On Orange Gods and the One Apple God

_{Barry Arrington

October 19, 2014

Off Topic}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

This morning a friend said she had recently heard an atheist make the “I am atheistic about just one more god than you are” argument. Ricky Gervais makes the argument this way:

So next time someone tells me they believe in God, I’ll say “Oh which one? Zeus? Hades? Jupiter? Mars? Odin? Thor? Krishna? Vishnu? Ra?…” If they say “Just God. I only believe in the one God,” I’ll point out that they are nearly as atheistic as me. I don’t believe in 2,870 gods, and they don’t believe in 2,869.

Like many things the new atheists say, the argument has a kind of first blush plausibility but does not hold up on even a moment’s reflection. As David Bentley Hart explains in The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss, Gervais has made a glaring category error by lumping the God of the three great monotheistic faiths in with other “gods”:

according to the classical metaphysical traditions of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned cause of reality – of absolutely everything that is – from the beginning to the end of time. Understood in this way, one can’t even say that God “exists” in the sense that my car or Mount Everest or electrons exist. God is what grounds the existence of every contingent thing, making it possible, sustaining it through time, unifying it, giving it actuality. God is the condition of the possibility of anything existing at all.

Properly understood, the God of the monotheistic faiths is not like the gods in the Greek, Norse or Indian pantheons – contingent creatures all. He is pure being that is the source of all being. He is the necessary being, and by definition there can be only one necessary being. The necessary being cannot be compared to contingent beings. To lump the God of the monotheistic faiths in with Odin demonstrates that you understand neither God nor Odin.

Think of it this way. Gervais says in essense: “There are a bunch of oranges, and I disbelieve in all of the oranges without exception. You are little different from me because you admit that you also disbelieve in all of the oranges, except for that last little orange that you irrationally insist on clinging to.” No, Ricky, just like you I disbelieve in all of the oranges without exception. But I do believe in an apple. Why should I stop believing in an apple just because I don’t believe in oranges?

Comments

The pin is the perfect angelic dance floor. Where else would angels dance?Mung_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

BA77, perhaps we can engage in a philosophical disagreement over that issue when one of us proposes a logical argument necessitating that a certain number of angels must be dancing on the head of a pin somewhere ;) HeKSHeKS_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

HeKs, once again, my personal opinion is that the logic of the argument holds, I appreciate your personal opinion that it does not. For our next philosophical disagreement may I suggest that we argue over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Since the same result would be forthcoming as far as I can see with no empirical evidence to justificate the matter in favor of one side or the other. angels dancing on the head of a pin http://asset-thumbs.ourstage.com/CL/DD/CLDDHBJGABWD-large.jpg?7bornagain77_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

Hi BA77, Thanks for the clarification. I certainly don't begrudge you your right to continue using the argument when you think you need to, though I do find myself questioning whether you think you need to regularly reference a specifically doctrinally oriented side-point of the Ontological Argument (that is not even accepted as being sound by everyone who accepts the force of the Ontological Argument itself) in the context of ID. Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to needle you here or anything. I very much enjoy your posts and read them in their entirety more often than not. However, I've seen you reference this argument repeatedly and have forced myself to hold my tongue up until this point because I think such a doctrinal issue is highly irrelevant to the subject of ID, but since I saw logically_speaking engaging with it I decided I might as well briefly weigh in. The point, though, is that this kind of thing just seems like a distraction from the central issues of ID and naturalistic evolution.HeKS_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

HeKs, I disagree with your assessment of the argument. My personal opinion is that the logic for my argument holds, Your personal opinion is that it does not. I will continue to use the argument when need be.bornagain77_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

@BA77 #258
“straining out a gnat” is perhaps the wrong word picture, but hopefully you get the drift of me not wanting to get bogged down ‘arguing over details’ of what are basically unsubstantiated personal opinion as to the character and nature of God.
Hi BA77, As I said, I'm all for leaving the strictly theological and doctrinal discussions to another time and place, but considering that logically_speaking and I were responding to your initial comment that the multipersonal nature of God is logically necessitated by his status as a Maximally Great Being and the Ontological Argument, are you now consigning this claim to the category of an "unsubstantiated personal opinion as to the character and nature of God"? Or is that label reserved for the disagreement voiced by logically_speaking and myself? Take care, HeKSHeKS_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

