Why don't christians know more?

[elliotfc]

I'm an atheist because it's the rational viewpoint to take. Why do you believe in something that doesn't exist?

Your bluster ain't working on me. At some point I'll just ignore these questions. You say God doesn't exist, but that just means that you say God doesn't exist.

Any assertion without evidence is pie in the sky.

You could just call it an assertion without evidence, I dunno why you have to interject a phrase. It is what it is.

To be consistent, you must also believe in faeries at the bottom of the garden, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny. If not, why the double standard?

The reasons that I believe in God are why I believe in God, and those reasons don't apply to Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. I figger it's all the same to you, but there's no need to impose your simplistic understanding on me.

-Elliot

 

[Kimpatsu]

I qualify my theological statements, or speculations, and you don't.

You don't qualify them, Elliot, you quote more scripture, which is a circular argument.
Look, why do you believe in the existence of something for which there is no evidence, and the supposed products of which can be--and are!--better explained scientifically? Because that's what all rational thinkers really want to know of theists. (Or supers, if you want to label us "brights".)

 

[elliotfc]

That's not so, Elliot. The evidence for evolution would be there even if there were no humans to interpret that evidence.

No, things would be there. Things are things. Evidence is contingent on a theories and formulations. It's part of a intellectual construct.

It's not interpreting evidence. It's labelling things as evidence.

Evidence is the canon of fact that supports a given hypothesis, turning that hypothesis into a theory, which is in turn the strongest notion in terms of certainty.

Intellectual tools, agreed.

The certainty of a proposition and the evidence that supports it, however, is independent of whether there are sentient creatures--humans--about to realise the signioficance of the evidence.

There are no propositions if there are no humans.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

This is typical fuzzy thinking that I also encounter from my Roman Catholic aunt; that you're all really worshipping the same god but by different names.

No, that is not what I said. I didn't say different names. I said different definitions for a singular god. Paraphrazing a wee bit. I didn't say different names, nor did I extend that notion.

-Elliot

 

[Kimpatsu]

Your bluster ain't working on me. At some point I'll just ignore these questions. You say God doesn't exist, but that just means that you say God doesn't exist.

I'll rephrase: there is no evidence that gods exist, so asserting that they therefore don't is a rational standpoint. But you're welcome to run and hide under the bed if you wish.

You could just call it an assertion without evidence, I dunno why you have to interject a phrase. It is what it is.

Assertions without evidence are pie in the sky. I could equally call them stupid and nonsensical, but given that the sky is where the Big Yin is supposed to live, I thought it had resonance.

The reasons that I believe in God are why I believe in God, and those reasons don't apply to Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. I figger it's all the same to you, but there's no need to impose your simplistic understanding on me.

Of course the reasons apply: they are all supernatural constructs for which there is zero evidence. Further, as god is the most complex of them all, she is the least likely to exist. It is therefore inconsistent to beleive in the more imporbable superfriend without first believing in the more probable superfriends. What you're doing is special pleading; applying a different set of rules for your flavour of god than to all other supernatural constructs. It's a common error of theists.

 

[Kimpatsu]

No, that is not what I said. I didn't say different names. I said different definitions for a singular god. Paraphrazing a wee bit. I didn't say different names, nor did I extend that notion.

But then only one such definition can be correct. Is god singular, or are there many gods? Was Jesus god or merely a prophet? Was Jesus the Messiah, or has the messiah not come yet? These are all mutually exclusive notions, so only one religion at most can be right. Of course, they can all be wrong...

 

[elliotfc]

The comparison is bogus, Elliot, because I only believe thinsg in proportion to the evidence. Science shows us how all living things evolved without any divine interference, so the argument of god being involved goes out of the window.

It offers an explanation for how things evolved (independent of an injection or consideration of divine interference, although clearly it's on the brain, eh?), but it doesn't explain things in the sense that "science tells us" anything about the specific chains of genes which made up the earliest life and all that.

I agree that things are thrown out of figurative windows.

Have you actually read "The Blind Watchmaker"? Dawkins isn't making an argument in that book, he's describing unassailable facts. But then again, I don't knwo if you've even read the book.

I've read the book a few times and marked it up.

-Elliot

 

[Kimpatsu]

No, things would be there. Things are things. Evidence is contingent on a theories and formulations. It's part of a intellectual construct.

No, it's not. Evidence is indpendent of thought or witnesses. It is the accumulated body of facts that prove a given supposition, whether there is a sentient creature to examine the evidence and recognise it as evidence.

It's not interpreting evidence. It's labelling things as evidence.

But the human act there is the labelling, not the creation of evidence. Nature does the creating; the evidence exists independently of a sentient creature

There are no propositions if there are no humans.

Agrred, there are no propositions if there are no sentient creatures to formulate those propositions, but evidence is not a proposition; propositions are formulated to explain the evidence. The evidence exists independently of that.

 

[elliotfc]

Not much love there.

I'm not interested in the OT quotes as much as the NT quotes, and the NT quotes can co-exist quite fine with John 3:16. And do in fact.

Not at all. God's work is sloppy, if you believe he created biodiversity as it is.

I don't see a need to put a label on it, it is as it is, and why not? Why should it be something else, to satisfy the standards of an imperfect skeptic?

If you accept evolution, however, then you're accepting the most important point of all about evolution: that it is undirected.

I disagree that it's the most important point, I think the nuts and bolts are more important than any notion of direction, but that's just my opinion.

That is an ad hoc statement. Why is god uncreated, but not the universe? Why add the unnecessary extra tier, which defies Occam's Razor?

I don't genuflect before Occam's Razor. The more you learn, the more complicated things get.

-Elliot

 

[Kimpatsu]

It offers an explanation for how things evolved (independent of an injection or consideration of divine interference, although clearly it's on the brain, eh?), but it doesn't explain things in the sense that "science tells us" anything about the specific chains of genes which made up the earliest life and all that.

Daniel Dennett has explained nicely why we have "god on the brain" . (As an amusing aside, I tried a god helmet at Prof. Zeki's lab at UCL, and nothing happened to me, which is also what happened to Richard Dawkins. I guess neither of us is susceptible to temporal lobe epilepsy. It was kind of a let-down, though. )

I've read the book a few times and marked it up.

But I think you've missed the major point of it; that evolution explains the origins of biodiversity and excludes any divine involvement from the get-go. The only out I hear from theists is that god "helped evolutioon over the difficult jumps" (i.e., divinely-induced saltationism), but in "Climbing Mount Improbable", Dawkisn explains why such a viewpoint is an "intellectual banana skin".

 

[Kimpatsu]

I'm not interested in the OT quotes as much as the NT quotes, and the NT quotes can co-exist quite fine with John 3:16. And do in fact.

How does Luke 19:26-27 coexist with John 3:16?

I don't see a need to put a label on it, it is as it is, and why not? Why should it be something else, to satisfy the standards of an imperfect skeptic?

To satisfy the standards of reason.

I disagree that it's the most important point, I think the nuts and bolts are more important than any notion of direction, but that's just my opinion.

Given that all those of you who get it wrong are supposedly bound for hellfire, I would have thought the issue of paramount importance.

I don't genuflect before Occam's Razor. The more you learn, the more complicated things get.

Actually, some solutions make things crystal clear. Think of how elegantly simple Darwin's theory is, for example. Occam'rs Razoe, however, cannot be dismissed in the face of such issues. It is the ultimate arbiter of whether an argument holds water.

 

[elliotfc]

You don't qualify them, Elliot, you quote more scripture, which is a circular argument.

I think I've quoted scripture once in this thread. Maybe twice.

Look, why do you believe in the existence of something for which there is no evidence,

I certainly do consider the gospels to be evidence of course.

and the supposed products of which can be--and are!--better explained scientifically?

Better being subjective, and the best explanation isn't necessarily equivalent to objective reality. It has been said many times that people used the best explanations in the past, erroneously. So best explanation can be erroneous. Skepticism and all that, unless you are unable to be skeptical of your own ideas.

I won't disagree that by your standards, your explanations are the best. But when you use that word, you surely understand that those you disagree with you think that there explanations are better.

Because that's what all rational thinkers really want to know of theists. (Or supers, if you want to label us "brights".)

That was Dennett's idea, wishful thinking and all.

You go from having us all figgered out, to saying "that's what [we] really want to know of theists". Shrug.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

I'll rephrase: there is no evidence that gods exist, so asserting that they therefore don't is a rational standpoint.

You are assuming that if God exists, there would be "evidence" that God exists, but what exactly would be evidence that God exists? Everything? Something in particular?

As for rational, I'm sick of that ubermenschian game.

But you're welcome to run and hide under the bed if you wish.

I'm going to bed in a minute, I'm sleepy.

Assertions without evidence are pie in the sky. I could equally call them stupid and nonsensical, but given that the sky is where the Big Yin is supposed to live, I thought it had resonance.

Yeah, you think all sorts of stuff.

Of course the reasons apply: they are all supernatural constructs for which there is zero evidence. Further, as god is the most complex of them all, she is the least likely to exist.

I don't know if complexity/probability rules apply to supernatural constructs. I don't know how you would either, unless you believe in supernatural constructs. Care to share?

It is therefore inconsistent to beleive in the more imporbable superfriend without first believing in the more probable superfriends. What you're doing is special pleading; applying a different set of rules for your flavour of god than to all other supernatural constructs. It's a common error of theists.

No, it's the same set of rules, which is why other gods are discounted. Different sets of rules would actually allow for multiple gods.

Til tomorrow, I'll almost certainly selectively address your other points when mere repitition is involved.

-Elliot

 

[Kimpatsu]

I certainly do consider the gospels to be evidence of course.

But why do you believe that? And why do you beleive that it's better than nullius in verba? [/QUOTE]

 

[Kimpatsu]

You are assuming that if God exists, there would be "evidence" that God exists, but what exactly would be evidence that God exists? Everything? Something in particular?

How about him/her/it popping in here to see me right now. Or writing "I'm god" in letters on the Sea of Transquillity large enough to be visible to the naked eye?

I don't know if complexity/probability rules apply to supernatural constructs. I don't know how you would either, unless you believe in supernatural constructs. Care to share?

That's special pleading; the rules either apply to everything, or there are no rules, and what is possible in one instant would be impossible the next. As the laws of the universe remain unchanged and inflexible, the second is discounted, leaving us only the first possibility.

No, it's the same set of rules, which is why other gods are discounted. Different sets of rules would actually allow for multiple gods.

If the same set of rules apply, then to be consistent, if you believe in god you must also believe in the Tooth Fairy. To say one exists but not the other is ad hoc.

 

[Ossai]

Genesius

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).

It’s not an ad hom if it’s fact. Or, are you saying I need to be more precise as to their specific type of idiocy?

I'm saying you need to prove everyone who believes that is a moron before you can make such a claim.

<sigh> I'm so tired of believers and non-believers both who think they have all the answers. . .

Establishing the idiocy of believers whom attempt to redefine omnipotence/believe in a triune god (Christians):
Christians believe in the bible, or at least large chunks of it. Specifically, they believe that god/an aspect of god/Jesus/god’s son came to earth, lived as a man, worked a few miracles, sacrificed himself for the sins of humanity, rose from the dead after a couple of days, and then ascended to heaven. Those same Christians believe god etc. is omnipotent, but that omnipotence is limited by human logic.

If omnipotence were limited by logic, then there would not be miracles:
NO walking on water
NO water to wine
NO flight (ascend to heaven)
NO raising from the dead

Since logic is ultimately based on reality, the ability to change natural laws would enable the being to change logic. God should be able to create a rock so heavy he could not lift it, then proceed to lift it.
Example:
1) Create a pebble from a white dwarf star matter
2) Warp gravity
3) Lift the pebble

Now, believers believe the impossible omnipotence but then limit the omnipotence. It’s the same as purchasing red paint. Painting the barn red, then declaring the barn not red. Now you can argue whether the behavior is moronic, irrational, or just stupid but the barn is still red.

Ossai

 

[Ossai]

elliotfc

I don't know why God would create us, but we believe that he loves us, John 3:16 and all that.

No you don’t. You believe that god hates you and that you are destined for hell, 2 Thessalonians 2:11. All the prayer, good works, devotion, etc. are nothing more than you trying to buy your way into heaven.

Ossai

 

[Darth Rotor]

I was wondering if any of the Christians that are partaking in this discussion would like to comment on the general secular scholarly view that the relgion of Jesus and the religion of Paul were quite different with Paul's theology for the most part being the basis of what would become Christianity. The Jewish Christians, whose religious beliefs might have been most influenced by Jesus, hung on for awhile after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD but after that time their numbers declined as they were squeezed out by Judaism that excluded them from the synagogs in about 85AD and by the gentile Christians who accused them of heresy by attempting to Judaize Christianity.

One of the most curious ironies in that last charge is Saul of Tarsus, and his origins as a Pharisee whose early work included persecuting the Christian cult of his time. Regardless of the "blinded by the light" epiphany that led Paul to change his Faith and begin his evangelizing, his professional background was as a doctrinaire practitioner of a religious belief, specifically, one of the Judaic sects. If anyone "Judaized Christianity" I wonder if it wasn't Paul, with his passion for encoding in doctrine and letters of instruction the "how you do it" framework of nascent Christianity.

For the Christians, having a formal structure and organizational basis was very helpful down the road, partticularly when Constantine was faced with the political puzzle of what to do about Christians and Christianity. Their being organized, or at least coherent, seems to have appealed to his autocratic train of thought. Note what happened to Gnosticism, a rather unorganized body of work in comparison: it did not prevail, but rather wen "underground;" further irony given the underground nature of early Christianity in the pagan Roman empire.)

But back to the idea: who really Judaized Christianity? The ex Pharisee Paul?

Food for thought.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Why would a perfect god create imperfect beings?

Why not? Ever heard the old French expression? Vive le difference? Recognizing your disdain for God -- to each his own -- I fail to understand why He should be bound by your value system of "what makes sense and what doesn't."

Why must God be purely rational from your perspective to be either omniscient or omnipotent? (Or both) Do you have a universal understanding of all things in Hawking's spacetime such that you can measure such a capacity? I don't.

Interesting that both your parents and you fell away from the faith. Could it be that maybe all three of you just never really got saved?

Oh dear, do you mean they weren't Scotsmen? "Someone get me an emergency haggis, now!"

I question this because if someone is a true believer in Christ and receives the babtism of the Holy Spirit, then when we study the scriptures they apply to our lives more on a personal level. It's not just reading the Bible like a peice of liturature.

True Believers: that attitude did so much good during the Thirty Years War, didn't it? Have you read Hoffer's book on that topic? It is worth a look.

One must first believe, receive, and then be taught what it truely means to be and grow in Christ's love and understanding. The fruits of the Spirit is evident in a true believers life, and these attributes are or should be evident in our lives...patience, kindness, gentleness, joy, love, and peace. Until I met Jesus I did not possess these attributes, but now I do and it's because of God's grace and mercy that I am changing to become more Christlike.

So, you have a beard? You are circumcised? You are Jewish? You are learning Carpentry? You bathe the feet of prostitutes?

Kathy, the Journey is the thing. You haven't arrived anywhere but at a waystation, yet your posts here present someone who thinks she has "arrived." (In this and other threads.)

Faith isn't a high school exam, wherein you learn a correct answer (7 = 4+3) and now are armed with "The Answer" for the rest of your life.

You aren't done learning. Your pat answers and "I know the Truth" schtick are evidence that you are falling into the trap of pride, and of vanity.

The disciple Festus once said: "The empty wagon rattles the most." You might want to load up that wagon of yours with a bit more cargo.

DR

 

[Bri]

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.)

There are other "restrictions" placed on the Abrahamic God's omnipotence. For example, most who believe in God agree that God cannot go against his own nature (for example, some would not agree that God can sin). It probably wouldn't be logically impossible for him to do so, but to insist that he must be able to do so might not fit within the definition of "omnipotence" used by some theists.

Concerning the chariots thing, can you provide a reference to the scripture you're referring to? Of course, whenever scripture is referenced, interpretation and translation issues always come into play.

-Bri