Phinehas

It's always a chore to figure out whether to ignore idiots like you or to address your idiocy. You don't deserve a response, but then again, no one deserves the sort of unfounded hate you are spewing either.

On the one hand, it is tempting to hope that you remain in whatever cave you are living in 'til you rot, but even foaming-at-the-mouth idiots deserve a chance to have their blinders removed. I invite you to step out of your ignorance and into the light. Move beyond whatever festering, inbred circle of hate literature or speech you've so obviously consigned yourself to and get a real education. Allow your beliefs to be challenged and see if they hold up. Trust me. They won't.

Actually, it seems to me that the tech for the second video has to be quite a bit different. They are not just tracking in screen space, but in 3D space, and they are tracking the *orientation* of the controllers.

That's something I don't understand about the wands with spheres. A sphere is the worst shape for showing orientation. I would think they would need two spheres at the very least to show orientation, maybe one at each end of the controller. Since they don't have a setup like that, it makes me wonder if the tech they are demoing isn't using only visual data.

Has this been addressed elsewhere?

"I've heard the "god's nature" argument before, but that simply begs the question: Where did God get his nature? If he gets his nature from somewhere else, then he is not god. And if he defines his own nature, that is quite the paradox. So your argument still doesn't hold any weight."

Not quite. Rather, the question, "Where did God get His nature?" assumes exactly what is at issue. It rejects the whole concept of I AM in its very implication that God must have gotten His nature somewhere outside of Himself.

God is not a paradox, but He is, perhaps, a logical tautology in the sense that He is not contingent. This is a difficult concept to grasp, especially if you have an a priori insistance that eveything must be contingent, which is exactly what your question reveals.

"Your argument is essentially: God is good because he says he's good. And, that's such a huge cop out I don't even know where to begin. How do you know god is good? How do you know that what god is telling you is good, is in fact good? It's circular logic."

No, that's not my argument at all. God is not good *because* of anything. He is not contingent. However, the epistological question is an interesting one. Given that your mind is admitedly imperfect, and given that evolutionary processes are targeted for survival and not necessarily truth, ("Cogito, ergo sum" notwithstanding) how do you know anything at all? When you start with imperfect humans whose very reasoning processes arise out of ooze plus various other random factors, any sort of knowledge must be incredibly suspect. On the other hand, if you start with an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God, then He already Knows everything and already has the power to reveal Truth in a way that can be trusted.

Logically, there must be a first-mover that brought into being what we know of space and time. (Even if you buy into the multi-verse theory, which requires just as much if not more faith than a belief in God, and must be viewed as more religion than science, you are still left with the question of the origin of the multi-verse.) That first-mover must be in some way transcendent, because what we know points to space and time having a beginning and being itself contingent. But a first-mover must be, by definition, neither contingent or contradictory, meaning that has to be a logical tautology that is self-defining.

At first blush, God's nature may seem like circular logic, but it is actually foundational to logic. If everything were contingent, then we'd be left with an infinite regress, which isn't logical. Logic cannot create for itself its own foundation, so whatever logic is founded on must be non-contingent.

"There's plenty of things I don't understand. But it's one thing to not understand a concept, and quite another to realize that a concept inherently makes no sense. And if a concept inherently makes not sense, than it is flawed and is probably not true."

Actually, a concept often makes no inherent sense when someone doesn't have the frame of reference for understanding it. This idea was explored in the book, Flatland, which imagines what it would be like to live in a 2D world. If you only have two dimensions as your frame of reference, then the idea of something moving from outside to inside of a sqare without colliding with one of the lines inherently makes no sense. When you add a third dimension, as we all know, moving from outside to inside the square without touching its lines is trivial.

The notion that things existing beyond my ability to comprehend inherently make no sense is as anthropocentric as it is typical.

"Ah, the classic Euthyphro dilemma. I won't attempt to articulate it here because there are most certainly better explanations to be found on the ole interwebs. But ultimately "God defines morality" has many problems."

Not nearly as many problems as "I define morality" or "morality cannot be defined," but let's leave that aside for the moment.

The Euthyphro dilemma doesn't quite apply to what I've said. Let me explain.

The Euthphro dilemma states: "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"

But when I talk about God defining morality, I'm not talking about Him defining it by His *commandment*, but rather by His *being*. You see, the Euthyphro dilemma sets up a false dichotomy because it assumes a priori that morality and God can be viewed as completely separate things. But God cannot be defined by anything out side of Him. He is self-defined, which is why He is I AM.

I didn't come up with this response to the Euthyphro dilemma all by myself. It's been around at least since Thomas Aquinas, as a quick look at Wikipedia will tell you. Of course, admitting that there are solid, well-known responses to the dilemma wouldn't be as expedient to your argument as hand-waving accompanied by a vague claim that God defining morality, "has many problems," so I can see why you didn't bring it up.

"I won't retort the preachy stuff because, no offense to you, it is rather meaningless to me."

