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?
Ugh. Such poor logic. It shows how desperately they want to rebel against God. Romans 1 poster children.
I just respond, “Yes, and a bachelor is virtually identical to a married man with respect to matrimony. He has just married one less person.”
Surprisingly, the bible does acknowledge that there are literally 1000s upon 1000s of other gods. Not all are of an intelligent entity variety.For example:
Philippians 3:19 James Version (KJV)
19 “Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.”
This opens the door for acknowledging Darwin, Evolution, Atheism, etc as gods. Of course the bible only speaks of one true God. Still, their stupid asinine cleverness isn’t so novel nor a modern day intellectual argument after all. It’s all be done and tried 1000s of years ago and failed even then.
Choosing a Religion is an important choice. Inspired choice. Intelligent choice. Choosing one is very different from not choosing.
You have to play to win. Odds are pretty good, payoff is pretty good too.
Not choosing (Atheist) is loser from the get go.
In most Religions, “after life” is an evolved form. Higher level of Being. A Soul. Atheists don’t understand Evolution?
So the God of Islam is the same as the God of Christianity is the same as the Jewish God?
‘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.’ – homerj1
Their ingenuousness is sometimes breathtaking, even by their own riotous standards, homerj1. The barmy ‘concept’ of ‘convergent’ evolution doesn’t even hold up at first blush. It’s just designating it with a superficially- descriptive name, without investing it with the remotest hint of an explanation.
@ Turbokid #5:
Yes. What differs is our respective perceptions of its nature.
All three agree on his omniscience, omnipotence and all-compassionate nature; although embittered atheists who fear being condemned to an eternity of torment, but love their sex lives that bit more, tend to disagree.
Being the fallen creature that man is, religious cultures are not exempt from degeneration. On the contrary. However, the Catholic Church for all that it has at various times been the poster-child for such degeneracy, has always, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, been able to renew and purify itself; perhaps never more so than today.
Why would anyone fear an eternity of torment if the God is all-compassionate?
This is like astronomers finding a pile of sophisticated machinery on Mars… They don’t know who made it… So… they must come to the “obvious conclusion” all Darwinist MUST come to… It is their 11th commandment; we don’t who did it so it either evolved or by some lucky accident came into existence…
Evidence=0, experimental evidence-1 or less…
These people continue lying to themselves…. for what…?
“Why would anyone fear an eternity of torment if the God is all-compassionate?”
The God of the Bible is not “all-compassionate”, and I would argue the same is true for the God of Islam, although the Qu’ran uses that description of Allah.
The term “all compassionate” suggests that all other characteristics of God are irrelevant, or are subsumed by compassion. But God has revealed himself to possess perfection in a range of characteristics, none of which destroy any of the others. Together, this perfection and purity takes the word “holy”.
turbokid, Fear has its benefits. Even a Darwinist would agree. Ok to cry too. Just a little though, not too much. Wimp.
CalvinsBulldog:
Neither is he all powerful and all knowing. He did not know man was going to fail. He also showed regrets on occasion and had to look back at his creation before deciding that it was very good, although not perfect.
On another tangent, the old testament God, Yahweh, did acknowledge the existence of many other gods. In fact, it is reported that, at one point, the nations of the world were a free for all. Different gods chose different nations and Yahweh “chose Israel as his portion”. Some of the other gods apparently were complete a-holes requiring regular human sacrifices. We even read that Yahweh was jealous of the other gods when Israel started behaving like a “whore”, i.e., worshiping Assyrian and other Gods. Just saying.
Yes the God of Abraham is the God of all three of those religions. And Abraham is the patriarch of all three of those religions.
Many of the arguments made my atheist are really great arguments to support that their must be a God. If God has created man in his own image then it makes sense that deep inside all of us is this yearning to find that something greater than ourselves; a higher power or a creator God of some sort. Even those who say they do not have a higher power are they themselves their higher power. But that is a big mistake! That is why you see so many of these professors (or sometimes called “intellectual predators”) that insist they are the “giver of knowledge” and that they are “all knowing”. We all do this in some way or another. There is power in knowledge and the temptation to create our own kingdoms and live on our own thrones (the university) is almost addictive in some sense.
“Every man who knocks on the door of a brothel is looking for God,” – Chesterton
[1 Timothy 2:5-6 (ESV)]
That’s VERITAS, regardless of whether we like it or not.
Everything else falls into a popular literary category known in Polish language as ‘bajki’ and in Russian language ‘
??????‘Sorry, the Russian word did not show up right in Cyrillic alphabet. It sounds something like ‘skazki’
??????Barry,
Please, can you remove posts 18 and 19?
Thank you.
Actually, this guy is way way off in his numbers. In Japan they have a phrase meaning 8 million gods. This is part of Shintoism, so he is just a little misguided. And that is before counting all the gods of other countries in the world.
The whole idea of the atheist rejecting just one more god than Christians do is also logically unsound. Just because 9 out of 10 hamburgers are burnt does not automatically mean the 10 unopened hamburger is also burnt. It is an unscientific statement. Plus it ignores all the evidence of God and the experience of millions of people. The other gods have no such support.
It truly is apples and oranges, but that will never convince people who don’t want to believe in God.
Ok, here it goes again:
сказкиLet’s see if it shows up right this time.
Please, forgive my clumsiness.
🙂
Dionisio, so you don’t believe that Allah is the same God as Jesus Christ?
Turbokid- Do you have reading comprehension issues?
Distinguished professor Stephen Hawking allegedly said that ‘heaven is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark’
Professor John Lennox commented: ‘atheism is a fairy tale for those afraid of the Light’
🙂
Turbokid, that’s an interesting question. Thank you for asking it.
What exactly do you want to know? Why do you want to know?
Are you interested in looking for the ultimate absolute truth?
I’m not a reliable source of information on any subject. But I definitely can enjoy sharing what I know and what I believe in.
Have you read the Bible? Both Old and New Testaments?
I believe there’s only one God and He loves you and wants to have a personal relationship with you.
Why do I say this?
Because I believe God loves me, He has proved it to me exceedingly.
Also I believe you are much better than I am.
Turbokid wrote:
Assertion: Your statement demonstrates ignorance of Islam and Christianity.
Support:
1. According to the Qur’an, Isa (Jesus) Ibn Maryam (the son of Mary) is a Messenger of Allah and al-Masih (the Messiah) to guide the Children of Israel. As a Prophet of Allah, he is therefore not Allah.
2. According to the B’rit Chadashah, the new covenant, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” He also said, “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”
3. Dionisio is a Christian, so he believes in 2.
-Q
Turbokid
Here’s a link a friend mentioned to me:
http://i2ministries.org/
Perhaps you can find some interesting information in it.
Kind regards.
Querius,
Thank you for the well written and clarifying comment.
I could not have said it better.
Rev. 22:21
Turbokid,
Post # 26 by Querius should answer the question you asked me on post # 22.
However, I’m still interested in reading your comments on my post # 25. Thank you.
addendum to post # 16:
there is one God.
This is the fundamental affirmation of the Jewish religion (Deut. 6:4; cf. Rom. 3:30; 1 Cor. 8:6; Gal. 3:20; Eph. 4:6).
one mediator between God and men. There is One who arbitrates between God and humanity and reconciles them.
the man Christ Jesus.
Paul’s focus is on Christ’s humanity, perhaps because the false teachers had denied that Christ was truly human. The full humanity of Christ is essential to His serving as Mediator of the covenant of grace.
[Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries]
Horus Reads the Internet – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r2m_cffRjI
Horus is ready to discredit the Christian faith again, this time armed with some devastating information courtesy of your 19 year old atheist cousin’s blog.
Dionisio, no, I am not interested in looking for the ultimate absolute truth as I consider that a pointless quest. The reason I ask the questions is curiosity. I have, I guess, an intellectual interest in religion. I have no desire to partake of it myself, but I am interested in why others believe it.
Thanks for the response Querius, so I take it the answer is no? If Jesus is not Allah, but he is the Father, then the Father and Allah are not the same.
Turbokid,
That name Allah is an Arabic reference to a monotheistic concept of God -apparently started in the 6th century- which initially borrowed some textual references, though with changes, from the much older Judeo-Christian scriptures, and mixed them with their own ingredients.
Perhaps Querius can explain this better.
Turbokid,
Here’s another site where you could find some answers to your intellectual questions about the subject that interests you:
http://www.drmarkgabriel.com/
Here’s a link to a book on this subject too:
http://www.amazon.com/Islam-An.....gy_b_img_z
Note that there are other books by the same author.
Turbokid @ 33
Why do you consider it a pointless quest?
Turbokid as to,
Really??? Care to take a very short test on that belief?
Presuppositional Apologetics – easy to use interactive website
http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php
Barry,
Then if one believes in 100 Gods does that make them atheist?
This lame argument is repeated ad nauseam especially by certain celebs and on websites etc. My answer is, I reject all gods except the Biblical GOD for the same reason I reject all wrong answers to a math problem except the right one.
Turbokid,
You may also want to look into this site in order to satisfy your intellectual curiosity on the subject you expressed interest in:
http://nabeelqureshi.com/
I personally have not read much about those topics, though.
Lately I’ve been reading more on other nonreligious topics:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-519746
Dionisio @36, if there is an ultimate absolute truth, it would be hubristic of me to consider that I might discover it.
In any case the idea of “the ultimate absolute truth” does not seem a coherent concept to me. The truth about what? What would make it ultimate and absolute?
I am more interested in my own truths.
38 phoodoo
What does the term ‘atheist’ mean?
