Food, this may be my agnostic streak coursing through me but I think to say unfalsifiable claims have to be true and ignore any other possibility shows that you have stopped looking for an answer and settle for dogmatism.

I completely agree with you, Andrew. It is awful to make a statement of faith and then shut yourself off from any sort of conflicting evidence that may come against that statement of faith which you have made. There are three things someone can do in a situation where some sort of evidence is found having to do with someone's statement of faith:

A.) Ignore the evidence.
B.) Recant the statement of faith.
C.) Discover if the evidence is consistent with the statement of faith.

I have done all three of these things in my life. As far as I know, I no longer do A or B. I think that all people should always and only do C. Just because someone is religious doesn't mean they don't practice C, and just because someone is an agnostic doesn't mean they are all the sudden practicing C.

I am not saying that since my claim is unfalsifiable that it is automatically true. I have observed and experienced, I have sought answers and found many, and through that, I can claim that my faith is reasonable. Is it truth? I do not know. I believe.

It takes a certain amount of humility to state "I do not know." Contrary to popular belief, one of the key components to religion is stating "I do not know." Science states "I do not know" as well. Religion is based on faith, and faith is all about believing and stating something that you do not have direct evidence for.

Is this to say that faith should be blind and ridiculous? No!

As I said before, we must still compare our faith and make sure it is consistent with reality and evidence. We must question our faith and test it for its truth. The God of Christianity welcomes for you to question Him. God is a God of truth, and all truth will point towards God. God would not want you to turn a blind eye towards scientific evidence and bow down to dogma.

Society doesn't define what's good--I define what's good for me, and luckily it coincides with society. Society can take care of everyone else....
I make no claim to be God--that was a joke.

Yes, you did. Right there. "I define what's good for me + society defines what's good for everyone else"=MD is god.

Just FYI to everyone else...choose your deity wisely.

MD...you have failed completely to understand Christianity at all--and you've made it clear you have no intention of attempting to. You have failed completely to even attempt to understand what my posts have been aimed at, and you have failed to answer the questions that I asked.

So I'm done here. Not only is this back-and-forth unable to be categorized as a "conversation" or a "discussion", but it is boring and makes me feel like I'm pushing a chain uphill (=impossible).

I encourage you to answer Dr. R's questions--but I have no hope that you will. Until you deal honestly with the content of the Bible, being honest to yourself is pointless, whether it makes you happy or not.

Carry on, gentlemen...

mm

Food pretty much nailed it on the spot. People do tend to think that Christians accept what they believe, completely shut out any possible contrast (be it through science, history, or within itself), and then state it's the only possibility. And yes, there are many Christians who do that. It's sad, but it's true that people do that.

But as Food indicated, the God of Christianity does NOT want us to just accept him blindly. He asks us to meditate on his Word, to seek him, to test him (different than putting him to the test as Jesus quoted when tempted in Matthew 4). He wants us to think. I think it's Peter who says be ready to give an answer. (I could be wrong about who and don't have the time to look it up right now.) That means we need to not only know our stuff within the Christian context but also within the context of the world around us. How can we give an answer if our only studies and evidence come from the Bible? If the Bible is true, then it is a historical document as well as religious text, prophecy, and poetry. If the incidents in Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Ester, Ruth, Daniel, Jonah...are historical accounts as they are depicted to be, then there should be outside documents and evidences that support them.

There are a few places and people that only appear within the context of the Bible, such as Abraham's homeland city of Ur, but there are approx 4,500 years between us and them. The oldest documents we have that get close to those times are the Dead Sea Scrolls. Many cities and their entire histories have been wiped out in natural disasters and wars so some of that data may have been lost forever. We can only speculate where Sodom and Gomorrah are and we have a decent idea with recent archeology. But we have to remember that lack of evidence does not mean proof against. I have a big problem with the evolutionary argument of organs that no longer have any use. (I think the term is vestigial.) Just because we can live without an appendix, tonsils, or even a kidney; that doesn't mean they are leftovers from evolution. They have a purpose and we are discovering those purposes. Even the tail bone we have is considered vestigial because it is thought that we came from apes/monkeys and now that we don't have tails, we no longer need a tail bone. But you use that tail bone every time you sit down, bend over, and do business in the bathroom. Those muscles involved in those actions are attached to the 'tail bone'.

