A Christian Drive By
More and more Christians notice DC and then proceed to make a lot of comments on some of the posts here as if they had the answers to all of the questions posed. It's an interesting phenomena, really. Some of them move on thinking they shot "holes" through all of our arguments. Others get in our cross-fire and stay longer. We've got another one today named bfniii. Let's give him or her a big DC welcome. ;-)
107 comments:
b seems as brainwashed as all the rest John.
---
The problem is, they think they do have "answers". Christians seem to think that if they can wrap a string of words together and call it a sentence, in response to a challenge, voila, challenge disappears.
This is plainly obvious to see when you discuss Biblical contradictions, and something I regrettably fell prey to as a believer. So long as they can offer some sort of response to the contradiction, it magically disappears.
The more and more I read posters on here like RobR, Brad Haggard, Reverend Brown, Harvey et al, the more I realize that they don't actually say anything at all. They obfuscate pretty much every damned thing they can, move the goalposts, and make it so that before long, you don't know what the hell you're discussing any more. They punt to our limited understanding about the world, as if that gives ample support for their fairy tales, and claim that all people who don't believe as they do, are hard-hearted and "wicked" (I wonder where they got that idea from? I'm looking at you Bible)
Point being, they have made their position patently non-falsifiable, and there is no position worth considering that is non-falsifiable. The clearest example of this is when they say God is all-good, yet when we see things that don't reflect the actions of an all-good creator, we are told, we can't understand the inscrutable ways of the creator, blatantly admitting that when they told us the creator was "all-good" in the first place, it really didn't mean a damn thing. It was just a ploy to play on our emotions and manipulate us.
This is the practice of charlatans. A charlatan will sell you a product, tell you how to use it and what it should do; when it doesn't work as prescribed, they will tell you that YOU did something wrong, and the product will work as advertised if YOU use it correctly, even if you had used it correctly. Go talk to a psychic, and ask questions as they "tell your future". Ask them the mechanisms by which they do their psychic readings. Before they are forced to admit that they are charlatans, they will tell you that you have interrupted the spirits and made it impossible to continue.
Christians are no different.
A charalatan by any other name....
You guys come across just as arogant.
Lets get some enlightened christians on here to tell us the truths of the universe that they are so privileged to know!
JK,
At least we know that arrogant has two r's.
I read your blog.
Why do you have two testimonies?
Are you double-loved by Jesus?
JK.
Spend enough time here and you will see the same arrogance from your side of the fence to.
Shane,
I didn't say we are not arrogant. I am all to much of the time myself.
Chuck,
Glad you read a little of my blog. No, Jesus doesn't love me more than others, it's just that my testimony has more than one aspect. You might try reading the two links.
And you are right, I can't spell very well at all.
JK
---
JK Jones,
I really don't mean to sound arrogant, but after years of listening to Christians, wondering if they could face the challenges presented to their religion, I'm left wanting after every response.
Listen, I understand why people choose to believe, and rarely a day goes by where I don't regret in some small way that I am no longer part of the Christian community, because if you get in with a good group, you'll meet some genuinely great people.
Nor do I want to insinuate that Christians are proactively charlatans, in the sense that they "know" it's a scam. The vast majority of Chrisitians think that what they are "selling" is reality. But when we step back and see that the natural tendencies of Christian apologetics so strikingly mirror that of a charlatan's defense response when met with skepticism and critical inquiry, it's safe to assume that, just like the charalatan's product, we're being sold nothing but hot air.
And as far as arrogance goes, I can't even play on the same field as a Christian. I would never DARE tell anyone how to live their life, what moral code to follow, what clothes to wear, and how to spend their hard earned money; nor would I ever claim that I understand how someone thinks or would I call someone evil or wretched and worthy of eternal punishment.
This is the height of arrogance. To assume that; to puport to have all the answers, when you are just as clueless as the rest of us.
I'm sorry if you can't, or won't see that.
JK,
I once believed what you did.
I now think it is delusional and taken to its extreme endorses evil.
JK.
I realize you did not say that you are arrogant, you just simply said we all seem arrogant!
Hence my post?
"as if they had the answers to all of the questions posed."
i never said i have all the answers.
Bfniii.
No but you say you have the right answer!
Anthony: Point being, they have made their position patently non-falsifiable, and there is no position worth considering that is non-falsifiable.
Excellent point. This is one of the issues that I struggled with when I was a believer. If Christianity is not falsifiable then 1) how can it be critically investigated; and 2) how is it different from any other religion or some form of mysticism. I ended up agreeing that it had to be falsifiable and ultimately the evidence led my away from faith and eventually to atheism.
This is the practice of charlatans. A charlatan will sell you a product, tell you how to use it and what it should do;
yes, this is also the practice of those with a legitimate product when authentically used incorrectly doesn't work right.
Point being, they have made their position patently non-falsifiable, and there is no position worth considering that is non-falsifiable.
Like science? Science itself isn't falsifiable. That an external world exists isn't falsifiable. That cause and effect in and of itself is a real feature of reality isn't falsifiable. That the universe is truely a logical place isn't falsifiable. That our minds are even built to truly understand the world isn't falsifiable.
Scientific paradigms themselves (as in Newtonian physics, qm, relativity) were not falsfiable as they frequently encountered and encounter contrary anomolies. it is only when the anomolies keep adding up and a new picture presents itself that we abandon one picture for the next (this is the story of science, not necessarily of hypothesis, test, verification/falsification, and adjustment which all happens within the paradigm.
less relevent to science, ethics and human value and worth are not falsifiable.
Anthony, the problem over and over again is that you atheists are oblivious to the carnage that has been brought against overconfident modernism and scientism and that its purely and simply logically contradictory. The following contradicts itself: "there is no position worth considering that is non-falsifiable." It is either false or impossible to know, but if it is true, then it is not worth considering that it is true since it itself is not falsifiable.
perhaps it is because she realized that her brain needed washing...
Question everything.
Perhaps it is not that she/he has all the answers...but it is that she/he knows that Jesus is the answer...because of the need to
be forgiven...because of "objective"
guilt.
Question everything. I just might be able to point you to the One Whom I know is the Answer
How the hell do you know? explain please!
I hate when christians say they know, if you people know, then why do you tell everyone it has to be taken on faith?
You dont need to have faith in what you know.
Have you anything tangible to offer then just your own conviction.
The bible says a person is saved by faith, well i guess that counts the christians who apparently know out!
Breckman.
Even if you did know, what good does that do for someone who doesn't know?
If you cant prove that which you apparently know, then no one is obligated to believe your claim.....so its a waste of time to assert you know something unless you provide something, anything!
---
RobR,
Do you see what you are doing? You are conflating everything, by pointing out the limits of what we can know with 100% certainty. If you want to live in a world where absolutely nothing can be assumed, where you have to gingerly touch the ground in front of you just to make sure it's not liquid and you don't fall into an abyss, be my guest. I see no reason to do that.
You just keep obfuscating things, over and over again. All the things you pointed out are assumptions we make, and they are falsifiable. Just because you can't think of a way to falsify them, doesn't mean they aren't falsifiable. Science is founded upon the assumptions that work at that given time. Like you said, if enough evidence piles up and forces the scientific opinion to change, THEY WILL CHANGE. Richard Carrier makes a great point about creationists before Darwin...they were absolutely CORRECT to be creationists, because that's where the scientific evidence pointed. But when it changed, science changed. It's a beautiful system of admitting error and moving on. Religion only does so kicking and screaming, IF AT ALL!
Oh, and this thing with human value and worth. What the hell does that mean? Value? What kind of value? How do we measure it? Monetarily? The reason that you or no one else can define these things is because they do not objectively exist. We are no more special and worthy than the amoebas under our feet. Does this mean that we should trample one another because we're all worthless? No, it means we should respect, equally, all forms of life, at least in my opinion.
RobR, the point is the natural world is what we know; it's all we know. If the supernatural world were manifestly evident, then this blog wouldn't exist, but it's not. Christianity and its apologetics counterpart don't have any way to test their claims. They just keep rewording them until they make sense in their minds, and feel like they've won the battle. But they haven't.
It would be easy for a theist to win the battle, though. Just show an unbeliever the supernatural realm. But theists haven't been able to, and most probably can't, accomplish this. Yet, the theist continually makes claims about the observable world, and when those claims don't hold water, instead of just manning up and admitting that they were wrong, the theist rationalizes the difficulty away.
And this is the work of a charlatan. I've met only a handful of Christians who were man enough to admit that the world as we see it, with all its pain and misery, does not objectively imply that there is an omnibenevolent creator. If you still want to go on believing in such a being, be my guest, but don't tell me that I'm the ignoramus for concluding that such a proposition is highly improbable.
I'm just looking for a little honesty from the theist, that's all RobR. Will you provide some?
Very good post Anthony sensible and to the point
Indeed. Good post Anthony. I wouldn't hold your breath on the honesty though.
Where's ZDenny been?
James Pate said..."Where's ZDenny been?"
Raptures been?..Or maybe the gods simply decided ZDennys are not such good advertising for faith
post 1 of 2
Do you see what you are doing? You are conflating everything, by pointing out the limits of what we can know with 100% certainty. If you want to live in a world where absolutely nothing can be assumed, where you have to gingerly touch the ground in front of you just to make sure it's not liquid and you don't fall into an abyss, be my guest. I see no reason to do that.
On the contrary Anthony, I am not the one to suggest that "there is no position worth considering that is non-falsifiable." The unsolvable problems of that idea are yours. I know you don't see a reason to fret about such things. It's because that position is illogical and unlivable hence no one can be consistent with it.
All the things you pointed out are assumptions we make, and they are falsifiable.
There is no way to test, to falsify that there is an external existence to our minds. It is something that we rightfully take for granted. There are no experiments by which a brain in a vat narrative or some other perfect solipsistic narrative can make these claims or their denials falsifiable. As for the others, there are reasons that you think that they are falsifiable. You either don't understand them, or you don't understand what falsification is. I'm still waiting for you to explain the experiments by which we can falsify "there is no position worth considering that is non-falsifiable."
Oh, and this thing with human value and worth. What the hell does that mean? Value? What kind of value? How do we measure it? Monetarily?
This of course is the bald man fallacy.
but if you think humans are worthless, well, you don't have to conclude it, but it is the fruit of bankrupt atheism.
The reason that you or no one else can define these things is because they do not objectively exist.
good. then reality isn't completely objective. after all, everything we know to some degree of objectivity is second hand information through subjective experience. Some objective truths are after all secondary and derived from subjective truths. That Anthony loves his girlfriend (an objective description) has no reality unless there is a subjective perspective within the universe that has the identity of Anthony and and percieves that "I Love my girlfriend". Without that subjective perception, the objective statement has no basis in reality.
Does this mean that we should trample one another because we're all worthless? No, it means we should respect, equally, all forms of life, at least in my opinion.
This is just not pragmatic. I digested some live cultures when I consum yogurt. I do not measure the on going existence of those specific cells and life equally important to my own or the lives of my family. Most vegans wouldn't even admit to that.
But your claim certainly isn't falsifiable in the scientific sense.
post 2 of 2,
If the supernatural world were manifestly evident, then this blog wouldn't exist, but it's not.
there's an unsupportable (and most definitely non falsifiable claim) if I ever saw one.)
Just show an unbeliever the supernatural realm. But theists haven't been able to, and most probably can't, accomplish this.
The nature/supernature dichotomy isn't clearly that useful nor necessary for Christianity, even considering miracles. Animals can manipulate the world around them to some degree. People with little knowledge of nature can to a greater degree. Humans with even more can go even further to degrees that were formerly thought impossible. Humans with vast knowledge of the workings of the laws of nature can do so in ways that were formerly thought impossible and contrary to nature. At no point here do we need to refer to a supernature. And who's to say that God with perfect and absolute knowledge of nature cannot manipulate the world on a level that our current imperfect understanding views as impossible.
and most probably can't, accomplish this.
Cause we don't have the knowledge of God that allows us to operate nature at the same level that has been observed by some people.
And this is the work of a charlatan. I've met only a handful of Christians who were man enough to admit that the world as we see it, with all its pain and misery, does not objectively imply that there is an omnibenevolent creator.
It doesn't "objectively" imply that. But that the world is such a tragedy very much fits the interpretation that it is broken, that it is not the way that it ought to be, thus there is a way that it should be. And this fits the biblical narrative that this world that was broken due to our rebellion and it does not fully currently display God's intentions but will be redeemed by God.
I'm just looking for a little honesty from the theist, that's all RobR. Will you provide some?
I generally prefer discussions where the other participant doesn't have the pretension to psycic or psycho-analytic ability to determine that I am dishonest with him. I mean what I say. That what you find disagreeable is suspect in honesty is an exercise in insulation.
You are dishonest Rob because you change your argument to manipulate the conversation.
The natural and supernatural dichotomy as unimportant contradicts all of your assertions to revelation via scriputure and tradition predicated on a miracle.
You've advocated for revelation by the Holy Spirit and the phenomenon of sin. You invoke sin every time you plead for the brokenness of this world. Only a supernaturalist who sees life through the lens of life and death would see reality in those terms.
A naturalist sees incremental improvement based on the fruits of logic and intellect. Real things like epidemyology, genomics, sanitation, the rule of law, the Internet and mass transit. Only a supernaturalist would see the world as absolutely broken. A naturalist sees a place where positive change has happened.
The entire necessity of your superstition rests on the supernatural premise of sin. For you to ignore this calls your character or your sanity into question.
"No but you say you have the right answer!"
this situation is simple. there's no way a person can definitively say that God does not exist. exit non-theism. that leaves theism. now if you want to debate the merits of various theistic beliefs, go right ahead. so far, i see evasion.
b,
You've just engaged in the logical fallacy known as the "black-or-white fallacy".
This helps me feel more confident in my atheism when I see supernaturalists not being able to practice elementary logic while forming an argument.
Here are the specifics of your blunder:
Black-or-White
The black-or-white fallacy is a false dilemma fallacy that unfairly limits you to only two choices.
Example:
Well, it’s time for a decision. Will you contribute $10 to our environmental fund, or are you on the side of environmental destruction?
A proper challenge to this fallacy could be to say, “I do want to prevent the destruction of our environment, but I don’t want to give $10 to your fund. You are placing me between a rock and a hard place.” The key to diagnosing the black-or-white fallacy is to determine whether the limited menu is fair or unfair. Simply saying, “Will you contribute $10 or won’t you?” is not unfair.
Here is an example of some of the goodness that christianity has brought to humanity for all the christians that come here!
This is just one example.
Here is an account by historian Raymond of Agiles after the first crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099.
He said-"Some of our men cut off the heads of their enemies, others shot them with arrows, others tortured them longer by casting them into flames. Piles of heads, hands, and feet were seen in the streets of the city.
These were small matters compared to what happened at the temple of Solomon.
What happened there, if i tell you it will exceed your powers of belief. So let it suffice to say this much at least, that in the temple, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridal reins"!
Lovely picture isn't it!
b: there's no way a person can definitively say that God does not exist. exit non-theism.
This is a silly argument.
Okay, let's try it this way: there's no way we can definitely say that Thor does not exist, exit non-thorism. Or how about, there's no way we can definitely say that fairies do not exist, exit non-fairism. Do you believe in Thor? Then you hold to non-thorism by default. Do you believe in fairies? Then you hold to non-fairism by default. Do you see how this argument goes?
Also, the question of god(s) existence deals not with possibilities but probabilities, big difference.
John,
I don't know why I keep coming back here, but I do. This place is a riot! :)
--Justin
bfniii said "there's no way a person can definitively say that God does not exist. exit non-theism. that leaves theism."
