tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post4616517460257050801..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Professor David Eller Responds to Randal RauserUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger106125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81779748948421323402010-06-22T11:30:14.057-04:002010-06-22T11:30:14.057-04:00@Eric
Sorry for the late response. Your argument ...@Eric<br /><br />Sorry for the late response. Your argument seems approximately accurate to me. I don't know that I would have made the leap to including omniscience, but perhaps that is the challenged trait.<br /><br />I think it comes down to me wondering why I struggled in faith and then in seeking answers was unable to find ones that continued to support my faith.<br /><br />Which leads us to wonder why god wants to play cosmic hide and seek.<br /><br />Many, many, many, many theists respond that god values free will above all and will not 'force' me to accept him. I think this caraciturizes what many of us would want: not a hand on my shoulder which forces me down onto my knees in worship, but a simple sense or hidden 'knowledge' that god just 'is'. That's it.<br /><br />So, yes, since morals and instinctual urgings are apparently god given and are not suggested to remove our free will, then it would seem that there is nothing prohibiting him from giving us a sense of himself.<br /><br />As you only need to show that he didn't <i>have</i> to give us that sense, I suppose my point will fall on deaf ears, though.<br /><br />It will come to the stand still that so many other questions come to: should god or could god have done better?<br /><br />Theist vehemently think not, while atheists do.<br /><br />I have found that atheists can put forth very nice lists of how exactly god could have done better (like giving us a specific 'sense' of himself) whereas all theists can do is provide pure speculation as to why he might not have done so.<br /><br />This is why I have concluded that (and invented my own definition for) theology is the field of study in which the goal is to convince others that what they would expect to find were an omni-max god to exist is actually completely wrong and that, instead, the world as we find it is the only way this god could have possibly done things.jwhendyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03615608336736450543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-54970583676131291132010-06-20T18:29:24.380-04:002010-06-20T18:29:24.380-04:00Properly Basic !!Properly Basic !!Gandolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624178234332819107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-16005381258666134132010-06-20T18:27:42.314-04:002010-06-20T18:27:42.314-04:00Yahweh. A excellent childhood nightmare for adults...Yahweh. A excellent childhood nightmare for adults.Gandolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624178234332819107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-79035113930587213282010-06-20T18:22:16.106-04:002010-06-20T18:22:16.106-04:00The two properly basic beliefs of "Yahweh&quo...The two properly basic beliefs of "Yahweh" and "Monsters" under childrens beds held lots in common. Specially the two factors of "extreme imagination" and "fear".And the factor of both matters being about human thoughts of what might be happening in the "unknown".<br /><br />However because the properly basic belief of monsters under beds deals more with whats happening in the "present",while theism is more about "afterlife".<br /><br />Possibly resulted with why the "properly basic belief" Theism is more often longer lasting.<br /><br />Because it dealt more with the "present" children were soon able to realize, monsters actually werent out to get them after all.<br /><br />Making "Yahweh" fear,something thought forever possible.Gandolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624178234332819107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-59440748085706869192010-06-19T23:02:50.054-04:002010-06-19T23:02:50.054-04:00I recommend blogging. I keep one to challenge mys...I recommend blogging. I keep one to challenge myself. I try to write a post once a month. It keeps me thinking. Do it. I'd put you on my blog roll.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-13758093883742798522010-06-19T20:59:45.611-04:002010-06-19T20:59:45.611-04:00Well, I like to think I know my limitations, with ...Well, I like to think I know my limitations, with respect to skill, education, time, etc. so a book is, for the foreseeable future, certainly out of the question. I have, however, been toying with the idea of a blog (I even have the tag-line, though not the name, picked out: "Ex umbris et imaginibus in veritatem" which means "from shadows and appearances into truth"; I stole it from Newman's epitaph), so who knows. Maybe that would be a good place to write up something like that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-11723315176246627642010-06-19T20:58:11.453-04:002010-06-19T20:58:11.453-04:00Indeed.Indeed.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42717055149960149102010-06-19T20:35:00.485-04:002010-06-19T20:35:00.485-04:00Eric,
You just made me smile.
You should write i...Eric,<br /><br />You just made me smile.<br /><br />You should write it. <br /><br />The journey you laid out would be interesting. <br /><br />"Why I Became a Catholic" (WIBC) would be an interesting read.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-16877720866195731542010-06-19T20:16:42.417-04:002010-06-19T20:16:42.417-04:00I get the sense that if either of you read a book ...I get the sense that if either of you read a book I wrote, your experiences would be not unlike those of Nietzsche when he read Paul Ree's "The Origin of Moral Sentiments":<br /><br />"I have, perhaps, never read anything to which I said 'no,' sentence by sentence and deduction by deduction, as I did to this book..."<br /><br />But you most certainly would not share the following sentiments Nietzsche expressed:<br /><br />"...but completely without annoyance and impatience."<br /><br />;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-79327987315282428842010-06-19T19:38:49.694-04:002010-06-19T19:38:49.694-04:00I believe I have egg on my socks too.
And I did s...I believe I have egg on my socks too.<br /><br />And I did say I'd read a 400 page book written by Eric if he explained what seems like a completely illogical move in his constant defense of the Roman Catholic Church.<br /><br />It would be a fascinating glimpse into the mind of a student of logic devoted to superstition.<br /><br />The internal tension would be a solid premise.<br /><br />And yes I am a writer and am using Eric as a model for a character in the play I am currently writing.<br /><br />The character has sociopathic tendencies.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33029232417411052332010-06-19T19:33:59.609-04:002010-06-19T19:33:59.609-04:00I, on the other hand, want a signed hardcover firs...I, on the other hand, want a signed hardcover first edition.<br /><br />:o)GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-25040154844600201342010-06-19T19:28:25.571-04:002010-06-19T19:28:25.571-04:00I think it was Chuck that said if you wrote a 400 ...I think it was Chuck that said if you wrote a 400 page book, he'd read it.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-83803240277787312812010-06-19T19:27:41.111-04:002010-06-19T19:27:41.111-04:00Thanks, Eric.
If I can write the dang thing, I th...Thanks, Eric.<br /><br />If I can write the dang thing, I think it'll be commercially viable. It's a pretty cool idea, and I haven't seen anything like it elsewhere (although that doesn't mean someone DIDN'T beat me to the idea, but I can hope...)GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-92070306415314156812010-06-19T18:46:24.851-04:002010-06-19T18:46:24.851-04:00"As for me writing a book"
Ed, I wasn&#..."As for me writing a book"<br /><br />Ed, I wasn't referring to you there. (I can't tell for sure, but it seems as if you think I was, so just in case, I want to clarify that.) I was just providing a further example to support my position, one I've hears many writers comment about.<br /><br />BTW, good luck with your book!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23108934088235620812010-06-19T18:35:45.345-04:002010-06-19T18:35:45.345-04:00"I *know* I have yolk on my socks, but I don&..."I *know* I have yolk on my socks, but I don't yet know where it came from. These discussions are a small part of my attempt to find that out."<br /><br />Me too.<br /><br />"So, my question is, why do people have such a hard time understanding that this is *also* the case with a rich, complex field of study like philosophy?"<br /><br />I don't really have any objections to your philosophy per se; it's the theology that bugs me. In my opinion, theology is a magnificent house of cards, and I'm trying to figure out: "If I breathe on it, will it collapse?"<br /><br />As for me writing a book; I've been researching the subject matter for two years now, and haven't written much of anything yet. But like I said in another thread, it's a novel with the "Great Debate" as plot element and background, not a scholarly work.<br /><br />And yeah, writing is difficult.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23989743706845461752010-06-19T18:13:55.357-04:002010-06-19T18:13:55.357-04:00"Yeah, but you keep telling us that you got t..."Yeah, but you keep telling us that you got to the other side with no egg on your socks."<br /><br />Huh? When have I ever said that? Now, sure, I don't think any of the arguments I defend are fallacious (i.e. have logical problems), since, if I did, I wouldn't defend them. I may be wrong about that, of course, but that's where I stand right now. However, I do concede, and have always conceded, that while the arguments I defend are, in my opinion, logically valid, I cannot prove that their premises are true in most cases. The most I can say is that I believe the premises in the arguments I defend are more plausibly true than their denials. So, there's plenty of room for rational disagreement with me; I've always said that you can disagree with me without violating *any* epistemic duties. So, I guess I just don't know what you mean when you say I think my socks are egg free.<br /><br />Let me put it this way: in logic, there's a paradox called the 'preface paradox.' From the SEP:<br /><br />"In D. C. Makinson's (1965) preface paradox, an author believes each of the assertions in his book. But since the author regards himself as fallible, he believes the conjunction of all his assertions is false. If the agglomeration principle holds, (Bp & Bq) → B(p & q), the author must both believe and disbelieve the conjunction of all the assertions in his book."<br /><br />See, we're all in that position: We both (1) believe that the beliefs we're willing to defend are true (or probable), and (2) know that we're fallible, and that we're almost certainly going wrong somewhere. So, with respect to (2), I *know* I have yolk on my socks, but I don't yet know where it came from. These discussions are a small part of my attempt to find that out.<br /><br />Now Ed, you're an engineer, right? Imagine if I, someone with no experience studying, discussing, practicing, etc. real world engineering came along with a host of strongly held opinions about complex issues in engineering and began to both defend my claims and attack yours. Now, there is one chance in a million that I'm an engineering genius, and that everything I say is right, but you'd have to admit that chances are you'll see right off the bat that I have no idea what I'm talking about, that I couldn't distinguish the sort of engineer you are from a railroad engineer, and that I'm in need of some serious remedial work. So, my question is, why do people have such a hard time understanding that this is *also* the case with a rich, complex field of study like philosophy? (I understand it's also true of literature: everyone tells professional writers, "yeah, I'm thinking about writing a book myself" when they haven't the foggiest notion of what being an author really involves. It's insulting, since it treats that particular discipline as if it's something that anyone, regardless of background, education or intelligence can just jump right into and understand immediately, when in fact it takes years of hard work and a lot of sweat to get a hold of the fundamentals alone.