So as Christians, we need to look at the outside evidences. We may have an interpretation of the Bible that may in fact be false due to these outside evidences. But at the same time, those evidences may be mis-interpreted to support an already held belief and interpretation. Christians hold the Bible to be the utmost authority and the standard for all truth. So for that to be the case, science and its interpretation must line up with the Bible. The facts DO NOT CHANGE. The interpretations do. When we discussed Young Earth/Old Earth and Evolution, I made a point that no matter what model we used to try to explain the beginning of the world and universe, none of them are perfect and will ever fully describe what actually happened. The model that is closest to being correct is the one whose interpretations best fit ALL the data. In the case of Noah's Flood, I cannot agree with the local flood model because it doesn't fit enough of the data we see across the world. But as others and myself have indicated, science, history, and the Bible are not at perpetual war. If the Bible is the absolute truth as Christians believe, the science and history will back it up. It won't prove it, but the facts provided by the Bible and the facts presented by science and history will line up. And I have yet to see them fail to do so.

Now Andrew has brought up an important issue about Christianity: he expressed a concern about Christians being dogmatic. Well, I just want to make this clear for all sides. Your concerns, Andrew, are actually correct. Christianity is dogmatic. It has to be. Jesus said, "I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life. NO ONE comes unto the Father except by me." Jesus' death and resurrection on the cross was truly the ONLY way that redemption for sin could be done. Jesus begged his Father three times to not have to endure the cross, but was obedient. Paul later indicates that if there was any other way, than that death and resurrection was for nothing and we Christians are to be pitied above all men. Christianity has to be dogmatic about this or everything we teach and believe falls apart. I know a lot of people aren't going to like that, but it's what the Bible says. If Jesus was not the only way, we may as well throw the Bible out entirely because the entire book is based on that one person, his death and resurrection. But if Jesus was telling the truth, we better take him seriously.

@TBG, I'm not sure if you missed it but I made a post yesterday and it looks like you were writing your post as I posted mine, so you may not have seen it.

I totally understand that, and thanks for clarifying. Will you forgive me for assuming you'd simply left on purpose? 'Twas wrong, and perhaps with that understanding out of the way we can make some headway.

Absolutely, I can see why you would come to that conclusion, but all is forgiven.

I am not saying that since my claim is unfalsifiable that it is automatically true. I have observed and experienced, I have sought answers and found many, and through that, I can claim that my faith is reasonable. Is it truth? I do not know. I believe.

It takes a certain amount of humility to state "I do not know." Contrary to popular belief, one of the key components to religion is stating "I do not know." Science states "I do not know" as well. Religion is based on faith, and faith is all about believing and stating something that you do not have direct evidence for.

Is this to say that faith should be blind and ridiculous? No!

I agree with your claims, and if you remember my essay "Subjective Knowledge of Objective Reality," that is mainly what the issue is about. I merely see my philosophy as more fitting with reality as I perceive it to be. Granted, this is stepping into dangerous waters. A schizophrenic's perception of reality is probably not one I would trust. However, the whole point of my argument is that relativism is false. The only thing it doesn't defy is political correctness. But at some point you have to take a stand on what you believe and, if it fits in with what you observe, reason, feel, etcetera, that is the best you're going to get.

Yes, you did. Right there. "I define what's good for me + society defines what's good for everyone else"=MD is god.

Just FYI to everyone else...choose your deity wisely.

Your argument hinges on the idea that only a god can make decisions. Well, since there is no god, man is sufficient for man. MD is going to make decisions whether she is a goddess of not, as are you, and that's pretty easily proven, empirically.

