A thought about our significance

[Cow Poke]

Just because you can't understand something does that make it untrue? We have tried to explain it to you before but it is like trying to explain algebra to a kindergartner.

Or like a chicken watching a card trick - the chicken sees something's going on, but has absolutely no clue whatsoever.

[JimL]

Just because you can't understand something does that make it untrue? We have tried to explain it to you before but it is like trying to explain algebra to a kindergartner.

You have explained it, and I understand your explanation completely. What I don't understand is how you, an obviously intelligent person, can't see the oh so obvious illogic of your own explanation. Lets see what just passing through comes up with. Maybe he can help you out.

[JimL]

Or like a chicken watching a card trick - the chicken sees something's going on, but has absolutely no clue whatsoever.

Well, actually I don't recall you ever chiming in on this topic, so you must be the chicken with no clue whatsoever. You do tend to cluck a lot though.

[Just Passing Through]

[Cow Poke]

Well, actually I don't recall you ever chiming in on this topic....

The weed is having a serious affect on your memory, eh?

[The Remonstrant]

I would not contest that humans are notoriously prideful creatures. Scripturally, pride is not encouraged. God is in opposition to the haughty, but places his favour upon the humble.¹²Notes

1. See Proverbs 3.34 LXX; James 4.6; 1 Peter 5.5.
2. See Psalm 144.4; Isaiah 40.6; James 4.14; 1 Peter 1.24.

I'm familiar with all of this theology, Rem.

I am not surprised. In the light of your opening post, I do believe that it was worth laying down foundational Christian beliefs in this discussion, though.

[1] It fits very well with the observation I made in the OP. Christianity blends the arrogance of believing god is uniquely concerned with humanity with the humility of seeing oneself as completely subject to this god. It is an odd/interesting mix. [2] I think, perhaps, the wide success of Christianity can be found in the message that all one need do is confess one's sins, and accept god as their lord and savior, and they are made new and their sins/ills are forgiven. [3]

[carpedm9587]

I am not surprised. In the light of your opening post, I do believe that it was worth laying down foundational Christian beliefs in this discussion, though.

1. Supposing that the God of Christian theism does exist, it is not prideful to believe in him or his word; rather, it is prideful to disbelieve in him and go about living in the world he created as if he does not exist.

From the few nuanced responses I've received, I've come to realize my original post is most definitely from the perspective of this god NOT existing. My Christian brain cells are reasonably well atrophied. From the perspective of this god not existing, the belief appears fairly arrogant. From the perspective of it existing, less so.

Again - you are right that my post was very over-simplified. It was not intended to suggest that cognitive acceptance was all that was required. However, for a person who has reached the nadir of their experience, and message that they can "wipe the slate clean and begin again," however, much that demands of them going forward, is a powerful and often welcome message. Non-theistic worldviews have essentially nothing to compare, psychologically. That was the intent of my comment. I apologize if it came across sounding like accepting Christianity was a simple cognitive exercise. Having lived that life for a couple of decades (a long time ago), I know it is not.

3. For persons who struggle with responsibility and/or finding a subjective purpose for carrying on with existence, perhaps atheism provides the answer that there really is no solution(?). Do not limit your psychologising to persons who adhere to Christian theism; apply it to your atheistic (non-)beliefs as well.

Actually, I would say that atheism provides the answer, "if you want meaning - get off your butt and create meaning." Responsibility is a bit different. In atheism, responsibility comes from the goals and moral framework of the individual, as well as the requirements of the culture and social context.

[rogue06]

It might also be what is incomprehensibly random and meaningless from our exceedingly limited perspective, is absolutely clear from His.

[rogue06]

Just because you can't understand something does that make it untrue? We have tried to explain it to you before but it is like trying to explain algebra to a kindergartner.

JimL is providing an example of the Argument from Incredulity logical fallacy. Just because one can not imagine how "X" can be true does not mean "X" is therefore false. It may only mean that you don't have sufficient data, that you lack imagination or a host of other possibilities.

[The Remonstrant]

Science suggests that that are an estimated 10 billion galazies in the universe, of which our galazy is only one. If they all have the estimated 100 billiion stars that exist in our universe, and if the average life of a star is 10 billion years, this suggests that 100 billion stars end their lives in this universe every year. This suggests that 281 milliion stars end their existence each day, which is 11.7 million starts per hour, 195.6 thousand per miniute, and 3,260 stars end their lives every second of every day of every year.