The "preachy" stuff is a second perspective on how your question can be cogently addressed. If you are going to dismiss answers to your questions with claims of meaninglessness, maybe you aren't really ready to ask them in the first place?

"Although, I find it interesting that you can know god's method is the right one without even knowing the specifics of that method."

Given that God defines morality, it follows logically that His method is the right one.

"Frankly, you can't call a god omni-benevolent if he designs a system that allows people to be tortured for eternity essentially because they were born in the wrong place or died before they could know anything about his offer of redemption."

I call God omni-benevolent because He is. I AM is not defined by your concept of benevolence or mine. It is entirely possible that neither you nor I understand the how or the why of where babies spend eternity. All it takes is the slightest modicum of humility to admit that our intellectual arms are rather too short to grasp some concepts, despite the feeling of comfort that attends our notion that we have wrapped them completely around the concept and have interlocked our fingers on the other side.

@dogmaticatheist

What the heck, I'll bite.

"1) Do you really believe that vicarious redemption through human sacrifice is a moral action?"

Yes.

I'm tempted to leave things there, but you'll probably want some explanation.

a. It is moral because God did it and God defines morality, not the other way around. Perhaps that's not as satisfying an answer as you'd like, but it is no less true for its lack of satisfying.

b. A redemptive sacrifice is only possible under certain circumstances, chief among them being the righteousness of the one sacrificed. Christianity says that, by grace, through faith, we can be identified with Christ in his death, suffering, and resurrection. In other words, in Christ we die and in Him we are raised to a new life, our guilt having been taken away.

This identification not only involves Christ taking on our sin (and dying for it), but also us taking on His righteousness. If Christ himself were not perfecty righteous, He could not give that perfect righteousness to those who came Him in faith, hence they would not be redeemed. Nor could He die for anyone else's sins, since His death would only cover His own sin.

Non-redemptive human sacrifice (at least of the variety I think you are talking about) would be a meaningless waste, and therefore immoral.

Similarly, since Christ's sacrifice once for all is redemptive to all who are willing to put their trust in Him, even if one were able to perform a vicarious redemptive human sacrifice at this point in history (and given the above, that isn't really possible, because only God is perfectly good), it would be redundant, meaningless, wasteful, and therefore immoral.

So, to bring this back around, the answer to your question is "yes" because the sacrifice is redemptive, and it could only be redemptive because it was the perfect Son of God who was sacrificed.

"2) Given that all human beings are born sinners (original sin, which I also find to be an immoral idea), and can only be redeemed through Jesus, how can you be sure that babies that die go to heaven? As far as I know there is no biblical support for this."

There are a number of different beliefs on this topic within Christianity. The one that holds that babies that die go to heaven is not completely without biblical support. Upon learning that his baby (the result of his adultry with Bathsheba) was dead, David said the following: "I will go to him, but he will not return to me" (II Samuel 12:23). Many scholars take this to mean that David expected to see his baby again in heaven.

I wouldn't personally use a word as strong as "know" one way or another on this issue, except that I know that God's method for handling the issue (though I may not have figured out what it is) is the right one.

*sigh* That last was a reply to redjack, of course.

"And, of course, you encroach on other people's happiness. Because your beliefs must be everyone's beliefs. I mean, if you people could just stop trying to ram what you believe down our throats and just live your lives your way and allow us to live our lives our way then we wouldn't have these 200+ comments threads on a gaming site."

Excuse me?!? You know, I try really hard to keep my cool while people say idiotic things, but this kind of statement just hacks me off.

I come to Joystiq to read about games. I don't come here to proselytize. I'm not trying to ram anything down anyone's throat. I've never posted any sort of protestation about Dante's Inferno, and as far as I know, neither has any other Christian--certainly not before EA staged their fake protest. EA had to fabricate a protest, *because one wasn't actually happening*! You get that, don't you? They had to resort to a stereotype, because *reality wasn't giving them the publicity they wanted*! Some Christian gaming blogs pointed out that this was a rather cynical way to sell your product and that maybe EA should concentrate on, you know, actually making a good game. Jostiq felt compelled to report on it.

Whatever. That still wasn't enough to prompt me to begin "ramming what I believe down your throats."

My first post on this issue was to address someone sarcastically commenting that the Christian bloggers were "geniuses" and claiming that they were priggish and fun-hating. I've spent the rest of my posting addressing other misguided claims about how Christianity is illogical, tyranical, idiotic, etc., etc. etc. So tell me: is defending what you believe from outlandish attacks "ramming what I believe down your throats?"

If you have any sense of decency, honesty, or fair-play, redjack, then I challenge you to take a hard look at exactly who is encroaching, who is claiming that their beliefs must be everyone's beliefs, and who is trying to ram what they believe down the throats of others. It isn't me! It isn't Christians protesting Dante's Inferno! They were fakes, remember? Rather, EA was trying to ram a stereotype of what Christians are like down the throats of others. It was EA who decided not to let Christians just live our lives. And then a bunch of posters here an Joystiq made a similar choice. I've been tirelessly defending my faith since then, and *that's* what has led to 200+ posts.