I think you skipped agnostic atheism and agnosticism and everything else inbetween.
bfnii:" there's no way a person can definitively say that God does not exist. exit non-theism."
Seriously, you need to familiarize yourself with logical fallacies.
I think this is a good starter:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html
Incidentally, yours above is, I believe, most commonly known as the argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantium).
"You've just engaged in the logical fallacy known as the "black-or-white fallacy"."
it's not a fallacy when there really are only two choices; theism or non-theism. either God exists or He doesn't. period. given than no one can say God does not exist and that there are good reasons to think that He does, the only task left is to figure out what form of theism is best.
non-theism (buddhism, confuscianism, taoism, atheism) is untenable as a belief system because it can't answer the most important questions in life (origin, purpose, destiny).
"there's no way we can definitely say that fairies do not exist, exit non-fairism. Do you believe in Thor? Then you hold to non-thorism by default. Do you believe in fairies? Then you hold to non-fairism by default."
this is a form of the ipu, fsm perfect island argument which is still as flawed as ever. if you're familiar with the ontological argument for God's existence, then you know that the ipu, the fsm or the perfect island are all less than the maximally greatest being possible unless you redefine them until you've equivocated them with God.
"Also, the question of god(s) existence deals not with possibilities but probabilities, big difference."
not entirely, it also deals with the alternatives which are untenable. in regards to probabilities, people mistakenly conflate scientific "proof" with philosophical, logical, metaphysical proof. in the latter sense, yes we can "prove" God's existence.
bfnii: "given than no one can say God does not exist and that there are good reasons to think that He does, the only task left is to figure out what form of theism is best."
No, this is a fallacy. All day long. Even among apologists this is laugh out loud wrong. If that's how you choose to portray the path to theism, you have to throw out Plantinga, Craig, et al. -- they'd run from you faster than they flee us.
"I think you skipped agnostic atheism and agnosticism and everything else inbetween."
i didn't skip them. they are forms of non-theism.
---
"non-theism (buddhism, confuscianism, taoism, atheism) is untenable as a belief system because it can't answer the most important questions in life (origin, purpose, destiny)."
Umm, these aren't even close to the top 100 most important questions in my life and several people I know. How do you even quantify what the "most important" questions" in life are? Does that statement even mean anything? And if there are "most important questions" what does that even imply? That our inability to answer them means we can't answer them?
Moreover, those questions are, for lack of a better term, question begging questions. You have to assume that there is an origin of the universe, you have to assume that we have purpose and you have to assume that there is such a thing as destiny (however defined) before you can answer those questions. But the issue is to show that these things objectively exist, and then from there, you can ask these "important questions".
"in regards to probabilities, people mistakenly conflate scientific "proof" with philosophical, logical, metaphysical proof. in the latter sense, yes we can "prove" God's existence."
Please, PLEASE, provide us with this proof. And if you even think of using Anselm's Argument, I'm going to ignore you, because that is the dumbest "proof" I've ever heard; so dumb even that it is unworthy of deconstruction.
Methinks you're writing checks here that your rhetoric can't cash.
"yours is the argument from ignorance"
i didn't merely say that God exists because it hasn't been proven that He doesn't. i also mentioned the examination of the alternatives and the reasons to think that He does.
b: either God exists or He doesn't. period.
What about polytheism? tritheism? or event Deism? Do you include these under the broad category of theism?
given than no one can say God does not exist
Again this is an argument from ignorance. You never dealt with the issue of possibilities and probabilities. It is possible that Zeus exists? What if Allah really exists? It's possible you know. We can point to hundreds of millions of Muslims who are convinced of that (also remember that the Kalam argument came from Islam).
and that there are good reasons to think that He does
This has not been demonstrated. Actually b, if we were honest with the evidence the best we could come up with is agnosticism as ultimately the evidence is inconclusive. And if the evidence is inconclusive why not atheism? This seems to be the position that Graham Oppy argues in his huge work, Arguing About Gods.
non-theism (buddhism, confuscianism, taoism, atheism) is untenable as a belief system because it can't answer the most important questions in life (origin, purpose, destiny).
A couple of things here. First, simply stating that these are untenable views needs to be demonstrated. Second, the questions of most importance differ for most people. Who says that origins, purpose and destiny are the most important? And even if they are you need to support the argument that Christianity is true and that it sufficiently answers these questions.
"these aren't even close to the top 100 most important questions in my life and several people I know."
of course you would say that if you were unwilling or unable to answer the questions.
"You have to assume that there is an origin of the universe, purpose destiny."
no, you don't. the question is whether those things exist or not and if so, what they are. non-theism pretends they don't exist. it's intellectual surrender.
"Please, PLEASE, provide us with this proof."
not proof, proofs. since you're so eager, why don't you start with how plantinga, schaeffer, wl craig, geivett, budziszewski, copan, zacharias, et al, err in using them.
if you're familiar with the ontological argument for God's existence
Yes, b, we have all heard of the Ontological argument for God's existence. May I suggest checking out this article. Bottom line is that this argument is a word game and not really an argument that convinces anyone except those who already believe. By the way, there are many Christian philosophers who reject this argument as well, it's not simply an issue of atheism or agnositicism.
"What about polytheism? tritheism? or event Deism? Do you include these under the broad category of theism?"
yes
"You never dealt with the issue of possibilities and probabilities."
i did respond to that.
"This has not been demonstrated."
it has been demonstrated many times for centuries. you're choosing to either ignore it or ask for scientific proof of something that can't be explained to us in scientific terms.
"simply stating that these are untenable views needs to be demonstrated."
i did. they can't answer origin, purpose or destiny.
"Who says that origins, purpose and destiny are the most important?"
everyone except for people who don't want to deal with the issue
"even if they are you need to support the argument that Christianity is true and that it sufficiently answers these questions."
you mean other than the tons of volumes that have been written on the subjects?
why don't you start with how plantinga, schaeffer, wl craig, geivett, budziszewski, copan, zacharias, et al, err in using them.
What I find b, is that the whole foundation for their enterprise is the Bible. But none of them want to deal with the issues of historical criticism of the Bible, the questions of its historicity, etc. This issue undercuts it all. Without the Bible as God's word you have no real substance or backing to your philosophical arguments.
B, there are three things that I can think of off the top of my head that you need to deal with that I believe ultimately undercut Christianity as being true. They are:
1. Biological evolution
2. Historicity of the Bible (and the many problems and issues revolving around biblical criticism)
3. Religious plurality
These are the issues that I dealt with when I was a believer and ultimately ended my faith. I find that most Christian apologists typically ignore these issues (and typically misrepresent them), they like to deal mostly with the philosophical arguments and make assumptions about the Bible's reliability.
b: you mean other than the tons of volumes that have been written on the subjects?
Actually the volume has been diminishing since the enlightenment and the rise of historical criticism. And now that Christianity has less and less influence on society that volume has dropped to a trickle.
Besides every religion has it's apologists who write voluminously to defend their faith.
Let me challenge you to read Peter Enns (Incarnation and Inspiration) and Kenton Sparks (God's Word in Human Words) and then let's talk.
Me: "yours is the argument from ignorance"
bnii: i didn't merely say that God exists because it hasn't been proven that He doesn't.”
Well, no. Previously, you had said this:
bfnii: " there's no way a person can definitively say that God does not exist. exit non-theism."
You formed a fallacious argument for God right there, and it's fair to point that out, and its deceitful of you to deny having done it.
John,
Our little drive-by theist is cute.
He said, "it's not a fallacy when there really are only two choices; theism or non-theism. either God exists or He doesn't. period. given than no one can say God does not exist and that there are good reasons to think that He does, the only task left is to figure out what form of theism is best.
non-theism (buddhism, confuscianism, taoism, atheism) is untenable as a belief system because it can't answer the most important questions in life (origin, purpose, destiny)."
I think he should realize that we've heard this before and I have come up with a term for it, "The Argument from Hysterical Assertion".
LOL.
It's like we've never heard the stuff he's parroting.
We all were big fans of christian apologists too b, until we realized they had about as much substance as jell-o pudding.
bfnii: "non-theism (buddhism, confuscianism, taoism, atheism) is untenable as a belief system because it can't answer the most important questions in life (origin, purpose, destiny)."
I have to say you're doing quite a tour de force of fallacies and poor reasoning here. This one, I believe, is commonly called the Appeal to Consequences. Whether or not non-theism gives you the answers you're looking for has nothing to do with its truth value.
I think you should take a deep breath and try and form your argument. This shotgun approach just undermines our ability to take anything you're saying seriously.
Chuck, in the past I've seen believers come chock-full of Bible verses for every argument. That's worse, but still bad.
John,
I think the bible verse tactic is a sub-set of the "Argument from Hysterical Assertion". It depends on what version of the bible they use. KJV = classic example of the argument.
Anthony,
What are you on? Heroin or crack? You said:"Point being, they have made their position patently non-falsifiable, and there is no position worth considering that is non-falsifiable."
There is MUCH that is scientifically accepted that is non-falsifiable but you accept it because it's in the realm of science and materialism...So if this is true you have to throuw out just about any science that talks about beginning and origins whether of the universe and or of man...
Your standards don't hold up under their own weight. When Christians point that out you say "you're delusional", nothing's further from the truth.
The athesitic arguments are stale. most times all they offer are new twists to the same old dogma that's been refuted 1000 times over.
I'll leave with this, at best atheism is a materialistic faith that excludes certain and selective nonmaterial aspects of existence. I say certain because thoughts are immaterial, without extension in space and there is no science behind why they exist and little science that even attempts to address the body mind interface, but yet they exist...falsify that Anthony!
Harvey,
Why are you here?
And, don't you think making fun of crack and heroin addicts cruel?
Not very Christian of you is it?
It is extremely fearful and petty though. Exactly what the faith empowers.
You are a small man Harvey with a small mind and your ideas are laughed at by intelligent people as nothing more than superstition.
You are a fool.
"the whole foundation for their enterprise is the Bible."
only the ones that are presuppositionalists. the others, such as craig (classical), do not base their assertions on the Bible although they will ultimately align with the Bible.
"But none of them want to deal with the issues of historical criticism of the Bible, the questions of its historicity, etc."
wow. just wow. have you read blomberg, habermas, wallace, n.t. wright, chuck quarles, f. f. bruce? good grief.
"Biological evolution"
please read up on theistic evolution and progressive creationism.
"Religious plurality"
check out harold netland
"ultimately ended my faith"
i have real trouble believing that is actually what ended your faith.
"You formed a fallacious argument for God right there, and it's fair to point that out, and its deceitful of you to deny having done it."
that isn't the whole of the argument. the point of the comment was to show the inadequacy of non-theism. you're taking the point out of context.
"Whether or not non-theism gives you the answers you're looking for has nothing to do with its truth value."
i think you're missing the point. i have stated that non-theism has some value but that's not the issue. the issue is it's inadequacy to deal with some significant issues yet, people here are touting it as being as comprehensive as belief systems that do deal with these issues while not conflicting with naturalistic views.
b,
you said, "some significant issues"
Why are this issues you stated "significant"? Can you please define terms here.
Why are those metaphysics "significant"? Can metaphysics ever be "significant"? Will reconciling those issues help sustain the planet and its people? How will they increase happiness? How will they decrease suffering? You throw this term "significant" around as if it has some meaning and thereby defines the importance of your metaphysics but, it seems you are just parroting a line you've heard in either an apologetics seminar or from watching William Lane Craig lecture.
Let's define terms before we rush to the importance of your epistemology okay?
"significant" (I will use the definition from Merriam-Webster)"having or likely to have influence or effect."
How do answering the questions of origin, purpose, destiny have or likely will have influence or effect?
You understand the origin of the universe and then what? You burn people at the stake like Calvin did?
You understand the purpose of the universe and then what? You burn people at the stake like Calvin did?
You understand the destiny of the universe and then what? You burn people at the stake like Calvin did?
You get my point eh, b?
You are arrogant to assume that I don't know the inside story of your superstition. Two years ago I WAS you. That is until I decided to get honest and actually look at the historicity of the christian scripture and the historical deeds done by its leading lights.
You don't know who you are dealing with. I'd suggest you go back to whatever youth group you came from and play risk with your buddies and talk about how stupid atheists are.
others, such as craig (classical), do not base their assertions on the Bible although they will ultimately align with the Bible.
The point that I am trying to make is that without the Bible (divine revelation) being the foundation of their theistic faith, the best that their efforts will get them is a general deism or theism. How can a non-revelatory theism do anything for you? How can you know such a deity or have a relationship with it? How can such a theism answer those all too important questions that you are so concerned about?
I know that you will argue that what they are doing is the first step toward arguing for Christian theism. My contention is that all of the philosophizing is useless if the Bible is false.
wow. just wow. have you read blomberg, habermas, wallace, n.t. wright, chuck quarles, f. f. bruce? good grief.
Yes, I am familiar with all of the authors (except Quarles) and have most of their works in my library and read several of them. You forgot Richard Bauckham. Which works by Wallace are you referring to? Have you read Peter Enns or Kenton Sparks (evangelical scholars)? How about Jame Barr, Raymond Brown, or Joseph Fitzmyer (non-evangelicals)? Or even Hector Avalos or Bart Ehrman (non-believers)? I doubt you have and I doubt even more that you would read them with any sort of objectivity.
Good work Anthony.
And to appeal to Craig's scholarship without acknowledging his dependence on "inner witness" is dishonest in regards to his Calvinist presupposition. I doubt Calvin would allow an argument for god outside of biblical context.
Bfniii wrote: non-theism (buddhism, confuscianism, taoism, atheism) is untenable as a belief system because it can't answer the most important questions in life (origin, purpose, destiny).
So this is your criteria? Providing answers to these questions?
First, your assuming there are objective answers to these questions in the first place. How is this not begging the question? Why do the answers to these questions need to include the existence of a supernatural non-material being?
Second, one could come up with a number of theories that claim to have answers to these questions, yet do so using radically different explanations that Christianity or any of the major theistic religions.
For example, it could be that God, who is perfectly good, is eternally locked in battle with his perfectly evil brother. Surely, this would provide answers to these questions, but I'm guessing you wouldn't like them. Furthermore, it would provide a simpler explanation for suffering than Christianity (God wants to eradicate evil, but cannot since he is constantly in battle with his equally powerful evil brother) Compared to rival theologies (not all rival theories), this would provided a better explanation, as it would be simpler and have less contradictions.
Would you conceder this to be a tenable belief system? Is one is justified in believing this theory merely because it provides answers to these questions that involve supernatural agents?
b: please read up on theistic evolution and progressive creationism.
Already have, I used to hold to those views. I started off as a young earther (YEC), then went to progressive creationism (OEC), then to theistic evolution (evolutionary creationism).
check out harold netland
I am familiar with the author but have not read his material. The issue of religious diversity only became an issue when the others came to a head.
i have real trouble believing that is actually what ended your faith.
Well, since you don't know me I can understand that. Have you read my deconversion story?
Bfniiii wrote: this situation is simple. there's no way a person can definitively say that God does not exist. exit non-theism. that leaves theism. now if you want to debate the merits of various theistic beliefs, go right ahead. so far, i see evasion.
Bfniii, you're assuming it's necessary for us to definitely say that God doesn't exist to justify discarding the theory he exists. However, we are justified in choosing one particular theory over it's rivals based on argument and explanation, not induction (which is inadequate) or 100% certainty.
Christianity, and the supernatural in general, can be discarded because it provides explanations that are easy to vary and create more problems that is solves.
bfniii: people here are touting it [atheism] as being as comprehensive as belief systems that do deal with these issues
No atheist here will claim that it is a comprehensive belief system, you theists keep trying to force us into that mold. Regarding your continuing to bring up the issue of origin, purpose, and destiny, I'm sure that most atheists will probably have similar answers to these questions, you just don't like their answers. For example, no atheist believes in an afterlife so for them destiny would more relate to the continuance of the species (issues related to global warming become important here), rather than what happens after we die.
Anthony,
One thing to note is that induction (the idea that past observations can predict the future) cannot be use to justify predictions alone. This is the problem of induction, most notably raised by David Hume.
Karl Poppler introduced the concept of falsifiability as a response to this problem, but falsification, as the opposite of a "Truth" defined by theists, are not the same thing. The problem is that multiple theories can make the same predictions.
For example, it could be that the motion of the planets are caused by angels. However, these angels just happen to move the planets exactly as if they follow the laws of physics, including Einstein's theory of general relativity. Both of these theories make the same predictions, which would both be collaborated by observations, but they differ by positing radically different explanations.
However the angels theory creates more questions than it answers because it doesn't explain how angels move planets, why they move them in a way that exactly mirrors the same physical laws that exist everywhere else, why the planets are immune from these laws, etc. It merely attempts to explain away the prevailing theory that the the planets follow Einstein's theory of general relativity, which has it's own explanations, etc. Furthermore, angels could just as easily be replaced by demons or some other supernatural entity. It's in this way that the angels theory is untenable and we are justified in rejecting it.
So, to summarize, observations alone cannot justify theories. It's the entire process of science that justifies selecting one theory over it's rivals.
Me: "Whether or not non-theism gives you the answers you're looking for has nothing to do with its truth value."
B: “i think you're missing the point. i have stated that non-theism has some value but that's not the issue. the issue is it's inadequacy to deal with some significant issues yet, people here are touting it as being as comprehensive as belief systems that do deal with these issues while not conflicting with naturalistic views.”
No. I think you should read what you write. Previously, you had written:
B: “non-theism (buddhism, confuscianism, taoism, atheism) is untenable as a belief system because it can't answer the most important questions in life (origin, purpose, destiny)."
You now couch this (above) as your having said that non-theism has some value? Really, where did you say that?
The answer, of course, is that you didn’t. In fact, you have tried to denigrate non-theism for reasons, as I explained above, that appear bizzare. (I would like to hear how you think that my non-theism conflicts with my naturalistic views, for one.)
I don’t think you’re a conscious liar, but it appears that you are self-deluded. I mean that sincerely, and without malice. I wonder if you can re-read what you have written, and see it for what’s there, as opposed to what you would like to be there. I wonder if you can re-read things you have written and wonder what kind of person that is.
I've noticed a lot of christians, including those commenting on this post, that there is no way to demonstrate the non-existence of a god.
Not true.
Imagine I come to you an claim I have a golden square triangle in my pocket.
You tell me to prove that I do.
I respond by showing you gold flakes that I claim are from my golden square triangle.
You claim that the flakes could have come from anywhere.
Your mistake is arguing about the composition of my square triangle when the actual argument should be a clean logical dismissal of the absurd concept of square triangles.
Don't get bogged down arguing insignificant "golden" facts such as the historicity of Jesus, or other speculative nonsense.
If my golden triangle is square, you can dismiss it as wholly incoherent myth, even if I produce gold flakes as evidence.
http://theimpossiblegod.wordpress.com/
"Will reconciling those issues help sustain the planet and its people?"
those are not the only significant issues people face.
"How will they increase happiness? How will they decrease suffering?"
ever heard of morality? that's a metaphysical issue and i'm pretty sure that if you've ever been wronged, you wanted some moral rectitude.
"How do answering the questions of origin, purpose, destiny have or likely will have influence or effect?"
because they are foundational to our existence. they help us know ourselves better and how we should can rationalize life.
"You understand the origin of the universe and then what? You burn people at the stake like Calvin did?"
do you honestly believe those people were acting on the ministry of Christ, regardless of what they claimed? is that what Christ taught?
"historical deeds done by its leading lights."
and what about bad things done by people who aren't theists? does that negate non-theism? ever heard of madeliene murray o'hare? what about non-theists who follow the evidence and become theists?
people acting contrary to their christian beliefs does nothing to diminish the truth of their beliefs.
"without the Bible (divine revelation) being the foundation of their theistic faith, the best that their efforts will get them is a general deism or theism."
certainly not the case with the classical apologetics approach. geisler would be an example.
"How can a non-revelatory theism do anything for you?"
that's not the end of the story
"My contention is that all of the philosophizing is useless if the Bible is false."
you're describing the presuppositional approach which has it's advantages but, it's certainly not the only method (evidential, cumulative case, reformed epistemology)
"I doubt you have and I doubt even more that you would read them with any sort of objectivity."
you're missing the point. we've regressed to name dropping which is a typical tactic. any author you or i haven't read doesn't mean we're not familiar with their ideas nor does it mean we're not approaching the ideas with objectivity.
you said you "followed the evidence". plenty of people have done the same and sided with theism. i think we both know the names of some people who were aware of the most forceful objections to christianity yet that didn't sway them. so now what? the real question is why you are giving more credence to one set of scholars as opposed to another.
"So this is your criteria? Providing answers to these questions?"
anything less is incomplete friend.
"your assuming there are objective answers to these questions in the first place."
i don't recall assuming that in any one of my posts.
"Why do the answers to these questions need to include the existence of a supernatural non-material being?"
because they can't be answered any other way. that leaves one option...
"it could be that God, who is perfectly good, is eternally locked in battle with his perfectly evil brother."
the ontological argument for God's nature shows that God must be the maximally greatest being possible. that would preclude the sort of dualism you're referring to.
---
You're funny B,
Wave of the hand, flick of the wrist, assert something, by fiat, and, voila!, objection resolved.
As far as Anselm's argument, I can think of a greater being than YOUR God. A god who prevents all possible suffering (OF ALL SENTIENT CREATURES), who saves all humans, bringing them ALL to
Heaven to be in complete and utter peace and joy, devoid of all pain, death and misery. This God is quantifiably greater than the God of Orthodox Christianity, therefore, according to your logic, exit Orthodox Christianity.
"Will reconciling those issues help sustain the planet and its people?"
B replies: those are not the only significant issues people face.
What a banal reply. Care to state the other significant issues that people face?
"How will they increase happiness? How will they decrease suffering?"
B replies: ever heard of morality? that's a metaphysical issue and i'm pretty sure that if you've ever been wronged, you wanted some moral rectitude.
How do you know that morality is a metaphysical issue? Under naturalism it is merely behavioral, and fully explainable as such.
"How do answering the questions of origin, purpose, destiny have or likely will have influence or effect?"
B replies: because they are foundational to our existence. they help us know ourselves better and how we should can rationalize life.
Again with the banality. What I think you mean is that these questions must be answered in the way you want them answered because those answers are important to you. (I see that you appear steadfast in avoiding making an argument, btw.)
"You understand the origin of the universe and then what? You burn people at the stake like Calvin did?"
B replies: do you honestly believe those people were acting on the ministry of Christ, regardless of what they claimed? is that what Christ taught?
And you know what God intends for us to do how? What about Christians who disagree with your interpretation? How do you explain God’s coy, vague, incoherent, and contradictory revelation to us? When your book condones genocide, mutilation, cruelty, and the wanton destruction and eternal suffering of those whose existence is necessary for the saved to enjoy eternal happiness, then how can you pick and choose what is most important in your version of the Bible?
"historical deeds done by its leading lights." and what about bad things done by people who aren't theists?
B replies: does that negate non-theism? ever heard of madeliene murray o'hare? what about non-theists who follow the evidence and become theists?
See above. The O’hare reference is genuinely chilling, by the way – how quickly we forget about the forgiveness of the ministry of Christ, I guess.
people acting contrary to their christian beliefs does nothing to diminish the truth of their beliefs.
Actually, yes it does. Claiming to have a better chess strategy than anyone else while simultaneously losing all your chess games diminishes your claim to having a better chess strategy.
"you're assuming it's necessary for us to definitely say that God doesn't exist to justify discarding the theory he exists."
there are multiple theories so which one(s) would you be referring to? if you say all, then you're definitively saying God does not exist. if you don't say all, then you're admitting there are some that do justify His existence.
"not induction (which is inadequate)."
it's unfortunate that some people don't recognize the strength of induction
"Christianity, and the supernatural in general, can be discarded because it provides explanations that are easy to vary and create more problems that is solves."
i wouldn't characterize that as a reason at all. there are certainly many ways christianity can be put in empirical harm's way but this isn't one of them.
"No atheist here will claim that it is a comprehensive belief system"
so why choose it over ones that are?
"I'm sure that most atheists will probably have similar answers to these questions, you just don't like their answers."
probably because they aren't even answers. saying that universal common descent explains origins is not an answer. it addresses how things originated but not why.
"For example, no atheist believes in an afterlife so for them destiny would more relate to the continuance of the species (issues related to global warming become important here), rather than what happens after we die."
if you don't believe in an afterlife, then you haven't addressed the issue of destiny. biologically explaining how life will eventually die out does not address destiny.
"B replies: do you honestly believe those people were acting on the ministry of Christ, regardless of what they claimed? is that what Christ taught?"
We don't know what Jesus taught. The works that are documentation of it are contradictory.
I do know that your entire epistemology follows the model set down and enforced by John Calvin and, for you to deny this originator of your epistemology is more special pleading on your part.
"You now couch this (above) as your having said that non-theism has some value? Really, where did you say that?"
something can have value but still be inadequate as a belief system.
"I would like to hear how you think that my non-theism conflicts with my naturalistic views, for one.)"
i don't recall saying that. i think the two go together and i've stated my reaction to them.
b,
""No atheist here will claim that it is a comprehensive belief system"
so why choose it over ones that are?"
You come in here as a new visitor and automatically assume our belief system because we don't share yours all the while denigrating time-tested spiritual systems (e.g. Buddhism) that offer insight without god.
How do you know we are not all Buddhists and we see your attachment to answers as the primary means to generating suffering?
Have you ever asked us what our belief systems are?
No.
You've just assumed yours is right due to our non-belief in yours.
That seems pretty arrogant for someone who has just met me.
b,
"something can have value but still be inadequate as a belief system."
I agree, that is why I support the 1st amendment to our constitution yet reject the truth claims of christianity.
the varieties of christianity can offer community, charity and entertainment despite the fact they all contradict one another.
"Your mistake is arguing about the composition of my square triangle when the actual argument should be a clean logical dismissal of the absurd concept of square triangles."
negatively, non-theism fails as a belief system because it doesn't address theistic issues we intuitively know to be true (origin, purpose, destiny, morality, etc). positively, we do have good reasons to acknowledge God's existence. in that sense, God's existence is certainly far from an absurd concept. i hope i understood your post correctly.
Me: "You now couch this (above) as your having said that non-theism has some value? Really, where did you say that?"
B replies: something can have value but still be inadequate as a belief system.
So you can’t find your earlier citation earlier then either? So when you claim you said something previously you don’t mean for me to take you at your word. Okay, noted.
On your latest reply (above), please define what makes something adequate as a belief system. Please find a way to do this that isn’t special pleading or circular. Knock yourself out.
Me (in response to something you wrote earlier): "I would like to hear how you think that my non-theism conflicts with my naturalistic views, for one.)"
B replies: i don't recall saying that. i think the two go together and i've stated my reaction to them.
You don’t recall having said that. But you did.
B (previously): “the issue is it's [sic, non-theism’s] inadequacy to deal with some significant issues yet, people here are touting it as being as comprehensive as belief systems that do deal with these issues while not conflicting with naturalistic views.”
Now that you may recall having written that, I am curious if you care to make sense of such an odd thought.
While I do enjoy letting you dig your hole deeper and deeper her for posterity's sake, this will, I imagine, become tiresome. You could still surprise me, but pretty soon it will be time to DNFTT.
---
"negatively, non-theism fails as a belief system because it doesn't address theistic issues we intuitively know to be true (origin, purpose, destiny, morality, etc). "
You assume these things exist (origins, purpose, destiny) and your argument is that we all just "intuitively know they exist". As Arif Ahmed said to William Lane Craig when Craig argued for objective morality by asserting that "deep down inside, we all know objective morality exists", Ahmed retorted with the following:
"That may work as an argument at Talbott Theological [Seminary] and it may even work as an argument in the White House, but this is Cambridge, and that's not going to work as an argument here!" Well, this may not be Cambridge, but likewise, that argument is absolutely worthless here. Prove that purpose, destiny and a "why' for origins is an objective reality first...than you can surmise as to who has the best answers.
Before you can do that, you need to stop harping on these things, because it is NOT AN ARGUMENT AGAINST atheism, that we can' address these questions, since they are as meaningless as the question, "Does the square root of 7 like lasagna or raviolis better?"
Just because it's a question doesn't mean it has an answer.
""Does the square root of 7 like lasagna or raviolis better?"
Well that is obvious, lasagna.
Tony,
You last post exposing b for the confused hypocrite he seems to be indicates to me that feeding time is indeed over.
Thanks.
Well done in refuting his incoherence. (You too Anthony).
b: "without the Bible (divine revelation) being the foundation of their theistic faith, the best that their efforts will get them is a general deism or theism."
certainly not the case with the classical apologetics approach. geisler would be an example.
The issue isn't about apologetics methodology, presuppositionalism versus classical versus a both/and or some other approach. You've missed the point entirely. Where I'm coming from is that Christian theism is not true because the foundation of that believe system is the Bible which is itself not true.
b: "How can a non-revelatory theism do anything for you?"
that's not the end of the story
Then tell me more. If a god existed and you had no revelation from it, then what? What do you do? Philosophical arguments will only get you so far and even then you will have multiple viewpoints.
b: "No atheist here will claim that it is a comprehensive belief system"
so why choose it over ones that are?
For many of us our atheism is where we landed when the other options were considered and rejected. We didn't just pick atheism from among many different options, it was the only thing left.
b: any author you or i haven't read doesn't mean we're not familiar with their ideas nor does it mean we're not approaching the ideas with objectivity.
I understand your point, I just doubt that you are as objective as you say you are. I keep bringing up Sparks because he still considers himself an evangelical and I read his book hoping that he would answer many of the doubts that I had. Instead he was honest with the evidence, showed that the critical scholars are actually correct in many of their judgments. This is not what I had expected.
b: you said you "followed the evidence". plenty of people have done the same and sided with theism. i think we both know the names of some people who were aware of the most forceful objections to christianity yet that didn't sway them.
Please name some of these converts.
b: the real question is why you are giving more credence to one set of scholars as opposed to another.
Because I found many of the scholars that I looked up to were in fact wrong. I found this to be the case in science, in archaeology, and biblical criticism.
Chuck,
Thanks for the kind words. I've enjoyed reading the comments here, your, Anthony's, and Scott's included, of course.
"So this is your criteria? Providing answers to these questions?"
anything less is incomplete friend.
I guess I'll have to explicitly ask how do you define completeness.
because they can't be answered any other way. that leaves one option…
It's unclear what you mean by "can't". Perhaps you'll elaborate?
the ontological argument for God's nature shows that God must be the maximally greatest being possible. that would preclude the sort of dualism you're referring to.
This illustrates one of the problems with the ontological argument. Specifically, what is meant by "maximal" greatness.