There are an estimated 7.6 billion humans on earth, and we average a 79 year lifespan. This means 96.2 milliion people die per year, 263,6K die per day, 11K die per hour, 183 die per minute, and 3.05 die every second of every day.

3260 stars per second....
3.05 humans per second...

A star has an enormous average power output. The power output of the average human is on the order of a few D-cell batteries.

But we have to audicity to consider ourselves "significant," and suggest that a god of the universe (if it exists) is singularly focused on our salvation?

I would chalk that up to human arrogance - and a need to be significant.

I would not contest that humans are notoriously prideful creatures. Scripturally, pride is not encouraged. God is in opposition to the haughty, but places his favour upon the humble.¹²Notes

1. See Proverbs 3.34 LXX; James 4.6; 1 Peter 5.5.
2. See Psalm 144.4; Isaiah 40.6; James 4.14; 1 Peter 1.24.

[1] I'm familiar with all of this theology, Rem. It fits very well with the observation I made in the OP. Christianity blends the arrogance of believing god is uniquely concerned with humanity with the humility of seeing oneself as completely subject to this god. It is an odd/interesting mix. [2] I think, perhaps, the wide success of Christianity can be found in the message that all one need do is confess one's sins, and accept god as their lord and savior, and they are made new and their sins/ills are forgiven. [3]

1. Supposing that the God of Christian theism does exist, it is not prideful to believe in him or his word; rather, it is prideful to disbelieve in him and go about living in the world he created as if he does not exist.

From the few nuanced responses I've received, I've come to realize my original post is most definitely from the perspective of this god NOT existing. My Christian brain cells are reasonably well atrophied. From the perspective of this god not existing, the belief appears fairly arrogant. From the perspective of it existing, less so.

I apologize if it came across sounding like accepting Christianity was a simple cognitive exercise. Having lived that life for a couple of decades (a long time ago), I know it is not. [emphasis added]

Thank you for your concession.

3. For persons who struggle with responsibility and/or finding a subjective purpose for carrying on with existence, perhaps atheism provides the answer that there really is no solution(?). Do not limit your psychologising to persons who adhere to Christian theism; apply it to your atheistic (non-)beliefs as well.

Which is to say that, apart from God, meaning or purpose are subjectively created and defined. The same may also be said for morality. When my subjectively defined morality conflicts with your subjectively defined morality, grave problems may arise. A sociopath, for example, may find a sense of meaning and satisfaction in torturing and killing an untold number of persons. S/he does what is right in his/her own eyes, as you do. You, however, may object to his/her behavior, as you perceive it to be immoral. His/her behaviour is justified in his/her own eyes. As morality is not and cannot be absolute according to consistent atheistic thought, who is to say ultimately what is right or wrong?

[JimL]

The weed is having a serious affect on your memory, eh?

Perhaps, or perhaps its a result of age. So what's your theory concerning an omniscient creator who knows the future and human free will.

[JimL]

"What if" is not an explanation of a logical how. Your "what if" is a similar viewpoint, though without explanation, put forth by many believers, but the one thing you all seem to forget is that the creation out of which all of time exist was created by god who exists outside of it. If god created it, and if from gods perspective it all exists, whether it exists in reality or in gods mind as knowledge, then change, ergo free will, is logically impossible.

[JimL]

It might also be what is incomprehensibly random and meaningless from our exceedingly limited perspective, is absolutely clear from His.

Yes, it might be that you are intellectually disposed to believe anything, whether you can make sense of it or not.

[seer]

If god created it, and if from gods perspective it all exists, whether it exists in reality or in gods mind as knowledge, then change, ergo free will, is logically impossible.

How does that follow if God's knowledge is contingent on our free choices? Simple knowledge does not force us or cause us to act.

[JimL]

JimL is providing an example of the Argument from Incredulity logical fallacy. Just because one can not imagine how "X" can be true does not mean "X" is therefore false. It may only mean that you don't have sufficient data, that you lack imagination or a host of other possibilities.

Perhaps, but unless and until you can point out the logical fallacy, the error in my reasoning, then your point is, well, pointless.