HeKS, Great comments I agree with you. Bornagain77, I understand and agree and that it's time to move on and resume taking down thoughs pesky ID opponents. By the way I don't refer to God as a maximally great being, my definition of GOD is, THE ULTIMATE POSSIBLE BEING.logically_speaking_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

from OP:
Properly understood, the God of the monotheistic faiths is not like the gods in the Greek, Norse or Indian pantheons – contingent creatures all.
Properly understood, even Greek, Norse and Indian religions lend themselves to monotheistic interpretation. Maybe Norse with some difficulty, but in Greek and Indian religions there always was a clear idea of absolute God beyond the entire pantheon. The idea was explicit and elaborated to quite an extent in the theological commentaries. For example Plato writes, in Republic, about God in whom Goodness is grounded. Since we all know there was quite a pantheon in Greek religion, it would not make sense for Plato to write "God" - without a name like Zeus or Cronos - unless there was a good reason. The good reason was that he didn't mean Zeus, Cronos, or any other of the pantheon. He meant the absolute God. This idea of God-of-the-philosophers was so clear that he didn't need to stop to explain it. He simply used it. The same applies to Indian religion. How was it possible that a religion like Buddhism, which carefully argues for the rejection of the idea of God, could emerge in India? It was possible because the idea of absolute God had already been elaborated in the Vedic religion. To reconcile Norse religion with monotheism may seem a bit of a stretch. However, it's not a stretch when we compare it to mainstream Christianity where we find Trinitarian God with a host of saints and angels as pantheon. This kind of Christian monotheism is really monotheism in quotation marks. It's really a ghostly army headed by a mighty skydaddy, easily comparable to Thor the thundergod with demigods and gnomes around him.E.Seigner_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

"straining out a gnat" is perhaps the wrong word picture, but hopefully you get the drift of me not wanting to get bogged down 'arguing over details' of what are basically unsubstantiated personal opinion as to the character and nature of God.bornagain77_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT}

It will not surprise you guys to find that I disagree with you both.,,, And I hope you guys hold it not against me that I refuse to waste my morning debating personal opinions as to who is more correct in straining out a gnat.bornagain77_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT}

@logically_speaking #254 I also don't agree with the Trinity doctrine, though it isn't really my intention to discuss the matter here since I have done so extensively elsewhere on theological forums. That said, I don't think the "self-love" angle is even necessary (not to mention being a very bizarre term to use when talking about God). The whole argument for the Trinity based on the Ontological Argument and God's status as a Maximally Great Being lies in the flawed premise that in order to be said to have some great-making property one needs to be actively expressing it at all times. If we say that God is "omnipotent" (though, like "Maximally Great Being", this is not a Biblical term) and that omnipotence is a great-making property, we do not mean that God is at all times expressing the fullness of his potential to express power. He expressed his power at the moment of the Big Bang, though we have no reason to think that was the full extent of his potential to express power. He has also expressed it at various times since then, but seemingly not to that degree. Perhaps we can say that he is, since the Big Bang, expressing his power to some degree in order to uphold existence if it happens that it is necessary for him to do so in order for existence to carry on, but again, we have no reason to think this activity exhausts his power potential. So there's simply no reason to think that in order to be said to possess a quality attributed to a maximally great being that such a being would ever need to express their potential to exert that quality to the fullest degree (which may actually be an incoherent concept), nor would they even have to always be exerting it in any degree at all. A Maximally Great Being inherently possesses certain qualities which they have the capacity to express in an unlimited way, whether they happen to be expressing them at any given moment or not. For example, what do we say about the omnipotence of God "before" the Big Bang, to whatever extent we can conceive of him existing timelessly? He wasn't expressing his omnipotence, or omnibenevolence "then" in that timeless state. So why should he have to have been expressing his fullest potential for love? The point is simply that he had the capacity for perfect and unlimited love. Furthermore, what are we to say about a Maximally Great Being that is incapable of being a Maximally Great Being except in the presence of another person? That would make one of the features of his maximal greatness contingent on the existence of another, which defeats the claim that the being is truly maximally great in the first place. Finally (or at least finally for my current purposes), we must ask to what these maximally great qualities are being attributed. On the Trinity doctrine, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (which, as usual, in not integral to this argument), while being three distinct persons, subsist in a single, undivided substance or "being". So what is the "being" in "Maximally Great Being"? Is it a reference to the substance or nature of God, or to one or all of the persons of the Godhead? Substances don't love. Persons do. So if the "being" is the nature of God then the qualities will be expressed by all the persons subsisting in the nature, giving us three Maximally Great Persons, but with the maximally great love of each being contingent upon the existence of the others, negating the claim to maximal greatness in all three. And, of course, if we try to deny that the qualities assigned to the nature can only be understood as being expressed by the persons then the nature of God has nothing but itself to love. And if we try to say that the nature expresses love towards the three persons (which makes no sense) rather than by them, then none of the persons can be called Maximally Great (not to mention that we create a fourth personality in the nature of God itself). And if we instead assign all the qualities of maximal greatness to one of the persons, like the Father, then we must deny that the other two persons are maximally great. And, again, if we wed the Father's maximally great love to its expression towards the Son, making it contingent upon the Son's existence, then we are again left with no Maximally Great Being. But if we make the Father's maximally great love non-contingent upon the Son's existence then the whole argument flies out the window, but we do at least have a single Maximally Great Being (The Father) whose maximal greatness is not contingent upon the status of any other person. Anyway, I think that's about all I have to say on that topic. I'd prefer to carry on my purely religions / doctrinal discussions elsewhere and stick to the science and more relevant philosophical issues here. Take care, HeKSHeKS_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
11:22 PM
11
11
22
PM
PDT}

