Because something is unbelievable, you should believe in it.
From The Australian an article on the end for God, which I thought was a good atheist piece until I got toward the end:
You’d have thought … that the Son of God … would enter the world in a way that would leave no doubt who he was or that he existed.
But he chose instead to come in a way that ensured just about the maximum room for doubt; …
That God would choose to come among us in such a way is so strange, so inexplicable, so unbelievable, it compels us to believe.
I would have thought that it would compel you to think it was all a load of rubbish, but hey, that’s just me.
That God would choose to come among us in such a way is so strange, so inexplicable, so unbelievable, it compels us to believe.
Aww, isn’t that cute. The argument from pseudo-profundity.
Because of the humble beginnings and the enormity of what (I believe) was the job that His Father sent Him to do I can believe that even someone as spiritually weak as I am can do great things with grace and love.
could you please inform me: where does love fit in the atheist belief system?
could you please inform me: where does love fit in the atheist belief system?
Wineymomma: atheism is not a “belief system” a single position on a single question–”Do you believe in a god/gods?” The ability to love has nothing to do with belief in a sky-daddy: we are as capable of it as you are.
Hope that helps.
I understand that you are capable of love. I just wondered how you explain it. Where does the ability to love come from?
I’m trying to be more informed about where you come from and if there is any kind of spirituality when you say you are atheist.
I guess I kind of sounded preachy. Didn’t really mean to!
Wineymomma,
The ability to love comes from us being human, and from our experience of growing up in the world. We have developed and passed on emotions that enable us as a species to be successful. Without love and attachment of their parents infant humans would not survive . The ability to develop bonds between the same sex (ie mateship, love) contributes positively to human society, to be successful in war as in peace.
When an atheist has no god there as back up, we realise that eveything is on our shoulders. There is no god to look after the poor and down trodden – that is our job(humans).
And wineymomma, I appreciate your comments and the way you are approaching Atheists.
Note too that while I am not spitirtual you may find atheists who are. Some buddhists would consider themselves atheist.
I like to think of myself as deeply contemplative rather than spiritual.
Sean,
Thanks for the info.
I really appreciate being able to have the kind of conversation we’re able to have here. My pool of friends that are atheists is rather limited as you can probably tell. I didn’t realize that there are some buddhists who consider themselves atheists. That is interesting.
The only thing that I can add right now is that God looks after the poor and downtrodden. I believe that is what He calls on me for.
If I may interject into the conversation? I think that humans had the ability to love even before we invented God.
I’m trying to be more informed about where you come from and if there is any kind of spirituality when you say you are atheist.
In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins also talks about “Einsteinian religion”–and the quote marks are there quite intentionally–by which he means a sense of awe and wonder at the universe and the natural world. He emphasises, though, that this has nothing to do with belief in a deity or deities.
I personally find the term “spirituality” to be so ill-defined as to be virtually useless, so I’m going to have to ask you what you mean by the term.
The only thing that I can add right now is that God looks after the poor and downtrodden.
I don’t think that is much consolation to the downtrodden. I think they would be far better served if their fellow humans and the societies in which they live would look after them.
I like to think of myself as deeply contemplative rather than spiritual.
I think this is what Dawkins was getting at with his notion of “Einsteinian religion.”
I’m not sure about that.
All I know is that I am a sinner and I need to know that there is a God who forgives me for my sin.
All I know is that I am a sinner and I need to know that there is a God who forgives me for my sin.
Circular argument. The notion of “sin” itself presupposes belief in a deity against whom to sin.
To address the topic at hand . . .
But he chose instead to come in a way that ensured just about the maximum room for doubt; …
That God would choose to come among us in such a way is so strange, so inexplicable, so unbelievable, it compels us to believe.
This demonstrates one of the major problems with religious apologists. At the end of the day, they brook no debate, no discussion, no argument. They wants to have their cake, and eat it, too. First they want to convince you that it is entirely reasonable to believe in God, and when that claim has been falsified, and they are forced to admit that their theory of God is so preposterousness–that very preposterousness itself is offered as sufficient reason to believe.
Sorry I mistyped when I said that “God Looks after the poor and down trodden.” While I believe He does I know that He calls on me to look after all those around me who need feeding, loving, etc.
Spirit- the immaterial intelligent or sentient part of a person
Spiritual-of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit.
spirituality- the quality or state of being spiritual.
I know lots of people who are spiritual without having anything to do with religion! I almost think most of them might subscribe to “Einsteinian Religion” if it were offered up to them!
And while I do believe in the sinful human nature there is so much more to what I believe and do in the name of a Higher Power that I need to write my own post on it.
Thanks for all the space Oz.
Spirit- the immaterial intelligent or sentient part of a person
Spiritual-of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit.
spirituality- the quality or state of being spiritual.
Not that it’s your fault, wineymomma, but this definition of “spirit”–one which is, I acknowledge, widely accepted–is far from satisfactory. It posits something–an immaterial, intelligent or sentient part of a person–the existence of which has yet to be demonstrated (though it is routinely asserted).
(Oz atheist–it appears I have two comments, made under my WordPress nick “arthurvandelay”, stuck in your moderation queue.)
Hi AV, I’ve unstuck them, apologies for delay.
Cheers all for the comments folks, hope you all enjoyed Christmas in whichever way you celebrated it.
quote…”A correct definition of “sin” is required before one can fully understand and comprehend the complete depravity of mankind.
Whilst one is in denial of the complete depravity of the state of being human, then one can never begin to comprehend the enormity of “sin” and its consequences”…unquote
from the ramblings of saved sinner.
cheers
SS
A correct definition of “sin” is required before one can fully understand and comprehend the complete depravity of mankind.
And the correct definition of “sin” is . . . ?
Whilst one is in denial of the complete depravity of the state of being human,
Not denial. Skepticism. Waiting to see the evidence.
the correct definition of the word “sin” is found in the biblical account of ‘original sin’ in the book of Genesis.
the first man and woman denied the authority of their Creator,
thus falling into “sin”
they chose to become autonomous by rejecting their Creator.
something akin to today, would be like a child rejecting it’s parents for bringing it into this world.
there are many people today who refuse to believe in the concept of “sin”
by denying the concept of sin, you must deny the concept of God.
by rejecting the concept of God, you reject the concept of life.
by rejecting the concept of life, you will die in your sins.
“sin” therefore can be understood as a denial of accepting the obvious.
“sin” is a rebellion of things as they truly are.
“sin” is denying that there is such a thing as “God”
“sin” is demanding to be autonomous and denying that there is a higher authority than our own.
“sin” is being angry with God.
“sin” is loving the darkness and hating the light.
“sin” is disobeying the rules and replacing them with our own rules.
“sin” is hating something with a vengeance.
“sin” is falling short of God’s mark.
I do not present you with any evidence, because I do not have any to back up my argument other than the biblical account, therefore you must, by nature of the case reject my submissions laid out before you.
You must, I repeat,you must reject all that I have said, because if you do not reject it you are not being true to yourself.
from the ramblings of a saved sinner
by denying the concept of sin, you must deny the concept of God.
As I said, there’s no denial on my part, just skepticism in the absence of evidence. To put your statement another way: The notion of sin presupposes belief in the existence of a deity/deities against whom to sin. The onus of proof is on the party claiming the existence of said deity/deities.
by rejecting the concept of God, you reject the concept of life.
How so?
“sin” therefore can be understood as a denial of accepting the obvious.
The existence of god is not obvious, there being no evidence for it.
“sin” is a rebellion of things as they truly are.
Sin is what happens when “things as they truly are” rebel?
“sin” is denying that there is such a thing as “God”
Again, no denial on my part. Just a denial that there is any reason to believe in such a thing as “god,” there being no evidence for it.
“sin” is demanding to be autonomous and denying that there is a higher authority than our own.
What is the evidence that there is a higher authority than our own?
“sin” is being angry with God.
I don’t believe in God. How can I be angry with something I lack a belief in? I’m not angry with fairies at the bottom of the garden, either.
“sin” is loving the darkness and hating the light.
Please explain.
“sin” is disobeying the rules and replacing them with our own rules.
They were always our own rules to begin with. And in any case, there need to be good reasons for observing those rules–they ought to be subject, continuously, to critical scrutiny, stacked up against the real world, and not followed mindlessly just because they’re written down on a piece of paper.
“sin” is hating something with a vengeance.
I hate racism with a vengeance. I hate cancer with a vengeance. I hate totalitarianism with a vengeance. I hate religion-inspired violence with a vengeance. I hate injustice with a vengeance. I hate poverty with a vengeance. Is this sinful?
I do not present you with any evidence, because I do not have any to back up my argument other than the biblical account,
What evidence do you have that the biblical account ought to be taken as sound evidence in favour of your position on the existence of a deity and your views on sin?
If you don’t want to provide any, you should at least try to appreciate why your arguments are so profoundly unconvincing.
AV,
It seems to me that you have made up your mind.
If you wish to remain in the darkness because the light is too penetrating, then please remain in the darkness.
On the other hand if by chance you have glimpsed a shard of light, in anything that I have submitted, then by all means please allow it to show you the way out from your darkness.
there is a better way.
cheers
SS
It seems to me that you have made up your mind.
No: I’m happy to be convinced otherwise by sound reasoning and solid evidence.
If you wish to remain in the darkness because the light is too penetrating, then please remain in the darkness.
On the other hand if by chance you have glimpsed a shard of light, in anything that I have submitted, then by all means please allow it to show you the way out from your darkness.
If by “light” you mean reason and common sense, then no, there has been little of that in your contributions to the discussion thus far.
there is a better way.
I’m sorry, but if your “better way” involves abandoning thinking altogether and submitting oneself to blind faith and dogmatism, then I have to disagree with you.
“blind faith and dogmatism”
I couldn’t agree with you more. By remaining in the darkness as you are no doubt familiar with,then you become a victim of your own circumstances.
blind faith is blind faith whether that be a circumstance of belief or unbelief.
the question is: When it comes to belief, is it the right one?
or is your unbelief, believable?
is your unbelief a “blind faith?” Do you dogmatically believe in your unbelief.
You are as much a victim of your own unbelief and skepticism as you deride those who do have a belief.
In the end you are no better than those who you ridicule.
Blind by nature and blind by choice is a dreadful position to be in.
On the other hand, there are those who walk amongst you who do have a belief and by that I mean the true belief.
Granted there are many who cling to a belief system that is not entirely true.
the question is: which belief system amongst many belief systems is the true one?
and don’t they all say that they are the true one?
Yes, they do.
can they all be correct?
No,they can’t.
So how is it possible to know which is the correct belief system?
Wouldn’t it be better to just wipe the lot as nothing but pooppycock?
Wouldn’t it be better to just say that there is no belief system?
Wouldn’t it be better to just refute all belief systemsand replace it with an unbelief system?
some say that …Atheism is the only intelligent alternative?
Do you believe in Atheism? If so then aren’t you just another victim of a belief system?
Is your unbelief something to believe in?
Well if that is what you believe in, then welcome to your own “blind faith” system and dogmatism.
I on the other hand will remain faithful to the Truth.
cheers
SS
“blind faith and dogmatism”
I couldn’t agree with you more. By remaining in the darkness as you are no doubt familiar with,then you become a victim of your own circumstances.
SS: you would have far more success in this discussion if you expressed your ideas in plain English. When you say “remaining in the darkness,” what do you mean? And why didn’t you just say what you meant in the first place?
the question is: When it comes to belief, is it the right one?
The question is: when it comes to a belief, are there good grounds for holding it?
is your unbelief a “blind faith?” Do you dogmatically believe in your unbelief.
That’s an oxymoron. As in “Can there exist a square circle?” So obviously the answer is “no.”
You are as much a victim of your own unbelief and skepticism as you deride those who do have a belief.
Prove it.
In the end you are no better than those who you ridicule.
I’m not the one levelling unsupported accusations.
Blind by nature and blind by choice is a dreadful position to be in.
On the other hand, there are those who walk amongst you who do have a belief and by that I mean the true belief.
The true belief? That’s wonderful! How do they know it’s the “true” belief? What evidence do they have to justify holding this belief as “true?”
the question is: which belief system amongst many belief systems is the true one?
and don’t they all say that they are the true one?
Yes, they do.
can they all be correct?
No,they can’t.
Can they all be wrong?
Yes, they can.
Example: if belief system A holds that “1 + 1 = 3,” belief system B holds that “1 + 1 = 4,” and belief system C holds that “1 + 1 = 5,” then all of these belief systems are wrong about the sum of 1 and 1.
So how is it possible to know which is the correct belief system?
Wouldn’t it be better to just wipe the lot as nothing but pooppycock?
Wouldn’t it be better to just say that there is no belief system?
Wouldn’t it be better to just refute all belief systemsand replace it with an unbelief system?
Wouldn’t it be better to submit these belief systems to critical scrutiny? To test their claims about the world against the evidence?
some say that …Atheism is the only intelligent alternative?
Do you believe in Atheism? If so then aren’t you just another victim of a belief system?
Is your unbelief something to believe in?
Well if that is what you believe in, then welcome to your own “blind faith” system and dogmatism.
Do you believe in rational dialogue? If you did, you would at least wait for your interlocutor to answer your questions before purporting to answer them for him. Because when you answer them for him, this implies that you’re not really willing to listen–all you’re interested in doing (it seems to me) is preaching and talking at people.
Atheism is not a belief system. It is a single position on a single question–”Do you believe in God?” Any other beliefs you wish to attribute to me are nothing but strawmen. (Unless you have good evidence to support your claims.) You’ve heard of strawmen, I presume? They would, I think, fall under the category of “bearing false witness” in your belief system. Perhaps you ought to think about that.
I on the other hand will remain faithful to the Truth.
What is the “Truth?” And what evidence do you have that it is the “Truth?”
AV
thankyou for your reply.
Yes I do believe……in rational dialogue.
answering one’s own questions is not a sign that one is not willing to listen,on the contrary,I think it encourages rational debate.
and yes I am interested in preaching and talking to people,that is a good way of learning how and why people believe or disbelieve in any given subject.
If it seems to you that I am preaching as if it is a form of derogatory speech,then no, I do not believe I am preaching.
you say that Atheism is not a belief system. can you prove to me that it is not?
I found your illustration regarding my comments about belief systems an interesting one.
Examples A,B and C are all false of course.
“Can they all be wrong” you say.
“Yes,they can” you say
You seem to have missed my point. Then again, I may have not made myself clear.
My whole argument was based upon the supposition that there may in fact be a true belief system, which by using your illustration, therefore says that “1+1 actually equals 2″
Your illustration says that all belief systems are wrong.
But I am saying,whilst I agree with your illustration, there may in fact be a true belief system by definition.
Yes, there are many false belief systems. 1+1 = 3,4 and 5. and many people hold to these belief systems, thinking the answer is 2. But they are wrong.
I would even agree that some Atheists think that 1+1 = either 3,4 or 5
the question is: 1+1 does actually = 2 and I believe that to be true.
“What is the “Truth?” you ask.
Pilate said something similar. although he left out the word “the”
you are very close to the answer AV, and thus the evidence.
cheers
SS
you say that Atheism is not a belief system. can you prove to me that it is not
Yes, I can. In fact, I already did. Atheism is a single position on a single question: “Do you believe in a god/gods?” Any further beliefs you wish to attribute to atheists are strawmen, unless you have evidence that all atheists hold them. Atheism is not a belief system in the same sense that lacking a belief in the existence of fairies is not a bleief system, or in the same sense that not collecting stamps is not a hobby.
My whole argument was based upon the supposition that there may in fact be a true belief system, which by using your illustration, therefore says that “1+1 actually equals 2″
Your illustration says that all belief systems are wrong.
No, my illustration says that it is possible that all belief systems currently or hitherto adhered to are wrong.
But I am saying,whilst I agree with your illustration, there may in fact be a true belief system by definition.
Yes. That doesn’t mean such a belief system has yet been developed or discovered.
“What is the “Truth?” you ask.
Pilate said something similar. although he left out the word “the”
you are very close to the answer AV, and thus the evidence.
No, SS. That won’t do. If you have evidence that your belief system = “Truth,” then it is time to present it. It is not unreasonable (or dogmatic) for me to demand of anyone advancing a claim as true that they present the evidence in support of the claim. What is unreasonable (and dogmatic) is expecting people to accept something as true just because you say it is true.
AV,
I beg to disagree.
Your illustration did say that you believe that ‘all belief systems are wrong’.
Nevertheless I am willing to overlook your attempt to discredit my argument when I introduced a perfectly rational alternative ie: 1+1=2.
If there is a reasonable “True belief system” as I have said, and you want me to produce evidence, then why not look for it within the pages of the Holy Bible.
If you are sincere in your endeavours to pursue the “Truth” then the Bible would be a very good reference.
On the other hand,if you are not sincere at all,and you would rather peddle your atheistic views, then I would suggest any quest for discovering”Truth”on your part would be futile.
[Wishing you all the best for the New Year]
cheers
SS
Your illustration did say that you believe that ‘all belief systems are wrong’.
No, it didn’t.
Nevertheless I am willing to overlook your attempt to discredit my argument
How noble of you.
If there is a reasonable “True belief system” as I have said, and you want me to produce evidence, then why not look for it within the pages of the Holy Bible.
What evidence do you have that it will be found there?
If you are sincere in your endeavours to pursue the “Truth” then the Bible would be a very good reference.
What evidence do you have that the Bible is a very good reference?
On the other hand,if you are not sincere at all,and you would rather peddle your atheistic views, then I would suggest any quest for discovering”Truth”on your part would be futile.
I’ve asked you for evidence, repeatedly, that justifies the claims you are making before I am prepared to accept them. I am not being unreasonable in doing so, nor does the mere asking for evidence in support of claim constitute the “peddling of atheistic views.” Because I can’t see where else I’ve “peddled” atheistic views. Given your refusal to justify your claims with evidence, the only peddling being done in this conversation is by you.
AV,
You said that you have asked me for evidence.
I have endeavoured to reveal that evidence by asking you to open the Holy Bible.
You have the evidence in front of you.
So I therefore take it from your response,that you do not want to pursue the understanding of “Truth”
cheers
SS
I have endeavoured to reveal that evidence by asking you to open the Holy Bible.
You have to do better than that. You need to justify why your bible counts as “evidence.” Anyone can point to their holy book and do likewise. It doesn’t mean that they’re engaging in rational argument.
Rational argumentation demands that if you advance a claim as “true,” you need to provide good evidence in support of that claim–evidence that any reasonable person would accept as good evidence. Evidence, moreover, that anyone who doesn’t already share your worldview and its presuppositions would accept as good evidence. I am not a Christian, which means I don’t accept as axiomatic the claim that the Christian bible is the inspired and infallible word of a deity. This claim, in other words, needs to be substantiated with good evidence before it can be accepted as true. Please explain to me why your claims should be treated any differently.
So I therefore take it from your response,that you do not want to pursue the understanding of “Truth”
Quite the contrary. It’s just that I don’t think your truth-claims merit a special exemption from the demand that they be substantiated with good evidence. Your responses, on the other hand, is to do no more to defend your truth-claims than wave your holy book about as if that is going to impress me. That’s a really lazy method of argument, don’t you think?
AV,
Now there is no need to patronise me, by insinuating that I am some sort of bible-waving zealot.
That really is beneath you.
You seem to be an intelligent individual,and therefore I would expect a certain amount of respect from you regarding my replies.
I am simply asking whether you are sincere in your quest for understanding truth.
You say that I need to provide good evidence that any reasonable person would accept in support of my claim.
I said that the evidence is within the Holy Bible.
Now I put it to you, that any reasonable person would, if they are sincere in their quest to find “Truth” would in fact OPEN the Holy Bible.
May I ask you, and I ask in a sincere manner, “When was the last time that you opened the Bible to try and seek the Truth?”
You said that my responses are just a lazy method of argument.
Instead of taking the high moral-ground,it would be far better to show some sort of respect when entering an informed debate.
I was going to say that we should reason with one another, but I detect a holier-than-thou attitude from your replies.
Nevertheless, I am willing to overlook your short-comings,and will try and provide evidence,something you yourself are not prepared to do.
I do not know if you are familiar with the gospel of John, but here goes.
A. The pre-existent Logos……….before the world was.
This thought seems to be beyond human comprehension. Is it possible that before the world,there was a Logos?
In other words,before anything that we as human-beings know, before anything that we as human-beings experience,before the beginning of this world….there was…a Logos.
A Logos that was before time,before matter,before existence.
Another definition for Logos is..the word.
Is it possible that before life as we human-beings understand it…there was the word, the Logos?
Surely not,some would say..how absurd.
B. The Cosmic Logos……….the Word embraces the totality of matter and existence.
All things created were created by the Word……the Cosmic Logos.
Is it possible that everything we as human-beings see around us was created?
And if created,then by whom or what?
Surley not,some would say…how absurd.
C. The Incarnate Logos……….the word became flesh and dwelt amongst men.
How is it possible that the Logos,became flesh,became a human-being,full of light and truth,and walked amongst men so they could come to an understanding of Truth?
Surley not,some would say..how can the Truth be summed up in one man?
But the world knew him not,received him not and thus rejected the Light,because they loved the Darkness
You ask for evidence AV?
As I have said. the evidence is within the Holy Bible. dismiss it if you wish.
But the evidence is before you’re very eyes.
More tangible evidence you will not find.
Surely not,some will say…how absurd.
You will find the Truth,if your quest is sincere.
cheers
SS
You say that I need to provide good evidence that any reasonable person would accept in support of my claim.
I said that the evidence is within the Holy Bible.
And I asked you to justify how the “Holy Bible” can be considered good evidence.
Now I put it to you, that any reasonable person would, if they are sincere in their quest to find “Truth” would in fact OPEN the Holy Bible.
Your claim is that the “Truth” is located in your bible. I’m asking you to substantiate that claim. As I pointed out earlier, anyone can point to their holy book and claim that the “Truth” lies within. Simply advancing such a claim without properly substantiating it does not constitute rational argument.
May I ask you, and I ask in a sincere manner, “When was the last time that you opened the Bible to try and seek the Truth?”
You need to give me a good reason to open your bible to begin with. (My 12 years of Catholic education notwithstanding.) And my sincere question to you is: what justifies your claim that the capital T Truth is located in your bible?
You said that my responses are just a lazy method of argument.
They are. Pointing at a book and claiming that the capital T Truth lies within is lazy argument.
Instead of taking the high moral-ground,it would be far better to show some sort of respect when entering an informed debate.
I was going to say that we should reason with one another, but I detect a holier-than-thou attitude from your replies.
Instead of all this whining, SS, why not just answer my questions? Why not substantiate your claims?
Nevertheless, I am willing to overlook your short-comings,and will try and provide evidence,something you yourself are not prepared to do.
You haven’t asked me for any.
I do not know if you are familiar with the gospel of John, but here goes.
Stop right there. So what you’re telling me is that the evidence that the Truth resides in your holy book is . . . one of the chapters of your holy book. That’s called a circular argument.
A. The pre-existent Logos……….before the world was.
This thought seems to be beyond human comprehension. Is it possible that before the world,there was a Logos?
In other words,before anything that we as human-beings know, before anything that we as human-beings experience,before the beginning of this world….there was…a Logos.
What on earth is a “Logos?” And what evidence is there to support your assertion that before the beginning of this world there was this “Logos?”
A Logos that was before time,before matter,before existence.
Another definition for Logos is..the word.
Is it possible that before life as we human-beings understand it…there was the word, the Logos?
Surely not,some would say..how absurd.
Surely they would have to know precisely what this “Logos” is first. Thus far all you have done is define an abstraction in terms of another abstraction. This is not evidence, SS–it’s obscurantism, and it certainly doesn’t qualify as reasonable discourse.
