God is a personal God because we have been told that He is a personal God or that the overwhelming majority of the opinion of God in the Abrahamic sense is a personal God. We can go to the Hindu system where where its God is also considered to be personal. This is something that is generally agreed on in Hindu circles ie that God is personal. Jainism explicitly states that all the gods in Jainism are personal. Now we come to the Abrahamic God. It's certainly true that Christians worship God through Christ and they pray to Christ and Christ is supposed intercede between themselves and God. Before that it was Mary so you know for Christians it's very very personal indeed. As for Islam, again this perception of God is it's personal. As for Jews, they have a prohibition against anthropomorphizing the nature of God because they believe God is pure spirit, is immaterial and is outside the universe after having created it. He is also considered to be omnipotent ie capable of doing anything and beyond human comprehension. He knows the hearts and minds of those who believe in Him and submit to Him which is His personal nature. Worshipers are encouraged to have a personal relationship with God in order to more effectively follow His laws. We can assume that if a perfectly moral God exists as the Abrahamic God is said to do, we are also expected to obey His laws. We can only obey His laws if we know what they are and have a personal relationship in which to frame our prayers in terms of whether we have obeyed His laws or not. I suppose most people will only pray to God not out of gratitude for being alive but out of habit, but if they want something they will will ask God to grant them success in romantic and business endeavours etc. They would be referring to their previous behavior on how well or how badly they followed His rules and in so doing they will have a life that is examined in that they will have a conscience that tells them whether they deserve to have their prayers answered or not. This is what centers the individual onto a path of morality and awareness of God's laws. I simply do not see how worshiping an impersonal deity said not to care about whether we live or die is going to help us to be morally centered. It seems to me to be a waste of good divine resources. Believing God is personal if we chose to believe in God in this way would make us lead better lives, be better people and enjoy the spirituality that we would enjoy in having this personal relationship with God. I do not know how Jen prays to God but I can imagine it can only be an impersonal or automatic repetition of formulaic prayers which is not so much about examining one's life and one's past and one's conscience but leading to very little self-examination. For this reason I think believing in a personal God actually helps us to cultivate a sense of conscience and awareness of His laws as well as an awareness of how well or how badly we are obeying them. I do not quite see how believing in an impersonal God would would help keep the world a peaceable place. Obviously, if we as individuals are expected to follow of God's laws, we as nations are also expected to follow God's laws and there are rules of warfare that are in scripture in the Old Testament and the Koran. War is inevitable and must be regulated in its conduct, the conduct of which is stated in scripture. I think that it would be better for us to to limit ourselves in whatever atrocities we would commit on conquered peoples rather than do as our inclination dictates or expediency dictates, and for this reason rules written down sanctified by tradition and time would be more helpful in this regard than an impersonal God that left no scripture.
God is a personal God because we have been told that He is a personal God or that the overwhelming majority of the opinion of God in the Abrahamic sense is a personal God.
[This is a statement of fact.]
We can go to the Hindu system where where its God is also considered to be personal. This is something that is generally agreed on in Hindu circles ie that God is personal. Jainism explicitly states that all the gods in Jainism are personal.
[This is a statement of fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god]
Now we come to the Abrahamic God. It's certainly true that Christians worship God through Christ and they pray to Christ and Christ is supposed intercede between themselves and God.
[This is a statement of fact.]
Before that it was Mary so you know for Christians it's very very personal indeed.
[This is a statement of fact. http://catholicstraightanswers.com/why-do-we-call-mary-mother-of-god/]
As for Islam, again this perception of God is it's personal.
[This is a statement of fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wali]
As for Jews, they have a prohibition against anthropomorphizing the nature of God because they believe God is pure spirit, is immaterial and is outside the universe after having created it. He is also considered to be omnipotent ie capable of doing anything and beyond human comprehension. He knows the hearts and minds of those who believe in Him and submit to Him which is His personal nature.
[This is a statement of fact.
http://web.oru.edu/current_students/class_pages/grtheo/mmankins/drbyhmpg_files/GBIB766RabbLit/Chapter9Maimonides13Princ/index.html]
Worshipers are encouraged to have a personal relationship with God in order to more effectively follow His laws.
[This is a statement of fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Abrahamic_religions]
We can assume that if a perfectly moral God exists as the Abrahamic God is said to do, we are also expected to obey His laws.
[This is a logical deduction.]
We can only obey His laws if we know what they are and have a personal relationship in which to frame our prayers in terms of whether we have obeyed His laws or not.
[This is a logical deduction.]
I suppose most people will only pray to God not out of gratitude for being alive but out of habit, but if they want something they will will ask God to grant them success in romantic and business endeavours etc.
[This is a statement of fact about the purpose of prayer.]
They would be referring to their previous behavior on how well or how badly they followed His rules and in so doing they will have a life that is examined in that they will have a conscience that tells them whether they deserve to have their prayers answered or not.