Turbokid
What if God Himself reveals it to you?
Why not?
🙂
How many Gods are there?
In my opinion, it is incorrect to say that there is one God. Yahweh calls himself Yahweh Elohim, which literally means Lords Yahweh. Elohim is a plural word and has been so from the beginning when the Elohim said “Let us make man in our image.” In Isaiah, Yahweh is reported to have said that he was the first among the Elohim and that all the other Elohim came after him. We know he was angry with the many Elohim of the land of Egypt and we know he was jealous of the many Elohim of Assyria. There is evidence that Yahweh is not just one God but billions of Gods united as one. Some believe that the name “Yahweh of hosts” means exactly that. “Yahweh of legions” might be a better translation.
But it gets better. Jesus himself said, “let them be one with us as we are one together” and, quoting Psalms, “ye are Gods.” So yeah, we too are Gods and we will soon join a united pantheon of billions upon billions of other Gods.
So what does this mean in the light of other scriptures that maintain that there is only one God? I’d say the other scriptures are either wrong (they don’t belong in the Bible) or they are misinterpreted. For example, the expression “God is one” does not mean that there is only one God. It’s referring to oneness not the number 1.
In sum, the answer to ‘how many Gods are there?’ is simply, billions upon billions, maybe even trillions. One man’s opinion, of course.
Turbokid
About everything! 🙂
Dionisio, same answer. If this God exists it would be hubristic of me to expect it to communicate direct with me.
Turbokid,
Here’s the question for your life:
Would you be willing for the True and Living God to enter your life?
If so, what do you think might happen?
If you ask, ask in sincerity and humility.
If there is no God, you won’t get an answer.
-Q
Turbokid,
What if that’s what God wants? He is sovereign.
I believe God has revealed to me who I am and who He is.
That has humbled me, because I can’t take any credits for that. It was not an intellectual achievement.
I’m not afraid of the Light. The closer I get to it, the better I see everything, including my defects.
My IQ score is about the same as my age, but changes in the opposite direction.
My reading comprehension is worse than poor.
My communication skills are almost nonexistent.
I have caused pain to others.
I have violated all God’s commandments.
Anything I could be proud of? Nope. Nothing, nada, zero.
My identity is in Christ alone.
Dionisio, I am sorry, your life experience sounds terrible. I maybe understand why you believe in God.
Querius, I am afraid your questions do not make sense to me. I have no idea what it might mean for the “true and loving God” to enter my life. To me, that just sounds like gibberish. The concept of a God “entering my life” makes no sense to me. So accordingly there is no way I can ask sincerely for this.
Turbokid, “In any case the idea of “the ultimate absolute truth” does not seem a coherent concept to me. The truth about what? What would make it ultimate and absolute?”
Consider this ultimate absolute truth — one. Is there such a thing as one, 1? Did somebody invent 1?
“I am more interested in my own truths.”
You mean you blindly follow the ways of postmodernism. Why would you fathom that the postmodernists have it right?
Turbokid,
I don’t know how to put it any simpler.
The possible answers are yes or no. If God actually exists, you’ll either be willing or not willing to have God in your life.
-Q
An atheist may see this all as a distinction without a difference. 🙂
UD: Then he would be wrong.
Querius, if you want a yes or no then my answer is no. But as i say, the question does not really have any meaning to me.
Moose Dr i have no idea why 1 is an ultimate absolute truth. And i would be surprised if this was what Dionisio was referring to.
And i don’t know anything about post modernism. I just meant i will never get to the end of figuring out my own truths let alone worrying about some absolute ultimate truth.
TK:
I see, clipped from you:
1 –> Is it incoherent to understand “truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not”? (Note, this paraphrases Ari in Metaphysics 1011b)
2 –> Is it incoherent to say, there is a reality out there that can in principle be accurately described? If so, where do the contradictions you imply lie? I put it to you, there are none.
3 –> Further, can we at least in principle have pure, undiluted, untainted milk?
4 –> Just so, can we have pure, undiluted, untainted truth?
5 –> Is that not what “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” summarises?
6 –> Is such relevant to the context of the roots of reality, and the worldview analysis mission of seeking to conform as much as possible to reality? (And may we start with the point that the Josiah Royce proposition, error exists is both a consensus rooted in experience and an undeniable, self-evident truth. Thus, a knowable, logically, empirically and morally certain, knowable . . . and humbling . . . truth. This cuts a wide swath across all too much of current ill-founded thought.)
7 –> On that, I suggest you may find here on helpful.
KF
PS: Speaking in terms of “my truths” betrays PoMo influence on your thought. I suggest here as a help.
PPS: 1 is a natural number, and demonstrably necessarily exists. It is a knowable reality, independent of whether we choose to acknowledge it. So, BTW is 2 + 3 = 5. So also, that errors such as 2 + 3 = 4 exist. And so forth.
DiEb: the question of the reality of God as root, inherently good, maximally great and necessary being, creator and sustainer of the cosmos and its moral governor is most certainly not a distinction without a difference. Clever quips and attempts to improperly suggest a fallacious distraction notwithstanding. Indeed, that you refuse to acknowledge relevance and importance — never mind the at one remove tactic — is itself revealing. Please, think again. Now, I need to rest before a very early meeting. KF
I think this is over-simplifying the argument. I see it is a point about epistemology not ontology. Although Gods differ very widely (including different interpretations of the Abrahamic God), people have many similar reasons for believing in them. Most religions include a creation story, many purport to account for morality, many include miracles and stories about one or more significant divine lives on earth which are then reported as history. The point being – if you do not accept these reasons as evidence for one God why accept it for another?
If I do not believe in oranges because I don’t trust the advertisements then why should I believe in the advertisements for apples?
Interesting exchange,,,
Querius asks Turbokid,
To which Turbokid responds
Which reminds me of Nagel’s remark,,,
From whence does this irrational fear of God arise? The Bible, as usual, has this answer for this deep mysterious question of the heart.
i.e. God has made a covering, a ‘Propitiation’, for our sin,,,
What the sinner who is acutely aware of his sin readily understands, but the sinner, who is hiding from God because of his sin does not readily understand, is that Jesus Christ had the full power and authority of heaven to relieve Himself of the horrid torment of the cross but instead chose, because of His great love for us, to endure it, in its entirety, willingly, so that he might completely overcome sin, hell and death, and all their horrors, on our behalf (since we were incapable) so that we may be reunited with him. Love is the only proper response on our part.
Mark Frank:
Materialistic atheism fits that description.
Turbokid claims
Yet, absolute truth exists! This fact is readily demonstrable!
And the fact that individual absolute truths exist testifies to the fact that an ULTIMATE absolute truth must exist,,,
Of related note to ‘ultimate absolute truth’, Fuller comments here,,,
Yet, as Godel proved, if numbers are included, there cannot be a ‘complete’ mathematical theory of everything for physics that brings ‘ultimate closure’ to man’s quest to find the ‘theory of everything’,,
i.e. the truth of mathematics is not inherent to mathematics but is dependent on something outside of mathematics in order for mathematics to derive its ‘ultimate absolute truthfulness’.
Jaki explains the implications of the incompleteness theorem for a ‘theory of everything’ here,
Even Hawking himself, at one time, admitted, and then subsequently forgot, that there cannot be a mathematical theory of everything,,
The reason why there cannot be a mathematical theory of everything which is complete within itself, is fairly easy to understand,,,
Moreover, there is not single mathematical theory of everything that is merely ‘incomplete’, but, in fact, in the most profound enigma of modern science, we find that there are two mathematical theories, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, each of which has great explanatory power in its own area, which refuse to be unified into a single mathematical theory of everything.
The extreme difficulty that many brilliant minds have had in trying to reconcile Quantum Mechanics/special relativity(QED), with Gravity, is humorously reflected in the following music video,,,
In light of this dilemma that Gravity is, in so far as we can tell, ( ,,, with string theory, M-theory, etc..), is completely incompatible with Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity (i.e. Quantum Electro-Dynamics) it is interesting to point out a subtle nuance on the Shroud of Turin. Namely that Gravity was overcome in the resurrection event of Christ:
Moreover, as would be expected if General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics/Special Relativity (QED) were truly unified in the resurrection of Christ from death, the image on the shroud is found to be formed by a quantum process. The image was not formed by a ‘classical’ process::
I consider the preceding ‘quantum’ nuance on the Shroud of Turin to be a subtle, but powerful, evidence that Christ defeated death on the cross,,,
Verse and Music:
Islam may be an a version of the Abrahamic faith but it is not in anyway an account of facts as the bible claims to be here is why…..
So Allah placed the mountains on top of the earth like tent pegs so the earth won’t shake? Really?
Compare that with the following statement from the Bible…..
It is very easy to be fooled that Allah and God is somehow the same….. but please don’t be fooled they are not!
At some point or another, when hearing or reading something, we may ask these questions:
“Why on earth is this important for the real world?”
“What does this have to do with reality?”
Eventually we could end up asking:
“What IS reality?”
May I suggest this short story for a starter?
http://www.rzim.org/a-slice-of.....-on-earth/
Or How about What Jesus said
Why tell a bunch of men in heaven there will be no sex? Unless it’s true of course…..
Compare that with;
But to those who believe and do deeds of righteousness, We shall soon admit to Gardens, with rivers flowing beneath, their eternal home. Therein they have damsels pure and holy; We shall admit them to shades, cool and ever deepening. S. 4:57
“The mountains may be removed and the hills may shake”? Really??
Again- The God of Abraham is the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. That is a fact that no one can change- not even Andre.
BTW according to the Bible Abraham was to sacrifice Isaac. However Isaac was NEVER Abraham’s only son. Ishmael gets that distinction. Oops.
KF @ 55-58
Mucho food for thought. Thank you.
Joe
It is true that Ismael was blessed, a promise we seen even today with the Arab worlds being blessed with wealth, but You can not say in any way that mountains are placed on top of the earth, that is inconsistent with scientific observation that mountain’s rise up……
Allah is not God……..
Nobody disagrees that Arabs have been greatly blessed, but you see there is an issue, Israel all had many different prophets over the ages that proclaimed the same thing, Islam has one prophet only how are we to trust what he has to say without any independent verification, as we have with the prophets of Israel?
Is the importance of multiple witnesses not a very important aspect in the world? I think independent verification od truth by multiple sources is content worth trusting but the word of one man? I am suspicious about that…..
Perhaps we have asked or heard this question:
“If God, Why Suffering?”
Here’s an interesting article on this topic:
http://www.rzim.org/just-think.....suffering/
And therein lies the biggest difference between these two faiths, Jesus did not pen down a single word instead it was done by 11 witnesses giving testimony about what Jesus taught. How many witnesses to Islam’s truth? Last time I checked it was only 1.
Andre- Allah is the same God of the Bible as the Qur’an is an extension of the Bible. Also The Qur’an states the mountains are affixed into the earth, not placed on top of it.
Did you know that Islam accepts the prophets of Israel? That is one main reason why they are fighting today. The Arabs say that Israel had their chances- MANY chances- and screwed up, royally. Now they have to shut up because they blew it and have no one but themselves to blame. But seeing taht they won’t shut up and still claim to be the “chosen people” it pisses off the Arabs who adhere to Islam.
Andre- who can verify those 11 witnesses? I would think that having many authors is worse than having one.
If anyone gets tired of this theological/philosophical discussion, and would prefer a little dose of real down-to-earth science discussion, you may switch to this thread:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-520069
You may review the over 500 posts and choose the one you deem more interesting to comment on.
🙂
So God made it clear that he will give us many independent prophets to verify His word.
How do we verify Mohammed’s word? if it is just him?
Joe,
The more witnesses to an event the better we are at finding its truth.
I am unable to accept the word of Islam because this statement is completely false……..
The Qur’an says, “People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion, and say not as to God but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not, ‘Three.’ Refrain, better is it for you. God is only One God. Glory be to Him—That He should have a son! To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth; God suffices for a guardian.” (4:171)
We have independent confirmation outside of the Bible that Christ died, the Jewish scriptures confirm that and so does Tacitus and Josephus, we also know via medical science that Christ died due to his injuries.
To make a claim contrary to the facts needs some extra ordinary evidence. Where is it? The word of one man is good enough?
Apologies the above passage is incorrectly quoted here is the correct one
Joe the passage I quoted in correct is also something I need to comment on…..
The rejection of Jesus as the divine Son of God reflects Mohammed’s misunderstanding of the nature of God. If God is love, who was there to love before the creation of the world?
No Andre- the passage you quoted is NOT correct. I have a copy of the Noble Qur’an with me. It was given to me while I was in Saudi Arabia by an Islamic Cleric.
What you are saying is that the God of Abraham is not the God of Abraham.
Jesus is not and never was, God.
BTW the trinity is contrived. Sir Isaac Newton pointed that out.
Joe
The truthfulness of something in this case Christ, is not verified by the sources that are friendly to him, we know these sources are biased, I’ll tell you when you start seeing truth, it’s when your enemies agree with the friendly ones….. This is independent verification of a fact. We have no independent verification of a single thing Mohammed said.
Now I believe that a fair and just God would make sure that many brought us the same message so that we can confidently trust its truthfulness and so that we are able to understand it completely. If the prophets contradicted each other we would have known its a lie…..
Because it would be easy to ask… why are your messages all different?
Andre:
Even if they all tell differing and conflicting stories?
So the God of Abraham is only the God of Abraham when it suits you.
Jesus was not God? Sure he was either a mad man or he was God!
Please don’t confuse Ismael with Islam….. Islam only started as a religion about 500 AD
Ismael son of Abraham has been around for at least 3500 years.
My point is this. How do we trust the word of 1 man with no witnesses? The take home here is that 11 people witnessed Jesus, sure the could have conspired this as a lie, but their suffering for the next 40 years makes it unlikely that they would have been dishonest….. Dying for something you believe in is completely different than killing for what you believe in. These men had persecution at a level that most men can only dream of… You want to convince me it was for a lie?
The God of Abraham is the God of Abraham His name is Yahweh not Allah….
The name Allah comes form an old moon god whose title was al-iLah who was worshipped in Babylon at the time.
Jesus was not God. That does not make him a mad man.
Who confused Ishmael with Islam?
Excellent post Barry!
Well the God of Abraham is the God of Islam.
We see Mohammad punting the moon in his writings no doubt to appeal to the moon cult worshipers at the time……
31 and we have set none but angels as guardians of the fire; and we have fixed their number only as a trial for unbelievers,– in order that the people of the book may arrive at certainty, and the believers may increase in faith,– and that no doubts may be left for the people of the book and the believers, and that those in whose hearts is a disease and the unbelievers may say, “what symbol doth Allah intend by this?” thus doth Allah leave to stray whom he pleaseth, and guide whom he pleaseth: and none can know the forces of thy lord, except he. and this is no other than a warning to mankind.
32 nay, verily: by the moon,
33 and by the night as it retreateth,
34 and by the dawn as it shineth forth,
Joe
The God of Abraham is not Allah no matter how much you would like it to be, there are just too many inconsistencies and a lack of any type of validation of the word of one man. Islam as a religion has 1 witness…. Christianity on the other hand had at least 11 and that excludes all the prophets of the old testament.
By all the evidence Jesus is God. You see Joe Christianity is completely apart from any other faith and here is why…..
All other faiths tell you to DO better so that you may win favour with God.
Christianity is what I call a DONE religion. God saved us He gets all the credit and there is NOTHING anyone can EVER do to win their salvation.
Seriously do you think anybody here has what it takes to impress the Creator of the universe? Nah we are at His mercy and His plan of salvation for us. The created can never satisfy the Creator.
‘BTW the trinity is contrived. Sir Isaac Newton pointed that out.’
Joe, that’s because Newton was only acquainted with mechanistic Newtonian physics, and hadn’t realised what tickled Bohr to death, namely:
‘How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress.’
‘Two sorts of truth: profound truths ?recognized by the fact that the opposite is also a profound truth,? in contrast to trivialities where opposites are obviously absurd.’
‘ The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.’
‘It is the hallmark of any deep truth that its negation is also a deep truth.’
Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question.’
‘Opposites are complementary.’
… and the Most Holy Trinity, my friends consists of three Persons in one Nature. The reasons for settling on this paradoxical definition can be found in Scripture.
It was mooted that they were three aspects of God, but Jesus spoke of each of them as persons, and indeed, God, too (!)(in the continuum/aggregate), in one divine nature. It’s all there.
Barry,
You would sem to have excluded Brahma, the Ground of Being of Hinduism, from your ‘God’ category. Why is that?
Also, the Mormons consider the God of Christianity to be a contingent being, having been elevated to Godhood by a similiar God in a preceding universe. “As God once was, so man is. As God is, so man will be.”
Perhaps one important reason why these discussions can easily turn into heated arguments, is described in this short article:
http://www.rzim.org/a-slice-of.....e-cross-3/
Fortunately, so far, this discussion is going smoothly. 🙂
Jesus either IS God or else He must be a madman!
The God of Abraham is the God of Islam. And no amount of whining will ever change that.
Just because Islam has a different take on that God does not mean it isn’t the same God.
Axel- Newton was one of the greatest Biblical scholars of all time.
What evidence would that be? Jesus died, God cannot. God does not require a resurrection. God does not require a woman to give birth to God.
Joe,
You may want to take a look at this:
http://www.rzim.org/just-think.....hy-george/
http://www.bible-quran.com/rav.....ble-quran/
“There is one God, the Father, ever-living, omnipresent, omniscient, almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.…”.
Sir Isaac Newton
http://christiancalculus.com/index-.html#Newton
Moreover, as to how seriously Newton took the claims of Christianity, Newton, an avid student of Bible prophecy, predicted the return of Israel to their Biblical homeland, and the subsequent return of Christ to this earth following that restoration of Israel:
Israeli library uploads (Sir Isaac) Newton’s theological texts – February 15, 2012
Excerpt: He’s considered to be one of the greatest scientists of all time.,, However, the curator of Israel’s national library’s humanities collection said Newton was also a devout Christian who dealt far more in theology than he did in physics,, “He (Sir Isaac Newton) took a great interest in the Jews, and we found no negative expressions toward Jews in his writing,” said Levy-Rubin. “He (years before it was remotely feasible) said the Jews would ultimately return to their land.”
http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....gical.html
Newton’s end times calculation corrected!
Excerpt: In a manuscript number 7.3g, f. 13v. of the Yahuda collection, Newton was even more specific about the 2060 date.
“So then the time times & half a time are 42 months or 1260 days or three years & an half, reckoning twelve months to a year & 30 days to a month as was done in the Calendar of the primitive year. And the days of short lived Beasts being put for the years of lived [sic for “long lived”] kingdoms, the period of 1260 days, if dated from the complete conquest of the three kings A.C. 800, will end A.C. 2060.”
Therefore, correcting Newton’s date, the year 753 B.C. designates the founding of the physical Rome while A.D. 753 establishes the rebirth of spiritual Rome.
Counting 1,260 years forward from A.D. 753, one arrives at the year 2013.
http://www.wnd.com/2008/09/75434/
Of note as to establishing a more correct start date for ‘spiritual Rome’:
Donation of Pepin
Excerpt: When Pepin conquered Ataulf the ex-archate of Ravenna fell into his hands. Pepin gave both the ex-archate and the Republic of Rome to the Pope, and this munificent gift is the famous “Donation” on which rested the whole fabric of the temporal power of the Popes of Rome (A.D. 755).
http://www.infoplease.com/dict.....pepin.html
Thus adjusting 2013 + 2 = 2015,,,, also of note in regards to the Newton prophecy:
Adam Clarke’s Commentary – from the year 1825
Comments on Daniel 7:25
In 1798 the French republican army under General Berthier took possession of the city of Rome, and entirely superseded the whole papal power. This was a deadly wound, though at present it appears to be healed.
If the papal power, as a horn or temporal power, be intended here, which is most likely, (and we know that that power was given in 755 to Pope Stephen II by Pepin, king of France)
counting one thousand two hundred and sixty years from that, we are brought to A.D. 2015, about one hundred and ninety years from the present [A.D. 1825.]”
http://archive.constantcontact.....24082.html
Who said that “Jesus died”,,, Jesus’s mortal body may have died but no one hold that the person/soul of Jesus died!
Who said Jesus died? The people who took him off of the cross and placed him in the tomb.
Dionisio- Ravi said there are only 66 books in the Bible. The evidence disagrees.
So Joe, you hold the materialistic position that you have no mind or soul?
I would have never guessed that you, of all people, would deny the primacy of your own mind/soul over your mortal body to try to win a debate!
John 10
17″For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. 18″No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.”
Barry describes the God of western monotheism in abstract terms as the “pure being that is the source of all being”, and he quotes David Bentley Hart as saying “God is the unconditioned cause of reality – of absolutely everything that is – from the beginning to the end of time. … 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.”
He then says that this God is the apple to which all the other Gods are oranges – that believing in this necessary God that is the ground of all being is fundamentally different than believing in all those other contingent Gods of the various other religions.
However, believing in the existence of God as the ultimate ground of all being does not imply that it is necessary to believe in the particularities of that God as described in in the various western religions: the existence of Jesus Christ and his role in relationship to salvation from original sin, the existence of a heaven or hell to which the soul will go after death, the role of Mohammed as the one true prophet, etc. Those are all cultural inventions that go far beyond a belief in the God that Barry describes in the OP. That is the God that atheists, as a general class, don’t believe in. The God of Jesus Christ and all the dogma associated with that belief is an orange – it is not the apple.
In the Darwin Debating Devices, a strawman argument is described as “a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent’s argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument. The so-called typical “attacking a straw man” argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., “stand up a straw man”) and then to refute or defeat that false argument (“knock down a straw man”) instead of the original proposition.”
Barry has built and knocked down a strawman. When someone says he believes in just one more God than a theist, almost certainly they are referring to God as he is commonly know to the culture, such as the one who sent Jesus here 2000 years ago, one who judges in some way what one’s destiny is at death, etc.
Those beliefs are no different than beliefs about all the other Gods that people have ever believed in – cultural inventions which the atheist doesn’t believe in. Barry’s singling out the most abstract notion of a ground of all being as the apple avoids the real issue that atheists wish to address, which is that all the particular religious beliefs of all religions, including western monotheism, are indeed oranges.
Actually, Jesus is no orange,,
Romans 11:36
For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.
Colossians 1:15-20
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
John 1:3
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Moreover, I reiterate post 62
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-520094
i.e. It is not as if evidence for the divinity of Christ is lacking!
Good question. You should read Hart’ book that I reference above, where he discusses this issue. Hart allows that the conception of Brahma as the Ground of Being is close to the conception of the one God in the monotheistic religions. He alludes to this when he talks about both east and west in the passage I quote.
I don’t disagree with your description of Mormon doctrine. I am not sure what your point is. If it is that the Mormons’ conception of the God described in the Bible is seriously flawed, I could not agree more.
I have the conception of God in view. In the three great monotheistic religions (and indeed as Sergmendes points out Brahma in Hinduism) God is conceived, as Hart notes, as follows:
There seems to have been some confusion about whether I believe “Allah” of Islam (and now that I’ve included him “Brahma” of Hinduism) is in fact God. There can be only one such God as Hart describes. As an orthodox Christian I believe that the God of the Bible is the God Hart describes (so does he by the way). That said, C.S. Lewis famously noted that “As in arithmetic-there is only one right answer to a sum, and all other answers are wrong; but some answers are much nearer being right than others.”
A Muslim’s grasping toward “Allah,” for example, is wrong about God, but he is much nearer to the truth than a Viking praying to Odin.
Aleta:
This is just nonsense. Once more from the top:
There can be only one such God. Therefore, such a God would not vary from culture to culture. As I noted in my previous comment, some people would hold views that are closer to the truth about that God than others, but that does not mean there can be more than one such God.
You should read Hart’s book. It would cure you of this particular brand of nonsense. [This is me not holding my breath; my guess is that you have no wish to be cured from this brand of nonsense.]
I reiterate post #16:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-520003
and post #30
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-520039
Barry: …the God of the three great monotheistic faiths
Barry I gave up a long time ago that concept of Allah as identically God. I base the previous on the drastic divergence of civilizations, one retrograde, the other not. So maybe one of the three great monotheistic faiths can in future be seen as Vedanta. Study of the thousands of years old scriptures of this tradition would show anyone that the supreme being we in the west conceive of is no different from the supreme being of that tradition. Many books from India refer to a supreme being referred to as “God”. Members of my family worship Jesus as God, so I see no difference where people worship Krishna or Ganesha as God.
F/N: In my opinion, “doctrinal” theological debates (as opposed to philosophical issues that may have theological etc overtones) are not a fruitful focus for discussion at UD, not only for distractve side issue reasons but because of the lack of in-common grounding to move to that level. For those needing some 101 sys theol primer level stuff relevant to this thread, I suggest the draft course units:
1: Nicene Creed, tabulation:
http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.....d-and.html
–> definitive of the core consensus historic, C1 witness, NT attested Christian faith
2: Historical foundations:
http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.....l#u1_grnds
–> Note context that addresses many commonly seen issues and objections, starting with truth, faith and why holding some things to be true is not a manifestation of intellectual incompetence
3: Worldviews foundations
http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.....u2_bld_wvu
–> Includes, the problem of evils and the worldviews clash challenge
4: The Godhead
http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.....l#u3_maker
–> Note o/l on the triune understanding of God:
http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.....u3_shamrok
5: The Christ of God
http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.....l#u5_intro
–> How Christians understand Messiah, why. (And includes Islamic objections.)
6: Salvation and the Gospel
http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.....ccor_scrip
–> Where the rubber meets the road
I trust these will help.
KF
Maybe my reference to retrograde civilizations should be revised to account a civilization starting down the path of self-destruction having adopted an oppressive anti-God cultural leadership.
PS: Notice this, on systematic theology from Wayne Grudem in his 1,000 pp short intro . . . serious works on this area run 4,000 – 6,000 pp as a rule:
That is, this is a highly technical area, prone to people out of their depth saying things that may be superficially persuasive but which will not bear serious scrutiny. Before proceeding one must set foundations aright, and BTW that is where worldview level and core historical issues come to the fore. Not an easy and brief exercise, and one that demands not only lifelong reflection but ever increasing moral transformation through the love of the truth and truthing it in love as in no other area are we more prone to be led astray by the deceit lurking within our own hearts.
Beyond, as I warned a young man the other day, in handling the scriptures you are only really ready for an independent view when as soon as a significant text is announced, quoted or read, you hear it, you hear its context and you hear it in its wider context. This, takes years of the sort of effort just outlined.
Fair, plainly spoken warning.
(You may wish to look at the prelim remarks unit for the above.)
Barry, I know that you were referring to God that is the “unconditioned cause of reality.” I quoted you extensively to make that clear.
My point is that is not the only aspect of God the vast majority of people are referring to when they say they do or don’t believe in God. The jump from the “unconditioned cause of reality” to the God of the Bible, with all its historical stories and theological dogma, including its claiming itself to be the holy word of God, is a jump from the apple to an orange.
Of note: Since Gödel was the one who developed the incompleteness theorem,
,,, and since Kurt Godel may know a thing or two about ontology because of that breakthrough in mathematics, then the following may be of related interest to some people,,,
Of note, although most people, as well as theologians, philosophers and logicians, would certainly think that proving Godel’s ontological argument for the existence of God logically true, and consistent, was a pretty big deal, it seems the author of the article (and researchers?) were more impressed with the advance in computer programming that it represented than they were impressed with the fact that they proved Godel’s proof was actually true. This is how the author of the article put it:
I think someone may have their priorities a bit confused in that article.
And as weird as it may sound, this following video refines the Ontological argument into a proof that, because of the characteristic of ‘maximally great love’, God must exist in more than one person:
i.e. without this distinction we are stuck with the logical contradiction of maximally great love being grounded in ones own self which is the very antithesis of maximally great love.
Also of note, Gödel, who ruffled more than a few feathers in math and physics with the incompleteness theorem, also had this to say,,,
Supplemental note:
How does that follow from anything I have said?