B. The Cosmic Logos……….the Word embraces the totality of matter and existence.
All things created were created by the Word……the Cosmic Logos.
What evidence do you have to substantiate this claim?
Is it possible that everything we as human-beings see around us was created?
And if created,then by whom or what?
Since when did questions constitute evidence?
Surley not,some would say…how absurd.
Repeating yourself does not make your argument any more convincing.
C. The Incarnate Logos……….the word became flesh and dwelt amongst men.
How exactly can a word become flesh? And what evidence do you have that this happened?
But the world knew him not,received him not and thus rejected the Light,because they loved the Darkness
In plain English, what does this mean?
You ask for evidence AV?
I did, and I do. And you haven’t even bothered to provide any.
As I have said. the evidence is within the Holy Bible. dismiss it if you wish.
You haven’t given me any evidence to dismiss.
But the evidence is before you’re very eyes.
More tangible evidence you will not find.
Where is it, SS? All you have done is use your religious dogma to defend your religious dogma–the very thing that needs to be substantiated. And you seem oblivious to the fact that I don’t share your religious presuppositions, and therefore will be unlikely to accept religious dogma as evidence. How is this reasonable?
Logos = logic. Think of rational pathos.
I think I’m going to suspend logos for a while now. Do you want to debate me, Arthur?
I contend that The Truth is located within Green Eggs and Ham by Dr Seuss. All you have to do is open up Green Eggs and Ham to discover The Truth, that is that The Truth is located within Green Eggs and Ham! (An objective reading of the spaces between the words no less!)
Arthur, if you really were interested in finding The Truth, you would open up Green Eggs and Ham. Didn’t you know that in order to rationally and honestly engage with your interlocutors, you had already had to have made up your mind that you would be open to their ideas? By open to their ideas I mean be instantaneously credible.
Let me put it to you this way. If you didn’t come to discussion with me already being agreeing with Green Eggs and Ham as The One Truth Before Which There Is No Other, even before reading it, then you aren’t looking for an honest discussion. You are trapped by dogma!
You are trapped by your unwillingness to accept that Green Eggs and Ham is the only way by not believing it before investigating it! Only when you have pre-supposed your conclusions and accepted the Green, can you realise that it is The One Truth!
Only? Oh crap. If that’s the only way someone can see the truth of Green Eggs and Ham, then it’s not a very good line of argument is it? In fact, if the only way it can be true is to accept a fallacy, then it has to be categorically false! I didn’t realise I was arguing against Faith in The One Truth of Green Eggs and Ham all along!
Quick! Quick! Someone invent Seussian theology as a distraction! I need more temporarily convincing material!
There is no Sam but I Am.
And The Cat In The Hat is his prophet.
Blasphemy! Apostate! The Cat In The Hat was the trans-substantiated form of Sam, not a mere prophet! In accordance with the bug in the sleep book, you and your kind must be laid to rest forever, lest Yertle the Turtle should throw the world off of his back (because he can – Sam made Yertle the king of all the lands he could see and he’s seen a few travel docos recently).
I rest my case.
SS
I rest my case.
You had a case?
Well, I presented the evidence.
You chose to ignore it.
and bruce,seriously now,introducing a comedian to support your argument.
I rest my case.
Saved Sinner is obviously a proponent of the “Last word” wins the argument.
Well, I presented the evidence.
Nope. In support of your religious dogma, you presented religious dogma in the form of your holy book and no small amount of proselytism. This is circular reasoning, not evidence. I had hoped that this would sink in eventually. Clearly it has not, and you have instead decided to take the ball and run home.
You chose to ignore it.
There has been nothing to ignore. You’ve given me logical fallacies, which I’ve dealt with. You’ve given me absolutely nothing that any reasonable person could accept as evidence. (And no, pointing at your bible and simply asserting that it constitutes good evidence won’t do: you need to demonstrate how–using something other than your religious dogma–it constitutes good evidence.) When you do have good evidence to bring to the table, I’ll be happy to look at it.
and bruce,seriously now,introducing a comedian to support your argument.
Theodor Seuss Geisel was a comedian?
Saved Sinner is obviously a proponent of the “Last word” wins the argument.
This is the song that never ends . . .
Pingback: Ratiosimilitude: A few thoughts on faith vs. reason « Five Public Opinions
So I have presented you with evidence of
the pre-existent Logos
the Cosmic logos
and the Incarnate Logos
and you dismiss it with a wave of your hand.
tut,tut
how unfortunate.
So I take it therefore that you do not believe that there ever was an Incarnate Logos, and therefore do not believe a single word he spoke.
you must be in the minority then.
..this song has just begun..
SS
So I have presented you with evidence of
the pre-existent Logos
the Cosmic logos
and the Incarnate Logos
What on earth are you talking about, Saved Sinner? Religious abstractions do not count as evidence.
So I take it therefore that you do not believe that there ever was an Incarnate Logos, and therefore do not believe a single word he spoke.
What is the evidence supporting your claim that there ever was this “Incarnate Logos” (whatever that is supposed to be)?
you must be in the minority then.
Yet another fallacy.
and you dismiss it with a wave of your hand.
I’ve dismissed it because religious dogma does not count as good evidence in support of religious dogma.
Saved Sinner
Allow me to explain why religious dogma doesn’t count as evidence.
I have a book. It is called the book of Christopher. Everything in the book is true. How do I know? Because the book of Christopher says so. The book of Christopher says you are wrong. It must be correct in this because the book of Christopher is always right. It says so right there.
Now of course such an argument is foolish. You would point out that all I’m doing is saying a book is right just because it makes a claim to be so. But that’s all you’re doing by claiming the bible is the truth. How do you know it’s the truth I would ask. And you would reply “because the bible says it is.” Notice the similarity between my claims for the book of Christopher & your’s for the bible? That’s why religious texts are not evidence.
To put it simply you cannot support a claim by a book which just makes more claims. A claim, any claim, requires evidence, not from a book of claims but from history, science, etc.
I await your reply.
Chris
Thankyou [Christopher],
for introducing some rational thinking into this conversation.
It was
Thankyou [Christopher],
for introducing some rational thinking into this conversation.
It was quite obvious from AV’s replies that he/she was allowing their emotions to overcome any reasonable understanding.
As far as your hypothesis is concerned,let me just say that maybe you should at first make sure you do not second guess what I have said.
The basis of this conversation was to come to an understanding of “Truth”
I haven’t as far as I am aware,and as you have said,made the claim that the bible is the truth.
There is a difference between claiming that something IS true, and saying that the answer to to finding the “Truth” is found in that something.
I did say to AV however that the evidence for finding the Truth is within the bible, if he would only make an effort to open it and read it.
I presented evidence in the knowledge of the Logos.
Religious abstractions AV calls it. That does not wash with me.
They are only religious abstractions if you want them to be religious abstractions.
Abstractions are abstractions are abstractions and will always remain abstractions.
If AV wants to talk about abstractions, and obscuritism,then I haven’t got the time or inclination to engage him in it.
I am talking about the “Truth”
The “Truth” and how to find it.
The most profound statement that any human-being can make is saying “I know the Truth”
There are in fact two realities,although we are only living in the first reality.
There are not three or four or more realities,there has been and presently are only ever two.
Presently [I say presently because that is where this reality exists]as human-beings we are living in this reality called life.
Do you know the truth Christopher?
AV said that he [believes] that all belief systems are wrong.
His illustration of 1+1=either 3,4 or 5 proves to him that all belief systems are wrong.
I gave an alternative when I said [using his illustration] that indeed 1+1= 2.
thus making a statement [a claim]that this belief system is indeed true.
He rejects my statement as not being true.
I will not be persuaded that 1+1 does not equal 2.
What do you think [Christopher?]
cheers
SS
It was quite obvious from AV’s replies that he/she was allowing their emotions to overcome any reasonable understanding.
Substantiate.
AV said that he [believes] that all belief systems are wrong.
No, I didn’t say this at all. Doesn’t your belief system took a dim view of bearing false witness, SS. (Or is it OK when it falls under the category of “pious fraud”?)
There is a difference between claiming that something IS true, and saying that the answer to to finding the “Truth” is found in that something.
And you still have to provide evidence that the answer to finding the “Truth” is found in your holy book. Christopher can say as much about his “Book of Christopher.”
I presented evidence in the knowledge of the Logos.
Are you claiming that this “Logos” of yours is not a piece of religious dogma? What is it, then, and why does it constitute good evidence?
Religious abstractions AV calls it. That does not wash with me.
They’re religious abstractions because you refuse to explain what they are, and what basis they have in reality. Whether that “washes with you” is neither here nor there.
There are in fact two realities,although we are only living in the first reality.
How do you know this? What evidence can you present in support of this claim?
His illustration of 1+1=either 3,4 or 5 proves to him that all belief systems are wrong.
I gave an alternative when I said [using his illustration] that indeed 1+1= 2.
thus making a statement [a claim]that this belief system is indeed true.
He rejects my statement as not being true.
I will not be persuaded that 1+1 does not equal 2.
Nope. Not what I said at all. Either you have misconstrued what I did say out of incompetence, or you are misrepresenting what I said out of malice.
Remember, SS: strawmen make the Incarnate Logos cry.
It is completely apparent who has the upperhand in this discussion. Saved Sinner you have not presented a brass razzoo of evidence in any of your ‘arguments’; you are nowhere in this discussion. I propose that you do not understand the concept of argument and evidence. May I suggest you perhaps join a debating club to correct this deficiency.
AV, I think I agree with all of your points, as well as your presentation of them. It is absolutely clear why Saved Sinner is beating around the edges, misinterpreting what you post (deliberately or not is hard to tell) and refusing to attempt logic because there cannot be logic in the circular ‘argument’ she / he is presenting.
Christopher is also absolutely correct and expresses himself well. Evidence of the truth is not that a book says so. Saved Sinner, do you also believe everything you see on the television? I would suggest you should to remain consistently gullible.
It is absolutely clear why Saved Sinner is beating around the edges, misinterpreting what you post (deliberately or not is hard to tell) and refusing to attempt logic because there cannot be logic in the circular ‘argument’ she / he is presenting.
And the reason it is circular, I suspect, is because it is based entirely upon faith, not reason/evidence. If this is the case, and it certainly appears so, then SS has not been entirely forthcoming about it, and I think I understand why. My take is that we live in age in which both reason and faith are “revered” (if you’ll pardon the wording) in equal measure–science and logic are privileged, on the one hand, but so too is “belief in belief” (to use Daniel Dennett’s phrase). And I think many people of faith, revering reason–or, at least, revering seeming-reasonableness–are not willing to face up to the faith-based nature of their faith. They seek instead to dress it up in the language of reason: some, like SS, are very bad at it; but there are many apologists and theologians who make a living out of being good at it. (Seeming-reasonable, that is.)
I also suspect that SS’s heart is not really in this debate. He came here to proselytise, found an audience unreceptive to proselytism or arguments from religious dogma (what else did he expect to find?), and found himself forced into participating in a form of discussion for which his faith-based articulations are not well-suited. If he doesn’t have any proper evidence to bring to the table, and if he is willing to be open about the faith-based nature of his truth-claims–well, he’ll convince no-one, but he may just salvage his integrity.
AV,
eloquence will not persuade me.
you may have a captive audience amongst your peers,but your words are like a clanging cymbal, a rather obnoxious noise after awhile.
proselytise- I cannot recall that this was my purpose.
circular reasoning- I cannot recall that this was my intention.
These are your ‘perceptions’ and as perceptions they shall remain until such times that you can prove to me that they are not.
Now let us get back to our main conversation,not a debate as you suggest,or have you forgotten,[ seeing that you have talked yourself off into some fairy land of proselytising and circular reasoning]
Do I need to remind you about our initial conversation, or has it been replaced by your own self-importance?
tsk tsk……………..now where were we?
oh yes.
If it is not too much trouble AV, could you please define for me the term, “Pre-existent Logos”
I am sure for a person of your inflated intellect,it should not prove to be to much trouble.
awaiting your reply.
SS
Saved Sinner,
I think about the only thing that would persuade you is a sharp blow to the head with a blunt instrument. You have talked yourself round and round and up your own arse.
I think you should take the log out of your own eye when casting dispersions of “inflated intellect”…but I doubt you will.
Don’t beat around the bush Sean, tell us what you really think.
eloquence will not persuade me.
When your “reasoning” is wholly faith-based, I doubt that anything non-faith-based can persuade you.
proselytise- I cannot recall that this was my purpose.
When you entered this discussion, you said the following:
“All I know is that I am a sinner and I need to know that there is a God who forgives me for my sin.”
If proselytism wasn’t your purpose, what was it?
circular reasoning- I cannot recall that this was my intention.
Regardless of whether it was your intention, your reasoning has been, and continues to be circular. Presenting religious dogma as evidence for religious dogma is circular reasoning.
These are your ‘perceptions’ and as perceptions they shall remain until such times that you can prove to me that they are not.
Argument from ignorance. It has already been explained–by myself and others in this comment thread–why your reasoning is circular. I’m not going to explain it again.
If it is not too much trouble AV, could you please define for me the term, “Pre-existent Logos”
I have no idea, other than the fact that it’s an element of Christian theology. So I’d need to accept the presuppositions of your belief system before I could accept this “Pre-existent Logos” of yours as good evidence in favour of your truth-claims. And as I recall, I’ve been asking you to explain this “Logos,” and why it should be considered good evidence.
I am sure for a person of your inflated intellect,it should not prove to be to much trouble.
“Inflated intellect,” “intellectual snobbery,” whine, whine, sniff, sniff. Poor persecuted SS.
Oz,
As I thought.
No attempt whatsoever.
How can you begin to understand the Truth,when you don’t even want to debate the issue?
I have no other recourse but to say once again,
I rest my case.
[when are you going to come down from your ivory tower and make some sort of decent attempt to answer my question?]
still waiting.
SS
First I would like to say that I find myself a rather intelligent person, but you will have to forgive my grammatical and spelling mistakes-my vocabulary isn’t as strong as well so I hope I can make my point come across.
Saved Sinner,
I am a christian as well and I believe in you definition of “Truth” . I would have to say this though in this case 1 + 1 doesnot = 2, meaning that just because I am a fellow Christian that it doesn’t mean there are 2 people defending the defending of our Truth which you are patheticly doing (I am sorry for my bluntness).
SS you are definitely in the wrong place to plead your case in the manner for which you are, and I will explain
Truth: is the belief that Jesus is our saviour from sin
Bases on that belief that Truth CAN be found in the HOLY Bible
Now with out occupying too much of my time because I was only doing research for a personal project and stumbled on this page by accident I will say
that(you should have the ability to research it ) The Holy Bible talks about and defines FAITH plenty of times. and talks about TRUTH and what it is.
Now here is where I differ from you when it comes to THIS discussion
AV is trying to get you to show evidence in your (our) definition of TRUTH
and yes you are going in circles with him and becoming quite insulting to him in my opinion maybe even borderline judgemental.
There is a fine line in sharing ones faith and imposing ones belief onto someone (the latter not being an effective witness.
AV isn’t shoving down his “BELIEF” down your throat or even saying that he is right or that you are wrong. He is only asking you do give him some of a foundation to convince him that what you define Truth is actually the one and only Truth.
You said you tried if he was willing to open up the HOLY BIBLE and he will find the answer there. Now really think about this if by any chance someone doesn’t believe in your definiton of truth how can you logicly think that he would believe he would se evidence if he read the the definition in YOUR dictionary (the BIBLE).
one little example to explain what I mean is that if you go on the URBAN DICTiONARY website you will find definitons of slang words that the youth use today and in the past. These are made up words that developed into common kids vocabulary
all made up, but they believe them to be real.
Well anyway to sum this all up because I am out of cigarettes ( which is a sin that i am trying to tackle, but just not now because I am seriously needing nicotine at the moment)
I am a Christian and I believe in the Bible to tell me the TRUTH but AV which SS seams to not comprihend and which you answered latter in the chain
MY definiton of Truth and SS as well has no evidence at least the evidence that you are requesting AT ALL. OUR explination of TRUTH is by FAITH and FAITH alone
we well at least I do that cause me to presume that my FAITH isn’t totally blind but it is definately FAITH based and not evidence based (SS even Jesus Christ opposed to proving to the siniquete (sp) to provide miricals to defend his claim)
AV sorry for getting into a thread and I appologize for SS for getting into a thread that he truely didn’t understand the content of or wasn’t prepared to have a logical debate with you.. It was fun though
when are you going to come down from your ivory tower and make some sort of decent attempt to answer my question?
I did answer your question. I said that I have no idea what your “Pre-existent Logos” is, nor why it should be deemed good evidence in favour of your truth-claims. (No do I have any idea why “pre-existing” and “logos” require capitalisation.) Furthermore, I asked you to explain it, since you’re the one who brought it up.
When are you going to come down from your ivory tower and explain the theological concepts you introduce into the debate?
How can you begin to understand the Truth,when you don’t even want to debate the issue?
I’m not the one refusing to define terms I’ve introduced, and refusing to substantiate my claims with proper evidence.
Saved Sinner 2
thankyou for helping me out.
Yes, I see the error of my ways now,and although my comphrehension is not the best, I realise that you are really on my side.
I think it best that I take your advice and leave this conversation.
Apparently I misunderstood what the question was all about.
It seems that not wanting to come to a real understanding of truth was my real problem from the start.
I tried to look it up in my Funk and Wagnell’s, but Funk left it to Wagnell and now I have no idea where to go.
AV,
Yes you are quite right. I did not offer you any evidence at all,how silly of me to try and convince you otherwise.
Everything you have said, I realise now was correct,and everything that I have said was incorrect.
thankyou for pointing this out to me in a most courteous way.
I realise this is not the correct forum to discuss the meaning of truth.
Lies,maybe and egocentric rationalism,but truth..hey what was I thinkin’?
cheers
SS
I realise this is not the correct forum to discuss the meaning of truth.
Why not?
Lies,maybe and egocentric rationalism,but truth..hey what was I thinkin’?
Lies? Apart from your strawmen, what lies have been told here?
As for egocentrism, you’re the one complaining about “intellectual snobbery.” If you’re unable to mount a cogent argument, it isn’t the fault of your interlocutors. Nor is it their responsibility to educate you in this regard. Nor does your inability to argue make those whom you debate “intellectual snobs.”
But what is egocentric rationalism?
====================================
Saved Sinner 2–I missed your comment when I posted earlier.
OUR explination of TRUTH is by FAITH and FAITH alone
we well at least I do that cause me to presume that my FAITH isn’t totally blind but it is definately FAITH based and not evidence based
I hear what you’re saying, and I’m sure you can appreciate that for a non-theist such an explanation of truth is not very convincing. It speaks to me of an incommensurability between faith-based and evidence-based approaches which perhaps makes the kind of tete-a-tete I’ve been having with Saved Sinner 1 inevitable. Nonetheless, I applaud your honesty, and you don’t have to apologise for entering the discussion (not that you’d have to apologise to me, anyway).
AV
Thanks for you openess to others opinions and respect your views as well
and to keep from having to reread the entire history of this thread can you answer these questions, and correct me if I am wrong if I miss represent what you said or think
I am sure that I am correct to say that you are an Athiest?
You also mention two approaches faith-based and evidence-based approaches, right?
And I assume we all agree that mine and ss belief in truth is faith-based
Your view is evidence driven if I am correct to think you are protraying
Well if you say that “There is no God” which that is what athiest believe by definition
“someone who denies the existence of god ”
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
please explain how that would be an evidence-based approach and not a faith-based
One if it is Faith that says that God exists the other side of the coin is the Faith that God doesn’t exist. There is no logical evidence to prove on either cases. The difference between the the two is that one is dogmatic and the other isn’t
So if you hold to being an Athiest than you have to accept that you don’t need defendable (in a logic debate that is) proof for your side of the view and expecting the other view to show evidence in a debate format isn’t justified.
On the other hand if you hold to needing evidence to prove a “Truth” on lets sat the Existance of God theory than you have a valuable debate but an error in the symatics of the meaning of Atheism. In a nutshell in order to hold your view with a solid foundation you have to retitle your label from as an Atheist to an Agnostic (person
)
since an Agnostic needs proof and evidence before concluding to the definition of TRUTH
def:
agnostic-a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
If I explained myself correctly I am meaning
Atheism IS faith-based
Agnostic(ism) IS evidence-based
I’m what is variously called a “weak atheist,” an “agnostic atheist,” or an “implicit atheist.” Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of god/s. It is a single position on a single question: “Do you believe in God?” The Princeton definition (and we should keep in mind that dictionaries are records of the common usage of words, not absolute truth) is far too narrow, and therefore constitutes a strawman if applied to all atheists.
Agnosticism, on the other hand, is a matter of epistemology–the notion that (as you point out) we don’t know, or maybe cannot know, whether god/s exist, because the evidence is lacking. So one can be an agnostic theist, insofar as one does not claim to know that god/s exist, but nonetheless retains a belief in god/s, or at least an “ultimate reality.” Or one can be an agnostic atheist–lacking a belief in god/s but at the same time making no positive knowledge claim regarding their existence.
So, as an agnostic atheist, my atheism is evidence-driven–insofar as, given the lack of evidence for the existence of god/s, I see no reason to believe in them. I don’t want to speak for other agnostic atheists, but I wager they would justify labelling themselves thus on similar grounds. I also suspect that most people who call themselves atheists would actually fall under the category of agnostic atheist–they would freely admit that they don’t know whether god/s exist, given the lack of evidence.
I don’t like to call myself an “agnostic” (as opposed to “agnostic atheist”) because I find the term too ambiguous–it still leaves the door open for atheism or theism. Better to use “agnostic” as an adjective rather than a noun, I think. Richard Dawkins makes another point about the label which is worth considering: there are countless hypothetical beliefs–e.g. in fairies, unicorns, dragons, Santa Claus, etc.–which cannot be disproven, yet ought we to label ourselves “agnostic” with regard to these? Most people do not believe in the existence of these things: the evidence for their existence is lacking, so people see no reason to believe in their existence. I doubt anyone would claim that people’s lack of belief in fairies, unicorns, dragons or Santa Claus is faith-based.
I should add the following. As an agnostic atheist, I make no positive knowledge claim regarding the existence of god/s.
Saved Sinner 1 was making a specific knowledge-claim: that the answer to finding the “Truth” is located in the Bible. I was quite justified in asking for the evidence for this claim (and would have been regardless of whether I was advancing my own knowledge–claims).
AV
I would have to say that that is an excellent explanation for your point of view, and If I was SS1 as supposed to being SS2 this would have came out at the very beginning of the thread and would have prevented the discussion to be so haphazard on SS1’s part that is. Then I would have to reply as an opposing viewer with:
So, as an (Gnostic) theist, my theism is evidence- driven-insofar as, given the lack of evidence for the NONexistence of god/s, I see no reason to discount the belief in them. Sort of a Glass Half full, Half empty approach ( not defining which view of existence falling under which view of the glass)
If I would get into a debate or logical discussion based on the extension of that view, I would not use a faith-based nor an evidence-based approach, but rather use deductive reasoning.
There is a TRUTH (but there could be more than one truth because 3 + 7 = 10, 2 + 8=10, and 5 + 5 = 10,etc etc and this whole discussion is pointless
)
For if there was no truth there wouldn’t be anything to compare to state that something is FALSE
As for the Existence of God, one angle for this debate is to define OUR reason for existence, either accidental or systematically with the non-existence of God or spiritually or Higher purpose with the existence of God
Ok we now have a purpose or no purpose for existing, but on both views the agreement on our current state of existence will eventually extinguish, i.e. we die
Now it’s commonly considered Human nature to want to succeed in life, weather with wealth, education, family, travel, or what ever so, and that it would be reasonable to assume that we wouldn’t want to do this all for nothing so if death is the pure end then (at least I choose) we would logical deduct that we want a purpose for existing and there is more to having our final achievement to be death an eternal end to our existence
So I choose that there IS a God
Now who or what is this God
We can either make up our own definition of God and develop our own dogmatic religion or study and choose one that already exists.