For example, one could say God would still be maximally greater than his evil brother by virtue of being good while his brother is evil. Therefore, the 'maximal' status of God could be retained even if his ability was equal to his evil brother. Furthermore, there seems to be no reason why the ontological argument couldn't be applied to all qualities except one, as in the as of God's evil brother.
In other words, there is no explanation of how a particular set of qualities contributes to maximal greatness in reality or a rational behind calculating it one way over another. Is it calculated based on an aggregate of all qualities or is each quality calculated separately? Exactly what qualities would result in the maximal "score" for tolerance or mercy?
There doesn't seem to be an explanation for why one form of accounting should be preferred over another, beyond what you "prefer."
"JK,
I once believed what you did.
I now think it is delusional and taken to its extreme endorses evil."
That and a dime wouldn't get you a gumball from a gumball machine.
"Here is an example of some of the goodness that christianity has brought to humanity for all the christians that come here!
This is just one example."
I certainly don't approve of everything that occurred during the Crusades (the sacking of Constantinople, in particular, angers me greatly) but anything bad that happened during the Crusades pales in comparison with the tens of millions killed by atheists Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.
"As Arif Ahmed said..."
He seems like a pretentious moron. Is he good friends with failed scientist and noxious mediocrity Richard Dawkins?
---
R O'Brien
Yes, yes, yes..atheists have done disgusting, despicable things, as has every other group of people who have ever lived.
The thing is, they DON'T claim to be ambassadors of an omnipotent being, who is supposedly perfectly moral, nor do they claim to have some equivalent to the Holy Spirit residing in them, continually sancitifying them and leading them towards moral perfection.
Imagine, it like this. Let's say some cult said that they had discovered the cure for cancer, but you had to be a member of the cult to avail yourself of the cure. If after some time, a skeptic were to point out that the members of this cult are still dying from cancer as a way to point out the falsity of the cult's claims, you're objection is tantamount to pointing out that "SKEPTICS DIE OF CANCER, TOO!!"
Do you see the error there?
---
Actually, R'Obrien, Arif Ahmed is one of the more humble, amiable, and non-irritable atheists I've ever had the joy to listen to. He's done a couple debates and they can be found on youtube. His objection that I noted was absolutely correct, and there is nothing pretentious about pointing out the hollow nature of teh argument that William Lane Craig (a renowned philosopher, who should have know better) had used. If Craig was going to use the argument that objective moral values exist because "deep down, we all know it" to argue for God's existence, why not just skip the rhetoric, and just jump to "God exist, because deep down we all know it"...
It was a ridiculous argument and Craig knew it.
Secondly, that you would jump to such conclusions about Arif Ahmed's character after having read ONE COMMENT, is represhensible.
Oh, and I'm sure now that I've said the above, you'll consider me pretentious and arrogant, since I called you out on your sweeping judgment of Ahmed's character based on one comment.
I hope not.
Bfniii wrote: there are multiple theories so which one(s) would you be referring to? if you say all, then you're definitively saying God does not exist. if you don't say all, then you're admitting there are some that do justify His existence.
Bfniii,
This appears to be a false dichotomy.
First, there could be an all knowing, all powerful being that sat idle as he watched the universe, and all life, form naturally. He could be completely disinterested and abstain from involvement with our universe. This is a logical possibility, is it not? But would the existence of such a God matter? Would such a theory be one I must criticize or compare to rival theories?
As a strong agnostic, I'm not claiming to know that such a God doesn't exist. Nor do I think this is the kind of God you're referring to. How much could a "theory" vary and still be "God?" Would Spinoza's God qualify?
Second, what does it mean to say one is justified in accepting a theory?
For example, could we be justified in taking actions or making decisions based on a theory of "God" that hasn't been presented yet? How about a theory of "God" that makes no predictions? Such a theory couldn't be criticized against rival theories or attempt to solve any problem.
I wrote: "Christianity, and the supernatural in general, can be discarded because it provides explanations that are easy to vary and create more problems that is solves."
Bfniii wrote: i wouldn't characterize that as a reason at all. there are certainly many ways christianity can be put in empirical harm's way but this isn't one of them.
You're assuming the scientific method relies on empirical evidence alone. It doesn't. Falsification can only refute predictions and any theory can make any prediction, which could be validated by empirical observations.
Theories are justified by argument and explanatory power.
Please see the TED talk A new way to explain explanation by David Deutsch.
"As far as Anselm's argument, I can think of a greater being than YOUR God. A god who prevents all possible suffering (OF ALL SENTIENT CREATURES), who saves all humans, bringing them ALL to Heaven to be in complete and utter peace and joy, devoid of all pain, death and misery. This God is quantifiably greater than the God of Orthodox Christianity, therefore, according to your logic, exit Orthodox Christianity."
The problem is that you’ve assumed that this god didn’t give creatures the capability of freewill. With freewill, creatures are free to choose to reject God’s overtures. Since that’s the case, God can’t save everyone without coercion. The god who allows freewill is definitely greater than the one that doesn’t.
Anthony,
What guys like Mr. O'Brien don't get is that I no longer adhere to a theory of depravity so, his name calling has really little effect on my understanding of myself or how I view the christian myth.
He seems to be using a different model of seeing where his acceptance that he is full up with sin leaves open the tactics of ridicule and shame as means towards knowing.
They make no sense to me because I don't think myself an inherently bad child in need of punishment.
He, however does seem to think I am and doesn't realize he is an object lesson to me of the self-defeating psychology the christian myth engenders.
b,
Are you arguing that what makes god the best possible solution is that he would render his omnipotence impotent if it meant interfering with the free-will of a person? Even if that person were freely torturing a child? That seems less than good and human instinct would define as moral the interference in such an act by a human agent. The fact that you rest on libertarian free-will as the only explanation for evil is more evidence to me that the christian myth is evil itself.
---
"The god who allows freewill is definitely greater than the one that doesn’t."
You say that with such conviction, as if you were able to quantify 'greatness' and measure it in a beaker. I obviously don't agree. Your view of free-will is hopelessly dependent on your theology. Why would God be diminished if he were to impinge on someone's free will, in an effort to stop someone from doing irreparable harm to themselves? For example, the father who walks into the room of his son in the act of committing suicide who stops his son (thus abrogating his free will to committ suicide) would be lauded, while the father who allows his son to committ suicide right before his own eyes, all in the name of "honoring his free will" would be demonized, and rightfully so.
Your definition of free-will and how a loving agent would treat it goes against all human sensibilities, that it's almost mind-numbing to think of what you would do if your son were about to committ suicide.
Also, in an effort to harmonize reality around you with your a priori theological conclusion, you rip God of his omnipotence and omniscience. Free will, even in its most libertarian sense, is not an impediment to the wooing of a perfectly good and loving, all powerful being. If we were created in such a way so that God would be the ultimate fulfillment of our innate desires, as the Bible alludes, than given enough time, a perfect God would certainly win over all his children.
Lastly, the NT is clear that there is a spiritual battle going on in this world between the powers of darkness (Satan and his minions) and God. Therefore, it's clear that God is not opposed to us being coerced, since St. Paul is adamant that the "lost" have been coerced by Satan already. Therefore, if God isn't against coercion in principle, the ONLY reason that he hasn't saved everyone is because he has CHOSEN not to save everyone, not because he is unable to save everyone. You ignore all biblical passages that speak of election and God's complete sovereignty in salvation in an effort to triage the parts of your belief system you find tenable and palatable.
So, my objection stands. The God that I envisioned, even by the Christian standard, is greater. (I say this based on the fact that I've met few Christians who didn't at some point utter the words, "if only that were true", when contemplating the idea of God saving all people.) Therefore, by your earlier logic, your butchering of the ontological argument I might add, exit orthodox Christianity.