Dionisio @ 249 said
Every time I read the Bible I learn more. It’s a living book, a fountain of wisdom, and it can lead anyone to the saving faith we all need.
This is exactly my experience as well. It's the difference between the metaphysical concept of eating and actually tasting food. As you know, my brother, tasting is so much more profound! -QQuerius_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
09:25 PM
9
09
25
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77, "I disagree and hold self love to less than the sacrificial love shared between two beings, and thus self love is not ‘maximally great love’ and fails the criteria set in the ontological argument". Interesting but I think to God all forms of love are equal and that's what ultimately matters, not our opinions. How and why would they not be equal to God? Infact I still hold that the love of self is required for the love of others (irreducibly complex if you will lol). And here is why, Mark 12 verse 31 says, "The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” And in Matthew 7 verse 12, "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets". Do you see how you cannot show love to others without loving yourself as well and both are equal. I remember an episode of Friends when Joey told Phoebe that there was no such thing as a selfless deed, I think Joey was onto something. "is this a concession that your contention that self love is maximally great love fails? If not why did you even ask"? No it was not a concession, more like a for the sake of argument kind of thing, that if you were right why would there be any particular number. You have to understand that I have no problems looking at arguments on their merits and going down rabbit holes to see where they end up and I like thought experiments. I like to find out what other people believe and why. Lately I have been looking into the trinity and I just wanted to get more arguments for it, this is why I focused on your comment in the first place. However I think your self love verses sacrificial love argument is flawed and by extension your argument for the trinity is flawed.logically_speaking_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT}

Dionisio I agree with everything you said in your last post. Thankyou for your prayers.logically_speaking_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

This thread may be dead, at least the part I'm involved in, but I appreciate that heKS came back to comment, so here's my reply. Some context: at #165 I wrote,
I have said that I believe strongly that personal Gods of any sort don’t exist, and that I believe it much more likely that a non-personal foundation underlies, in some way, the universe we know. However, I am also very much a strong agnostic about all this – we can’t really know what lies behind/beyond the universe, either as an original or ongoing cause of states of nature.
Both Quirius and HeKS saw a contradiction between my being an atheist and an agnostic, so in #188 I wrote,
My strong agnosticm is in respect to metaphysics – we really can’t know what is outside/behind/before the universe that we live in. Therefore, we speculate, and we built logical systems to try to bolster our speculations, but in fact we don’t know, and we can’t investigate. That is what I am a strong agnostic about. However, knowledge and beliefs about what is in this universe are capable of being investigated, using a combination of evidence and logic. Within this universe, I believe strongly that there are no Gods. There may be some way in which some metaphysical foundation of the universe is embedded in the universe we know, but all religious beliefs about that are wrong.
HeKS isn't sastified that I have resolved the contradiction, and writes in #238
Here’s the problem…. Claims about God’s existence are metaphysical claims and God, if he exists, is metaphysical. Whether he remained “outside” the universe after its creation or entered into it at that moment is irrelevant to the metaphysical nature of his existence. So it simply doesn’t make sense to say that you are strongly agnostic about metaphysical issues but strongly believe God does not exist. The statements remain as contradictory as before.
I think the confusion here is that HeKS's phrase "strongly agnostic about metaphysical issues" is not an accurate description of my position. Here's further explanation. The distinction about metaphysical issues that I think I have made is between whatever may have caused our universe, or in which our universe might be embedded - whatever is before/behind/beyond our observable and investigatable universe. In respect to these, I am strongly agnostic (in the sense of believing that no one can know about these things.) However, if one posits that some metaphysical entity actual exists within the universe, acting in it locally as an agent, that becomes an hypothesis that can be investigated - that entity becomes a God in the religious sense of the word, and such Gods are what I don't believe in. In the opening post (remember the opening post?) , Barry described the God he was referring in a quote:
God is the unconditioned cause of reality – of absolutely everything that is – from the beginning to the end of time. Understood in this way, one can’t even say that God “exists” in the sense that my car or Mount Everest or electrons exist. God is what grounds the existence of every contingent thing, making it possible, sustaining it through time, unifying it, giving it actuality. God is the condition of the possibility of anything existing at all.
This is an example of the kind of metaphysical belief of the first kind described above: the "unconditional cause of reality" is about what is outside/beyond/behind etc. the observable universe. Of the nature of such a cause I am agnostic. However, if one claims that that God has acted and does act specifically and locally in the affairs of the universe, such as is posited of the Christian God, then I strongly believe (in the sense of feeling very certain) that such a God doesn't exist. I hope this makes the distinction in my beliefs clear. Now the additional point that HeKS has made is that I haven't said much about why I believe that Gods don't exist, or to make it simpler, that the God of Christianity doesn't exist. This would be a significantly larger undertaking, and beyond the scope of the OP. I think I'll wait until I get a response to this post, if I do, before I decide whether to carry on, or not.Aleta_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT}

as to: As a side point, why must it be 3 beings? Why not just 2 or 4 or hundreds. is this a concession that your contention that self love is maximally great love fails? If not why did you even ask?bornagain77_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

ls, I disagree and hold self love to less than the sacrificial love shared between two beings, and thus self love is not 'maximally great love' and fails the criteria set in the ontological argument,,,bornagain77_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

244 logically_speaking Thank you for your questions. bornagain77 has responded @ 245 I don't have much to add. I'm not a reliable source of information. Better read the Bible carefully. If you have questions, we all could look at them together. Other folks in this site are much better communicators than I am, but I'm willing to share the reasons for my faith. Note that English is not my first language, therefore read what I write with critical eyes and immediately point at anything that seems wrong. Being a Christian does not keep me from making mistakes, sometimes embarrassing ones. Sometimes I do things I don't want to do. Other times I don't do things I want to do. In any case, all I want to do is to bring glory to God. Every time I read the Bible I learn more. It's a living book, a fountain of wisdom, and it can lead anyone to the saving faith we all need. I believe God loves you and wants to have a personal relation with you. He has provided the way for us to reach Him. Please, consider it very seriously. I pray for you.Dionisio_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77, "For love to exist in the first place it must be shared between more than one being". I disagree, the fact that your funny video showed a being loving himself means that you can love yourself without sharing the love. Just because we think it's wrong to be selfish, doesn't negate the fact that self love exists, and it is not necessarily bad. But I put it to you (as a thought experiment), that any being capable of love must love itself first before loving anything else. As a side point, why must it be 3 beings? Why not just 2 or 4 or hundreds.logically_speaking_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

242 Andre
...scripture is not open to interpretation, and it means exactly what it says. God is not a God of confusion.
Thank you for your comments. Agree with you on that. The only valid interpretation is the author's. Everything else is speculation. The essential Gospel message is clear. Our sinful condition keeps us apart from our Maker, but He has provided a way to reconcile us with Him forever. There's no other way. Perhaps other parts of the scriptures are more difficult to understand, but we can ask God to reveal to us as much as He wants for us to know at any given moment. Rev 22:21Dionisio_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

239 Querius Amen! Rev 22:21Dionisio_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

ls for love to exist in the first place it must be shared between more than one being. That is not that difficult of a concept to understand,,, For 'maximally great love' to exist in God, and to not be 'brought into being' at some point in the past, then the triune God of Christianity readily solves the dilemma as to how maximally great love can exist forever.bornagain77_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

To Bornagain77, Andre and, Dionisio. I think you are missing the point about what I am asking, what I am trying to say is how can it be a contradiction for God to love himself AND his creation in equal measure? I believe that God's love is the VERY reason why he created everything in the first place, he had so much love to give!logically_speaking_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

As for what Jesus said Matthew 24 hits home right now! The Destruction of the Temple and Signs of the End Times 24 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” 3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” 4 Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains. 9 “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. 15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’[a] spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. 22 “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time. 26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather. 29 “Immediately after the distress of those days “‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’[b] 30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[c] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.[d] 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. 32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[e] is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.Andre_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
11:26 PM
11
11
26
PM
PDT}

Axel Thank you for the apology, I agree with most of what you say but it is due to the love of money that this happens...... We have been warned about that in scripture. Dionisio Thank you for supporting me on this point, scripture is not open to interpretation, and it means exactly what it says. God is not a God of confusion. BA77 Keep up the good fight, your information is a treasure trove and only those unwilling to explore "everything" complains about your posts. "Test everything hold onto the good", how awesome is our God for encouraging us to test His word! I don't think that are any other scriptures outside the Bible that encourages us to do this.Andre_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PDT}

@Querius #240 Oh, I wasn't suggesting that Aleta's statements weren't honest. I'm sure they are honest. It's just that they seem misguided, because she thinks her distinction resolves the contradiction in her stated positions when it quite clearly doesn't.HeKS_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT}

HeKS @ 238, It's precisely because they don't quite reconcile that I believe Aleta's statements are honest. Your points are well-taken, but I'm sure there's another reason why Aleta "strongly" holds to the statements. -QQuerius_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT}

Dionisio,
…like for example crucify God’s own Son?
Indeed! And as you know, Christians can expect the same fate, as is happening to us now in many countries. As Jesus said
"For you will be expelled from the synagogues, and the time is coming when those who kill you will think they are doing a holy service for God." (John 16:2 NLT)
Such as beheading us and blowing up our churches. And Jesus also said
“Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. On judgment day many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’ But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’" (Matthew 7:21-23 NLT)
Where does that leave people who are smug in their religion? (God help me, a hopeless sinner!) But God is merciful to those of us to abandon our self-righteousness and self-justification. As the Apostle Paul told us in his letter to Roman believers:
So now there is no condemnation for those who belong to Christ Jesus. And because you belong to him, the power of the life-giving Spirit has freed you from the power of sin that leads to death. The law of Moses was unable to save us because of the weakness of our sinful nature. So God did what the law could not do. He sent his own Son in a body like the bodies we sinners have. And in that body God declared an end to sin’s control over us by giving his Son as a sacrifice for our sins. He did this so that the just requirement of the law would be fully satisfied for us, who no longer follow our sinful nature but instead follow the Spirit. (Romans 8 NLT)
What a delight and joy to have this assurance! We can explore God's creation, revel in his brilliant designs, and be in awe at the laws he set in motion. -QQuerius_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT}

@Aleta #188 I don't think I can agree with Querius that the contradiction has been cleared up. Here's what you said:
The good question that both Querius at #173 and heKS at#174 ask concerns a contradiction they think they see between my strongly disbelieving in any Gods and my also calling myself a strong agnostic. I think I can clarify this. My strong agnosticm is in respect to metaphysics – we really can’t know what is outside/behind/before the universe that we live in. Therefore, we speculate, and we built logical systems to try to bolster our speculations, but in fact we don’t know, and we can’t investigate. That is what I am a strong agnostic about. However, knowledge and beliefs about what is in this universe are capable of being investigated, using a combination of evidence and logic. Within this universe, I believe strongly that there are no Gods. There may be some way in which some metaphysical foundation of the universe is embedded in the universe we know, but all religious beliefs about that are wrong. Religions are obviously human inventions – they propose, and have proposed, a myriad of supernatural beings as far back in society as we can study, and I see no evidence that any of them have been true in any literal sense. So, to summarize, my agnostism is about metaphysics, and my atheism is about what we know in this world.
Here's the problem.... Claims about God's existence are metaphysical claims and God, if he exists, is metaphysical. Whether he remained "outside" the universe after its creation or entered into it at that moment is irrelevant to the metaphysical nature of his existence. So it simply doesn't make sense to say that you are strongly agnostic about metaphysical issues but strongly believe God does not exist. The statements remain as contradictory as before. Furthermore, none of the points you mention suggest that God doesn't exist. The only conclusion we can necessarily draw from your points is that not all religions can be right. It could be that all are wrong, but that certainly is not necessitated by anything you've said, even though you have confidently asserted it.HeKS_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT}

236 Querius
would there be any reason why people couldn’t do terrible things in God’s name?
...like for example crucify God's own Son?Dionisio_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply