given and could
be proved scientifically, I would be a
fool not to accept that.

You would be a fool to try and live your life acting upon or believing only those things you could scientifically prove.

Quote:

But not even the
smallest thing about god is provable.
Again, you think you see a creation
so you invent a creator. I see what's been
here forever and have no need of one.

Even believing in an eternal material universe (which I maintain is a logical fallacy because of the problem of an infinite regress) means that you believe in something you cannot prove. So please cease and desist with this crazy idea that you don't believe in anything you can't scientifically and undoubtedly prove, because you have said many times you believe in a eternal universe and where is the proof for that?

Quote:

It's very good advice, actually. Falling in
love and taking trips should be taken
seriously, without your eyes wide open,
you can easily get in over your head.

If I was Dalex I would point out that you changed the terms of your statement. You didn't say anything about seriously keeping your eyes wide open, which I completely agree with. You seemed to be saying that you shouldn't cross a line if you didn't know exactly what to expect. When will you or I ever know exactly what to expect? Have faith, if not in God, in other people and what you feel strongly about.

Quote: FrGamble

I think the same thing about atheists.

You can think the same about scientists who don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster. That doesn't make it true.

Quote:

They don't believe in God because they don't want to, not because they can't prove he does not exist.

I did believe in Jehovah at one time. But with misgivings. I won't list them, because I've pretty much brought most of them up in this board over the past few years.

Of course, it was hard to revere a deity so capricious. My doubts as to whether he even existed arose as I learned about science in my early teens. I wondered why none of that, not the Big Bang, not the size of the Universe, not even the scope of the Earth, was in any part of the Bible. I realized the Hebrew myth of creation and Jehovah was no more valid, scientifically, than the creation and deity myths of other cultures. And no more valid, even, than the early attempts by the Ancient Greek philosophers to explain nature.

Quote: FrGamble

Even believing in an eternal material universe... means that you believe in something you cannot prove.
.

I can't disprove it either. Of the two
alternatives, it's the most logical.
Being put here to please a god
is a primitive idea and one that has
outgrown it's usefulness, if it ever
was useful. That we've been here
forever 'feels' right, but is proof of
nothing. Thinking there is a selfish
vengeful petulant god who is out
to get us if we do wrong feels very
very not right.