Why don't christians know more?

[Kimpatsu]

Here's another way of thinking about it.

Let's say you had a program...that started from the most simplistic point...and you had simple entities "evolve" over time. I'd agree that it would be more likely to have simple entities (commensurate to viruses) than more complicated entities (commensurate to humans), because the simple entities would necessarily have to be intermediate steps to the complex entities.

Here are some possible problems.

1) The *design* of the program could be that complex entities would necessarily or inevitably come into meaning. Meaning, a watchmaker God believer could disagree, saying the probability was one because God constructed the rules so that evolution would necessarily lead to humans.

2) Like I said earlier, the fundamental premise does not account for entities, like God, who are not dependent on the constructed program.

3) Simple entities may become irrelevant over time. There could be a point in time where simple entities, which may have been plentiful in the past, would be nearly non-existant in the future, depending on the influence of the complex entities or something.

There are probably more problems but that's just off the top of me head.

But it's not a bad thought experiment.

-Elliot

There is no watchmaker god; evolution happened without any divine intervention. Therefore your entire thought experiment falls at step 1.

 

[Bri]

The simplest thing likely is also the most powerful (omnipotent) and all-knowing (omniscient)? The notion is inherently impossible.

Not according to the articles I posted (particularly the Stanford one).

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Yes, paradoxes aside, let's not be disingenuous. When we talk of god on these forums, we mean the omnipotent Abrahamic god (in his various flavours as God, Jehovah, Allah, etc.) unless otherwise specified.

Both Aquinas and Maimonides held that omnipotence does not include the ability to do the logically impossible, so it would seem that the notion does apply to the Abrahamic God.

-Bri

 

[Kimpatsu]

Not according to the articles I posted (particularly the Stanford one).

The Stanford argument undermines itself in its own preamble, viz: "God is free of matter/form composition..."
If so, god cannot interact with the physical universe.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Both Aquinas and Maimonides held that omnipotence does not include the ability to do the logically impossible, so it would seem that the notion does apply to the Abrahamic God.

-Bri

And Aquinas is easily blown apart; his "five proofs of the existence of god" only hold water if you beleive anyway. (Not that I can blame the guy; as Daniel Dennett wrote in "Breakign the Spell", the problem with people is that we attribute agency to phenomena, even where there is none. In Aquinas's day, "god did it" was the best explanation they had for natural phenomena. Of course, now we know better.)

 

[Bri]

The Stanford argument undermines itself in its own preamble, viz: "God is free of matter/form composition..."
If so, god cannot interact with the physical universe.

Isn't gravity is free of matter/form composition?

-Bri

 

[Bri]

And Aquinas is easily blown apart; his "five proofs of the existence of god" only hold water if you beleive anyway. (Not that I can blame the guy; as Daniel Dennett wrote in "Breakign the Spell", the problem with people is that we attribute agency to phenomena, even where there is none. In Aquinas's day, "god did it" was the best explanation they had for natural phenomena. Of course, now we know better.)

My point still stands. There are mainstream notions of the Abrahamic God that do not hold that God must be able to do the logically impossible.

Also, if one claims that God can do the logically impossible, logic wouldn't even allow us to discuss such a God, much less prove that it cannot exist. Essentially, that would be demanding that God be able to create a square circle, and then insisting that the results cannot be logically contradictory (which is itself a logically contradictory demand).

-Bri

 

[Kimpatsu]

Isn't gravity is free of matter/form composition?

No! Gravity is a consequence of the curvature of the universe, which is definitely a physical entity. So you are wrong.

 

[Kimpatsu]

My point still stands. There are mainstream notions of the Abrahamic God that do not hold that God must be able to do the logically impossible.

Also, if one claims that God can do the logically impossible, logic wouldn't even allow us to discuss such a God, much less prove that it cannot exist. Essentially, that would be demanding that God be able to create a square circle, and then insisting that the results cannot be logically contradictory (which is itself a logically contradictory demand).

I think you're talking to the wrong person here, as I agree that gods must themselves be constrained by logic. (I.e., god can't make a rock too heavy for her to lift.) That still isn't a constraint upon ability per se, however; Xians maintain that there god can do anythign that is logically possible. (Except defeat chariots of iron, apparently...)

 

[articulett]

I'd agree with this if I were a materialist. Materialists believe in a chain from the simple to the complex. However, if an entity is independent of that chain, the probability argument is irrelevant.

-Elliot

I think what you really mean to say is that "if your argument in any way suggests that the god I envision in my head does not exist--it's irrelevant."

Could there ever be any possible evidence that would force you to conclude that god only exists in the imaginations of humans?

And if you could know with absolute certainty whether god existed or not--would you want to know or prefer to believe that he (however you define him) exists?

 

[blutoski]

I told someone Christ was not born on December 25th. That the day was just chosen. They said "Of course he was." I explained that the Church would admit that there is no known date and that the date was chosen for other reasons. I challanged them to find a date in the bible. FInally they said "it's just an artical of faith."

Faith??? Damnit! No it's not. It's not an actual belief. It's just the day chosen to....ug forget ti.

More than that... the decision to use December 25 has a known history: it's because early Christians were persecuted by the Roman government, and they hid their celebration by holding it during the Roman winter solstice/new year festival that was held in honour of Janus, god of transition, change... doorways... (ergo: "January").

The convention was to wait until the days were getting measureably longer. Dec 22nd was the shortest day of the year, but it took a few days to be sure that the shortening trend had reversed.


re: Christians and their knowledge level... I'm in agreement with stamenflicker that it's not specifically a Christian problem. I observe that many skeptics do not have a good grasp of skepticism - historical or contemporary - and it's just as embarassing.

Examples: I am constantly seeing participants reject an expert opinion with statements like, "Well, that's just an argument from authority," which leads me to believe that they think there's something wrong with an argument from authority. In fact: argument from authority is the core of skepticism.

I'm pretty sure that what they're doing is confusing it with the logical fallacy: "Argument from questionable authority," which looks like this: "Evolution is false: my priest says so." or: "Psychiatry is crap, an actor says so." or: "This drug is better than its competitors... I read it on the product packaging." or: "Mercury causes autism. I read it on some website somewhere."


Another example I came by the other day was an atheist who mocked anything that looked like relgion. In particular, he said, "If they're so lost as to believe that Buddha existed, then they're too stupid to reason with." Well, that's just ignorant: Buddha was an actual person, and there's no debate. This is why most humanist organizations consider Buddhism to be a form of secular humanism. Granted: there are types of Buddhism that have a supernatural or mystical element, but these can be excluded from the blanked statement.


Another example was an atheist friend of mine who claims to have outsmarted a Jehova's Witness by pointing out that after so many years of JW recruitment, there won't be enough seats left in heaven for new recruits, so there's no point in keeping with the program. I could tell he was making this story up, because JWs don't believe in heaven, for starters, and anyway, they've addressed the 144k limit by saying that there's competition right up to the end for this topmost level of postapocalyptic government, and that there will be a second-tier of privileges for other believers anyway.



I'm reminded of the TV segment that ran on This Hour in Canada called "Talking to Americans" where Rick Mercer would fly down to some US city and chat with Americans to expose how little they know about world affairs. For example, getting staff at the Foreign Office to sign a petitition to ask Canada to stop the practice of euthanasia for seniors by abandoning them in the snow, or asking whether the meeting between prime minister Gordon Lightfoot and George Bush should be the Lightfoot/Bush summit or the Bush/Lightfoot summit.

The problem I've always had with this segment is that I deal with the public all day, and Canadians are just as ignorant. I think it's just jingoism.



My point is: skeptics love to point out the deficiencies in others, but are just as capable of being shockingly ignorant.

 

[Bri]

I think you're talking to the wrong person here, as I agree that gods must themselves be constrained by logic. (I.e., god can't make a rock too heavy for her to lift.) That still isn't a constraint upon ability per se, however; Xians maintain that there god can do anythign that is logically possible. (Except defeat chariots of iron, apparently...)

Perhaps I misunderstood your response to Genesius' post (and may have misunderstood Genesius' post):

I think you still need to prove your inital assertion. . .
Also, not all religions require an infinitely powerful god. I've had discussions with a few folks here who believe that an "omnipotent" god is still limited by what is logically possible (i.e. the "can god make a rock so big even he can't lift it" paradox).

Yes, paradoxes aside, let's not be disingenuous. When we talk of god on these forums, we mean the omnipotent Abrahamic god (in his various flavours as God, Jehovah, Allah, etc.) unless otherwise specified.

I thought you were arguing that the Abrahamic God must be able to do the logically impossible, when you may have just taken exception to Genesius' use of the term "god is still limited by what is logically possible" (meaning that you didn't feel being "limited" to the logically possible is actually a limitation). If that's what you're saying then I apologize (and agree).

I didn't take Genesius' comment to indicate that he meant to imply that it was an actual limitation, but I may have misunderstood Genesius' post (which lead me to misunderstand yours)!

-Bri

 

[Bri]

No! Gravity is a consequence of the curvature of the universe, which is definitely a physical entity. So you are wrong.

It was a question, not a statement (I was attempting to clarify what you felt was meant by "free of matter/form composition"). Admittedly, it probably would have been simpler to ask for clarification. So, what you feel was meant by "free of matter/form composition" in the Stanford article and why would it preclude interaction with the physical universe?

Although the Stanford article does state that divine simplicity implies that God is "free of matter/form composition," the article doesn't seem to agree that such a God would be unable to interact with the physical universe.

-Bri

 

[Kimpatsu]

I thought you were arguing that the Abrahamic God must be able to do the logically impossible,

No, I'm saying that so long as somethign is logically possible, the AG must be able to do it. (Except defeat chariots of iron, apparently.)

 

[William Rea]

At this point I normally interject with my favourite quote....

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”​

 

[Kimpatsu]

At this point I normally interject with my favourite quote....

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”​

I love that quote, but I find theists impervious to it. They always worship the ONE TRUE GOD, you know...

 

[articulett]

I love that quote, but I find theists impervious to it. They always worship the ONE TRUE GOD, you know...

Yes, indeedy do--all those other gods are clearly bogus frauds--but the one they believe in is the truly really absolutely genuine article...and the same one they presume that others believe in (so long as they call him by the same name). If your invisible entity is named "god" they'll use your delusion to make an argument from popularity (every society has a belief in god...)--if your invisible entity is Xenu, incubi, hobgoblins, Zeus, fairies, etc.--you can be derided and should not take offense. Immeasurable, undefinable, entities come with their own set of nebulous rules which allow them to critically assess other belief systems, but never ever their own.

 

[kurious_kathy]

Yes, indeedy do--all those other gods are clearly bogus frauds--but the one they believe in is the truly really absolutely genuine article...and the same one they presume that others believe in (so long as they call him by the same name). If your invisible entity is named "god" they'll use your delusion to make an argument from popularity (every society has a belief in god...)--if your invisible entity is Xenu, incubi, hobgoblins, Zeus, fairies, etc.--you can be derided and should not take offense. Immeasurable, undefinable, entities come with their own set of nebulous rules which allow them to critically assess other belief systems, but never ever their own.

Don't you think that it would be a better if people would just learn to take God at His word and not try to create Him into their own image of what they want Him to be? We know the Father through the Son!

 

[Kimpatsu]

Don't you think that it would be a better if people would just learn to take God at His word and not try to create Him into their own image of what they want Him to be? We know the Father through the Son!

And your evidence for this assertion is...?
Of course, if you want to take Me at My word and worship Me, Kathy, I shan't demur...

 

[snooziums]

Don't you think that it would be a better if people would just learn to take God at His word and not try to create Him into their own image of what they want Him to be? We know the Father through the Son!

At his word? Which word? The Koran? The Tao ch Chung? There are so many out there.

And besides, all religious books were written by humans trying to understand "God." So how can humans, which are "full of sin" and "not worthy of God," write a book about God without problems?