They all pretty much have a basic foundation that is instilled in us as human nature, the basic sense of what is good and what is bad.
They differ in there continuation after death
Some say its by works alone, i.e. Judaism, Islam
Achieved individually i.e. Buddhism, and I am sure Hinduism as well
There are reincarnations, nirvanas, Heavens, blah blah blah
Well if we can’t truly determine which one is truly correct it would be logical to pick something that covers all.
Christianity is the choice I rest my case!!!!
hahaha
The blunt and stubbornness of that statement is the humor
But in all seriousness Christiananity is the way to go (what I choose at least)
You have to work on being a “Good Person”
Its not bad that it requires humility and selflessness
Some excellent teachings on how to live life that are quite similar to other views if you look at what point the message is trying to get across (the bible that is)
And the interesting part is that there is someone that is called Jesus that took all the blame for our mistakes and gives a free ticket to a pretty cool place.
And here is the kicker if I am wrong and the TRUTH is in another religion or non-religion or there is no god at all, all I have to say is ”no harm no foul”, but if I chose something else and when I die I find out Christianity was the “TRUTH” I could be screwed or would have allot of explaining to do to plead my case to enter there Heaven.
Well enough of the Sermon, This isn’t what I totally believe in my faith and I am not trying to convince you to totally agree or state experiences that defend my view(because I can’t prove to you or anyone not involved that these experiences actually happened), but Hey you gotta admit it IS something to get one thinking.
Oh I would also like to add that If I still believed that Santa Claus existed as I did as a child, my parents would probably still label some of the presents that they bought me as To: Me From: Santa, but since I don’t they say that it is from them. So either way the out come was the same it was only my option on the view to the out come.
So, as an (Gnostic) theist, my theism is evidence- driven-insofar as, given the lack of evidence for the NONexistence of god/s, I see no reason to discount the belief in them.
This describes an agnostic position rather than a gnostic one. And it is susceptible to the criticism levelled by Dawkins against agnosticism: given the lack of evidence for the non-existence of unicorns, fairies, Flying Spaghetti Monsters or celestial teapots, would you similarly see no reason to discount belief in them?
If I would get into a debate or logical discussion based on the extension of that view, I would not use a faith-based nor an evidence-based approach, but rather use deductive reasoning.
There is a danger in using deductive reasoning to the exclusion of evidence. Let me put it this way.
P1 Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
P2 You are not with us.
C: Therefore, you are with the terrorists.
Premise one you will recognise from President Bush’s address to Congress in the wake of Sept 11, 2001. Premise two and the conclusion were not uttered by Bush, but they are nonetheless implied. Here’s the problem. The argument above is deductively valid, but, given that it is possible to be “with” neither the US nor the terrorists, it is also factually wrong. Garbage in, in the form of President Bush’s false premise = garbage out. To avoid this problem, it is vital that the premises of deductive arguments be evidence-based. Hence, evidence and deductive reasoning are not mutually exclusive.
Furthermore, I don’t see why logical discussion should be limited to deductive reasoning–why there should be no room for induction and abduction.
Now it’s commonly considered Human nature to want to succeed in life, weather with wealth, education, family, travel, or what ever so, and that it would be reasonable to assume that we wouldn’t want to do this all for nothing so if death is the pure end then (at least I choose) we would logical deduct that we want a purpose for existing and there is more to having our final achievement to be death an eternal end to our existence
So I choose that there IS a God
Wanting there to be a purpose for existence does not mean that there is a purpose for existence–just as wanting God to exist does not mean that God exists.
We can either make up our own definition of God and develop our own dogmatic religion or study and choose one that already exists.
False dichotomy. We could always choose not to think dogmatically. We don’t have to choose a dogma.
And here is the kicker if I am wrong and the TRUTH is in another religion or non-religion or there is no god at all, all I have to say is ”no harm no foul”, but if I chose something else and when I die I find out Christianity was the “TRUTH” I could be screwed or would have allot of explaining to do to plead my case to enter there Heaven.
This is Pascal’s Wager–one of the most unconvincing arguments for belief ever advanced.
1. It assumes that our beliefs are subject to our will. But I can no more will myself to believe in the Christian god than I can will myself to believe in a square circle.
2. Many religious believers donate a significant portion of their income to churches as tithing–money that might otherwise have been put to better use elsewhere. The concept of sin causes religious believers can expend a lot of emotional energy on unnecessary guilt over e.g. masturbation, pre-marital sex or birth control. Religious dogma regarding contraceptives is doing a lot of harm in sub-Saharan Africa. I wouldn’t classify any of this as “no harm no foul.”
3. If the “truth” is in a non-Christian religion, the penalties for non-belief in that religion could be as bad or worse than you claim they are for non-belief in Christianity.
4. If Christianity is “true,” would your God really want followers who purport to believe only because they are afraid of the consequences for non-belief?
Av,
You brought up some valid points, and I would like to say that you you do have a stock full of references on hand, I envy that in a person. I will have to ponder on your message a little more, but I will bring up my thought process on a few points for the moment. Oh and I stand corrected I guess I should have said an agnostic theist
First to answer your question
If Christianity is “true” would your God reall want followers who purport to believe only because they are afraid of the consequences for non-belief?
The answer would be Yes, and No. Yes the “Christian” God wouldn’t want a false belief as in the context of your question, but Fear does play a small role, well at least in the Old Testiment of the Christian Bible. Another note to realize its mans inturpritation of the Bible that is usually brought out in discussions or debates for defining their religion. As far as my inturpritation of my belief as a Christian may differ and of course since it is my inturpritation I find it to be correct .
Before I would be able to explain or to go in further detail on the Christian belief or should I say My view on the Christian belief, The acceptance of an existance of a god of some shape or form would have to be agreed upon other wise that would be just more information to either prove or disprove the original topic at hand. I don’t believe at least at the moment that this is” who’s God is the right god ” type of discussion.
Besides my intent ( which I didn’t mean to protray) wasn’t to concintrate on the Christian view, but rather an example of the use of deductive reasoning or I guess by the atemp to us deductive reasoning appropriatly.
Second , and though I am no means claiming I am an expert at reasoning in a deductive mannor, but on the comment
There is a danger in using deductive reasoning to the exclusion of evidence.
Let me put it this way
P1 Either you are with us, or you are a terrorist.
P2 You are not with us
C: There for you are with the terrorist
I think the issue with that example isn’t that the danger in using deductive reasoning to the exclusion of evidence ( of course it is ignorant to exclude evidence if there is evidence available) but the danger would be unreasonable deductive reasoning if that makes sense.
let me put it this way
In your senario by using Bushes quote ( which I find humorous using deductive reasoning and Bush in the same sentance anyway)
The correct or at least improved formula would be
P1 Either you are with us, or you are against us
Now in order to move on to the next premise “with us” would have to be defined
If “with us” means you shouldn’t kill or strike terror to americans then the premise would be Either you are with us or you are a terrorist.
If “with us” means that we should strike down the ones that performed the act of terror then you would branch of on premises of 2 conclusions C1 with us C2 against us
as for either conclusions (c1 or c2) you would have to expound on the meaning against us to develope more premises
Maybe what I just said isn’t clear (But I will leave it in the thread just in case it is)
but let me use Program logic as an analogy
in programming you have the conditional statement IF.. THEN if THEN and that is sort of how your example goes
but for your example to have an appropiate out come to the program you would have to have compound statements and subroutines ie
IF
then
IF AND
then
else
So I guess if the view that God exists would require using a more complex ladder logic in deductive reasoning is what I am trying to get at
not just a simple IF it is not A then it is B there are other factors in order to define who or what that God is that exists.
And the view that God doesn’t exist then it would be a simple IF god doesn’t exist THEN nothing.
Determining that God doesn’t exist unless there is evidence ends the openess or willingness to search for that evidence, but view the existance of a God would stimulate the quest for evidence for a God weither a christian one, Supreme Intellegence or Aliens using us as a Huge Erector set and allowing the fairies to sprinkle there fairy dust to manipulate us.
AV i might have rambled a bit since it is late, but I would have to say I need more evidence that God doesn’t exist before I sell myself short and say that there isn’t something that is out there that is far more intellegant then the most educated human mind, because if we were so smart than the answer would be so Black and White that the kid down the street that always wears a helmet would know the meaning of “TRUTH”
AV
as for the other 2 statements at the end of your message (exluding the first), I can’t agree with you more. “Christians” do waste there time and money and stress over alot of issues, but then again just be cause they are Christian doesn’t mean they know what it means or how to be one. Plus doesn’t mean they KNOW the TRUTH
I mean a person can claim to be a parent because they have a child, but that doesn’t mean he/she is a good parent, and by no means could represent all of the parents in the world.
So I guess if the view that God exists would require using a more complex ladder logic in deductive reasoning is what I am trying to get at
Adding complexity to a deductive argument would only make it more complex, not necessarily more true. The “garbage in, garbage out” principle would still apply, regardless of the complexity of the deductive reasoning: if the premises are false or inconclusive, the results will be false or inconclusive. That is the nature of deductive arguments: the conclusions follow necessarily from the premises–which means that you have to get the premises right. And that’s where evidence comes in.
Logic guarantees only that our arguments are consistent; it does not guarantee that our arguments are true.
If Christianity is “true” would your God reall want followers who purport to believe only because they are afraid of the consequences for non-belief?
The answer would be Yes, and No. Yes the “Christian” God wouldn’t want a false belief as in the context of your question, but Fear does play a small role, well at least in the Old Testiment of the Christian Bible.
But “belief” under such circumstances can only be false (i.e. pretend) belief (unless one already believes for other reasons), for the very reason I have already stated: belief is not subject to the will. I can’t “choose” to genuinely believe in God: I need to be convinced. And the “fear factor” doesn’t really work either (on non-believers): belief in God out of fear of the consequences of not believing in God presupposes belief in a God who dishes out such consequences.
The correct or at least improved formula would be
P1 Either you are with us, or you are against us
That’s very far from being an improved formula. It takes the form of a logical fallacy: false dilemma/excluded middle. Moreover, the terms “with us” and “against us” are far too vague.
Determining that God doesn’t exist unless there is evidence ends the openess or willingness to search for that evidence, but view the existance of a God would stimulate the quest for evidence for a God weither a christian one, Supreme Intellegence or Aliens using us as a Huge Erector set and allowing the fairies to sprinkle there fairy dust to manipulate us.
I agree. And the claim that “God doesn’t exist unless there is evidence” is not one I am making, and it is not the agnostic atheist position. Indeed, it constitutes a logical fallacy: the argument from ignorance. And the same can be said of the claim “God exists unless there is evidence that he/she/it doesn’t.”
AV i might have rambled a bit since it is late, but I would have to say I need more evidence that God doesn’t exist before I sell myself short and say that there isn’t something that is out there that is far more intellegant then the most educated human mind,
And if you are able to posit this “far more intelligent” thing–let’s call it G–then why would you not consider it “selling yourself short” to posit a thing–let’s call it G1–that is far more intelligent than G? Or a thing–G2–far more intelligent than G1? And so on.
As Dawkins argues elegantly in The Blind Watchmaker and The God Delusion, the theory of evolution by natural selection shows how complex things (e.g. like us) evolved by slow and gradual degrees from simple beginnings. This avoids the infinite regress associated with the assumption that complex things “must have been designed” by more complex things.
Furthermore: the argument that “I can’t conceptualise the possibility that there isn’t something more intelligent than human beings, therefore, there must be”–is also an argument from ignorance.
Av
I have to say that you sure are very articulate, which I know that I need improve on my skills of communication.
You bring a lot of valid points to the table
—Adding complexity to a deductive argument would only make it more complex, not necessarily more true—
I agree that it doesn’t necessarily make it more true, but not necesarliy mor complex. It would only ensure that one attempts to look at all sides of the cube before reaching to a conclusion, weather that conclusion is true or not.
–Logic guarentees only that our arguements are consistant; it doesn’t guarentee that our arguements are true
I agree with this as well and like how it was worded
The statements That God exists And that God doesn’t exist, and the arguements for either case are both based out of some form of ignorance, because neither can be proven (well at least in the present time)
No matter how books we study or how many peoples quotes the we use to support our argument, since they are posting an arguement themselves with out basis of hard provable evidence.
So in my opinion the only means of conquering our quest for the true TRUTH is to keep an open mind on all views. Not to only search and study for evidence that proves our view but also search and study for evidence that disproves our view.
In a debate on opposing views on any matter with out the acceptance that one or the other view may be wrong would only be an arguement between who would be leading in the old addage The Blind leading the Blind
Which is the reason I was hooked onto this thread in the first place where I saw the fallacies on the part of SS1 and had some uncertainitys on yours. Though we may differ on the answer to IF God exists or Not, I would have to say that this forum was not in vain and was benifical to me in reguards to keeping my mind open and working on the attempt to conquer the basic human handicap of ignorance.
Maybe One day the reality of TRUTH will come out and maybe Everyone would say “Damn I was way off” but who knows
Av
I have to say that you sure are very articulate, which I know that I need improve on my skills of communication.
Thanks. For my part I appreciate the fact that you don’t take disagreement personally. Nor do you respond to criticisms of your arguments with anti-intellectualist or abusive rhetoric. Once again–much appreciated.
So in my opinion the only means of conquering our quest for the true TRUTH is to keep an open mind on all views. Not to only search and study for evidence that proves our view but also search and study for evidence that disproves our view.
Amen! Though there is a distinction to be drawn between open-mindedness and credulity. We should not be so open-minded that our brains fall out
. But we should constantly bear in mind that, whatever our ideas or opinions about the world, we could be mistaken (the fallibilist approach).
Though we may differ on the answer to IF God exists or Not, I would have to say that this forum was not in vain and was benifical to me in reguards to keeping my mind open and working on the attempt to conquer the basic human handicap of ignorance.
Debate–properly conducted–is seldom fruitless, even if the participants walk away unconvinced. You have gained something, I think, if you walk away with a better understanding of where your interlocutor is coming from.
AV
I bow my head to you as we conclude this particular debate, and will keep an eye open for any other threads that i would like to interject my opinions into.
———–
Until then I bid you adieu
An interesting debate, thanks everyone for your contributions, you are all welcome back anytime.
If there is any particular topic you’d like to discuss, let me know and I can start a new thread.
Bravo AV and SS2 for a well constructed conversation.
Absolutely fantastic.
I was most impressed.
Pity about the lack of any factual evidence.
I may have to convert to Atheism if you can be more convincing.
evidence please.
cheers
SS
I may have to convert to Atheism if you can be more convincing.
Nobody is trying to convert you to anything, SS. As long as you’re not harming or encroaching upon the freedom of others, I couldn’t care less what you believe.
Incidentally–why have you capitalised “Atheism?”
evidence please.
From whom? SS2, or me? I’m not making a positive knowledge claim as to the existence of god/s. SS2 has the honesty and integrity to admit that his/her belief in God is wholly faith-based.
You’ve made a positive knowledge claim regarding the location of the capital-T “Truth” in the holy book of your religion. The onus is upon you to properly substantiate this claim with evidence, if you want people to accept it. (And no–”Read my Bible and find out” does not count as evidence.) You’ve refused to do so thus far. I don’t expect this situation to change. But I’m not going to let you off the hook as long as you persist in making unsubstantiated claims.
SS1,
I am, I guess out of my own ignorance, surprised that you felt you had to interject in the mannor that you have.
It seems to me you just like adding fuel to the fire either in some attempt to try to burn the opposing or in a masticistic way enjoy being burned yourself (by the way I am not meaning burn in a biblical sense)
I as a Christian and with no shame be willing to share my faith with whomever would show an interest, but of course one would have to go over the obsticle of the existance of God in the first place.
This isn’t or never was a Who’s God is the right God discussion EVER.
IF you did want to put some solid foundation to this discussion you would try to gear it towards the concept of what an infinite being/entity and maybe some evidences that would pursuade the posibilities of a God
I am not trying to be insulting or even put a fellow christian down, but your discussion looks like it needs to be saved on a site where
The Mormons or Jehovah witnesses who compare their Jesus to ours
or where the Muslims believe Allah is the right God
OR Debate with the Jewish community who don’t believe the Messiah Came back yet
Whom ALL can’t prove that THEIR god is THE GOD or TRUTH in this type of discussion
One angle that could be approched, but not exactly how I address it would be
With out the existance of God then The creation of existance as we know it would be by chance i.e. Big Bang, evolution. That could be a question that you can ask your audience to ensure you understand there view.
You can then expound on that one topic and debate the fact if it all happened by chance the probability( maybe even use some figures) of everything piecing together to become what we know it as today would be the same probability for it to regress in the same mannor since we can’t roll 7s on the dice all of the time.
If you are as Articullate as AV and maybe gather some referance material of authors supporting your Idea ( maybe C.S. lewis once atheist turned Christian, I vaguely remember him saying some smart stuff)
Though going through all of that might still not show true evidence but as I believe AV stated that he didn’t make a such a hard claim on his view as you did.
I wish you luck on your mission and purpose on this message board, but if you are attempting to out whitt or “Catch” AV on something, I am afraid to say you won’t because if by any chance you can provide a solid case I don’t think AV is so closed minded that he wouldn’t take it into consideration and leave it to view.
SS1,
I am, I guess out of my own ignorance, surprised that you felt you had to interject in the mannor that you have.
It seems to me you just like adding fuel to the fire either in some attempt to try to burn the opposing or in a masticistic way enjoy being burned yourself (by the way I am not meaning burn in a biblical sense)
I as a Christian and with no shame be willing to share my faith with whomever would show an interest, but of course one would have to go over the obsticle of the existance of God in the first place.
This isn’t or never was a Who’s God is the right God discussion EVER.
IF you did want to put some solid foundation to this discussion you would try to gear it towards the concept of what an infinite being/entity and maybe some evidences that would pursuade the posibilities of a God
I am not trying to be insulting or even put a fellow christian down, but your discussion looks like it needs to be saved on a site where
The Mormons or Jehovah witnesses who compare their Jesus to ours
or where the Muslims believe Allah is the right God
OR Debate with the Jewish community who don’t believe the Messiah Came back yet
Whom ALL can’t prove that THEIR god is THE GOD or TRUTH in this type of discussion
One angle that could be approched, but not exactly how I address it would be
With out the existance of God then The creation of existance as we know it would be by chance i.e. Big Bang, evolution. That could be a question that you can ask your audience to ensure you understand there view.
You can then expound on that one topic and debate the fact if it all happened by chance the probability( maybe even use some figures) of everything piecing together to become what we know it as today would be the same probability for it to regress in the same mannor since we can’t roll 7s on the dice all of the time.
If you are as Articullate as AV and maybe gather some referance material of authors supporting your Idea ( maybe C.S. lewis once atheist turned Christian, I vaguely remember him saying some smart stuff)
Though going through all of that might still not show true evidence but as I believe AV stated that he didn’t make a such a hard claim on his view as you did.
I wish you luck on your mission and purpose on this message board, but if you are attempting to out whitt or “Catch” AV on something, I am afraid to say you won’t because if by any chance you can provide a solid case I don’t think AV is so closed minded that he wouldn’t take it into consideration and leave it to view.
Slight nitpick or two, SS2:
1. Evolution by natural selection is not a chance process.
2. There’s a fascinating Scientific American article on misconceptions about the Big Bang which is worth reading. Many Christians have no difficulty accommodating Big Bang cosmology into their theology–indeed, some cite it as evidence of the existence of a creator. (Obviously I disagree with such a conclusion.) I think you may be confusing the Big Bang with something known as the anthropic principle: http:// http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/finetuned.html
AV,
Well I only gave Evolution, and the Big Bang theory as an example not meaning that it would lead to evidence eitherwise.
I would just like to point out that it would get the ball rolling for SS2 to get his/her foot in the door for a logical discussion
Because it would lead to the question
Though Evolution by natural selection is not a chance process is it actually evidence of the Non-existance or Existance of God or is it just a theory for which many scientists state it is. which in turn wouldn’t be valid evidence for the non-existant God view, but of course doesn’t support the existance either.
I understand your reasoning in bringing up those excellent references to point out the tiny flaw in my statement about evolution and I stand corrected.
I am in noway prepared to debate the issue of the existance or non-existance of God at the level you are, but I do know if you are interested in the view of the existence of God C.S lewis brings up some interesting cases.
But, my sole purpose was to give SS1 a direction to go if he wanted to have any comments worthy contiplating, because though I believe in the Christian God and Christ himself I can’t stand christians with the Holier than though mentality and throughing the Bible around in a careless way.
Unless……and I have to admit this crossed my mind since there is no telling who is behind the screennames that AV and SS1 are one and the same, and SS1 was created as a means to give credit to AV’s view and to continue this thread. Especially since who would agree to even contiplate the existance of god if the only one on the thread in support of the case is SS1…… Of course no evidence of the matter but still a possiblity
I kid…
But, my sole purpose was to give SS1 a direction to go if he wanted to have any comments worthy contiplating, because though I believe in the Christian God and Christ himself I can’t stand christians with the Holier than though mentality and throughing the Bible around in a careless way.
Have you ever noticed how often the “holier-than-thou” mentality goes hand-in-hand with the “you-think-you’re-better-than-me” mentality? (SS1 being a case in point.)
Unless……and I have to admit this crossed my mind since there is no telling who is behind the screennames that AV and SS1 are one and the same, and SS1 was created as a means to give credit to AV’s view and to continue this thread. Especially since who would agree to even contiplate the existance of god if the only one on the thread in support of the case is SS1…… Of course no evidence of the matter but still a possiblity
That’s funny–I’ve been wondering the same about SS1 and SS2! I guess Oz Atheist can clear it up to our mutual satisfaction by checking our I.P. addresses.
Of course that still wouldn’t show any evidence of Truth, because in fact OzAtheist could have fabricated AV, SS1, and me SS2 as well, So does that lead us into a debate to the age old question “DO I EXIST?” :p
Oh I just wanted to make a note, I sort of got into this thread in the middle of a conversation, and later realized that I didn’t address the original topic (see top of page)
I can’t really give an answer that would show proof of the virgin birth, but there are reasoning for his birth in that manner, at least in the christian belief that is.
Taking the time period of the event and the people of that time (using the Bible as ref to support the issue that is) I came accross an interesting webpage that would get one started if they were interested in researching the meaning even farther http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch17/default.htm
I am not sure at what authority the author of the site has, but you could get a rough view on why Christians believe what they believe.
You could also google the topic and maybe even gather information from sites that support the possibility of the view.
Oh AV when I say you I am I mean in a sense for anyone that might be reading our conversations as well and have not came to a conclusion on what they view. (I only want to ensure that I am not unintentually being insulting, I am usually more blunt when I insult someone
)
“Have you ever noticed how often the “holier-than-thou” mentality goes hand-in-hand with the “you-think-you’re-better-than-me” mentality? (SS1 being a case in point.)”
Uh, yeah. But since I have been here with you guys I don’t get the guilt complex I used to because I know that you all are not going to throw me into the same category as these people!
The “better than you attitude” has been around in religious communities for a long time. I don’t know that it could ever be eradicated but it does open the door for some amazing conversations (see above)
Hello wineymomma,
I was hoping that someone else would join AV, SS2, and myself in this conversation.
I’m afraid it all seems to have gotten out of hand lately.
I simply asked AV if he was sincere in any quest for seeking Truth.
He bombarded me with requests for evidence,claims and the like and I asked whether he would consider looking for Truth in the bible.
This simple remark,it seems,got him all rather tense and started him off on some sort of hot-under-the-collar rant that had me questioning whether he was really sincere.
Anyway,I won’t bore you with any more details,I suppose you could take some time to read all of the above,and maybe make some sense out of it.
I know I tried.
I do agree with you however that there are a lot of “holier-than-thou” people in the world.
We are all sinners,whether we know it or not.
cheers
SS
Wineymomma,
I don’t know about you but, the only one who does not make any sense to me is the sanctimonious sinner above.
Sean
yes we are all sinners whether we know it or not but I don’t feel the need to point it out to anyone but myself when I start getting too puffed up about myself.
He bombarded me with requests for evidence,claims and the like and I asked whether he would consider looking for Truth in the bible.
People who are sincere in their search for truth want to know, and are more than justified in demanding, the grounds and evidence for truth-claims. You made a truth claim–”the Truth is located in the Bible”–for which you refuse to provide evidence.
If you’re not going to provide evidence for your truth claim, how can you sincerely expect anyone to accept it?
OK AV,
I did say “the truth is located in the bible”
Maybe the question that needs to be asked is:
“Is there reasonable evidence within the pages of the bible to support the notion that there is indeed a revelation of absolute truth?”
It is not a case that I have refused to provide evidence,on the contrary,I have endeavoured to explain that ‘Truth” is indeed found within the pages of the bible.
The mid-twentieth century’s revival of interest in special divine revelation occurs at a significant time in modern history.
Naturalism has become a virile cultural force in both East and West.
In previous centuries the chief rivals of revealed religion were speculative idealism and philosophical theism; today the leading antagonists are materialistic Communism,logical positivism,atheistic existenialism and variant forms of Anglo-Saxon humanism.
Since communist philosophy refers the whole movement of events to economic determinism,the recovery of the Judeo- Christian emphasis on special historical revelation gains pointed relevance.
The term revelation means intrinsically the disclosure of what was previously unknown.
In Judeo-Christian theology,the term is used primarily of God’s communication to man of divine truth,that is,his manifestation of himself or of his will.
The essentials of the biblical view are that the LOGOS is the divine agent in all revelation,this revelation being further discriminated as ‘general’ or ‘universal’ [that is,revelation in nature,history and conscience] and ‘special’ or ‘particular’[that is,redemptive revelation conveyed by wondrous acts and words]
The special revelation in sacred history is crowned by the incarnation of the living WORD and the inscripturation of the spoken word.
The gospel of redemption is therefore not merely a seies of abstract theses unrelated to specific historical events; it is the dramatic news that God has acted in saving history,climaxed by the incarnate person and work of Christ, for the salvation of lost mankind.
Yet the redemptive events of biblical history do not stand uninterpreted. Their authentic meaning is given in the sacred writings-sometimes after,sometimes before the events.
The series of sacred acts therefore includes the divine provision of an authoritative canon of writings,that is, the sacred Scriptures,providing a trustworthy source of knowledge of God and of his plan.
Well may you say,at this point,where is the evidence?.
While the bible indeed affirms God’s general revelation,it invariably correlates general revelation with special redemptive revelation.
It declares at one and the same time that the LOGOS is Creator and Redeemer.
It does not present general revelation on the thesis that the true knowledge of God is possible to fallen man through the natural light of reason apart from a revelation of Christ,but rather intoduces general revelation alongside special revelation in order to emphasise man’s guilt.
Thus the Scripture[the bible] adduces God’s unitary revelation,general and special,to display man’s true predicament;he is a finite creature with an eternal destiny,made for spiritual fellowship with God,but now separated from his Maker by sin.
So the question remains; ‘How can man discover “Truth” if that “Truth”is only discovered by divine revelation?”
Men throughout the centuries have embarked upon the search for the holy grail.
To discover truth wherever that may be.
But truth,absolute truth can not be found by mankinds own endeavours,outside a divine revelation.
whatever truth that mankind possesses can only ever be relative and therefore not able to fulfil man’s quest for perfect knowledge.
However, the “Truth” was and is found perfect in one man,that being the person of Jesus Christ,who as God Incarnate,came to reveal to those who need to know the truth.
I have endeavoured to provide evidence that there is indeed truth found within the pages of the bible. God willing,I pray that the truth be revealed to you and your family.
cheers
SS
Maybe the question that needs to be asked is:
“Is there reasonable evidence within the pages of the bible to support the notion that there is indeed a revelation of absolute truth?”
Isn’t this just more circular reasoning?: “There is indeed a revelation of absolute truth in the pages of the bible because the pages of the bible say so.” In other words, wouldn’t you have to first establish how the bible constitutes reasonable evidence–evidence that can be taken as reasonable regardless of whether or not one is already a Christian, regardless of whether or not one already presupposes the reliability of the Christian bible as a source of evidence in favour of its own truth?
The mid-twentieth century’s revival of interest in special divine revelation occurs at a significant time in modern history.
Whose interest in “special divine revelation” was revived, and why should these individuals be considered relevant to the question of whether there is evidence within the bible to support the claim that the bible is a repository of absolute truth?
In previous centuries the chief rivals of revealed religion were speculative idealism and philosophical theism; today the leading antagonists are materialistic Communism,logical positivism,atheistic existenialism and variant forms of Anglo-Saxon humanism.
Regarding “materialistic Communism”–have you been asleep since 1989? And since Popper came along, logical positivism as hardly been the final word in philosophy of science.
In any case, what you seem to be saying is this: “I personally don’t like philosophies x, y and z; therefore, my preferred philosophy is true.” This is the argument from personal belief fallacy.
Since communist philosophy refers the whole movement of events to economic determinism,the recovery of the Judeo- Christian emphasis on special historical revelation gains pointed relevance.
Relevant to what? Considered relevant by whom? Why should the opinions of those who consider special historical revelation relevant be considered authoritative?
The term revelation means intrinsically the disclosure of what was previously unknown.
In Judeo-Christian theology,the term is used primarily of God’s communication to man of divine truth,that is,his manifestation of himself or of his will.
That’s nice. Now you’ve just made the task you’ve set for yourself all the more difficult. On what grounds (i.e. what evidence) should people who don’t already accept Judeo-Christian theology accept it? Because, believe me, SS: they aren’t going to accept it just because you say they should.
The essentials of the biblical view are that the LOGOS is the divine agent in all revelation,this revelation being further discriminated as ‘general’ or ‘universal’ [that is,revelation in nature,history and conscience] and ’special’ or ‘particular’[that is,redemptive revelation conveyed by wondrous acts and words]
Is LOGOS an acronym for something?
The special revelation in sacred history is crowned by the incarnation of the living WORD and the inscripturation of the spoken word.
Evidence?
The gospel of redemption is therefore not merely a seies of abstract theses unrelated to specific historical events; it is the dramatic news that God has acted in saving history,climaxed by the incarnate person and work of Christ, for the salvation of lost mankind.
Therefore?? You say “therefore” as if you are presenting a cogent argument based on acceptable premises. But you haven’t presented any premises that would be acceptable to those who do not already subscribe to your theology. If you think you have, then state them.
Yet the redemptive events of biblical history do not stand uninterpreted. Their authentic meaning is given in the sacred writings-sometimes after,sometimes before the events.
The series of sacred acts therefore includes the divine provision of an authoritative canon of writings,that is, the sacred Scriptures,providing a trustworthy source of knowledge of God and of his plan.
There’s that “therefore” word again. You haven’t provided premises that those who don’t already share your theology would find acceptable. These “acts” you call “sacred”–why should people who don’t already subscribe to your theology consider them “sacred?” This so-called “authoritative” canon of writings–why should those who don’t already subscribe to your theology consider it authoritative?
Well may you say,at this point,where is the evidence?.
Yes.
While the bible indeed affirms God’s general revelation,it invariably correlates general revelation with special redemptive revelation.
It declares at one and the same time that the LOGOS is Creator and Redeemer.
It does not present general revelation on the thesis that the true knowledge of God is possible to fallen man through the natural light of reason apart from a revelation of Christ,but rather intoduces general revelation alongside special revelation in order to emphasise man’s guilt.
Thus the Scripture[the bible] adduces God’s unitary revelation,general and special,to display man’s true predicament;he is a finite creature with an eternal destiny,made for spiritual fellowship with God,but now separated from his Maker by sin.
You really don’t seem to realise the hole you’re digging for yourself here. What you’re giving me is a theological argument based on theological premises. It’s as simple as that. You haven’t made any effort to show why those who don’t already subscribe to your theology would find those premises acceptable.
So the question remains; ‘How can man discover “Truth” if that “Truth”is only discovered by divine revelation?”
What is the evidence that supports the claim that “Truth” is only discovered by “divine revelation?” How can you demonstrate that this “divine revelation” exists in the first place?
But truth,absolute truth can not be found by mankinds own endeavours,outside a divine revelation.
Substantiate, please. (Though what you appear to be conceding here is that there is no evidence you can bring to the table in favour of your truth-claim. Had you conceded this at the outset, it would have saved us all a lot of time, energy and bandwidth.)
However, the “Truth” was and is found perfect in one man,that being the person of Jesus Christ,who as God Incarnate,came to reveal to those who need to know the truth.
Substantiate, please.
I have endeavoured to provide evidence that there is indeed truth found within the pages of the bible.
No, you haven’t.
God willing,I pray that the truth be revealed to you and your family.
Rather than praying, how about reasoning?
Slightly OT:
Quote of the week from a commenter at Pharyngula . . .
“Jesus appears regularly on grilled cheese sandwiches, but apparently only to Christians. Why does he not convert Hindus to Christianity by the simple expedient of appearing on nan bread throughout India? Sadly, Hindus see one of many avatars on their nan, rather than the lord Jesus. What am I to make of this? Does Jesus hate non-Christians? Why does he not reveal the Truth to them, so that these poor benighted souls can see the light?”
Good Morning AV
I trust all is well with you.
Your continual blanket rebuttals at my attempts to offer a reasonable insight to the understanding of “Truth” do not make your responses more credible.
It won’t work.
It seems to me that your definition of evidence is only acceptable to your own perceptions of so-called evidence.
Your perceptions are rather subjective in nature, as any evidence that you are willing to accept seems to be limited to how that evidence fits your own personal point of view.
This is a little disappointing for I would have thought that you could have been a little more objective in your perceptions.
My intention was never to engage you in any theological argument,for I believe it futile and unnecessary.
Nevertheless,theology is an interest of mine,and therefore a means by which it is possible to come to an understanding of truth.
Now,it seems obvious that if a man knows any truth at all,he must know a truth that God knows,for God knows all truth.
A sentence must mean to a man who knows its meaning precisely what it means to God;for if the man does not know God’s meaning,he does not know the meaning of the sentence.
The intricacies of theology and philosophy are very difficult.Epistemology is terrifyingly technical.
Whether we learn by logic alone as Decartes and Spinoza taught;or whether we learn by experience alone as Berkely and Hume taught;or whether we need Kant’s ‘a priori’ categories;or whether we can receive truth only by revelation–are subjects of interesting scholarly discussion.
But however it may be, the Bible does not countenance skepticism.
It is not anti-intellectual;it does not treat doctrine as unimportant,false or incomprehensible.
Rather it places considerable emphasis on truth and understanding.
I did say in my previous post that when it comes to a knowledge of truth,that it cannot be “found” as such, because “Absolute Truth” can only be known through revelation.
It is through a revelation of who God actually is that “Truth” can be known.
cheers
SS
Your continual blanket rebuttals at my attempts to offer a reasonable insight to the understanding of “Truth” do not make your responses more credible.
Your continual attempts to present theology as reasonable evidence makes your position less credible each time you do it.
It seems to me that your definition of evidence is only acceptable to your own perceptions of so-called evidence.
Your perceptions are rather subjective in nature, as any evidence that you are willing to accept seems to be limited to how that evidence fits your own personal point of view.
No: you have this completely the wrong way around. By “evidence” I mean “observational or empirical evidence”–and that is the only evidence that could possibly count as reasonable and objective if you want to convince someone who does not already share your theological presuppositions to accept your truth-claims regarding your religion, the alleged location of “absolute truth” in your holy book, and so on and so forth. No amount of theology will get you there, because no amount of theological hand-waving will substitute for hard evidence.
As I have already explained to SS2–who genuinely seems willing to listen–my lack of belief in a deity/deities is grounded in the lack of observational/empirical (and therefore objective) evidence for the existence of such deities. There being no evidence for their existence, there is therefore no reason to believe in their existence, and that is why I lack belief in the existence of deities.
Nevertheless,theology is an interest of mine,and therefore a means by which it is possible to come to an understanding of truth.
There’s that “therefore” word again. I don’t think it means what you think it means. To rephrase your statement above: “Theology is a means by which it is possible to come to an understanding of truth because SS is interested in theology.” Is that really what you meant to say?
Now,it seems obvious that if a man knows any truth at all,he must know a truth that God knows,for God knows all truth.
It might seem obvious to you. It doesn’t seem obvious to me. So I must ask: what evidence do you have that this “God”–assuming he/she/it exists–knows all truth?
A sentence must mean to a man who knows its meaning precisely what it means to God;for if the man does not know God’s meaning,he does not know the meaning of the sentence.
What is “God’s meaning?” What evidence do you have that it is “God’s meaning?”
The intricacies of theology and philosophy are very difficult.Epistemology is terrifyingly technical.
On the other hand, providing solid evidence to support your truth-claims should be absurdly simple, if you have the evidence to begin with. If you don’t, then making a truth-claim you are unable to defend is unwise.
But however it may be, the Bible does not countenance skepticism.
A pity.
But why should that make a difference to me? It certainly doesn’t get you off the hook.
I did say in my previous post that when it comes to a knowledge of truth,that it cannot be “found” as such, because “Absolute Truth” can only be known through revelation.
And in saying that, you are making a truth-claim (“Absolute Truth” can only be known through revelation) for which I am justified in demanding evidence. Again, if you can’t substantiate your truth-claim with evidence (not theological hand-waving, but evidence), it’s best not to make the truth-claim in the first place–or at least, you have little grounds for complaint when others see no reason to accept your claim.
AV,
I see this conversation is still hot between you and SS1. Though we don’t agree with each others view on the existance of god, I am sure that we both agree on the fact that SS2 doesn’t seem to be understanding the faults in the mode of this discussion.
I feel (my opinion) that SS1 is tackling two issues with the claims of only tackling one,
the issue of not only that God exists, but that it is the Christian God found in the holy bible that exists. SS2′s discussion would definately fit well (delivery still needs improvement,though has shown some improvement) if the discussion was between people that share the view of some type of god, deity, or whatnot exists in some shape or form.
Well, anyway, now to the reason for this post.
AV, I read your last post and it brought me to a question ( I am sorry if it has been answered before, but either my memory is short, or it was clouded with the discussion going all over the place) I appreciate your patience if you end up having to repeat yourself.
your comment follows: (i don’t know how to italicize)
-my lack of belief in a deity/deities is grounded in the lack of observational/empirical (and therefore objective) evidence for their existence, there is therefore no reason to believe in their existence, and that is why I lack belief in the existence of deities.
Is there evidence for the non-existance of deity/deities?
if yes, what are some evidences?
if no, and their is a lack of evidence for their existence, then why do you opt to view “no reason to believe in their existence” and not opt to view ” their maybe be a reason to believe in their existance”
I do recall an analogy in regards to fairies maybe in the term that since there is no evidence for fairies then there is no reason to believe in them. if that was the case I would have to agree because if fairies existed or not it wouldn’t effect an individual one way or the other (unless you wanted to obtain their dust inorder to fly, and then that would be a reason to search for the evidence and existance of that claim)
But when it comes to God/Gods/deity or what not, why wouldn’t one want to search for the evidence for themselves, not only if it/he/she/them exist but what part do they have in our lives, just incase if any. I myself wouldn’t say limit oneself to the “Christian” God just because an individual claims that is the truth, and even if they present it in an intellegent manner to defend that claim.
I of course don’t know if you as an atheist and the views that you claimed, means that you are not in your personal search to prove or disprove your hypothesis or not. I am only as always just trying to providing a different opinion to atempt to stimulate ones thought process as you have with your view.
I feel (my opinion) that SS1 is tackling two issues with the claims of only tackling one,
the issue of not only that God exists, but that it is the Christian God found in the holy bible that exists.
You’re right. Making the second claim implies making the first.
Is there evidence for the non-existance of deity/deities?
if yes, what are some evidences?
That isn’t where I’m coming from, but I do have an answer to the question. I wouldn’t say that there is conclusive evidence of the non-existence of deities; on the other hand, the absence of evidence for something does lower the probability of that something existing.
if no, and their is a lack of evidence for their existence, then why do you opt to view “no reason to believe in their existence” and not opt to view ” their maybe be a reason to believe in their existance”
Because this gets us straight back to the problem inherent in agnosticism which Dawkins identified. If you apply the standard above to one hypothetical entity for which there is no evidence (e.g. a deity), you have to apply it to all hypothetical entities for which there is no evidence (e.g., fairies, unicorns, Santa Claus, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, etc.).
I do recall an analogy in regards to fairies maybe in the term that since there is no evidence for fairies then there is no reason to believe in them. if that was the case I would have to agree because if fairies existed or not it wouldn’t effect an individual one way or the other (unless you wanted to obtain their dust inorder to fly, and then that would be a reason to search for the evidence and existance of that claim)
You have to be careful here. What I think you’re implying is that whereas the existence or otherwise of fairies “wouldn’t effect an individual one way or another,” the existence of deities would. But that isn’t a self-evident claim–it needs to be demonstrated. In other words, just as claiming that fairy dust is a property of fairies (the existence of which is itself a purely academic question, there being no evidence to substantiate it) does not make it so, neither does claiming that the existence of deities is in some way significant to us make it so. (Sorry–can’t think of a less wordy way to put that at the moment.)
But when it comes to God/Gods/deity or what not, why wouldn’t one want to search for the evidence for themselves, not only if it/he/she/them exist but what part do they have in our lives, just incase if any.
Why would one?
But for evidence of God to be reasonable evidence it can’t simply be “evidence for oneself”–it has to be evidence of a standard that would be acceptable to everyone.
I of course don’t know if you as an atheist and the views that you claimed, means that you are not in your personal search to prove or disprove your hypothesis or not.
I haven’t made a hypothesis, SS2.
if no, and their is a lack of evidence for their existence, then why do you opt to view “no reason to believe in their existence” and not opt to view ” their maybe be a reason to believe in their existance”
AV,
My mistake on using the word hypothesis, you have to excuse the lose in my train of thought for that moment. In fact I can’t even remember why I thought to use it…so strike that word from that statement
I enjoyed our conversations, and sure we will have a few more if more SS1s continue to impose their version of Absolute Truth on this site
One thing I observed from here, and a few other forums of this type that the SS1s of the cyberworld fail to realize one thing, which is:
This site IS an antheist site, and the forums are going to be athiest dominant so in an essence
One can’t expect to barge into someones home at tell them what to cook and what to watch on TV and expect a favoring response.
and one comment that SS1 made a few messages ago:
-I may have to convert to Atheism if you can be more convincing
and the rest of that message purely shows that he came here expecting you to eat sushi and watch the OC and enjoy every minute of that
(of course if you do enjoy both of those things AV, please be so kind and replace it with a food and show that you don’t like, so my point can still be made)
Sushi yes, OC no.
Sushi? Sushi? Now I’m hungry!
Sushi?
No way. how do we know that it is not whale meat?
Is it possible that sushi is all that it is cracked up to be?
Is it possible that there may in fact be an element of whale meat mixed within the raw fish?
If we were told fom the Japanese authorities that it is not whale meat that we are eating but another form of seafood,do we take it as ‘truth’ that this is so?
Do we accept the evidence presented as credible evidence or do we undertake our own research?
Do we accept everything that Richard Dawkins says in his book ‘The God Delusion’ …..the atheists ‘bible’ or do we question his hypothesis?
The question we need to ask ourselves therefore is: Do we believe in the Richard Dawkins bible of which their is questionable evidence,or do we accept the “Truth” that is presented in the Holy Bible?
Which bible is reliable when it comes to questions regarding truth?
cheers
SS
If we were told fom the Japanese authorities that it is not whale meat that we are eating but another form of seafood,do we take it as ‘truth’ that this is so?
Not if we have reason to be skeptical. What’s your point?
Do we accept everything that Richard Dawkins says in his book ‘The God Delusion’ …..the atheists ‘bible’ or do we question his hypothesis?
There can be no clearer demonstration of the bad faith in which you are partaking of this discussion than your utterance of the phrase “atheists bible.” It hardly bears repeating, but atheism is a single position on a single question–”Do you believe in God?” No more, no less. The notion that atheists have a bible is as patently nonsensical as the notion that people who don’t believe unicorns exist have a bible.
There’s something you have to understand, SS. Not everyone thinks like fundies “think.” We don’t treat bow and genuflect before books like TGD as if they were sacred and infallible. We actually read them, and judge them on their own merits–agreeing with what they have to say to a certain degree, but also invariably finding cause for criticism. The degree to which we agree, and the degree to which we disagree with what books like TGD have to say differs from individual atheist to individual atheist. And, if you care to investigate your claims before uttering them, you’ll find atheists who have been quite vociferous in their criticism of Dawkins.
Sorry to shatter your strawman. Again.
I mean, think about what you’re saying. If the fact that many atheists might find something to agree with in TGD makes that book “the atheist’s bible,” does that mean that the many Christians who bought The Purpose Driven Life are guilty of heresy because they now worship a rival bible to the Christian one?
The question we need to ask ourselves therefore is: Do we believe in the Richard Dawkins bible of which their is questionable evidence,or do we accept the “Truth” that is presented in the Holy Bible?
False dilemma. And TGD is not a bible. (Though it is interesting that you use the term “bible” as a pejorative against atheists. You must find it a real chore to live with such cognitive dissonance.)
BTW, you mentioned evidence, there. You haven’t provided any reasonable evidence thus far that “Truth” is present in your bible.
AV
There is no need to apologise regarding the ‘strawman’ concept.
I could say that not all christians who call themselves christians are truly christians and that would be a true statement.
I may not be correct in labelling all atheists as true believers in accepting TGD and as you have pointed out that TGD may not in fact be the atheists bible………….but
when it comes to accepting truth
I firmly believe that 1+1=2
that is in itself an absolute.
Now, you can argue with me until the cows come home,and as you yourself did say in a previous post regarding belief systems, that 1+1= either 3 4 or 5.
……………………………..I cannot accept that evidence or hypothesis.
If my belief system is the equal to 1+1=2 then I know the “Truth”
1+1=2 always will equal 2 and that is definitely an absolute.
Nothing you can say will ever change it. absolutely nothing.
You may present a plausible argument to refute this absolute,but nothing will ever change the fact.
……………………………………………………..1+1=2……………………………………………………
that is my belief.
you cannot deny that.
cheers
SS
Now, you can argue with me until the cows come home,and as you yourself did say in a previous post regarding belief systems, that 1+1= either 3 4 or 5.
Nope. I never said that, nor do I believe it. Though I’m not sure what “1 + 1 = 2″ has to do with our discussion, or with the evidence you have yet to provide in support of your claim that “the Truth” is located in your bible, your repetition of the lie that somewhere in this thread I claimed that 1 + 1 = 3, 4 or 5 only emphasises the fact that you are not participating in this discussion in good faith. (And you appear to be in violation of one of your Commandments. As a self-described “saved sinner,” I assume that means something to you. Or is lying OK when you’re lying for Jesus?)
it’s so totally incredible how anti-intellectual atheists are. a whole movement, a whopping 3% of the US pop who are totally fools and are so convienced they are brilliant merely because they don’t understand theology and they can mock people.
it’s so totally incredible how anti-intellectual atheists are
. . . he said before launching into an Appeal to Numbers fallacy, an abusive Ad Hominem and a Strawman fallacy.