"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea, just and unjust? A man does not call a crooked line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it?
A man feels wet when he falls into the water, because man is not a water animal; a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against ‘God’ collapsed too-for the argument depended on saying that the world was unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies! Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist-in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless_I found I was forced to assume that one part of my reality-namely my idea of justice was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should have never found out that it has no meaning: just as if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning."
I will take that one step further. We cannot assume, (as a materialist does) that the supernatural, (anything that is outside of our senses or ways of measurement and method of science) does not exist. The naturalist assumes too much!
Rex
Great quote from C.S. Lewis
by Shining One 21 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Shining One
-
AlmostAtheist
"His thoughts are higher than our thoughts, his ways higher than our ways".
There's no solid way to argue against that. And the "how do we measure justice?" question is similar. But the Bible was written with words, and those words all supposedly have meanings. Why would God write all those words, then arbitrarily change their meanings to something we couldn't possibly know? Why call himself a "god of justice", then change the meaning of that word to allow all sorts of unjust things?
Am I making sense, or am I just spinning in circles? I'm sorry, I can't really tell. There's some men here in white coats, I need to get going...
Dave
-
robhic
I will take that one step further. We cannot assume, (as a materialist does) that the supernatural, (anything that is outside of our senses or ways of measurement and method of science) does not exist.
Hey Shining One. If I told you that a certain flavor or brand of frozen yogurt could make you invisible, would you just believe me or would you require proof?
-
tetrapod.sapien
"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea, just and unjust? A man does not call a crooked line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it?
i always said that this lewis dude was an atheist in denial.
awww rex.... that's so cute. i bet jesus and cs lewis are up in heaven right now, holding hands, smiling down on your posts and nodding in approval. "that's our rex. boy, i can't wait until he is up here with us..."
ts
-
funkyderek
A rather feeble argument, I think.
Our concept of justice is clearly not arbitrary. It seems to be a human universal and can be observed to varying degrees in other primates. Does this in itself prove the existence of a Creator? Not at all! When closely examined, our ideas of justice are little more than simple rules evolved to maximise our survival as social animals.
Primitive minds have concepts of justice, mercy, love and so on and they expect the universe to follow the same rules. Of course it doesn't, and the more developed mind recognises that the universe as we observe it appears to be neither just nor unjust but callously and blindly indifferent.
Explaining the "unjustness" of the universe is only necessary if you believe someone is in control of it. This is why many religious people think that when there is a hurricane or tsunami or earthquake, that God is punishing people for some imagined crime. In reality, of course, such disasters are easily explainable in natural terms and appear to have no supernatural component.
I will take that one step further. We cannot assume, (as a materialist does) that the supernatural, (anything that is outside of our senses or ways of measurement and method of science) does not exist. The naturalist assumes too much!
Actually, one can assume that the supernatural does not exist. It should only be a tentative assumption, of course, but it makes no sense to believe in something that cannot be detected by our senses or by instruments that we have developed. If something cannot be detected or measured, appears to have no detectable or measurable effects, and has no explanatory power, why would anyone believe in it?
-
skyman
Lets take it one step further. If you buy into this idea in this thread proving GOD then you have to believe it was the
appleI mean fruit in the garden of Eden that made us aware of GOOD and BAD. Boy that makes a lot of sense does it not, Damn apples. -
Shining One
>Our concept of justice is clearly not arbitrary. It seems to be a human universal and can be observed to varying degrees in other primates.
Like he said, 'arbitrary' (varying degrees).
Hi Derek,
>Does this in itself prove the existence of a Creator? Not at all! When closely examined, our ideas of justice are little more than simple rules evolved to maximise our survival as social animals.
From what beginning point do you begin to formulate your idea of 'justice'? Proving atheism as 'too simple' defaults (at least) into theism. You ignore Lewis' argument for determining just what 'justice' is in the first place! Read his words again please.
>Primitive minds have concepts of justice, mercy, love and so on and they expect the universe to follow the same rules.
What is a 'primitive mind'? When you define that them show us just what is common in the concepts of justice among primitive cultures.
>Of course it doesn't, and the more developed mind recognises that the universe as we observe it appears to be neither just nor unjust but callously and blindly indifferent.
You assume too much with the first statement, then you talk about a 'more developed mind' as if man is any brighter now than he was 4,000 years ago. I would say we have a 'dumbing down' with the nonsensical coming in vogue and common sense eroding away.
>Explaining the "unjustness" of the universe is only necessary if you believe someone is in control of it.
Again, you evade Lewis argument: who determines what is 'just or unjust'?
>This is why many religious people think that when there is a hurricane or tsunami or earthquake, that God is punishing people for some imagined crime.
Speculation that has nothing to do with the argument......
>In reality, of course, such disasters are easily explainable in natural terms and appear to have no supernatural component.
Continuing the red herring.....
Rex Said: I will take that one step further. We cannot assume, (as a materialist does) that the supernatural, (anything that is outside of our senses or ways of measurement and method of science) does not exist. The naturalist assumes too much!
>Actually, one can assume that the supernatural does not exist. It should only be a tentative assumption, of course, but it makes no sense to believe in something that cannot be detected by our senses or by instruments that we have developed. If something cannot be detected or measured, appears to have no detectable or measurable effects, and has no explanatory power, why would anyone believe in it?
The supernatural is and has been continuous throughput the ages. The problem is that skeptics set an artifcial guidline that can never be satisfied, because in the end they will not accept eyewitness testimony, even their own!
Rex -
GentlyFeral
robhic said:
Hey Shining One. If I told you that a certain flavor or brand of frozen yogurt could make you invisible, would you just believe me or would you require proof?
Oh, I want to play!
Um, I would demand to know the brand name and try it myself.
And if it at least made me more inobtrusive, I'd get back to you. Or write a learned paper about the historical associations of yogurt and invisibility in folk magic.
gently feral
-
misspeaches
i always said that this lewis dude was an atheist in denial.
Actually he was an athiest until his good friend J R Tolkien converted him to Christianity...
-
AlmostAtheist
The problem is that skeptics set an artifcial guidline that can never be satisfied, because in the end they will not accept eyewitness testimony, even their own!
Funny you should mention...
I was outside smoking a few weeks ago and I saw a guy walking on the roof of a building across the street. The unusual thing about this guy was that his head was floating about 4 inches above his body!
He had a head, and he had a body -- they just weren't attached.
Didn't seem to bother him much. They stayed close together. when the body walked, the head stayed above it.
Now, since I don't actually believe that people exist with their heads not attached to their bodies, I assumed this was some trick. I assumed he had a turtle-neck sweater, or a scarf that was the same color as the sky behind him. I walked away never having seen proof that his head was attached, but believing it anyway.
What if it was a common belief that some people's heads weren't attached? Wouldn't I have collected some eyewitness evidence that the belief was true? Fortunately, this is not a common belief.
Dave