Christianity has to be dogmatic about this or everything we teach and believe falls apart. I know a lot of people aren't going to like that, but it's what the Bible says.

Definitely, in fact one of my favorite pastimes is intellectually destroying people who claim Christianity but don't believe certain important things, like the divinity of Jesus. Well, if he wasn't the Christ, what are you, an -ian? And what's so great about Jesus anyway, his volunteer humanitarian work? I can't think of any Christians on here who are like that, which is great because you all present true challenges to my own philosophy.

The facts DO NOT CHANGE. The interpretations do.

Indeed, indeed, and my arguments can only work if the way I am interpreting reality currently is the way reality actually is. Same with Christianity, or any world view.

By the way, I enoyed your mention of the tailbone; I got into an argument with one of my teachers about that a few weeks ago.

I think Paul really hit's the nail on the head in 1 Corinthians, one of my favorite Biblical passages (second only to Ecclesiastes).

For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
For it is written,
"I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE,
AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE."
Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

If the Bible isn't true, as Paul says elsewhere, believers in it are the most pitiable of all. It's not a question of having faith - we all have it. It's a question of where you place your faith.

I know some people who would feel this way; an atheist I know holds that life has value because it is so short, and the less you have of something (in this case, time) the more it is worth. But time isn't like gold, where you can trade it in for some dollars. It's something that will be gone, along with you and everything you could accomplish.

This still doesn't answer my objection. If a mortal life has no meaning or value, then so does an immortal life. And yes, your time will be gone, so I humbly suggest that you don't waste it.

I disagree that I never had faith, I think it was the belief itself that could not stand to the scrutiny I offer.

You had an unfounded belief, which is not faith. Faith, true faith, is always looking for understanding. As Anselm said:

I do not endeavor, O Lord, to penetrate your sublimity, for in no wise do I compare my understanding with that; but I long to understand in some degree your truth, which my heart believes and loves. For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe, --that unless I believed, I should not understand.

I'm not saying people aren't allowed to stumble, but if people really believed in the power of God and the eternal afterlife, wouldn't they put THAT before THIS?

Couldn't have put it better myself. However, let's be careful to remember that the truth or falsehood of a belief system has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of its leadership.

Part of the trouble here, Andrew, is that it's easy to profess Christ with your lips, and much harder to actually follow Him. No Christian is perfect, and all of us stumble (myself included), yet that's why we are not saved by what we do, but by what Christ has done. Thus, even our sins become a means by which God teaches us and sanctifies us.

I don't know much of Kierkegaard to speak of, but from what I gleaned from the lecture I listened to he was a possibly bipolar crippled hunchback suffering from severe depression who spent his life discovering hedonism doesn't lead to happiness and eventually decided to follow a moral code, and when that didn't satisfy him converted to Christianity which he used as a tool to abuse his fiancé and trick himself so he didn't have to deal with severe despair anymore.

Andrew, he spent most of his time as a Christian (his whole philosophical career) even more tortured than before. Racked with doubt, agonizing over his failed engagement (he deeply regretted what he had done), and wondering constantly whether he was truly a Christian.

I believe we're supposed to be covering him in my philosophy class after spring break, but he doesn't sound overly credible to me. I mean, he was an irrationalist.

This is the theme park version of his thought. The trouble is that most folks read him out of context---and that context is his response to Hegel. When Kierkegaard says "reason," what he means is "Hegel's pantheistic reason." What he objects to is not rationality (in our sense) but lack of passionate commitment to truth. When he says "truth is subjectivity" he means that the only way for truth to be worth looking for, is if one is in a right relationship to it. It's similar to Michael Polanyi's idea that all knowledge claims involve personal commitment(s).

The other trouble with interpreting Kierkegaard is the fact that he wrote under pseudonyms and thus it's unclear whether everything in his writings is actually what he thought, or whether he was simply publishing his own wrestling with his own demons.

The point, Andrew, is this: you need to ask yourself why, in the absence of any values whatsoever, you should care about what is true and what is false. Why should you care about what is and is not rational?

TBG

yeah random note
Agnostica.One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. b.One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. 2.One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something

If a mortal life has no meaning or value, then so does an immortal life.

I completely disagree. The only reason there is no value to me is because it is mortal.

So you mean immortal but not eternal i.e. like Tolkien's Elves, you will live forever unless something bad happens to you? I think the reaction of most people to that would be to wrap themselves in a coccoon and try to preserve themselves as long as possible!

I think it's possible that some people would do that, but some people already do that. But just like now there will also be the daredevils risking their lives for thrills and whatnot, and they'll be able to accomplish even more than now with their (supposedly) longer lives to figure everything out.

And wouldn't executing someone in that case be a horrendos crime? ...You speak of as if all the horrible things people do to each other as part of their nature, and contrast it with what morality teaches- treating others well, sacrificising yourself for them etc. But of course those wondefrul things people do are equally part of their nature- for a thorough-going naturalist, what else could they be?

I don't know what "horrible" things you speak of, it seems to carry connotations to common morality. I'm not saying that morals will suddenly spring into existence because humans are immortal, but rather using them would have value. I'm sure there will be plenty of utilitarian people around to execute individuals who threaten the continuity of immortal man, such as serial killers and the like. Oh, and congrats on 20 years!

However, let's be careful to remember that the truth or falsehood of a belief system has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of its leadership.

Of course, I was merely pointing out that even most of those who claim Christianity don't really believe in it.

No Christian is perfect, and all of us stumble (myself included), yet that's why we are not saved by what we do, but by what Christ has done. Thus, even our sins become a means by which God teaches us and sanctifies us.

Exactly, as I said if man is naturally sinful it seems unjust to hold him responsible for sinning. You say God uses your sin to sanctify you, well that's like tearing you down just so you have to use him to build you up. It's the ultimate monopoly over everybody. I know life isn't fair, but come on, that's not love at all.

If God were a man, and since we're made in his image I don't mind projecting onto him a bit, I would say that the whole Biblical story is God asking for forgiveness from Man. He creates us and screws us over, then tries to do what he can to make it up to us. But why should we want him back when he caused all the problems in the first place? Sure he uses every tactic he can to get us to come back, but by his own admission it doesn't largely work. To quote Perseus from Clash of the Titans, "For someone who created man you sure don't know a lot about us. We live, fight and die for each other, not for you."

The point, Andrew, is this: you need to ask yourself why, in the absence of any values whatsoever, you should care about what is true and what is false. Why should you care about what is and is not rational?

You're only asking half the question. You're asking "why," but you don't ask, "why not." The answer is somewhere in the middle of those two, pure objective neutrality.

For what you said about Kierkegaard, well I could be wrong, as I said I know very little about him at this point in time.

I completely disagree. The only reason there is no value to me is because it is mortal.

I'm not sure of your reasoning here. If I have a limited amount of time, shouldn't I value it more? If I have a limited span of time on earth, isn't that more incentive for carpe diem than if I have unlimited time to waste? In fact, we wouldn't speak of "wasting time" if time were not something we have in limited quantity, it seems to me.

Exactly, as I said if man is naturally sinful it seems unjust to hold him responsible for sinning.

How so? God didn't make us this way---we are naturally sinful and it's our own fault. As the old Puritan rhyme goes, A is for Adam. In Adam's fall, we sinn'd all.

You say God uses your sin to sanctify you, well that's like tearing you down just so you have to use him to build you up. It's the ultimate monopoly over everybody. I know life isn't fair, but come on, that's not love at all.

On the contrary---He created us to, as the Westminster Shorter Catechism says, "Glorify God and enjoy Him forever," yet we rejected that. We said, "No, I want to enjoy myself, not you. I want to enjoy your creation and forget about you." Yet if we are created with this need for God, can we ever enjoy creation without Him? This is merely part of the design plan. As George Herbert wrote:

WHEN God at first made man,
Having a glasse of blessings standing by ;
Let us (said he) poure on him all we can :
Let the worlds riches, which dispersed lie,
Contract into a span.

Yet let him keep the rest,
But keep them with repining restlesnesse :
Let him be rich and wearie, that at least,
If goodnesse leade him not, yet wearinesse
May tosse him to my breast.

Or as Augustine said, "Our hearts are restless until they find their rest in thee."

If God were a man, and since we're made in his image I don't mind projecting onto him a bit, I would say that the whole Biblical story is God asking for forgiveness from Man. He creates us and screws us over, then tries to do what he can to make it up to us.

Not in the least! We screwed ourselves over. If you go to Hell, it's because you want to be there. Don't go blaming God for it. The only place where you can be apart from the God you've rejected is hell. You want to create your own value? Fine---that's hell.

I'd recommend Bryan Chapell's explanation here.

You're only asking half the question. You're asking "why," but you don't ask, "why not."

The burden of proof is on the affirmative not the negative. Apathy is the default, unless you can show that it isn't.

TBG

However, the whole point of my argument is that relativism is false. The only thing it doesn't defy is political correctness. But at some point you have to take a stand on what you believe and, if it fits in with what you observe, reason, feel, etcetera, that is the best you're going to get.

I agree with you that relativism is false.

However, my basis of reason begins with God, and God's "philosophy" is that there is only one true philosophy, and that is His. A nihilist's basis of reason is... nothing. You have no grounds to say that relativism is false, it seems. Who are you to say, "Well let's be reasonable here... everyone has to make a stand somewhere along the line..."? This is what MM was getting at, I believe.

Whenever you make a statement of "Let's be reasonable" as a nihilist, you are assuming that your sense of what is reasonable is the standard of reasonable that everyone should conform or agree to. You are making yourself God. Plus, even relativists make a statement of belief, but that belief is that no single "truth" is more true than another (except their's).

So, it seems that for you to be able to do anything you have to begin with a certain set of premises. So, Andrew, can you please state that set of premises?

Is this the best you can do for a genealogy of morality? If you're going to try and come up with a counternarrative to the Christian metanarrative, at least make it interesting.

Okay, once upon a time the gods were jealous of human beings, so they sent to Earth a beautiful woman called Pandora carrying a box....
Because of course the Christian metanarrative is only one of a myriad of others, many of which are very interesting indeed. But, here we should be more concerned with what's true, no?

Who wants to live in a world where survival value is the measure of what makes a thing worth doing?

It's not what kind of world you want to live in, it's what kind of world you are living in. The alternative is to be a writer of fantasy, where you can create any world you want.

Here's a question: why would you regard it as a tragedy if the Louvre were destroyed (assuming all persons escaped alive and uninjured)? An ethic that does not account for aesthetics is deficient.

Origin of aesthetics: Why do we have colour vision, when most mammals do not (or only limited versions)? Because, as diurnal fruitivores we needed to be able to spot that yellow banana, or tell when that mango was nice orangey-red-ripe. As we developed, we gradually associated colours with desirable traits, derived from natural benefits -

"Blue skies, smiling at me,
Nothin' but blue skies, do I see."

"You come on like a dream, peaches and cream
Lips like strawberry wine..."

So where's the survival value of girls swooning over starving romantic painters?

Because there are various strategies for attracting desirable mates.

The most obvious one is displaying your wealth/ social status/ family connections.

However, if those options aren't available to you, rather than simply acquiesce to your lowly status you can strike the pose of a rebel, in effect saying "look, I am personally so strong that I can defy the social structure." The Mick Jagger/Bad boy effect.

Yes, you did. Right there. "I define what's good for me + society defines what's good for everyone else"=MD is god.

If I was claiming to be god, wouldn't I try and claim that I know what is best for everyone? I don't claim to know what is best for everyone, but considering that I know myself better than anyone, it makes sense that I should be the one to decide what's best for me, in the light that I am still unsure of the existence of god. I probably wouldn't go around saying "I don't know if there is a god," if I myself believed and claimed that I WAS god.