101 and 102 are pretty clear Joe,
You claim that Jesus died and that God cannot die and that therefore Jesus is not God. I noted in response to you that the soul/mind of Jesus did not die and only his mortal body died therefore God did not literally ‘die’. You came back again and said,,
“Who said Jesus died? The people who took him off of the cross and placed him in the tomb.”
So did Jesus literally ‘die’, cease to exist, as you claim in ‘God cannot die’, or did Jesus merely ‘lay his body down to take it back up again’?
If you say he ceased to exist then that means you deny the reality of your own indestructible soul/mind.
Pretty straight forward logic Joe!
groovamos, you do not seem to have read my 109.
Aleta
No, if the God of the Bible is the “unconditioned cause of reality,” he is the apple and can only be the apple.
It is true that the Bible makes claims about God (his triune nature, for example). Those claims do not make him other than the “unconditioned cause of reality.” To continue to use (perhaps abuse) my metaphor, saying the apple is red does not make it an orange.
bornagain77:
That is only one reason but it is enough.
Only mortal bodies die- that includes everyone. So everyone is God?
Barry writes, “if the God of the Bible is the “unconditioned cause of reality,”…”
But what if he isn’t? Sure, Christian theology identifies its God with this “unconditioned cause”, but it also adds many other properties and actions to God that are not in any way a necessary consequence of being the unconditioned cause. Just because it is right about the existence of this unconditioned cause doesn’t mean it’s right about Jesus, or heaven and hell, etc.
I do believe that there is most likely some “unconditional cause of reality”, but I also believe that any of mankind’s attempts to add specificity to our understanding of that cause is a cultural invention – all religions are wrong in their details.
So back to the original point: when I say I am an atheist I mean that I don’t believe in any of the Gods of mankind’s religions, including the Christian one (which is one more than you disbelieve in). Making the definition of God as abstract as ““unconditioned cause of reality” may make it possible to claim that all the religions have the same God, but it is also not what the vast majority of people mean when they say they do or don’t believe in God.
Aleta, thank you for your thoughtful response.
That is the $64,000 question isn’t it. Can I demonstrate with apodictic certainty that the God of the Bible is the “unconditioned cause of reality”? You know the answer to that. Of course not. Can it be demonstrated that he is beyond a reasonable doubt? Yes. Nevertheless, God allows you to insist on disbelieving in the face of all the evidence. At the end of the day, whether to accept that evidence or reject it for whatever reason will always be your choice.
Correct as a matter of pure logic. Incorrect as a matter of the application of judgment to the evidence.
Then I don’t understand why you call yourself an atheist. By definition you are not.
The statement “mankind’s attempt to add” is an assumption on your part; it is not a conclusion compelled by the evidence. Indeed, with respect to Christian theology, the assumption is seriously undermined by the evidence.
But as I said above if you believe in a being who is the “unconditional cause of reality”, you are not an atheist. Indeed, you are very close to the truth about God.
Again, I do not claim that all religions have the same God. Just the opposite is the case. I absolutely insist that all religions do not have the same God. That said, some religions are more wrong about God than others. It follows that some religions are more right than others.
Probably you are correct. When most people say they do or not believe in God they have a particular revelation of God in mind rather than a purely “abstract unconditioned cause of reality.” The point has no force with respect to the issue in the OP for the reasons I have already stated.
Joe, I think UD is not the place for detailed theological, doctrinal debates, but I think you need to clarify what it means for a man to die, and in what way do those who hold Jesus the incarnate Second person [rather roughly, face] of the triune God understand his death, burial and resurrection. Remember, sometimes things seem absurd because we have a prioris that make them so, they are not absurd when understood in their own proper terms. I would not be so hasty with one liner dismissals, especially since some of the greatest minds of all times have been orthodox Christians, e.g. Aquinas, who is actually author of one of the greatest systematic theologies of all time. KF
BA and Aleta et al:
Maybe I should do a bit of unpacking.
The unconditioned ground or root of reality is a necessary being and the source-sustainer of reality.
The nature of observed reality, the cosmos, points to an enormously powerful and highly intelligent, purposeful being, as does the world of life.
That is already a personal being.
Our inescapable sense that we are under the moral government of the right, in the core of our conscious being, speaks to a Moral ground of OUGHT, the IS who grounds ought.
Moral Governor.
In answer to the IS-OUGHT gap, this can only reasonably be understood to be an inherently good, necessary, maximally great being, root and sustainer of reality.
We see here the God of the philosophers, who is already worthy of deep respect and indeed worship and even prayer.
Why not sincerely reach out to him in prayer and ask him to reveal himself more clearly?
In that pursuit, given the heritage of our civilisation and the remarkable events of Judaea c 30 AD, I suggest you pause and watch this vid as a start.
It may help you in quite surprising ways.
KF
KF @ 113
Agree.
Then on post #125 KF again advised:
Agree.
BTW, as early as post #75 subtlety suggested we start getting out of this discussion:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-520110
I am OK with not discussing theology as I don’t give a hoot about it. However when people say things that I know to be incorrect I will respond.
over and out 😉
When I wrote, “I do believe that there is most likely some “unconditional cause of reality”, Barry wrote, “Then I don’t understand why you call yourself an atheist. By definition you are not.”
This question goes beyond the everyday meaning of the saying in the OP, but I welcome the opportunity to answer it.
Theism involves more than just the belief in an ““unconditional cause of reality”, which is one of the phrases I chose to quote in order to not bring up the larger issue now arising: theism involves the idea of a conscious, willful, divine being. Theism entails a personal unconditional cause.
But that unconditional cause need not be personal. Some philosophies (they are usually not called religions) hold that there is a non-material cause and underlying structure beyond/behind the physical world which impinges creatively in different ways upon the world, in a manner analogous to the way gravity impacts the physical world and helps create galaxies, stars,etc. This would be non-personal unconditional cause, not a personal one, and I don’t think anyone would refer to such a cause as a God.
So, to follow the metaphor of the OP, I believe that attaching the personal qualities of omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-benevolence to the unconditional cause is a jump from the apple to an orange. Such qualities attached to a theistic God are anthropomorphisms that are cultural inventions – making myths which see the universe as an abstract idealization of our own limited, imperfect nature.
So, by believing in such an impersonal unconditional cause, I think it is proper to call me an atheist, for I do not believe that at its uttermost core, reality has the qualities of a person.
And perhaps to forestall an objection, I’ll point out that my belief is not the same as materialism. Atheism is not synonymous with materialism, and while all materialists are atheists, all atheists are not necessarily materialists.
So true. IIRC, they also put sugar in their porridge.
Of course, correctly understood the “no true Scotsman” fallacy is actually a valid logical device if qualified in a condescending manner. 🙂
Joe, Newton’s forays into theology are considered, to put it mildly, highly idiosyncratic. Here is why, without knowing anything about it other than that, I don’t have the slightest doubt that his theology would, indeed, be ‘off the wall’.
To find incompetence among modern, highly accredited, even acclaimed theologians and scripture scholars, as, in fact, is the case, on the face of it, seems peculiar, doesn’t it? But that is the reality. The key distinguishing feature, uniquely significant, indeed, of the good theologians and scripture scholars of modern times, as against the incompetent (in the legal sense), is the profundity of their ‘interior life’, their prayer-life, their spiritual life. And that has always been the case and always will be.
Not that all people with a profound prayer life are theologians, good or bad, but those who are theologians will be distinguished by that criterion. The others, however, will write lots of books, which are likely to appear in the book-cases of many a presbytery and Catholic book-shop. Although more so in the seventies, I believe.
It appears however that Newton was quite a nasty ‘piece of work’ in his daily dealings, having evinced a hideous jealousy of that inventor of the maritime clock, Harrison, for example. That would be absolutely crucially indicative.
Her is the joke I was looking for the other week. It concerns a ‘nutter’ theologian called Paul Tillich. Pardon me if you know about him, I don’t mean to come across as patronising.
A story is told that Jesus met two people at the pearly gates to heaven. The Apostle Peter and the theologian Paul Tillich.
He asked Peter, “Who do you say I am?” and Peter replied, “You’re my Lord and savior, Yeshua Ha Machaich (Jesus, the Messiah), and you paid for my sins with your bloody sacrifice on the cross.”
Jesus replied, “Welcome to heaven, Peter my brother, and to eternal life, and to the fellowship of God and the saints.”
Jesus then asked Paul Tillich, “Who do you say I am?” And Paul Tillich answered, “Well, existentially, you’re the ground of all being, escatalogically, you’re the ground for all hope, and theologically, you’re the ground for the divine-human encounter.”
Jesus replied, “Come again?”
Aleta, thank you for expanding your views at 129.
Just as some religions are more wrong than others, some atheists are more wrong than others.
One thing that still invests him with a quasi-iconic status in this poor pilgrim’s eyes, Joe, even if somewhat nutty from a Christian, as opposed to, say, a Buddhist angle, is that he is alleged to have come to despise either physics (natural sciences?), maths, or both!
homerj @#1
tee! hee! Great comparison.
Axel- Newton approached the Bible meticulously. Now if you have more fighting words then save them until we meet. And that is just because I hold that man in very high esteem and is nothing against you, unless of course you persist. 😉
128 Joe:
No comments. What you wrote is sufficiently clear to confirm that stopping this discussion is wiser than continuing it. Perhaps others agree too?
ciao amico!
@Turbokid #8
‘Why would anyone fear an eternity of torment if the God is all-compassionate?’
One short, but highly relevant answer, it seems to me, is that, because, as with QM, the deepest truths tend to be paradoxical. Maybe, actually, ALL of them are.