---
One last point is that the idea of greatness is highly subjective. I'm reading a book by Edgar Andrews called "Who Made God?". In it, trying to buttress the ontological argument himself, he says that the creation can never be greater than the creator, and he at one point says that "Beethoven was greater than his compositions". Here I completely disagree with him. Beethoven was a curmudgeon and a recluse. His direct contributions to the world while alive pale in comparison to the cathartic connections people have made with his music over the last two plus centuries. In this sense, his compositions are vastly greater than he was, thus creating quite a dilemma for one of the principles of the ontological argument.
b, the ontological argument is highly flawed, and you should really stop beating us over the head with it.
reply Anthony
You should stop committing ad hominem arguments and get down with the arguments, evidences, logical reasoning,etc... what about bible contradictions I as a liberal progressive christian believe in contradictions, I do not believe in the infallibility of the bible, and any rational human should admit to the errors of the bible. as far as liberal progressive christianity is concerned there is no such thing, I do agree most christians will go to believe in the most redundant ideas of the bible. And your last point seems to come right out of the mouth of an economist that was debating for the theist side in the atheist vs theist debate that occurred in mexico.
---
Alex, you've lost me. I didn't committ any ad hominems. I replied to b's arguments with rebuttals. Ad hominems would be if I used an insult on his character to rebut his arguments (like if I were to write, "b is a fool and we shouldn't take his arguments seriously; that's an adhominem) which I clearly never did, at all. I made assumptions about his worldview based on his arguments, and then showed why I felt that such a worldview was problematic. I don't know how else I could have responded to his arguments.
I brought up Biblical contradictions in my first post, 95 posts ago, as an example, and never insinuated that ALL christians believed in the infallibility of the Bible. Frankly, I don't care if he thinks the Bible is infallible. I was arguing against his worldview, and the arguments hold whether he adheres to the Bible, the Qur'an or the Bhagavad Gitas.
Lastly, I hold to my admonition that b should give it up on the ontological argument, which he seems to be very fond of, because it is highly flawed.
Anyways, if you expect me to be completely detached from the person I'm responding to, you'll be disappointed. I'm happy to rebut arguments, but if your arguments are incredibly moronic, I don't mind calling you out on that.
The ridiculous back and forth with 'b' could have stopped after this point:
"...There's no way a person can definitively say that God does not exist. exit non-theism."
There is no definitive proof to show that god does exist. Exit theism.
Clearly, the logic in the original statement is hopelessly flawed. However, following the same logic leaves only atheism.
Confessions of a christian crawl by:
I visited this blog for a while, commented, discussed. More than just a day or two, so it was slower than a drive by. But then I "moved on", until now. I didn't think I shot holes in your arguments, nor did I get in any cross-fire that I'm aware of. So why did I come, why did I leave? Why would anyone even care? : )
This is the 100th comment on this post, and that probably sums it up. The arguments go on, and on, and on. From the comments here, most of you (whoever "you" are) think you have such clear arguments that totally defeat the believers. The believers think their arguments totally and clearly defeat yours. I am one of them and I think the same.
How could thoughtful people (mostly!) come up with such totally opposing answers from almost the same evidence? I don't know, although I have a few theories.
But in the end, it seemed a little pointless to me. Nothing much changes, certainly I didn't, and no-one I discussed with as far as I know. Just two "sides" reinforcing their own views. And I don't think anyone really grappled with that fact. I just decided to spend my time more productively elsewhere.
This is not a criticism of John or anyone else here (if it was, I would also be criticising myself!). Just a rueful recognition of reality. So thank you John, thank you those of you who were friendly, I'm sure I'll be back on the odd occasion. But until then, peace be with you!
chuck
"Are you arguing that what makes god the best possible solution is that he would render his omnipotence impotent if it meant interfering with the free-will of a person?"
allowing freewill doesn't diminish His omnipotence in any way. however, He gives us choice and honors that choice.
"Even if that person were freely torturing a child? That seems less than good"
taking away the ability for us to learn from our mistakes would be worse than interfering and if He did interfere every person in the world would be irate at Him for doing so.
"and human instinct would define as moral the interference in such an act by a human agent."
human instinct is a pathetic measuring stick. you can't even get all humans to agree on what is moral using a humanistic worldview.
"The fact that you rest on libertarian free-will as the only explanation for evil is more evidence to me that the christian myth is evil itself."
free will has been shown to be a perfectly valid explanation for evil.
anthony,
"as if you were able to quantify 'greatness' and measure it in a beaker."
illustrating the maximally greatest being possible isn't an insurmountable problem
"Why would God be diminished if he were to impinge on someone's free will, in an effort to stop someone from doing irreparable harm to themselves?"
because He gives us freewill. He would be less than moral if He didn't honor our choices and you would hate Him if He did interfere.
"For example, the father who walks into the room of his son in the act of committing suicide who stops his son (thus abrogating his free will to committ suicide) would be lauded, while the father who allows his son to committ suicide right before his own eyes, all in the name of "honoring his free will" would be demonized, and rightfully so."
1. the father who stopped the son didn't interfere with freewill. the son is still free to accept or reject God's overtures.
2. that same father would not be lauded by proponents of suicide. so much for common standards of human decency as a measuring stick for moral issues. you might not know this but there are a couple of states where assissted suicide is legal. scores of people have been euthanized.
3. your analogy doesn't state that the father who allowed it promised that he would allow his son's freewill, no matter what. should he break that promise?
"Your definition of free-will and how a loving agent would treat it goes against all human sensibilities"
see above. "human sensibilities" are a pathetic standard for measuring morality, even if you could get people to agree on mores from a humanistic worldview.
"you rip God of his omnipotence and omniscience."
we'll have to agree to disagree on this
"given enough time, a perfect God would certainly win over all his children."
in order for you to substantiate that, you would have to be God.
"it's clear that God is not opposed to us being coerced, since St. Paul is adamant that the "lost" have been coerced by Satan already."
just because God has an overarching will for creation doesn't mean He is ok with us being coerced.
"You ignore all biblical passages that speak of election and God's complete sovereignty in salvation in an effort to triage the parts of your belief system you find tenable and palatable."
you're trying to build a strawman. i'm perfectly aware of passages that support arminianism and molinism and those ideas can certainly be incorporated into a cogent freewill discussion.
anthony,
"Beethoven was greater than his compositions. Here I completely disagree with him. Beethoven was a curmudgeon and a recluse. His direct contributions to the world while alive pale in comparison to the cathartic connections people have made with his music over the last two plus centuries. In this sense, his compositions are vastly greater than he was, thus creating quite a dilemma for one of the principles of the ontological argument."
i'm not sure if you realize this or not but, his compositions wouldn't even exist without his greatness. the compositions are a mere representation of his greatness as a composer. his non-compositional actions are not directly related to his legacy as a composer.
"the ontological argument is highly flawed"
if you think it's flawed, then you've failed the point of it.
Angelyca,
"There is no definitive proof to show that god does exist."
what would serve as proof of God's existence?
since you might not respond, i'll cut to the chase. i get the impression that you're looking for a "scientific" proof of God's existence which is a category mistake. proof of God's existence would come from the metaphysical or philosophical disciplines and those have been rationally provided by many people in many forms.
"proof of God's existence would come from the metaphysical or philosophical disciplines and those have been rationally provided by many people in many forms."
Sure, there are rational (loosely defined here) arguments for God in these disciplines, as there have also been for Shiva, Ganesh, Muhammad, Eostre, Loki, Anansi, etc.
If you want to use this as a way out (since you avoided your first breach of logic), what prevents these 'rational' arguments for non Judeo-Christian gods from being positive proof?
I'll cut to the chase: nothing.
"Sure, there are rational (loosely defined here) arguments for God in these disciplines, as there have also been for Shiva, Ganesh, Muhammad, Eostre, Loki, Anansi, etc."
so would you agree that theism is a much better reflection of truth than non-theism?
"you avoided your first breach of logic"
i don't recall having a problem with logic. perhaps you could be more specific.
"If you want to use this as a way out, what prevents these 'rational' arguments for non Judeo-Christian gods from being positive proof?"
lots of things.
Post a Comment