I'm not sure of your reasoning here. If I have a limited amount of time, shouldn't I value it more? If I have a limited span of time on earth, isn't that more incentive for carpe diem than if I have unlimited time to waste?

I could understand valuing it while you're alive (even though I disagree), but once you're dead you won't even have the consciousness to devalue it; you are literally nothing, even more so that while alive.

How so? God didn't make us this way---we are naturally sinful and it's our own fault.

Whether you're a Calvinist, Armineist or somewhere in between, you still have to agree that God knew what would happen. Yet he still created us. He should have never created us then -- that would be love.

He created us to, as the Westminster Shorter Catechism says, "Glorify God and enjoy Him forever," yet we rejected that. We said, "No, I want to enjoy myself, not you. I want to enjoy your creation and forget about you." Yet if we are created with this need for God, can we ever enjoy creation without Him?

Indeed, he values getting his ego stroked more than us; he doesn't really love us.

Since this is a Narnia forum, I feel like I should get this C.S. Lewis quote out of the way before someone else says it:

There are two types of people, those who say to God, 'thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'Fine then, have it your way.'

This would all be well and good if we actually had a real choice. But we don't - I don't remember God asking me if I wanted to exist or not, especially eternally.

The burden of proof is on the affirmative not the negative. Apathy is the default, unless you can show that it isn't.

But it's neither negative nor positive; it is neutral.

A nihilist's basis of reason is... nothing. You have no grounds to say that relativism is false, it seems. Who are you to say, "Well let's be reasonable here... everyone has to make a stand somewhere along the line..."?

First of all, this is partly why I dislike the word nihilism. In this society it has certain connotations, like "I'm a depressed teenager who sits around crying and harming myself." Sure, there are a lot of people like that who believe life has no purpose, but they believe life has no purpose because they feel that way, not the other way around.

The camp I fall into is closer to existential nihilism. So, I can make assertions based on the claim that there are objective facts behind them. Could I be completely wrong? Yes, but so could Isaac Newton. But his equations sure fit well into the real world, didn't they?

Also, beware of looking at things through a purely philosophical lens. Socialism sounds great on paper, but people don't actually behave in a manner that allows it to work in the real world. Skepticism sounds good too ( self-referential incoherency aside), but you can't really live it out in it's entirety. I'm all for being critical, though.

Whenever you make a statement of "Let's be reasonable" as a nihilist, you are assuming that your sense of what is reasonable is the standard of reasonable that everyone should conform or agree to. You are making yourself God. Plus, even relativists make a statement of belief, but that belief is that no single "truth" is more true than another (except their's).

Not true; I am bound to the same objective truths as you. I simply hold different ones than you believe.

Religion is essentially hedonism in disguise. I could probably trick myself into believing in hedonism if I tried long enough, or any other belief. Why not? It's not immoral, and it would probably give me a (false) sense of purpose. Most people do this. But I am a philosopher. A lover of wisdom. I value truth over comfort. I think that will suffice for my premises as well.

To quote Graymouser:

It's not what kind of world you want to live in, it's what kind of world you are living in. The alternative is to be a writer of fantasy, where you can create any world you want.

I know some people who would feel this way; an atheist I know holds that life has value because it is so short, and the less you have of something (in this case, time) the more it is worth. But time isn't like gold, where you can trade it in for some dollars. It's something that will be gone, along with you and everything you could accomplish.

This still doesn't answer my objection. If a mortal life has no meaning or value, then so does an immortal life.

I have to agree with this- simply living a long time, even to immortality, can't add meaning to life. If you acccomplish some good deed, it's still good whether or not you are around in a thousand years to see the consequence.

Because of course the Christian metanarrative is only one of a myriad of others, many of which are very interesting indeed. But, here we should be more concerned with what's true, no?

True, but here you just gave a metanarrative---it's just a scientistic evolutionary one filled with all kinds of conceptual confusion. Any description of this kind is some sort of narrative, no matter what you think.

It's not what kind of world you want to live in, it's what kind of world you are living in. The alternative is to be a writer of fantasy, where you can create any world you want.

That's not what I'm getting at. Of course I want truth---but a true theory should be able to account for every aspect of human existence in a common-sense kind of way.

Also remember what Michael Polanyi said: in order to make truth-claims, one must have personal commitments. Don't think for a minute that your claims here are not guided and directed by your commitments, both propositional and otherwise.

Origin of aesthetics: Why do we have colour vision, when most mammals do not (or only limited versions)? Because, as diurnal fruitivores we needed to be able to spot that yellow banana, or tell when that mango was nice orangey-red-ripe. As we developed, we gradually associated colours with desirable traits, derived from natural benefits -

This still doesn't explain Rembrandt, Michelangelo, Constable, or Picasso. Not to mention, of course, Beethoven, Bach, and Tallis, or George Herbert, T.S. Eliot, and Emily Dickinson. What possible survival value does poetry have in a prosaic world? Or performance music?

I could understand valuing it while you're alive (even though I disagree), but once you're dead you won't even have the consciousness to devalue it; you are literally nothing, even more so that while alive.

All the more motivation to value it now while you have it, it seems to me.

Whether you're a Calvinist, Armineist or somewhere in between, you still have to agree that God knew what would happen. Yet he still created us. He should have never created us then -- that would be love.

Who are you to judge God here? Who are you to say what is and is not loving? Can you see all ends?

Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;
That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.
And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken.
Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?
Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?

This would all be well and good if we actually had a real choice. But we don't - I don't remember God asking me if I wanted to exist or not, especially eternally.

Think about that for a second, will you? How can God give a choice to someone who doesn't exist? Choice implies existence. Non-existent things are incapable of choice or any other actions because they are nothing.

And yes, we do have choices---and we make them based on what we want. If you go to Hell, it's because you want to be there.

But it's neither negative nor positive; it is neutral.

So you're apathetic about apathy now? Seriously, there's no such thing as neutrality here.

TBG

If I was claiming to be god, wouldn't I try and claim that I know what is best for everyone?

But you have: you've said "be true to yourself" is the One Commandment (instead of ten) all people should follow.

And again, you're ignoring others' very kind challenges to answer how your supposed higher morality would work for others. Your friends here have long since stopped asking about you personally, but about how these notions do apply to others, and you haven't answered.

Any belief should stand up to such challenges. Any belief also needs to work if one were to try building a society from the ground up, without salvaging ideas from pre-existing societies and other beliefs — such as Christianity.

Moonlight, you seem to be very sheltered. After thinking about this from the perspective that this universe contains other people besides yourself, can you truly believe you are the first to come up with this notion? Try going to your local police department (as I do every week), look through the reports, and see if that ethic could apply to everyone. Perhaps you assume everyone else is like you, with the same basic interests and ideas. Sorry, that ignores the world's diversity, and its evils.

I am still unsure of the existence of god.

That's capital-G God to you. Also, you've still ignored questions about what proof you would expect to convince you that God is real.

Same as you've still bypassed questions about why you want to blame the Bible for something it never said: be good mainly so you won't go to Hell. Could be the Bible is just an easier target. Why? It's inconvenient to our arrogant wants (notice I said our, not your), to do what we want while also grabbing credit for our supposed self-made "good deeds."

Again, any notion that must ignore legitimate challenges to survive is lame. Our atheist friends here are actually engaging in discussion and Christians' challenges, and have offered better answers!

I'm about to agree with Mother-Music. If you're not able to answer the questions that were actually asked, I don't see the purpose of further discussion. So I'll let my points stand without any true attempt to reply. However, though I'd be glad (as a mod and a member!) to have you stick around, MD, if you do, I'll remind you later that you haven't really interacted with others. Yet Andrew was kind enough to show me how I was wrong for assuming he simply wouldn't interact; instead he had a good reason for only seeming to dodge serious challenges. You're intelligent enough to think this through. Why won't you?

Now for something else entirely, which I meant to address earlier:

I think it's also important to know what God's ultimate goal is. God wants a bunch of beings that bear his image (people) to willingly praise him for eternity. (Side note: for an omnipotent being, this sounds like it would get really boring, really fast.)

I'm curious about whether you, or Andrew, would like to answer this — and again, from the perspective of the objection that the Christian worldview makes no sense inside itself and isn't consistent.

1. What do (either of) you think "praising God for eternity" means?

2. How do you define "praise"? What action(s) do you think this entails?

3. If you ever asked your parents or Spiritual Leaders or whatever what that meant, what did they tell you? And: was it consistent with the Bible?

4. Again, assuming the view from inside: if it's true that God is the highest, most incredible, most loving, most infinite and supreme Being ever in the universe, why would it not make sense to experience more of Him? I realize I'm asking this of non-Christians to whom the very notion of valuing a God outside yourself seems repugnant. But I'm asking not for personal agreement, but theoretical consideration.

For further reading, might I suggest my most recent comments on the subject, in which I answered the same objections from a professing Christian who thought "God's love" meant God loves people more than Himself? (That would actually be unloving if God is really the best.)

The most relevant comment is here on Speculative Faith, though if you check that out, I'd encourage reading the whole conversation (and/or column) for context.

C.S. Lewis also understood that God’s giving glory to Himself, and wanting His people’s praises, is not a wrongfully selfish act (as it would be if we did the same thing about ourselves). Nor does it somehow exclude or minimize His love for His people at all! His thoughts on his, implicit in The Chronicles of Narnia and his other nonfiction works, are more explicit in his Reflections on the Psalms.

[...]

Chapter 9 of Lewis’s [Reflections on the Psalms] book bears the modest title “A Word about Praise.” In my experience it has been the word about praise—the best word on the nature of praise I have ever read.

Lewis says that as he was beginning to believe in God, a great stumbling block was the presence of demands scattered through the Psalms that he should praise God. He did not see the point in all this; besides, it seemed to picture God as craving “for our worship like a vain woman who wants compliments.” He goes on to show why he was wrong:

But the most obvious fact about praise—whether of God or anything—strangely escaped me. I thought of it in terms of compliment, approval, or the giving of honor. I had never noticed that all enjoyment spontaneously overflows into praise.… The world rings with praise—lovers praising their mistresses, readers their favorite poet, walkers praising the countryside, players praising their favorite game.…

My whole, more general difficulty about the praise of God depended on my absurdly denying to us, as regards the supremely Valuable, what we delight to do, what indeed we can’t help doing, about everything else we value.

I think we delight to praise what we enjoy because the praise not merely expresses but completes the enjoyment; it is its appointed consummation.

This was the capstone of my emerging Hedonism. Praising God, the highest calling of humanity and our eternal vocation, did not involve the renunciation, but rather the consummation of the joy I so desired. My old effort to achieve worship with no self-interest in it proved to be a contradiction in terms. God is not worshiped where He is not treasured and enjoyed. Praise is not an alternative to joy, but the expression of joy. Not to enjoy God is to dishonor Him. To say to Him that something else satisfies you more is the opposite of worship. It is sacrilege.

— from Desiring God, John Piper (pages 21-22)

Usually whenever I bring up this view of "Christian Hedonism," many people — including Christians (both professing and actual!) — simply ignore it. So different a worldview is it that most people simply shut down and refuse to think about it. A truly God-centered universe? God values Himself and His own glory more highly than He values His creation and His people? And this is actually the greatest love He could possibly show which as a result actually makes people happiest?

Hope to find a better reception here, not only from the smart Christians like The Black Glove, Food for Thought, Fencer for Jesus and others, but the smart and conversation-engaging non-Christians like Andrew, Graymouser and others.