How appropriate that, here at the end, we see you once again regurgitating and reiterating exactly the same stereotype that got this whole mess started in the first place.

Now that I've got that off my chest, I apologize for any implication I made that you were an atheist. In my defense, my second question above was in reference to what a self-proclaimed agnostic said, so I wasn't aware that it was targeted at atheism. Nevertheless, I did not mean to offend.

"I believe that everyone has a right to follow their own bliss and find happiness in their life -- as long as it doesn't encroach on another's happiness."

I believe *exactly* the same thing. I also believe that the Bible calls encroaching on another's happiness, "sin," and that it is a very, very serious thing to God.

Finally, I don't put much stock in religions either, only in relationships and in love. I believe strongly that people should be able to choose to worship or not worship whoever or whatever they believe, though I think that beliefs have consequences. I also like the quote from Gandhi. Christianity should be about what you think about Christ, not what you think about Christians.

Peace.

@dogmaticatheist

(BTW, you might want to have a talk with Ashitaka about that dogmatism. According to him, believing on nothing is the only logical belief. :D )

"In my experience, and I believe this can be supported by just observing people, good people will act like good people and bad people will act like bad people regardless of their faith or lack thereof. There is nothing to support the notion that religion makes better people."

You've say later that "good" is subjective, so I'm not sure how to take your notion of "good" and "bad" people here. I'd just say people will act like people. (In fact, that's what I did say.) I also wholeheartedly agree that there is nothing to support the notion that religion makes people better. (From your relativistic viewpoint, you'd need to define what "better" means in the first place, which will be difficult to do with only a subjective notion of "good" and "bad.") I believe that healthy relationships based on love make people better. Of course, I also believe that Christianity isn't a religion, but a relationship. That will likely blow some people's minds, but there you have it.

"Because we are social beings, and being social is what helps ensure our survival, we've come to understand that promoting healthy societies with rules in place that keep us from killing each other is actually beneficial. It's simple logic, there's nothing mystical about it."

It is a good argument, but our morality doesn't quite fit with your just-so story. For one thing, Darwin had some pretty interesting ideas about how to make societies healthy. From Descent of Man:

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."

From this kind of thinking we got social darwinism, Eugenics, and worse. Things that we *know* are morally wrong, yet which fit perfecty well with an evolutionary, materialistic perspective. It is difficult to deny that finding a local optimum in the gene pool would be best served by sterilizing or removing those who might pollute that pool. But surely, such an approach is wrong, wrong, wrong. Isn't it? Or was Darwin right?

"I just gave you a compelling reason: survival."

Is it really that compelling? Survival is a very selfish motivation. Self centered. Self absorbed. Self serving. Morality, on the other hand, seems totally contrary to this. It is about being selfless. Nature is concerned with ensuring that the strong survive, but morality is concerned with ensuring that the weak survive. Nature culls the herd to keep the gene pool strong, but morality claims that the weak have just as much right to survive as the strong.

Can a house divided against itself stand?

"Secondly, 'good' is subjective"

From a relativistic viewpoint, it must be, for there can be no higher standard by which to judge actions except one's own opinion. But that leaves us with a vaccuum when it comes to good reasons for doing good, doesn't it? Even if "good" is accepted as some sort of social conditioning we've evolved and inherited through our genes, isn't that pretty much the same as saying that any sense of "good" you feel in being selfless is a fabrication? It doesn't actually exist except as an inherited predisposition--one that you are free to ignore or not as you wish.

Is that really a compelling reason to do good?

Didn't Ashitaka have it right? The only reason an atheist has for doing good is just because. And they have exactly the same reason to not do good.

He redjack,

I'm with you on the suckiness of this comment system. No worries.

The vast majority of the Christians I know (and I know a lot of them) do not strive to be better people out of a fear of God or Hell. They do so out of love. They recognize the importance of relationships. They are tired of letting others down and of letting themselves down by being selfish. They want to be the best fathers, husbands, mothers, wives, or persons that they can be. They believe that there are good reasons to be good and that those reasons are not really about fear.

They still fall short of their goals because they are people. Just like atheists are people. Just like muslims are people. The world isn't screwed up because folks are religious or not religions. It's screwed up because folks are people and people are selfish.

I agree that there are some standards of morality that are understood almost universally. Even those who don't always meet the standards understand they are there.

1. Why are these ideas so universal? Especially given how much at odds they are to the survival of the fittest tendencies of nature, red in tooth and claw?

2. Is it really desireable to be able to present no compelling reason for having the moral standards we do? If someone is good "just because," how is that not arbitrary? If "just because" is the only reason you have for being good, why isn't it just as compelling a reason for not being good? Don't you see that if you have no reason to be good, you also have no reason not to be the opposite?

I really don't mind getting downvoted. I just wish whoever was doing so had the guts to point out what I've said that deserves it. Otherwise, it could seem like maybe you don't really have a cogent response to the points I made, but don't want to admit it.