Barry, do you not believe that the distinction I make between atheism and materialism is valid, or do you accept the distinction I make between a personal and non-personal “unconditional cause” and just think I am wrong about a non-personal unconditional cause being the case, or even being possible? In what way am I “more wrong” than other atheists (assuming that is what you meant.)
Barry:
Steveh
Steveh, I’m not sure whether you have failed to understand the argument of the OP or the nature of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Perhaps you don’t understand either. I will try to help you.
The “no true Scotsman’ fallacy does not mean, as you imply, that attempts to draw category distinctions are inherently fallacious. There are, after all, people who are from Scotland and people who are not from Scotland. The “no true Scotsman” is in play only when ad hoc unreasoned distinctions are drawn in an attempt to save an invalid category distinction.
Now to the OP. The category “necessary being” is not ad hoc; nor is it unreasoned. Therefore, when I point out that comparing contingent beings to a necessary being is a category error, I have not committed the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.
Hope that helps. BTW, adding a little smiley face at the end of an erroneous assertion coated in sarcasm does not make it any less erroneous. It only serves to make you appear silly and unserious. Just saying.
@ringo #15
“Every man who knocks on the door of a brothel is looking for God,” – Chesterton
Now they tell me! Have I spent all these years looking in the wrong place? I have heard it said that a man comes out of the womb and spends the rest of his life trying to get back in. I suspect, not in the sense of a foetus, either. But both would in some sense chime with Chesterton’s metaphor, wouldn’t they?
Aleta:
I actually meant the opposite. At the very least you are not utterly irrational like the atheist who denies that a necessary being is, well, necessary.
Oh – well, good. I am happy, then to leave this interesting conversation – I’ve appreciated the opportunity to express my views – knowing that I am at least “not utterly irrational”! 🙂
@ your #61, Joe;
‘Mark Frank:
Most religions include a creation story, many purport to account for morality, many include miracles …
Materialistic atheism fits that description.’
Hilarious! One of those ‘spot on’ smack-downs; an epigram.
Axel- 136 was in jest- But I hold Newton to be “a god of science” (small “g”)- just as Hendrix was “a god of guitar”. No one disses Jimy and no one disses Isaac.
138 Axel
That’s an interesting comment you wrote.
Now, help me with this:
Those who deny God, definitely don’t think of spending eternity in His glorious presence and don’t care about it. Do you agree up to this point?
Therefore, they don’t have to fear an eternity of torment, because regardless of whether heaven is true or not, either way they won’t be forced to be in heaven against their will. Are you still with me on this?
I believe God is pure and just. Since no one meets His high standards, not even remotely in our most fantastic dreams, no one qualifies for eternity in heaven, regardless of what you think or do, or who we are, or how we talk, etc. Nobody. Read my lips: NOBODY. Are we still on the same page?
By now you might have figured out where I’m heading with this, right?
‘It is true that Ismael was blessed, a promise we seen even today with the Arab worlds being blessed with wealth,’
I would have thought it more of a curse, Andre. And hideous as the suffering of the mass of the inhabitants of those Moslem countries has been, through all manner of wars, I really believe the most unfortunate of all are the rich citizenry of the mega-rich oil states, such a Kuwait, Qatar, etc.
What makes me think this, is the way in which too many of them I have read about in the newspapers, either enslave or all but enslave people from poorer countries, who work for them as menials (also) in the UK, or labourers on their construction sites. No need for it whatsoever. So they must have an intolerable darkness in their hearts that such wealth can only exacerbate.
#146 correction
Yes, very substantively, I’m with you right up to that point, Dionisio (up to a point, which I’ll adumbrate in a mo).
But I just hope you’re not heading for Calvinism. I’ve heard youngsters on a Christian forum effectively boasting that they can do what they like because they’ve been saved. As if proud of how little to zero commitment to Christ they needed to show. Because they knew they’d been saved!!!!
I boiled over once, and pointed out that young girls fired by an all together different spirit, a spirit of courage, rather than pusillanimity, had chosen a martyr’s death, rather than fail in their witness to their faith.
#146 follow-up or addendum or continuation:
All that said, here comes the ‘compassionate’ part of the story:
I believe, based on what is written in the scriptures, that God, in addition to being pure and just, is also loving and compassionate. In His infinite wisdom, which is unfathomable to us, He decided (i.e. by His own initiative) to provide a way for us to be in His glorious presence eternally. However, He doesn’t force anyone into this against their will. Do you agree so far?
I never heard an atheist argue “we all lack belief in thousands of necessary beings, I only believe in one less necessary being than you”. I should also add: Our belief in the numbers of gods who lack a Noodly Appendage also differ by one out of thousands (plus one that has one). I don’t see how bringing up noodly appendages is any more ad-hoc or unreasonable in this context than what you have done.
Yes, I do agree, Dionisio.
And you write very beautifully from the heart.
Joe at 122 I noticed you did not answer the question as to whether Jesus ‘ceased to exist’, i.e. died, but instead tried to turn your dilemma around and insinuate that since no one ceases to exist then everyone is God
Everyone has a indestructible soul, but only one soul claimed to be God and proved it by raising his body from the dead ‘laying his body down and taking it back up again’… Moreover, as pointed out in 62,,
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-520094
,,only Jesus’s resurrection from the dead provides a very credible reconcilliation of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ thus substantiating this following claim from Christ,,,
stevah @ 151. Now you are just blithering. I will try to help you again by saying: Stop it. It’s embarrassing.
Oddly enough, Dionisio, I’ve been arguing with a woman on a Catholic site, who obsesses about being perfect. I get the feeling Jesus might just as well have not bothered. She does sound distinctly unbalanced, though, that hobby-horse, just being indicative of larger problem.
Still, if you were going to lead me towards Calvinism, I’ll hold on to that thought in my #153. I don’t doubt your Christianity or your rationality.
#150 continuation…
Those who deny God or get so irritated when someone praises God or mock God believers or don’t tolerate the mentioning of Christ as God, would be tormented in heaven, where all we want to do is praising God and enjoy His presence forever. But God, in infinite love and compassion, won’t force anyone to that kind of torment, against their will.
Only those who know God intimately and want to enjoy His presence eternally, would long for heaven. Because that’s all heaven is: the wow! amazing indescribable opportunity to be in God’s glorious presence without the limitation of space or time.
However, the pass to heaven has a high price we can’t pay. God provided that payment with the blood of Christ on the cross. Christ certified His credentials with His resurrection. Jesus claimed to be the only way to that eternal state. All we have to do is genuinely accept Him into our lives.
It has been said that this world is the closest to heaven God deniers and mockers will ever be. And we can see they don’t like anything that reminds what heaven is all about.
Now imagine a place where the central focus constantly is God, because there’s no time boundaries. That, which for us who adore Christ will be the ultimate hallelujah! source of joy, must be a real torment for those who deny Christ.
God in His infinite providence has allowed them to stay out of that eternal meeting. Actually, according to the scriptures, God has allowed the undecided to stay out too.
It is only the ones who have decided to follow Jesus who will be taken into that wedding of the Lamb of God with His own church.
Now, I don’t quite understand what they are complaining about. What fear are they talking about? What torment?
Axel,
I forgot to address post #157 to you.
Please, read it and let me know if you disagree with anything I wrote, so I go back and review it. Thank you.
Rev. 22:21
@ Aleta #139
Aleta, if you’re still around I’d like to address this.
I think it is correct to recognize a distinction between a personal “unconditional cause” and a non-personal, or mechanistic, “unconditional cause”. However, I would say that you are, indeed, wrong about a non-personal unconditional cause being the case and that such a non-personal cause would not be a viable explanatory entity.
This unconditional cause would be the cause of material reality (i.e. the material universe) at the Big Bang. Big Bang cosmology holds that matter, space and time (at least as we know it), as well as the physical laws that govern them, came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang. The cause of the universe, then, would have to be of a nature that is immaterial, spaceless, and timeless. Obviously, it would also have to be immensely powerful. But this cause would also have to be personal, because any non-personal or mechanistic cause that is, in its nature, immaterial, spaceless and timeless, could not suddenly change its state so as to bring about the origin of the universe. Any mechanistic cause would need to achieve sufficient conditions to bring about the universe as an effect, but any mechanistic cause that meets the criteria of being immaterial, spaceless and timeless would not only be “changeless” in its natural state, but actually “unchangeable” in principle. This means that a mechanistic cause would either never achieve sufficient conditions to bring about the universe or else would have ALWAYS met those sufficient conditions, in which case our universe should be infinitely old, which it isn’t. Conversely, a personal cause, one with a mind and possessing free will alongside the other criteria mentioned, could freely choose to change its state and bring about a new effect like the universe.
This issue was summarized nicely by a British Mathematician and Physicist, named Edward Whittaker. Here’s what he said:
Whittaker’s comments would apply equally to any non-material mechanistic cause (if one can imagine such a thing).
So, if you believe there is most likely an “unconditional cause of reality”, then it is most rational to believe that unconditional cause is personal.
Take care,
HeKS
HeKs you may appreciate this:
What Properties Must the Cause of the Universe Have? – William Lane Craig – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SZWInkDIVI
The First Cause Must Be A Personal Being – William Lane Craig – video
http://www.metacafe.com/w/4813914
Axel,
Christians want to be in God’s glorious presence eternally, because God is the ultimate reality, the Creator, who revealed His unconditional love and mercy and forgave their previous rebellious attitude, and provided the way to Him through their saving faith in Christ’s redemptive death on the cross.
Didn’t leave much for them to do, just surrender and sing hallelujah!
🙂
Also of note to the claim of “mechanistic, unconditional cause”, that claim is simply ‘not even wrong’
“In the whole history of the universe the laws of nature have never produced, (i.e. caused), a single event.”
C.S. Lewis – doodle video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_20yiBQAIlk
“to say that a stone falls to earth because it’s obeying a law, makes it a man and even a citizen”
– CS Lewis
Random Chance and Necessity (i.e. law) have never ‘caused’ anything to happen in the universe: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-519756
A Professor’s Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist – University of Wyoming – J. Budziszewski
Excerpt page12: “There were two great holes in the argument about the irrelevance of God. The first is that in order to attack free will, I supposed that I understood cause and effect; I supposed causation to be less mysterious than volition.
If anything, it is the other way around. I can perceive a logical connection between premises and valid conclusions. I can perceive at least a rational connection between my willing to do something and my doing it. But between the apple and the earth, I can perceive no connection at all. Why does the apple fall? We don’t know. “But there is gravity,” you say. No, “gravity” is merely the name of the phenomenon, not its explanation. “But there are laws of gravity,” you say. No, the “laws” are not its explanation either; they are merely a more precise description of the thing to be explained, which remains as mysterious as before. For just this reason, philosophers of science are shy of the term “laws”; they prefer “lawlike regularities.” To call the equations of gravity “laws” and speak of the apple as “obeying” them is to speak as though, like the traffic laws, the “laws” of gravity are addressed to rational agents capable of conforming their wills to the command. This is cheating, because it makes mechanical causality (the more opaque of the two phenomena) seem like volition (the less). In my own way of thinking the cheating was even graver, because I attacked the less opaque in the name of the more.
The other hole in my reasoning was cruder. If my imprisonment in a blind causality made my reasoning so unreliable that I couldn’t trust my beliefs, then by the same token I shouldn’t have trusted my beliefs about imprisonment in a blind causality. But in that case I had no business denying free will in the first place.”
http://www.undergroundthomist......theist.pdf
Hi Dionisio,
No, I’ve long been persuaded that that is the case: that the ‘children of darkness’ can’t bear the light, nor, as you indicate, the whole scene of adoration and praise of our God of infinite goodness, purity and beauty. It’s as if by dying to ourselves here, we are making room for a spiritual nature to grow in us, one in which we shall literally feel ‘at home’ in heaven. And if we don’t, then there simply won’t be any space for this spiritual person, enlightened by the Holy Spirit, to be assimilated into us.
The graft won’t ‘take’ in the vine, but will fall to the ground.
I think we’ll be entranced by the myriad ways in which the most sublime beauty is expressed by God’s infinite love. We’ll be intoxicated by it. Oddly enough, becoming part of it.
I’m still around today, and would like to reply to your thoughtful post, but to do so I need to back up a step. 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.
However, just as we (human beings and cultures in general) have invented religions, we have also invented metaphysical arguments that appear to be “logical” because we take for granted assumptions that seem to us unassailable, but which are in fact not necessarily true.
For instance, you write, “Big Bang cosmology holds that matter, space and time (at least as we know it), as well as the physical laws that govern them, came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang. The cause of the universe, then, would have to be of a nature that is immaterial, spaceless, and timeless.”
But it is not true that the cause of the universe would “have to be” immaterial, spaceless, and timeless. There are may a “larger” level of reality that has matter, space, and time, or analogs to them, from which universes such as our arise. We really can’t know from what our universe came, because we are constrained to the universe of matter, space, and time that we live in.
Similarly, you write, “But this cause would also have to be personal, because any non-personal or mechanistic cause that is, in its nature, immaterial, spaceless and timeless, could not suddenly change its state so as to bring about the origin of the universe.”
And we don’t know that – that is an unwarranted, and certainly not a necessary, assumption. Even in the world we live in, the interactions of things produce sudden changes of state without personal intervention or direction.
My main point, then, is that your argument, which seems to show that “it is most rational to believe that unconditional cause is personal” follows only because you make assumptions about things that we can’t really know about that have embedded in them the conclusions that you reach. The assumptions you make seem necessary to you because they fit of a piece with your theistic worldview, but to someone who doesn’t already accept that theistic worldview, they are not compelling assumptions and therefore don’t lead to a compelling conclusion.
Axel,
You beautifully described it. I can’t add anything. Thank you.
While the sanctification process gradually makes us wanting to be more like Jesus, we turn more compassionate about the lost ones. We pray that the lost sheep will recognize the voice of their shepherd and run to Him, before it’s too late. We don’t know who will and who won’t, but we should proclaim the good news to all without exclusion.
After all, we too were lost, but now are found, were blind but now see. Our chains are gone, we’ve been set free. Our Savior has ransomed us. And like a flood, His mercy rains, unending love, amazing grace.
Aleta, since you
“I believe it much more likely that a non-personal foundation underlies, in some way, the universe we know”
,,,and as such deny the reality of your own mind, then you don’t mind (no pun intended) if I ask you why you believe that the logic/truthfulness of your argument may possibly have the power to persuade us that your atheism is correct?
“There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state — including their position on this issue — is the effect of a physical, not logical cause.
By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order.”
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....66221.html
i.e. In my Theistic worldview you argument collapses in on itself, and in your worldview, I have no choice, regardless of how logical your argument may be, to believe it to be true.
BA writes, “I ask you why you believe that the logic/truthfulness of your argument may possibly have the power to persuade us that your atheism is correct?”
I don’t believe I’m been trying, through logical argument or otherwise, to persuade anyone that my view is correct, other than by just trying to articulate as best I can, under these circumstances, what I believe. It’s useful to understand the position of others even if you don’t agree with them. My goal is to offer an alternative perspective here – perhaps some reader may find an interesting thought that slightly changes their perspective, or not, but convincing anyone here that they should think as I do is not my goal.
And I certainly don’t claim, as you say Harris does, that my “position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic.” In fact my last post explained what I think are flaws in claiming an “irresistible necessity of logic” when it comes to metaphysical beliefs, and explained my agnostic beliefs about, essentially, the necessity of living with uncertainty. Perhaps you didn’t mean to hold me to the same position as Harris, but I want to make it clear that I’m expressing my thoughts, and not in any way wanting to defend the thoughts of Sam Harris.
But alas Aleta, unless I’m missing something, you indeed ARE defending mechanical causality as primary and mind as derivative, which is a self-defeating proposition,, along that line, this may be of interest,,
“Are We Really Conscious?”: A Reply to Dr. Graziano’s Brain – Michael Egnor – October 20, 2014
Excerpt: Our current morass in philosophy of the mind is a direct consequence of the Cartesian abandonment of the Aristotelian-Thomist understanding of the human person. In the Aristotelian-Thomist view, we are composites of soul and body — form and matter — which are inseparable in natural life. Psychological attributes like intelligence, will, perception, memory etc. are powers of human beings, not powers of organs. Such powers are properly applied only to persons qua persons, and not to parts of persons, even such important and fascinating parts as the brain.
Neurophysiology is the proper study of the activities of the brain, which include metabolism, electrochemistry, etc. Psychology is the proper study of the powers of the human soul (psyche). Cognitive neuroscience is the proper study of the correlates between neurophysiology and psychology.
But correlates are not causes, and it’s essential that we do not conflate parts with wholes.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....90461.html
Turbokid @ 53 stated:
Thank you for your honesty—I truly understand what you’re saying. You can always have a change of heart as long as your heart is beating, but if you actually do meet up with God after you die, and the same question is put to you, your answer would be the same.
I believe this answers your earlier question:
As Dionisio indicated earlier, God will not force you into intimate communion. The Christian sadhu, Sundar Singh, even suggested that no human is forced to go to hell, but rather it will be their preference.
-Q
Aleta,
I’ll get back to you a little later this evening.
Axel
Money is not the root of all evil, the love of money is. I hold that every cent ever made belongs to the creator of our universe, There are many wealthy people in the Bible and they certainly carried God’s blessing. The minute money becomes more important than God the trouble starts.
Aleta,
Interesting and I believe you!
You *strongly* believe two things: (1) that a personal God doesn’t exist and (2) that you’re strongly agnostic. As you indicated, these beliefs are outside of any objective evidence. But they are your firm beliefs, and they came from somewhere. The question is where.
Could it be that you *want* to be an agnostic rather than an atheist, and that a personal God would be inconvenient?
Again, I have no doubt about your honesty and that your beliefs have a rational cause. But here’s a crazy guess . . .
You’re not ready to chuck God completely over the side, but you don’t like the possibility that if you did allow yourself to get more involved, “God” might cramp your style.
Go ahead and be honest with yourself. Am I all wet or more or less on-the-money?
-Q
@Aleta #165
I’m trying to understand what seems to be a contradiction here. You say:
“I believe strongly that personal Gods of any sort don’t exist”
That is a strong positive claim that is presumably based on something, though I don’t think you’ve shared what. However, you also say:
“I am also very much a strong agnostic about all this”
This is a strong claim about the inability to attain relevant knowledge.
If you strongly believe that we can’t gain knowledge relevant to deciding this issue, then upon what do you base your strong positive belief in the non-existence of any personal God?
Are you suggesting that logic cannot provide us with powerful arguments? Or that logic itself is invalid? Or merely that we can’t know what is really logical vs. what only appears to be “logical”? Or are you saying something else?
We’ll consider these arguments and assumptions more in a moment.