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-22264564476571524172010-06-19T16:19:09.113-04:002010-06-19T16:19:09.113-04:00Thanks Eric, I'll definitely try my best to ke...Thanks Eric, I'll definitely try my best to keep that in mind. John is right about you that you are someone one can learn from.<br /><br />AndreIgnerant Phoolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13166860576010836032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43583005580120551192010-06-19T15:44:06.814-04:002010-06-19T15:44:06.814-04:00I agree with Ed. Eric you don't respect the r...I agree with Ed. Eric you don't respect the reasoning of others here but only engage in pedantry when your ideas are challenged.<br /><br />Also, I once again am amazed by your passion for modal logic when your reasoning abilities could be applied to understanding the crimes perpetrated by the current papacy and deconstructing the faith's claims to authority.<br /><br />But no, you lecture us on modal logic technicalities while proudly defending your Roman Catholic faith as if it offers moral status despite that institution's recent criminal culpability. <br /><br />Again I shake my head at an earnest boy defending the wrong things probably due to emotional or psychological defects.<br /><br />It reads like narcissism and betrays the de facto meaning of philosophy as a discipline in service to the love of wisdom.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75235019280269183732010-06-19T14:42:50.092-04:002010-06-19T14:42:50.092-04:00"Hey, this is big: for once one of us has sai..."Hey, this is big: for once one of us has said something we can both agree with! Ed, don't you realize that I'm in that same room with you, carefully navigating my way among the fragile eggs?"<br /><br />Yeah, but you keep telling us that you got to the other side with no egg on your socks.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-60902490220167147772010-06-19T14:20:27.979-04:002010-06-19T14:20:27.979-04:00"Okay, I'll grant Plantinga's possibi..."Okay, I'll grant Plantinga's possibility. What I don't understand is, why do I need Jesus as a savior from that conclusion?"<br /><br />Andre, "that conclusion" is only that the logical problem of evil is refuted, i.e. there is no contradiction in claiming both that God is good (morally perfect, omnibenevolent, or whatever) and that there is evil in the world. It does not follow from Plantinga's argument that God exists (since, while the logical problem of evil may fail, other arguments may succeed, such as the evidential problem of evil), that Jesus is God, that you need a savior, etc. None of this follows from Plantinga's defense.<br /><br />When you evaluate an argument, you have to take care to understand precisely what the conclusion is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-2619445909218133282010-06-19T13:33:28.722-04:002010-06-19T13:33:28.722-04:00"Discussing this stuff with you, Eric, is lik..."Discussing this stuff with you, Eric, is like trying to walk through a room whose floor is covered with eggs while trying to reach the door on the other side."<br /><br />Hey, this is big: for once one of us has said something we can both agree with! Ed, don't you realize that I'm in that same room with you, carefully navigating my way among the fragile eggs? Ed, this is what *all* rigorous reasoning, about anything is like! There are always *far* more ways to go wrong than right, since in the end, there's only *one* way everything in fact is, and it's that that we're reasoning about.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-71672466241910912412010-06-19T13:28:01.408-04:002010-06-19T13:28:01.408-04:00Because it's "possible"?Because it's "possible"?GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27674127708048374082010-06-19T13:27:44.177-04:002010-06-19T13:27:44.177-04:00Okay, I'll grant Plantinga's possibility. ...Okay, I'll grant Plantinga's possibility. What I don't understand is, why do I need Jesus as a savior from that conclusion? I would suppose it follows that not only could he not "create a world containing moral good but no moral evil", but he also could not have created it without the need of Jesus' death and resurrection to atone for our "sins", right? I say this because it is ironic that God hates this moral evil or sin so much and had no choice any other way, yet he also has a solution by way of Jesus' crucifixion/sacrifice. Obviously, if what I say follows, there are many other inconsistencies and contradictions involved with the teachings and doctrines of Christianity(ies) that must be discussed. For example, I don't see how it can be said that God could have morally "possible" good reasons for "allowing" evil, or that it was out of his goodness he gave us free will, if it is the possibility that he could not create the world without moral good and evil.<br /><br />Eric, do you mind helping me to understand what is I may be missing in your point of view.<br /><br />AndreIgnerant Phoolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13166860576010836032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-56338306773826841232010-06-19T13:27:34.881-04:002010-06-19T13:27:34.881-04:00OK, if Plantinga's Free Will Defense makes wea...OK, if Plantinga's Free Will Defense makes weak claims, then why are you defending it?GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-2972592533193418102010-06-19T13:26:23.467-04:002010-06-19T13:26:23.467-04:00I can see it, but you're still hung up on the ...I can see it, but you're still hung up on the semantics.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.com