42 Replies to “Hmmm . . .

  1. 1
    Mung says:

    I want a god like me.

  2. 2
    Barb says:

    “I want a new drug” — Huey Lewis & the News

  3. 3
    JWTruthInLove says:

    1+1+1=1

  4. 4
    Chris Doyle says:

    “I don’t believe in God”
    “I hate God”

  5. 5
    Alan Fox says:

    People invent their gods. Hardly surprising the concept is variable and less than perfect.

  6. 6
    Axel says:

    “I want a god that I can understand.”

    “I want a circle that is square.”

    Hilarious stuff, lads and lassie(mebbe future [s]! But the more I think of it… very profound, Bazzer! Can’t imagine a thread like this on an atheist blog. Not that I’d slum on them like you rogues/gutter-snipes!

    Where did you get it from? Sounds rather like Chesterton. And all the responses, top-notch! Too high a standard to maintain, surely, but we can hope for more gems.

  7. 7
    Mark Frank says:

    Where did you get it from?

    Good question – I doubt it came from an atheist.

  8. 8
    Andre says:

    That was not designed, God would not have done it that way!

    Evil proves there is no God!

  9. 9
    Axel says:

    You could be onto something there, Marco.

  10. 10
    Axel says:

    ‘They reckon ill who leave me out;
    When me they fly, I am the wings;
    I am the doubter and the doubt,
    And I the hymn the Brahmin sings.’

    From Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Brahma

  11. 11
    JWTruthInLove says:

    @keiths:

    keiths sez: Hey JW, who’s worse in your book, atheists or trinitarians?

    Both are followers of false religions. Both will not enter paradise as long as they don’t repent.

    From my door-to-door experience trinitarians are much worse, especially Russian-Orhtodox ones. They actually threaten you with violence.

    Atheists (darwinists, btw. we alse have lot’s of trinitarians who believe in evolution) comprise at least 30% of the population of my town (it’s a town with two universities). Lot’s of them are university students (mainly engineering, computer science, economics). In bible talks they show their stubberness and presupposition to materialism, and I don’t expect to change their mind… But they are very polite and much more pleasent to speak to than to trinitarians.

    It probably explains my sympathy for atheists. That and my wife’s atheistic beliefs.

  12. 12
    kairosfocus says:

    JWT @ 4:

    1+1+1=1

    Perfectly logical when we are dealing with a systems concept and are thus viewing facets of a whole. Contradictions only apply when we assert or imply A [ 1 + 1 + 1 here] AND NOT-A [NOT- (1 + 1 + 1) here], in the same sense and circumstances. If the sense of the unity and that of the diversity are materially different, then LNC does not forbid complex unity.

    At a simpler level, reflect on how a Shamrock is both one and three, without contradiction.

    In the case of the triune view of the one true God — your obvious rhetorical target, cf. here, understanding echad vs yachid and paying particular attention to the triquetra and scutum fide that have long been used to help clarify the point.

    You are perfectly free to differ with that view [as is obvious from your web monicker . . . ], but you are not free to misrepresent it as a strawman distortion-based crude contradiction.

    I should also note in passing that there is a category difference between the philosophical/worldview issues on whether theism generically conceived is a reasonable position, and specific theological disputes over particular scriptural traditions and their interpretation. Insofar as God is relevant to design theory, it is largely the former matter that is at focus, particularly with reference to the cosmological design evidence. From the beginnings of modern design theory, it has been freely conceded that design evidence from the world of life both now and for the foreseeable future, will not suffice per science, to warrant an inference on whether designers of life on earth fall within or beyond the observed cosmos.

    One may argue that evidence of design of life on FSCO/I multiplied by cosmological fine tuning and the rare, privileged status of earth point to a common purpose and plan [as I do], but in the end that is a worldview discussion, not strictly a scientific case.

    Likewise, the ongoing attempt to inject a priori materialism into the definition of science, is a case of bad phil and poor reasoning, without warrant from within science. But since scientism multiplied by this applied atheism is a major ideological push in our day, all of those concerned for sound science, sound education and a sound civilisation in light of the historically known consequences of materialism, have a right to challenge such ideologisation of science.