[This is a philosophical statement of the benefits of an examined life and how to acquire one. It was Socrates who said that an unexamined life is not worth living.]
This is what centers the individual onto a path of morality and awareness of God's laws.
[I argue that we can only examine our lives in the context of a moral standard and it is axiomatic that our moral standards are instilled in the morality of our religious and political system.] SOUND ARGUMENT NO 1
I simply do not see how worshiping an impersonal deity said not to care about whether we live or die is going to help us to be morally centered. It seems to me to be a waste of good divine resources.
[I invite of Church of Entropy to explain how worshipping an impersonal God with no scripture and only an oral tradition would be more morally improving for humanity than worshiping the Abrahamic God with scripture that is globally accessible.]
This was never addressed by Church of Entropy.
Believing God is personal if we chose to believe in God in this way would make us lead better lives, be better people and enjoy the spirituality that we would enjoy in having this personal relationship with God.
[This is conditional on us being aware of and obeying God's laws, of course.]
I do not know how Jen prays to God but I can imagine it can only be an impersonal or automatic repetition of formulaic prayers which is not so much about examining one's life and one's past and one's conscience but leading to very little self-examination.
[Jen has not explained to us how she prays. Is meditation really prayer and a life examined? Can meditation really be an adequate substitute for an examined conscience? I think not.]
This was never addressed by Church of Entropy.
For this reason I think believing in a personal God actually helps us to cultivate a sense of conscience and awareness of His laws as well as an awareness of how well or how badly we are obeying them.
[This is self-evident.]
I do not quite see how believing in an impersonal God would would help keep the world a peaceable place.
[Church of Entropy has not demonstrated that worshipping an impersonal God could in any way prevent "supremacism, imperialism and hatred of God". She was invited to consider how these can be measured and was unable to give a satisfactory answer other than to say she has spoken to a number of people and feels that Westerners are more supremacist, imperialistic and hate God more than Orientals, which is merely anecdotal evidence and therefore unpersuasive, since she cannot possibly have spoken to every Westerner or Oriental who might have a view on these matters. The only way we could possibly compare the two is if "supremacism, imperialism and hatred of God" could be in some way objectively measured and if every act of supremacism, imperialism and hatred of God were fully documented and accessible, which is impossible. It is my contention therefore that the success of a religion can only be objectively measured by the longevity of its adherents and it cannot be denied that Jews are world's most ancient and successful tribe. http://rabbisacks.org/why-is-the-jewish-people-so-small-vaetchanan-5779/ 'This small people has outlived all the world’s great empires to deliver to humanity a message of hope: you need not be large to be great. What you need is to be open to a power greater than yourself. It is said that King Louis XIV of France once asked Blaise Pascal, the brilliant mathematician and theologian, to give him proof of the existence of God. Pascal is said to have replied, “Your Majesty, the Jews!” ']
Obviously, if we as individuals are expected to follow of God's laws, we as nations are also expected to follow God's laws and there are rules of warfare that are in scripture in the Old Testament and the Koran.
[This statement is logical and true, which means it is a sound argument.]
SOUND ARGUMENT NO 2
War is inevitable and must be regulated in its conduct, the conduct of which is stated in scripture.
[This is a statement of fact.]
I think that it would be better for us to to limit ourselves in whatever atrocities we would commit on conquered peoples rather than do as our inclination or expediency dictates, and for this reason rules written down sanctified by tradition and time would be more helpful in this regard than an impersonal God that left no scripture.
[This statement is logical and true, which means it is a sound argument.]
SOUND ARGUMENT NO 3
If you have also found three sound arguments in my proposition above, then it means that I should have won the debate. In fact, I only needed one to win the argument because I couldn't find a single sound argument in Jen's proposition analysed at https://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2019/08/can-you-find-sound-argument-in-this.html
The debate with Church of Entropy everyone said I lost
A valid is an argument that is logical. This particularly applies to hypothetical situations eg "If A is B and B is C, then all As are Bs and Cs."
A sound argument is one that is both logical and true.
It is important that we note Church of Entropy does not know the difference between a sound and valid argument.
The difference is explained at
https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil1440/validity.pdf
https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
She makes the same error again below.
https://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2019/07/transcript-of-stream-deleted-by-church.html
Jen
Oh, WLL2PWER in the chat said valid arguments are logical, sound arguments are when they're valid and also correlate with reality. Does that sound good? So a valid argument is stronger than a sound argument and sound arguments may have a limited range of utility because they don't necessarily describe true things. What's true within the domain of logic isn't the same thing as what's true in reality because you can construct any hypothetical that you want. Basically, you can say if all humans are turtles then I'm a turtle That's what you'd call essentially valueless statement. Valid arguments which are unsound are essentially worthless for any other purpose than teaching people how to do logic so just make that clear. What I keep coming back to is the importance of axioms and that's what is it that you're assuming is true without actually establishing it what is so self-evident that you don't actually say it so is that too complicated or what do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment