The Authors Here At DC!!
As an Amazon Associate John earns a small amount of money from purchases made from these links. Buying anything through them helps fund his work here at DC, and is greatly appreciated!
Important Books
As an Amazon Associate John earns a small amount of money from purchases made from these links. Buying anything through them helps fund his work here at DC, and is greatly appreciated!
48 comments:
Rather simplistic. If God could just disappear, then the being wasn't God in the first place, etc.
However, a fairer question would be: what does it look like when God removes his hand from a nation in judgement?
K
Not related to topic...
Unseemly characters are quoting my comments. For that reason I zapped all previous comments and will resume with a pseudonym.
The question "what if God disappeared?" is on par with the same question "What if Santa Claus disappeared?"...
they'd both have to exist in the first place in order to disappear.
Kevin
"However, a fairer question would be: what does it look like when God removes his hand from a nation in judgement?"
That remark is as equally free of meaning as your premise that a God who is not currently present in this universe is no God at all. You may so define your idea of God but that does not make such definition universal. According to Gen 3:9 the OT God was not present in all parts of the Garden of Eden or he wouldn't have had to call out to find Adam. But that is the point of the original question - how could we possibly know if God had disappeared when we cannot show that He was ever present?
Perhaps I could ask you to support your contention by naming those nations from whom God has not yet removed or has replaced his hand and for your evidence supporting the claim. The evidence of the Old Testament is that nations could do terrible things to other nations with the support of God.
In contrast, the New Testament teaches that responsibility devolves not on nations but on individuals except, of course, for the case of Christianity's curse on the Jews for the death of one particular Jew at the hands of the Romans.
According to Gen 3:9 the OT God was not present in all parts of the Garden of Eden or he wouldn't have had to call out to find Adam. But that is the point of the original question - how could we possibly know if God had disappeared when we cannot show that He was ever present?
KH> The (apparently) Christian author of the video was asking an internal question. I think a more consistent internal question would be a consideration of God's judgements on nations (and individuals) in the Scriptures.
Genesis 3:9 is an example of various theophanies - and represents a communicative rhethorical question from God.
The existence of God is an external question to the video.
Samphire: If you look at the full account of the conversation between God and Adam & Eve, it becomes quite apparent why God called out to them: that is, to elicit a confession.
I do think it's a bit naive to presume God had no idea where they were considering the same author just finished telling everyone the same God created the entire universe as we know it.
Xians are so delusional they don't even understand satire. Geeez.
"same author just finished telling everyone the same God created the entire universe as we know it."
No not as "we" in the 21st century know it but as the primative author believed it to be. We know that there is no "firmament which the stars are placed in," nor that it has to "open" in order to let the "waters above" rain on the earth below. Nor is there 4 pillars that the earth rests on, nor is the earth a circle (which is not a sphere!).
Seems like the author of genesis "inspired revealed knowledge" was totally wrong. As is the rest of the superstitous nonsense in the bible.
Kevin,
Christians claim God is an intelligent agent that interacts with our day to day existence.
"What if God Disappeared" is a thought experiment designed to challenge this claim by highlighting how illogical such claims are if followed though to their conclusions.
As such, I don't see how it's not a 'fair' question, which merits a response.
Hometown, I agree with you. The Bible read literally is a very naive book, a fact that Curran takes great comical advantage of in making his humourous videos.
KH (when I first saw your initials I thought Kent Hovind had escaped), after first overcoming your difficulty in defining what constitutes a nation, how would you frame your “internal questions” to determine God’s judgement on, say, the Bangladeshis who live in a land which suffers frequent serious flooding.
And how has the Maldivian nation offended God during a time of rising sea levels by inhabiting a land none of which is at an altitude greater than 6 feet?
Many of the classical arguments for god's existence lead to the conclusion that god is a sustaining cause, i.e. that if god disappeared, so would existence itself. (On this view, god is the ground of being, and hence 'more fundamental' than even existence, though still not himself a category.) Think about what would happen to the sounds of Schubert's Great C major symphony if the orchestra were to disappear, and you'll get the idea.
When non believers ask, "If God is real, then why isn't ________ evident?" believers have gone to great gymnastic lengths to explain why God acts in ways that perfectly hide his existence. That is, God has always got a good reason, we are told, for making the world look just like it would if there were no God. Some of these scenarios seem to be possible, at least. But the obvious and much easier answer is "There isn't one." where the question is, "Why does God go to such great lengths to hide every indicator of his existence?"
So the answer to "what if God disappeared?" is "things would look just like they look now." There isn't one.
MM
"for making the world look just like it would if there were no God."
Is it the case that the world looks just like it would if there were no god? Let's call our world W. Couldn't we posit possible worlds in which it is less evident than in W that god exists? If so, then it's not the case that W looks just like it would if there were no god. For example, take a world (W') that is eternal, in which no one believes in god, in which there is no fine-tuning problem, and in which no one experiences happiness, goodness, etc. So, where could it be said more accurately that 'the world looks just like it would if there were no god' -- in W or W'? But can't we posit possible worlds in which it looks even less like god exists than W'?
Good video, everytime I forget about how stupid my old christian beliefs were, i read or watch something like this to remind me.
One good way to argue against Christianity is to just to remind them of the stupid things they believe, without the sugar coating and special terminology.
Christians simply do not believe in the god found in the bible. They have a christian evangelical idol that has evolved over the years that "dances in fields of grace" with his children (i love to listen to the idiocy of contemporary christian music, it is my vice).
Simple minds like Kevin wouldn't know what to do if he acknowledged the fact that his god doesn't exist. In his fantasy world his god's "hand" is behind every act, working everything according to his whims.
The reality is the israelites (ancient canaanites) created a god in their image (with feet, nostrils, arms, and a backside to boot!) who is easily angered, needs to be appeased, and sends disasters on those that displease him and protects those that obey him. An insecure, petty, capricious god that threatens to wipe feces in people's faces (mal 2:3) and make them eat their own children (deu 28:53). Everyone sing "our god is an awesome god"
A nice simile, Eric. But if we are listening to the symphony through loudspeakers how do we know if we are hearing a live performance or a recording or whether it is the Berlin Philharmonic or the LSO?
Christianity for me is more akin to the Portsmouth Symphonia:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgKDKyl-EKE
Enjoy.
As such, I don't see how it's not a 'fair' question, which merits a response.
KH> It IS a fair question. I just said my question was "fairer" in light of the philosophical problems with the former.
BTW, another aspect of God's suddenly disappearing, from a biblical standpoint, would be whether the universe would hold together, being that God sustains it.
"...how would you frame your “internal questions” to determine God’s judgement on, say, the Bangladeshis who live in a land which suffers frequent serious flooding.
KH> Biblical theology holds that there is an overarching judgement of God on a fallen world, and that there are specific judgements of God within the fallen world.
One should never presume to know that a disaster (e.g. Katrina) is a specific judgement of God. But one can peruse the Scriptures for revealed examples of them.
Kevin,
Are you referring to disasters mentioned in the Bible or to present day happenings? I dislike it intensely when posters are too coy to present specifics.
Is it the case that the world looks just like it would if there were no god? Let's call our world W. Couldn't we posit possible worlds in which it is less evident than in W that god exists?
Eric,
If you're going to enter God's omnipotence and omniscience as the means in which God creates the universe, then we should expect to see a universe that clearly reflects these proprties. Otherwise, we have no way of linking God to it's creation due to his supposed abilities.
To use an analogy, if you're going to claim that a man was personally responsible for the death of a politician because he is an expert marksman, the politician needs to have been killed by a high powered rifle from a long distance. If this is not the case, then the particular ability the man has cannot be used to link him to this particular crime.
For example, take a world (W') that is eternal, in which no one believes in god, in which there is no fine-tuning problem, and in which no one experiences happiness, goodness, etc.
There is no clear indication that these factors could only exist in a universe with the assistance of a being with God's supposed properties.
Nor is it even clear that It's possible for a being to have said properties to exist.
For example, the Bible depicts God a being that is merely smarter and more powerful than human beings. He has regrets, he is jealous, etc. God's is conveniently infinite when it comes to his ability but not infinite in his tolerance. He is perfectly self-sufficient, yet he wants things. This is the kind of 'super being' we'd expect human beings to invent.
The fine tuning argument is probably the best argument I've heard, but it's firmly planted in an area in which so little is known. The same can be said regarding a beginning of the universe. We simply do not know if the universe took some other form before the big bang. Moments before, everything could have existed in a form similar to the center of a black hole. We simply have no way of describing either of these conditions. However, unlike Christianity, we have a strong model which describes how black holes are created.
Given our observable universe and God's supposed properties, we simply do not see this kind of link.
Instead, I think people believe God is responsible not because his involvement is clear, but because they want the underlying implications of such involvement. Objective morality, a divine purpose for their life, eternal life, a supernatural spokesperson for 'good behavior' etc.
However, I'd note that this is a one way street. It's not clear that God's involvement is necessary based on what we observe. It's only when you presuppose God's existence and involvement do these things necessarily follow by means of inserting him into the existing hierarchy.
KH> It IS a fair question. I just said my question was "fairer" in light of the philosophical problems with the former
As a thought experiment, it is immune from any supposed "philosophical problems."
Thought experiments are designed to simulate thinking "outside the box." Or, as John might say, thinking as an outsider.
As an atheist, I do this all the time when, for the sake of argument, I suppose that God does exist.
However, your response suggest that you're simply unwilling to do so.
Are you referring to disasters mentioned in the Bible or to present day happenings?
KH> I said, "But one can peruse the Scriptures for revealed examples of them".
However, your response suggest that you're simply unwilling to do so.
KH> Actually, I hold that Possible Worlds analysis is quite valid as well as more stringent thought experiments. I just suggested what I thought was a more realistic question.
For example, the Bible depicts God a being that is merely smarter and more powerful than human beings. He has regrets, he is jealous, etc. God's is conveniently infinite when it comes to his ability but not infinite in his tolerance. He is perfectly self-sufficient, yet he wants things. This is the kind of 'super being' we'd expect human beings to invent.
KH> First, God is sometimes depicted in terms that communicate his condescension to us, not merely in anthropomorphic terms. There is no problem with God having the omni-attributes yet expressing will and emotion. One can certainly have righteous anger, righteous jealousy (zeal), and so on.
He is not depicted as needing anything, but he is free to eternally desire and create from the standpoint of his perfection, etc.
Secondly, the God of the Bible is far from anything mankind would project into existence. He is too demanding, holy, and righteous.
When we attempt any legitimate comparision between man and God, we only see how terribly short we fall.
Scott, I think you missed my point.
Matt McCormick said that our world looks just as we would expect it to if there were no god. To counter this, I brought up a possible world which lacked certain features ours possesses, and in which it would seem reasonable to conclude that an even stronger case could be made that 'things are just as we would expect them to be if there were no god.' But if this is so, then it is not the case that our world looks just as we would expect it to if there were no god. Now, this doesn't of course mean that there is a god; rather, it simply points out the fact that the common 'if god exists, then why did he create a world that looks just as we would expect if he didn't?' question has much less force than many seem to think.
"Thought experiments are designed to simulate thinking "outside the box." Or, as John might say, thinking as an outsider."
This isn't exactly true, at least not in philosophy. Philosophers use thought experiments to either test our intuitions about a certain subject, or to isolate conceptual variables so that we may more easily and clearly think through their assumptions, consequences, etc.
KH> I said, "But one can peruse the Scriptures for revealed examples of them".
Exactly how are we to tell if the event preceded the prophecy or if the story of the prophecy preceded the event? Relying on a collection of stories told and retold orally for hundreds of years before being comminted to parchment is poor evidence for anything.
"What if God Disappeared?"
Benny Hinn and Maurice Cerrullo and others bank balances,wouldnt be at all happy about it :(
To counter this, I brought up a possible world which lacked certain features ours possesses, and in which it would seem reasonable to conclude that an even stronger case could be made that 'things are just as we would expect them to be if there were no god.' But if this is so, then it is not the case that our world looks just as we would expect it to if there were no god.
First, It's not clear that these features that you've identified are necessarily dependent on God. They only become necessary when you presuppose God's involvement in the universe by his supposed act of intentional creation.
Second, one could just as easily make the same claim in the opposite direction.
If God truly despises evil and is powerful enough to defeat it, then one could say a stronger case for God's existence would be made by a world that only contain human beings that were either neutral or good. Those who did not add to the overall goodness of the world (merely maintained the status quo) would still clearly fail to follow the example of Jesus.
Following your logic, it would be the case that our world looks just as if we would expect it to if there was no God.
Of course, Christianity incorporates evil in it's theology. But if Christianity is one of many attempts by humanity to explain what we observe, then the existence of evil must be woven into the explanation. Otherwise, it is incomplete as we observe that which we call "evil."
First, God is sometimes depicted in terms that communicate his condescension to us, not merely in anthropomorphic terms.
First, I realize this is how modern day Christians interpret these verses. But how do you know this is how the authors actually intended to depict God? Do we not see other omnipotent beings which display the same sort of human attributes in other religions in this time period?
Second, even if this interpretation is correct, you do not see a conflict with a perfect being who is patronizing? Should we follow God's example in situations when we have superior abilities or skills compared to others?
There is no problem with God having the omni-attributes yet expressing will and emotion.
Again, I realize you, and many other Christians have no problem with this kind of behavior. I'm asking, why this is a reasonable conclusion?
Because you wish there was a infinite being that was not infinitely tolerant, but infinitely just, wise and powerful? You feel more comfortable relating to a super being who gets angry and jealous like we do? Because that's the way God has always been described and you've simply accepted it as true?
The Christian definition of God merely appears to be simply taking what were identified as "good" attributes of human beings at the time and saying "these go to infinity". It appears to be a superlative without any logical implications. God is the most super awesome infinite being that we could ever imagine. It's incredibly simplistic.
If God really can do the things Christians claim he can, than these abilities have consequences. Otherwise, why should we think one of the consequences of God's infinite properties (power and knowledge) would be our universe?
Further evidence of this is how the "supernatural power" God supposedly wields is always defined in a negative manner. We've already figured out who to strip down a single cell organism to the smallest set of genes to sustain life, which allows us to customize them to digest oil from tanker spills and other toxic chemicals. Within the next 50 years, we might even figure how to create life from scratch. As such, the definition of God's supernatural power continually shrinks, as it as for thousands of years.
He is not depicted as needing anything, but he is free to eternally desire and create from the standpoint of his perfection, etc.
What do you get the man who has everything? If he has everything, then why would he want something else? If he can gain something, than he is not perfectly complete. Again, this appears to be another simplistic label applied to God without considering it's implications.
Secondly, the God of the Bible is far from anything mankind would project into existence. He is too demanding, holy, and righteous.
First, this would not be the first time human beings have set unreasonable goals for themselves or others.
Second, it's easy to get to God who is holy, demanding an righteous.
We observe what we call good and evil in the universe. To explain it, we personify good and evil. However, we want good to ultimately triumph, so we make good more powerful than evil and assign it the role of creating the universe. As the personification of goodness itself, how else could this being behave? What other kind of demands could it make of us?
"First, It's not clear that these features that you've identified are *necessarily dependent* on God."
Hi Scott
Of course, but again, you seem to have missed the point. My argument doesn't need to identify features of the world that are 'necessarily dependent' on god; after all, the bar has been set much lower by the proposition I'm criticizing, i.e. how things *appear*. Now, would you honestly want to argue that a possible world W' that is eternal, that completely lacks god-belief, that completely lacks all experiences of goodness and happiness, and that has no fine tuning problem whatsoever could not be said to look, to an even greater degree than our actual world, 'just as one would expect it to if there were no god'?
Think about it this way: if you want to assert that our world looks just as we would expect if there were no god, then you're assuming that if the world had certain features -- features it lacks -- it would look 'more like' a world in which there were a god. My argument makes the same kind of move, but in the opposite direction, by removing features of this world that are minimally consistent with the existence of a god (and, more specifically, of a creator god). This is not to say that these features can only be explained by the existence of god, *but that they make it more plausible to claim that it's possible that such a god exists than it would be in their absence* (e.g. in W'); which is, of course, another way of saying that this world *does not* look exactly as we would expect it would if there were no god (given possible worlds like W'), which was my only point all along.
Exactly how are we to tell if the event preceded the prophecy or if the story of the prophecy preceded the event? Relying on a collection of stories told and retold orally for hundreds of years before being comminted to parchment is poor evidence for anything.
I think one would have to examine the time period of the prophetic declaration and the alleged fulfillment. I think the Tyre and Sidon prophecies in Ezekiel are real compelling. The kingdom was indeed literally scraped bare and became a place for spreading fishing nets, etc. I've seen pics from the 1940's of those very nets on that very location (may have to google them).
Many prophecies in Scripture are difficult to retrofit back on to the initial declaration. Especially when it comes to Christ. The Isaiah 53 prophecies in particular.
by removing features of this world that are minimally consistent with the existence of a god (and, more specifically, of a creator god). This is not to say that these features can only be explained by the existence of god, *but that they make it more plausible to claim that it's possible that such a god exists than it would be in their absence*
Eric,
The mere fact that Christianity lays claim to something doesn't make it's absence a stronger indicator that God does not exist.
For example, a lack of goodness or joy is not what I'd expect in a world without God. Nor do we know that our universe is not eternal any more than we know what happens in the center of a black hole. Last, I think our belief in God is a natural progression of human understanding (ala Daniel Dennet.) This position is based on solid research in several fields of discipline.
As such, I don't think it's quite as simple as your making it out to be.
However, If Christianity was created to explain our world over 2,000 years ago, then any world that lacked key features of that world could be considered one that was more likely to exist without the Christian God. This includes our present day world and that of the future. For example, a global, lasting peace without the return of Jesus would be a stronger indication of a world without the Christian God as supposedly there can be no true peace until he returns. So could the fact that Jesus did not return within a generation. Our discoveries in cosmology, biology, meteorology, etc. which were falsely accounted for by the Christian God, could also be stronger indications.
However, if we move beyond Christianity, one could always create some kind of supernatural cast of characters which could account for any possible world you could conceive. Even the one you suggested. Any point on the spectrum, goodness and happiness or the lack there off could be explained by varying the supernatural balance of power in either direction.
For example, if, for the sake of argument, I was to associate what we see today with some kind of supernatural agency, I'd say that it's more likely to be the result of a completely good God who has a equally powerful, yet evil brother. It's much simpler account, don't you think? We do not need to make up so many convoluted reasons why God has not defeated evil, despite being powerful enough to do so. Of course, this wouldn't provide the kind of ending that human beings desire, so it's no surprise that it's not very popular.
Given the fact that any world can be accounted for by supernatural means, I think the real question is: what reasons do we have to suspect supernatural agency was responsible for world W?
Clearly, one could think of a world with features that indicate supernatural agency is much more likely than ours. When we pray to heal a loved one, we'd see clear results. In the case of Christianity, Jesus could even appear to perform the miracle in person. Clear evidence of Jesus' miracles, along with evidence of God's involvement in creating the universe and designing human beings could have been left behind.
How about the opposite direction? Could there a world W where supernatural agency is less evident than ours?
In our current world, people seem to think God is behind specific events, but in cases we can verify this, such as praying for a loved one to be healed, God's agency appears to be hidden in random noise. Nor do people seems to agree as to what events supernatural agency is responsible for. But this is not a surprise, as we observe human beings falsely detecting agency in a wide range of non-supernatural areas. In addition, such a response would have a evolutionary advantage against predators in the wild and in modern day hostile environments, such as big cities, combat situations, etc.
As such, I'm not sure how much you actually gain by positing a world where people do not believe in supernatural agency, while still getting results that appear random or are unfalsifiable.
"How about the opposite direction? Could there a world W where supernatural agency is less evident than ours?"
Scott, I notice that you asked the key question above, but failed to even address it!
Scott, I notice that you asked the key question above, but failed to even address it!
Eric,
Actually I did address this question.
As such, I'm not sure how much you actually gain by positing a world where people do not believe in supernatural agency, while still getting results that appear random or are unfalsifiable.
We know people are designed to detect agency where there is none. This is a fact. And we know that, in cases where we can verify claims of supernatural agency detection, such as prayer, we find the results equal random noise. Were left with unfalsifiable claims.
So a world W, where people do not falsely believe in a supernatural agency (or unfalsifiable agency) isn't really that different from what we see today. Nor does Christianity hold an exclusive claim to belief in false agency.
You might posit a world W where the claims of agency were not unfalsifiable, but God's agency is unfalsifiable due to his very definition.
You'd have to posit a world W with a God that really isn't God.
Again, I don't really see how much you really gain by positing this possible world.
Is there another possible world W where agency is less evident which I've missed? (other than people not believing in agency that apparently doesan't exist or is unfalsifiable?)
Remember, once we move beyond Christianity, any world with any set of features could be accounted for by constructing a particular cast of supernatural characters. What matters is how clear is it that agency is actually responsible for the features of world W.
Scott, let me put it this way: ignore the features I presented and answer this question -- Is there any feature our world possesses that makes it seem more plausible, given that feature, that god exists? Keep in mind, I'm not talking about necessary logical connections, hard evidence, etc. but just about how things *appear*. As I said earlier, I'm not setting the bar low; the bar was set low by the comment I'm criticizing.
This is in essence an appeal to intuitions, and we may simply have different ones with respect to this question. However, it seems to me that an even stronger case could be made that a creator god probably does not exist in an eternal world with no fine tuning problem in which all intelligent life forms both lack belief in god and never experience happiness or goodness. To argue that my intuitions are wrong here, it seems to me that you'd have to be willing to say that if we were to discover a physical answer to the fine tuning problem tomorrow; and if we were to discover tomorrow that the universe didn't have a beginning in space and time; and if theistic belief were to disappear from the planet; and if all experiences of goodness and happiness were to disappear from the world; ***that all these changes wouldn't strengthen the atheist's case *in the slightest* ***. I sincerely doubt that you honestly believe this to be the case. But if you concede that a change in these factors would strengthen the atheist's case, then you've conceded that this world does not look exactly as we would expect it to if god didn't exist (since we can see that in the case I've set out above describes a world in which it looks even more likely that god doesn't exist).
"We know people are designed to detect agency where there is none. This is a fact. And we know that, in cases where we can verify claims of supernatural agency detection, such as prayer, we find the results equal random noise. Were left with unfalsifiable claims."
If we're designed to detect agency where it's not, it follows that we're designed to detect agency as such 9since we're talking about a hyperactive agency detector). Now, if in our world 90%+ of all the people who have ever lived have claimed to 'detect' the existence of a transcendent being(s), and if people are 'designed' to detect agency, wouldn't it seem to be the case that in a world where *no one* claimed to detect such a transcendent agency, it could more plausibly be said, 'Gee, this world looks exactly as it would if there were no god'? Not only that, but the god we're talking about is said to have an interest in his creatures knowing something about his existence; hence, a world in which no one believes in any transcendence looks more like a world in which a god who would like his creatures to know about his existence doesn't exist than a world in which 90%+ of all the intelligent beings who have ever lived have believed, in some sense, in the existence of a transcendent being.
KH>First, God is sometimes depicted in terms that communicate his condescension to us, not merely in anthropomorphic terms.
First, I realize this is how modern day Christians interpret these verses. But how do you know this is how the authors actually intended to depict God? Do we not see other omnipotent beings which display the same sort of human attributes in other religions in this time period?
KH> God expressed in anthropomorphic terms does not mean he does not exist. Also, the Jewish prophets went to pains to distinguish God from the pagan gods. There is nothing in paganism that approaches the profundity of "I AM" in my opinion.
Second, even if this interpretation is correct, you do not see a conflict with a perfect being who is patronizing? Should we follow God's example in situations when we have superior abilities or skills compared to others?
KH> Like a teacher who shows 2 apples plus 2 apples, she may say, "Now I see that I have four apples". It's not patronizing if the students truly don't know or can't yet grasp something.
KH>There is no problem with God having the omni-attributes yet expressing will and emotion.
Again, I realize you, and many other Christians have no problem with this kind of behavior. I'm asking, why this is a reasonable conclusion?
Because you wish there was a infinite being that was not infinitely tolerant, but infinitely just, wise and powerful? You feel more comfortable relating to a super being who gets angry and jealous like we do? Because that's the way God has always been described and you've simply accepted it as true?
The Christian definition of God merely appears to be simply taking what were identified as "good" attributes of human beings at the time and saying "these go to infinity". It appears to be a superlative without any logical implications. God is the most super awesome infinite being that we could ever imagine. It's incredibly simplistic.
KH> Anselm thought it was incredibly profound! Bottom line: the existence of God is not determined via psychology.
If God really can do the things Christians claim he can, than these abilities have consequences. Otherwise, why should we think one of the consequences of God's infinite properties (power and knowledge) would be our universe?
KH> Are you really asking, "Why is what is what is?"
Further evidence of this is how the "supernatural power" God supposedly wields is always defined in a negative manner. We've already figured out who to strip down a single cell organism to the smallest set of genes to sustain life, which allows us to customize them to digest oil from tanker spills and other toxic chemicals. Within the next 50 years, we might even figure how to create life from scratch. As such, the definition of God's supernatural power continually shrinks, as it as for thousands of years.
KH> A group of scientists approached God and said, "God, we have progressed on par with you. We can create life!".
"Show Me", says God.
"Okay", said the scientists, "First we get a bunch of dirt..."
"Wait", said God, "Get your own dirt!".
KH> He is not depicted as needing anything, but he is free to eternally desire and create from the standpoint of his perfection, etc.
What do you get the man who has everything? If he has everything, then why would he want something else? If he can gain something, than he is not perfectly complete. Again, this appears to be another simplistic label applied to God without considering it's implications.
KH> First, despite that I know what you mean, God is not a man. Secondly, what do you give the man who has everything? Relationship. Part of perfection could well be the recognition of the reciprocal nature of love
KH> Secondly, the God of the Bible is far from anything mankind would project into existence. He is too demanding, holy, and righteous.
First, this would not be the first time human beings have set unreasonable goals for themselves or others.
Second, it's easy to get to God who is holy, demanding an righteous.
We observe what we call good and evil in the universe. To explain it, we personify good and evil. However, we want good to ultimately triumph, so we make good more powerful than evil and assign it the role of creating the universe. As the personification of goodness itself, how else could this being behave? What other kind of demands could it make of us?
KH> This is Ludwig Feuerbach in a nutshell. Philosophers have pointed out several flaws with his "God as projection" theory.
1). The existence of God is not determined via human psychology.
2). To say God is "nothing but" requires "more than" knowledge. One would have to go beyond the human mind in order to know there is nothing beyond the human mind, which is self-defeating.
3). The sword cuts both ways. Atheism could just as well be a projection.
4). Feuerbach, according to Barth, was a "non-knower of death", and a "mis-knower of evil". Anyone who knew that men are evil from head to toe and that we must die, would consider it the most illusory of illusions to suppose that the essence of God is the essence of man!
Is there any feature our world possesses that makes it seem more plausible, given that feature, that god exists? Keep in mind, I'm not talking about necessary logical connections, hard evidence, etc. but just about how things *appear*.
Eric,
I could say that a lack of joy and goodness was cause by an evil God. Or a God that has a stronger evil adversary. Or a God that, for some mysterious reason, must completely repress these features to allow Goodness to eventually win out. This is not very different from the Christian claim that the evil we see is necessary for the greater good.
To argue that my intuitions are wrong here, it seems to me that you'd have to be willing to say that if we were to discover a physical answer to the fine tuning problem tomorrow; and if we were to discover tomorrow that the universe didn't have a beginning in space and time; and if theistic belief were to disappear from the planet; and if all experiences of goodness and happiness were to disappear from the world; ***that all these changes wouldn't strengthen the atheist's case *in the slightest* ***.
First, we know that space and time, as we know it, did begin with the big bang. What I'm saying is that it's possible that the universe existed in some other form, which we currently cannot describe. We know such a state is likely to exist as the center of black holes currently defy such description. If God fine tuned the universe, then why is it so hostile to life? Why will our sun vaporize our planet when it turns into a red giant? Why are we on a collision course with the Andromeda galaxy? As such, I simply put these kind of arguments in a category of unknown. It's not an advantage in either camp. Should we learn more, its possible information might lend more weight to one side or another. Until then, it's a wash.
Second, you believe these things are caused by the agency of particular supernatural cast of characters. Had the world been different, it's likely some other cast of supernatural beings would have been manufactured as agents to explain them. This is part of human nature.
If you posit a world W where human begins only tend to assume natural agency, then you've excluded an entire range of phenomenon which, at the time, have no known natural cause. Human beings couldn't speculate on things that had no known natural cause until they learned of one. For example, lightning initially had no known natural cause, as such, in such a world, humans could not have attempted to assign agency to it until we discovered how lighting naturally occurred.
Given that the supernatural is defined as a negative of nature, This doesn't seem to provide much in they way of an alternate definition.
Now, if in our world 90%+ of all the people who have ever lived have claimed to 'detect' the existence of a transcendent being(s), and if people are 'designed' to detect agency, wouldn't it seem to be the case that in a world where *no one* claimed to detect such a transcendent agency, it could more plausibly be said, 'Gee, this world looks exactly as it would if there were no god'?
Again, you've limited the kind of phenomena in which people try to detect agency based on their current knowledge. It doesn't seem logical that people would not exhibit agency detection before hand, but then suddenly do so after a natural cause was found.
Sure, you could posit such a world, but it seems very contrived.
A world W where life has no tendency to detect agency at all seems unlikely to have survived. You'd need to posit a world without the need for agency detection at all, which again seems very contrived.
God expressed in anthropomorphic terms does not mean he does not exist.
Not my claim. This was a response to your claim that God having emotions was not a conflict God's other properties, such as being "perfect", or "infinite."
Anselm thought it was incredibly profound! Bottom line: the existence of God is not determined via psychology.
Argument from authority? Special pleading?
KH> Are you really asking, "Why is what is what is?"
If you're going to claim that x or z was a consequence of God's infinite nature, then this same infinite nature would have other consequences and even contradictions. However, it seems that God's infinite nature only has consequences when it suits your needs.
Wait", said God, "Get your own dirt!".
God's perceived ability has retreated in step with our discoveries of nature. For example, we no longer thing God causes lightning or opens a woman's womb. Supernatural is defined as a negative.
Secondly, what do you give the man who has everything? Relationship. Part of perfection could well be the recognition of the reciprocal nature of love
It is possible for God not have a relationship with me? If so, then he would be lacking said relationship. If said relationship has value to him, would the lack of it not be a loss? But you claim that God lacks nothing. How is this possible?
his is Ludwig Feuerbach in a nutshell. Philosophers have pointed out several flaws with his "God as projection" theory.
This is was a response to your claim that "the God of the Bible is far from anything mankind would project into existence." It's not an argument that God does not exist via psychology.
Not my claim. This was a response to your claim that God having emotions was not a conflict God's other properties, such as being "perfect", or "infinite."
KH> Will and emotion can derive from God's perfect nature or ontological status.
Argument from authority? Special pleading?
KH> It is appropriate to quote experts or specialists in their field. It merely adds weight to the purported evidence.
Special pleading? Not at all. God's existence is not merely a psychological question.
If you're going to claim that x or z was a consequence of God's infinite nature, then this same infinite nature would have other consequences and even contradictions. However, it seems that God's infinite nature only has consequences when it suits your needs.
KH> Where have you shown that God's omni-attributes result in contradictions?
God's perceived ability has retreated in step with our discoveries of nature. For example, we no longer thing God causes lightning or opens a woman's womb. Supernatural is defined as a negative.
KH> We still must deal with where the material scientists can manipulate came from. My point stands.
Second, an understanding of Secondary Causation and also arguing from what we know (not from what we don't know) clears up any God of the Gaps problems.
It is possible for God not have a relationship with me? If so, then he would be lacking said relationship. If said relationship has value to him, would the lack of it not be a loss? But you claim that God lacks nothing. How is this possible?
KH> Again, God's freely desiring relationship with his creatures does not entail that he lacks something, only that he desires something which follows accidentally from his perfect nature.
Wanting what is best for another is also a sign of perfection and integration. He desires to give us the ultimate opportunity: relationship with himself.
This is was a response to your claim that "the God of the Bible is far from anything mankind would project into existence." It's not an argument that God does not exist via psychology.
KH> Then I agree it is a moot point. God as an imagined goal is therefore not an issue.
Kevin,
Here's my dilemma.
Christianity claims that the universe we observe is a consequence of God's nature. In addition, it claims another consequence is that God's decisions / actions / abilities are beyond reproach. Christianity claims that God is perfectly self sufficient and requires nothing. He would be no less great or had lost anything had he not created human beings.
However, when I repeat God's nature to you, which is defined by and is necessary to support the claims of Christianity, then follow them to what would be their logical consequences in any other domain, you take issue with not with with my definition of God, but with the particular consequences. Nor do you explain why they are not consequences. You merely assert that they are not, or say that someone thinks the lack of such a consequence is "profound."
Why is this? Somewhere between the definition of God's nature and the consequences of said nature, we have a disconnect.
Is my definition wrong? How are we getting lost? Am I putting words in your mouth?
For example, we know that Anger is a human condition. Not only does it occur when we are upset about someone else's actions, but it can also be caused by the appearance of specific situation or natural outcome. In other words, anger can arise in the absence of a particular being which is the target of our anger. Anger is also a physiological condition. When we see someone who is angry, we use it as a warning or an indication they has reached a particular limit and are moving away from a rational means of dealing with the situation. Instead, they have started to invoke a kind of primal flight or fight mechanism which is attempting to resolve the situation.
As such, what reason do we have to think that a perfect, immaterial being who created the universe would experience anger? Why would God get angry at anyone? Would God find himself in an unexpected situation which was beyond rational means of his resolution? Would an all powerful and all knowing God benefit from such behavior? If God intentionally created beings so they could reject him, then why get angry at them if they did so? Clearly, this would be irrational behavior, and clearly you do not think God is irrational.
Instead, you most likely think the Christian claim that God created us in his image is true, and since we get angry, so God would as well. In addition, the Bible depicts God as getting angry. End of story. This isn't based on critical thinking, it's dogma. Terms such as "righteous anger" appear to be nonsense.
Where have you shown that God's omni-attributes result in contradictions?
Because your definition of God depends on him only being infinite when it suits your needs. Why isn't God also infinitely tolerant? Infinitely forgiving? Why does God have boundaries (God is separate from us), yet he he is infinite and immaterial?
Not to mention all of the issues Gary Charbonneau recently brought up in this thread.
We still must deal with where the material scientists can manipulate came from. My point stands.
Again, here's my dilemma. When a star collapses on itself, it creates a black hole. We have significant evidence that suggest black holes really do exist. We've seen them formed from the aftermath of supernovas and recently discovered that likely every galaxy has a supermassive black hold in it's center. However, our current models simply cannot describe the conditions in the core of a black hole. They just stop working. So, here's a concrete example of how a series of natural events that have led to conditions that deify our very definition of space and time. As such, it seems clear our definition must be incomplete. Or are you suggesting that the inside of a black hole is supernatural?
Second, an understanding of Secondary Causation and also arguing from what we know (not from what we don't know) clears up any God of the Gaps problems.
What understanding? What you have is an assertion based on a negative. I'd have more of an explanation by the claiming that our universe was the result of a black hole forming in some other universe, which could have been formed from another black hole in another universe, etc. However, this does not meet the criteria necessary to form a solid theory. We simply do not have enough information to come to any kind of reasonable conclusion. Saying "God did seems" to only occur when we lack understanding in a particular area and untimely ends up being disproved if we do gain understanding.
only that he desires something which follows accidentally from his perfect nature.
I'm sorry, I have no idea how God could accidentally desire a relationship with us.
Then I agree it is a moot point. God as an imagined goal is therefore not an issue.
The question is, what is most probable: God creating human beings or human beings creating God? Hume's argument was strong enough in his day. Add what we know now about human behavior, biology and neurology, God's existence appears extremely unlikely.
there are two ideas running through this video. The first is phenomenological, the second is metaphysical.
(1) If the phenomena of belief in God (or religious belief in general) disappeared, people would not despair or turn to relativism, and people would still retain a morality much like we already observe - that is to minimize suffering, not torturing babies for fun, curing diseases, providing natural disaster relief, not killing, not raping, not committing beastiality, etc...
(2) If God doesn't exist in reality, morals, meaning, and significance would still exist.
(1) Is a very interesting claim, because it does not necessarily entail that God does not exist. In fact, it resurrects classical moral arguments FOR the existence of God, because it asserts that there are some morals which transcend culture, experience, and belief system. So, I take (1) to be a pretty powerful premise supporting classical moral arguments for the existence of God.
(2) could be true, but what would be the basis for morals, if any? Some version of evolutionary ethics, social contract theory, universal presrcriptivism, deontology, consequentialism, pragmatism, intuitionism, hedonism, virtue ethics, what?
It would not be fair to treat (2) fully without a developed alternative ethical theory.
"Secondly, the God of the Bible is far from anything mankind would project into existence. He is too demanding, holy, and righteous."
Don't forget cruel and unjust!
Conor wrote: (2) could be true, but what would be the basis for morals, if any? Some version of evolutionary ethics, social contract theory, universal presrcriptivism, deontology, consequentialism, pragmatism, intuitionism, hedonism, virtue ethics, what?
It would not be fair to treat (2) fully without a developed alternative ethical theory.
Conor, this assumes that (1) is actually more "fully developed" than (2).
That God is somehow the very definition of morality and could not act in an unmoral way isn't "fully developed." Even C. S. Lewis seems to think it's "fine-spun speculation" designed to "save" Christianity from the very same problem.
But it might be permissible to lay down two negations: that God neither obeys nor creates the moral law. The good is uncreated; it could never have been otherwise; it has in it no shadow of contingency; it lies, as Plato said, on the other side of existence. [But since only God admits of no contingency, we must say that] God is not merely good, but goodness; goodness is not merely divine, but God.
These may seem like fine-spun speculations: yet I believe that nothing short of this can save us. A Christianity which does not see moral and religious experience converging to meet at infinity … has nothing, in the long run, to divide it from devil worship.
Scott,
Perhaps I was sloppy. I was operating from the perspective of, "Does this argument diminish or defeat warrant for Christian belief?"
(1)certainly doesn't because it does not even claim that God does not exist, thus it cannot possibly challenge the believer's belief, "God exists."
(2) doesn't defeat the warrant for Christian belief because it is an unsubstantiated assertion, not an argument.
Theists generally believe that God is a necessary being, and thus asking if God could cause himself not to exist is nonsense. So when he asks the question "What if God ceased to exist," he's really asking, if anything, what if he doesn't exist? and what if everyone ceased to believe? Because if he does exist, he exists necessarily. This talk of ceasing to exist is truly nonsensical. If God ever existed in the past, he necessarily continues to exist.
Further, if the claim is that God never existed, then that is a claim that is unsubstantiated by argument in the video.
There seems to be some idea about atheists being able to behave morally. I don't think any sober Christian would deny this. First they can observe it. And second, they wouldn't be surprised at their observation since they believe that all humans are created in God's image. This also provides no challenge to belief.
At any rate, there doesn't seem to be anything of substance that should challenge the believer's faith in God. It pretty much amounts to the exclamation of "Hooray Atheism!"
If there was an argument in the video for some form of ethic where the Good was the result of something other than God (like evolution), and that argument was more probable than the theistic hypothesis for the origin of the Good, then there might be a defeater for the belief that God is the origin of the Good. However, given the extreme difficulty of establishing spooky dooky metaphysical objects like the Good and morals on a naturalistic worldview, I would expect such arguments to fail.
What if Jesus' bones were discovered?
in alternative world hypothesis where there is a reliable method to determine that, it would diminish warrant.
Replying to Conor Gilliland's "warrant" comment:
If Jesus' bones were discovered, seems to me it would be fundamentalist believers who would be most likely to experience a "warrant" as diminished. Fundamentalists seem to be able to believe in Jesus only if they feel certain that Christian doctrine is based on objective "fact." I suspect that the more liberal a Christian might be, the less likely the person would be to be acutely disturbed by the discovery of Jesus' bones and the more likely he or she would be to continue on with his or her practices and habits after the discovery of the bones as before, whereas fundamentalist believers might well feel so cheated and angry they might live very different lives after the discovery, throwing off the practices and habits they participated in before the discovery.
The gist of Christian belief is "A perfect God created us. We are inherantly sinful and imperfect and therefore need God."
Let me know when the dust from THAT implosion settles.
Post a Comment