    For that matter, when he was invited to address the Areopagus council c. 50 AD, the apostle Paul started from a cultural point of contact, the altar that was a municipal monument to ignorance on the root of being. He then blended a discussion of general evidence of God as root of being and common Father, with a challenge to the blind groping revealed in that monument. He then called to a change of views and attitudes thus life, on a prophesied, historically fulfilled event, suffering servant messiah, raised from the dead [with 500+ witnesses]. Notice, it is this historical, witnessed point, that is the offer of proof on which he called the Athenians, and through them the nations, to repentance.

    Those who would proclaim the Christian message, would do well to heed this example.

    KF

  13. 13
    kairosfocus says:

    MF: It would seem to me that the pivotal mysteries of being and worldview foundations — through the identity cluster and the weak form principle of sufficient reason — are challenge enough to overturn the notion that man has made up the idea of God. Instead, as is drawn out from first principles at 101 level here on, onlookers (MF on track record is hardly likely to seriously engage), the real challenge is that we are contingent, rational and morally governed creatures in an OBSERVED cosmos that gives every evidence of being contingent also. Non-being [the real nothing] blatantly can have no causal powers. So, we look to a necessary being — one without on/off external enabling factors, and which is possible (not similar to a square circle) — as the root of being. Such a being would be eternal, without beginning or possibility of ending, and would arguably be intelligent, capable and purposeful enough to bring into being a cosmos both fine tuned for life and inhabited by life. Where also, such a being would obviously be worth the name, God; and, God as serious candidate necessary being — flying spaghetti monsters etc need not apply — will either be impossible like a square circle, or possible. And (similar to the point made in S5), if possible, actual. Such brings up profound issues that challenge our understanding, but that is not at all equivalent to such being nonsense to be brushed aside with the sort of cheap rhetorical quip we just saw. KF

  14. 14
    Alan Fox says:

    KF in 13 confirms how he invents his personal god to suit his personal predjudices.

  15. 15
    JWTruthInLove says:

    @kf:

    At a simpler level, reflect on how a Shamrock is both one and three, without contradiction.

    There’s something that is both, one and three??
    Hm… 1 = god, 3 = god —> 1 = 3
    You’re right, there’s no contradiction.

  16. 16
    Joe says:

    Alan Fox:

    People invent their gods. Hardly surprising the concept is variable and less than perfect.

    And someone invented your untestable position so that must be why it is vaeriable and less than perfect.

  17. 17
    Barry Arrington says:

    Axel: “Where did you get it from?”

    It is a Barry original. Thanks for the comparison to Chesterton. That is truly high praise.

  18. 18
    StephenB says:

    JWTruthInLove

    “There’s something that is both, one and three??
    Hm… 1 = god, 3 = god —> 1 = 3
    You’re right, there’s no contradiction.”

    Either you do not understand Christianity (Three persons, one God) or you do not understand the Law of Non-Contradiction (A thing cannot be true and false at the same time and in the SAME SENSE).

    1 = nature; 3 = persons.

    God, as Trinity is ONE with respect to His nature (what) and THREE with respect to the persons (who) sharing that nature. So, God is not three in the same sense as God is one, which means that there is no contradiction.

  19. 19
    kairosfocus says:

    SB: Thanks for the follow-up, reinforcing the point. JWT evidently does not understand complex unity that brings togeter the one and the many on a whole — itself a major metaphysical challenge. He would be well advised to answer Padraig’s riddle as to the nature of something so commonplace as a Shamrock, which is both three and one without contradiction in a unified whole. Today has been an especially busy and testing day as a medical adventure begins. KF

  20. 20
    kairosfocus says:

    AF: It is time you moved beyond the level of silly, hostility laced cheap rhetorical shots. The principle of sufficient reason in say a modified — weakened — form from Schopenhauer, that (self-evidently) we may ask why something is and seek an answer, leads to understanding contingency and necessity of being; which can be seen to pivot on on/off enabling causal factors multiplied by the issue of coherence of core attributes of being. This leads to explanation on cause [such beings have beginnings and endings etc] and explanation on necessity of being [such as the no 2 which did not begin to exist nor can it end, same for the asserted truth: 3 + 2 = 5]. Where also, just on S5, you will see there is good reason to accept that a serious candidate necessary being (and again, flying spaghetti monsters, pink unicorns and the like need not apply for fairly obvious reasons) will either be impossible or possible, and if the latter, actual. As God is just such, the widely unmet challenge of atheistical systems is to show God impossible, now that post Plantinga the argument from evils has collapsed. That may not be welcome news in various atheistical camps, but it shouldn’t even be news if they were up on the issues. KF

    PS: 1800+ onlookers/day, you may wish to look here on to see where I am coming from.

  21. 21
    tjguy says:

    “Why doesn’t God do something about all the evil in the world?”

    “Why does God judge so harshly?”

    Evil and sin never pay, at least in the long run. Some people “get away” with things in this life, but no need to worry. God is a righteous Judge and He will hold us all accountable for our sins. No one will get away with anything, including ourselves – a sobering thought – which should lead us to evaluate our lives according to God’s standards before it is too late.

  22. 22
    jerry says:

    Just what is evil? We all use the term a lot and so have millions of others.

    I will ask my oft unanswered question?

    What is evil?

  23. 23
    Alan Fox says:

    AF: It is time you moved beyond the level of silly, hostility laced cheap rhetorical shots.

    Because of my evidence-based suggestion that people create gods and not the other way round? I’m quite, though not absolutely certain, of this and I can assure you that is my firm opinion. However, if Alan Fox ruled the world, Kairosfocus would be allowed the same free speech guarantees that Alan Fox would grant as inalienable rights to all. Alan Fox would draw the line at hate speech directed at minorities such as homosexuals. I do wonder how my rights to free expression would fare in Kairosfocus land.

    Anyway, let me add my best wishes for a successful outcome for your son.

  24. 24
    Joe says:

    Alan Fox:

    Because of my evidence-based suggestion that people create gods and not the other way round?

    What evidence would that be?

    And how about a land in which people have to support what they say as opposed to just saying it? Alan wouldn’t fare too well in such a world.

  25. 25
    Alan Fox says:

    What evidence would that be?

    The fact that human societies all over the world and over all ages have their stories and myths of creation involving gods and pantheons. But they are all different. There is no consistency other than the myths tend to reflect the culture of the particular peoples or ethnic groups.

  26. 26
    Alan Fox says:

    And how about a land in which people have to support what they say as opposed to just saying it?

    I am all for it! I advocate religious claims should be treated in law just like advertizing claims. No claim allowed without supporting evidence. Disappointed clients should be able to sue!

  27. 27
    Joe says:

    Alan Fox:

    No claim allowed without supporting evidence.

    Your entire position shouldn’t be allowed.

  28. 28
    Joe says:

    Alan:

    The fact that human societies all over the world and over all ages have their stories and myths of creation involving gods and pantheons.

    That doesn’t help you.

    But they are all different. There is no consistency other than the myths tend to reflect the culture of the particular peoples or ethnic groups.

    It’s called “descent with modification”, Alan. Heck two people can watch the exact same event taking place and give two different accounts of it.

  29. 29
    Alan Fox says:

    It’s called “descent with modification”, Alan.

    What is and by whom? ‘Descent with modification’ is a phrase made popular by Charles Darwin. I’m pretty sure he wasn’t talking about the plethora of religious beliefs.

    Heck two people can watch the exact same event taking place and give two different accounts of it.

    More, I’d say. Especially if one of them is JoeG. 🙂

  30. 30
    Joe says:

    Alan Fox:

    ‘Descent with modification’ is a phrase made popular by Charles Darwin. I’m pretty sure he wasn’t talking about the plethora of religious beliefs.

    It still applies.

    Heck two people can watch the exact same event taking place and give two different accounts of it.

    More, I’d say.

    You could do that all by yourself. 😛

  31. 31
    Alan Fox says:

    It still applies.

    In what way? What does the fact that societies everywhere come up with many different religious and creation myths have to do with a theory of evolution that I thought you rejected. Or that only on odd days of the week?

  32. 32
  33. 33
    Alan Fox says:

    @ mods:

    I am often getting a DNS resolution error. That and the odd typos with missed letters and spaces seem to suggest the site is getting slow. Hard to believe it’s traffic overload!

  34. 34
    Axel says:

    ‘The fact that human societies all over the world and over all ages have their stories and myths of creation involving gods and pantheons. But they are all different. There is no consistency other than the myths tend to reflect the culture of the particular peoples or ethnic groups.’

    Spoken like the duffer of an atheist you are, Reynard. The common purpose of religions, at least the mainstream ones, is not primarily to establish the proximate source and mechanism of creation, but to establish its ultimate teleology as divine, and enable human beings to obtain a unitive knowledge of the Creator, by observing certain basic spiritual precepts, which Aldous Huxley has labelled, the ‘perennial philosophy’.

    By doing this, man can become attuned to things spiritual, this unitive knowledge, which underpin this world, now clearly seen to have been created with man and this vocation in view.

    The fact that the greatest scientists in the history of the planet, the great paradigm-changers, from Galileo to the giants of the 20th century, were all at the very least, deists and arch-believers in ID (all educated in a Judaeo-Christian culture), would, from God’s perspective, be only right and proper, but of relatively little significance, in comparison to their adoption of the ‘perennial philosophy’ – and ultimately, whether in this life or the next, to a knowledge of Himself in Christ.

  35. 35
    Axel says:

    You arrive here with minds confused by the adoption, not of the ‘perennial philosophy’, but of a chaotic, atomizing filter, shredding and muddling your ‘thoughts’; you are doomed to espousing a farrago of piffle as your starting point, and an ill-conceived spirit of truculence, when you should permit yourselves to be, at least, instructed in elementary good sense by the id folk here.

  36. 36
    ForJah says:

    Can a trinitarian please tell me what 1 in the 1+1+1 stands for? and what the 1 after the equal sign stands for…they are clearly different. According to KF’s logic, a family of three is a trinity. In which case JW believes in the trinity, just that Jesus is not the Almighty God.

  37. 37
    Joe says:

    Earth to Alan Fox:

    Living organisms are not the only thing that can be modified and have that modification passed along. That means that you can start with one religion and get many from that via descent with modification.

    BTW I cannot reject what doesn’t exist and seeing that no one can reference a theory of evolution it is obvious that it doesn’t exist.

  38. 38
    Alan Fox says:

    …you should permit yourselves to be, at least, instructed in elementary good sense by the id folk here.

    That would be interesting.

    What about some idea of what a “design inference” might entail?

    Some clues as to how the “designer” might operate in reality?

    Or the holy grail: an ID hypothesis that made testable predictions?

  39. 39
    Joe says:

    Alan Fox:

    What about some idea of what a “design inference” might entail?

    Well, for one it changes the whole game. Anyone who has conducted an investigation knows that saying something was designed means a change to the investigation. Archaeologists and not geologists are better equipped to study Stonehenge.

    Some clues as to how the “designer” might operate in reality?

    ID is about the DESIGN, Alan. How comes after.

    Or the holy grail: an ID hypothesis that made testable predictions?

    Been there, done that. And all you and your ilk can say is “That ain’t good enough” all the while refusing to ante- up so we can all see what you will accept.

    IOW Alan, your position doesn’t have any testable hypotheses with testable predictions.

  40. 40
    Alan Fox says:

    …you are doomed…

    Well, you’re probably right. I think I’ll follow Lizzie’s lead and give UD a rest for a while. If there are any actual developments in ID, I shall be pleased to learn about them.

    TSZ would be a handy place to pass on any news.

  41. 41
    Joe says:

    Alan Fox:

    If there are any actual developments in ID, I shall be pleased to learn about them.

    Unfortunately you have proven to be incapable of learning. But do run away- it is all you have.

  42. 42
    Mung says:

    Alan Fox:

    What about some idea of what a “design inference” might entail?

    Some clues as to how the “designer” might operate in reality?

    Ask Elizabeth.

Leave a Reply