Well, it is true that the cause would have to have those qualities if matter, space and time did come into existence at the Big Bang, which is the standard view of Big Bang cosmology. So the first question is what positive reason we have to think that prior to the origin of the matter and space-time of our universe there was simply more matter and space-time?
The thing is, positing another super-space above our universe with more space, matter and time just pushes the problem back a level, but it doesn’t solve it, because apart from the scientific evidence we have for the beginning of our universe, a hard beginning is also necessitated by the widely known philosophical and mathematical problems with the possibility of actual infinites, and particularly the impossibility of an infinite number of past events.
So, even if we grant that the matter, and space-time of our universe were preceded by still more matter and space-time, the philosophical arguments against the possibility of actual infinites would necessitate a beginning for that pre-existing physical super space-time as well. And that super-space couldn’t be timeless, because if it were it would be impossible for any material mechanism to cause our universe to come into existence. For the same reasons, we couldn’t appeal to an infinite regress of higher level super spaces to avoid the problem.
You’re mistaken. It is not an unwarranted or unnecessary assumption. At some point, no matter how many higher-level super-spaces you try to appeal to, you eventually need to come to a hard beginning of space, matter and time, and no mechanism existing timelessly could change its state or interact with anything else to produce a change of state.
And this conclusion is needed just to account for the existence of space-time itself. We haven’t even drawn in the issue of the fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the Big Bang.
So, it seems to me that based on the evidence we actually have available to us in our own universe for examination, as well as the logical arguments that can be derived from it, we have strong positive reasons to infer to a personal cause of the universe. To posit any other explanation is to ultimately disregard the evidence we do have on the assumption that there exists something beyond our universe that is not positively indicated by the evidence (e.g. a multiverse, further levels of physical super-spaces, etc.), and even those assumed explanatory entities don’t actually resolve the problem. The whole affair simply amounts to appealing to a large number of additional explanatory entities that are not positively indicated by the evidence only for the sake of trying to (unsuccessfully) avoid the need for a personal cause.
Just the opposite really. I’m not making assumptions about what we can’t know. I’m making inferences on the basis of what we do know from the evidence available to us and through the application of deductive logic. And so I stand by the claim that the view I’m proposing is the most reasonable and rational one.
Except that they aren’t assumptions based on my theistic worldview, or even assumptions at all, but simply the most reasonable interpretation of the evidence in light of basic logic. And the implications of the Big Bang were, in fact, compelling (in the sense of being strongly suggestive of a particular conclusion) even to many atheists and agnostics. Consider some comments:
“Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.” – Robert Jastrow, Astrophysicist
“Philosophically the notion of a beginning of the present order is repugnant to me. I should like to find a genuine loophole. I simply do not believe the present order of things started off with a bang … the expanding Universe is preposterous … it leaves me cold.” – Arthur Eddington, Astronomer
“Perhaps the best argument in favour of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his or her theory.” – C.J. Isham, Astrophysicist
Einstein put a fudge factor in his equations for General Relativity to keep the universe steady because an expanding universe implied a beginning to the universe, which seemed far too religious to him.
Fred Hoyle rejected the Big Bang theory when it was proposed by Georges Lemaitre because it sounded to him far too much like the Biblical creation story and it was initially thought that Lemaitre – who in addition to being a physicist was also a priest – was trying to sneak his religious views into science.
So, I can’t agree with you that the conclusions I draw from the evidence are simply based on theological assumptions I bring to the table, or that the arguments are only compelling because of my theistic worldview. They stand on their own.
Perhaps I could take this opportunity to suggest you take a moment to look at Kairosfocus’ recent post on Selective Hyperskepticism.
HeKS at 174, that was well written and well reasoned post. A pleasure to read. Thank you.
A reminder on logic:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....nt-truths/
Of note:
How do you know that Christianity is the one true worldview? – Ravi Zacharias – video
The answer (explicated in 9 mins) to the atheist’s challenge as to how we know that Christianity is the only true religion: coherence and correspondence.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nWY-6xBA0Pk
Christianity and Panentheism – Inspiring Philosophy video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xki03G_TO4
Where:
In short, beware of dismissals by abuse of the term “assumptions” as a rhetorical excuse for hyperskepticism.
KF
PS: see how the need for careful thought about things that hit close to home begins to challenge us personally, requiring a dedication to continually change thought towards the true, the good, the right, the pure? Thus, how it can be very hard indeed to think straight about such matters on a sustained basis?
PPS: Two warnings:
Our responsiveness to light is indeed a telling test . . .
Axel @ 149
These days, specially among the younger generations (but not only), short messages are the way to communicate in popular tools: t, fb, etc.
There’s a limit for the amount of characters they are willing to chew and digest. Hence, their expressions lack explicit meaning in many cases. Many things are assumed a priori. Perhaps that’s a reason why some online social media are so popular. Lots of short frivolous nonsense messages. The meaning of words is irrelevant.
We can see that on TV programs and in our conversation with friends or relatives. Perhaps we do the same too?
We repeat words like ‘amazing’, ‘absolutely’, ‘perfect’, and the blasphemous ‘OMG’ in any context. Would we have words to describe what is really amazing or perfect? No, we won’t, because we have used those words to refer to things or situations that are not really amazing or perfect.
The same applies to the other words. Absolutely may be used to imply a strong approval or resolution, but the term itself has a stronger meaning of 100% knowledge. Are we really 100% sure when we say it?
Could this be comparable to Peter declaring that he won’t let Jesus to go to the cross? Was he really in control of what could happen in the future? Of course, no! Maybe that’s why Jesus rebuked him?
We talk faster than we think, if we ever think. That’s why we make pauses in our conversations, while still uttering some meaningless sounds, kind of implying that we are still talking (hey, don’t interrupt me).
Perhaps something similar occurs with our writing, but not as bad as with talking, because writing gives us the possibility to review what we express before another person receives our message. This is one reason why I prefer written communication. Another reason is that what we write is recorded, hence it’s harder for someone to claim we said something different than what we literally wrote.
On one occasion at my work years ago, while I was reviewing a software bug report, I realized the technical support engineer who had created the report, apparently had not included any data to reproduce the indicated problem. Since I did not want to expose his mistake so openly, instead of adding a note in the report, indicating the missing data, I wrote an email directly to the tech support engineer. Later, after seeing that time had passed and I did not receive any reply, I went to the technical support department, located in another area of the building, and walked into the office of the engineer I wanted to talk to. Two other engineers were in the office. At that point I realized they were on break time (often my oblivious nature made me skip those established breaks).
I asked the engineer about my email. He said he was going to include the data in the bug report ticket after the break. As I was leaving his office, he asked me to stay for a moment and respond a question they were discussing: what’s the opposite of love?
I responded with another question: what do you mean by ‘love’? They all yelled at me in unison: respond the question! I told them that if they wanted a serious answer from me, I first needed to know what exactly was their question about, because theses days the word ‘love’ is used in a variety of situations with different meanings. The same word means different what I say it to my wife or my children than when I use it to indicate how much I like the taste of chocolate.
Well, my explanation wasn’t well taken. They ordered me to get out of their office right away. Eventually I got the missing dataset and was able to reproduce and fix the bug in the program. 🙂
I don’t know what those youngsters you mentioned had in mind when they wrote those comments about doing what they like and associating that with their alleged salvation.
Our identity in Christ gives us freedom from many things this world expects from us. I don’t have to like what others like, as for example a movie with images and content that don’t appeal to me. I don’t have to do what others do. I don’t have to submit to peer pressure or bullying. Don’t have to celebrate Halloween or anything I don’t want to.
Also I can do things I like, which might not be politically correct, like reading the Bible or writing some of the things I wrote here, or declining invitations to do things many people like, and perhaps I used to like it too, but I don’t want to do it. I like to eat ice cream and could eat a whole bucket in a short while, but I just don’t want to do it, because I know it’s not healthy for me.
As you see, we should be careful with the wording of our expressions. I’m not good at this yet. Still learning. What I like to do may not be what I want to do. Paul the apostle referred to this in some of his letters. Sometimes I do things I don’t want to do, because the old ‘me’ still falls in the temptation traps. Sometimes I don’t do things I want to do, because I don’t take advantage of the freedom I have I Christ.
In the case you mentioned, where the youngsters expressed something that wasn’t clear or was conflictive, I would have asked them a few questions to let them clarify what they meant by what they said.
When we talk about Jesus, we remember that he is not only our Savior and Redeemer, but also the Lord of lords, and King of kings. We are His servants wannabes. Sanctification should gradually make us wanting to be more like Him. Only the Holy Spirit dwelling within us can lead us in that direction, but we have to submit our lives to Him and surrender to His will.
Anything you want to comment on this? Thanks.
Andre 172: Good point. Thanks.
Querius 173: interesting questions. Thanks.
HeKS 174: mucho food for thoughts. Thanks.
KF 176, 178, 479: As usual, very timely reminders.
Thank you.
BA77 177. Good. Thanks.
#184 correction
479179Thanks for the thoughtful replies. I want to address Querius at #173 first. He and HeKS both ask a good question, which I’ll reply to in a bit, but first I want to answer Querius’ main question.
Querius writes, “Could it be that you *want* to be an agnostic rather than an atheist, and that a personal God would be inconvenient? Again, I have no doubt about your honesty and that your beliefs have a rational cause. But here’s a crazy guess . . . You’re not ready to chuck God completely over the side, but you don’t like the possibility that if you did allow yourself to get more involved, “God” might cramp your style. Go ahead and be honest with yourself. Am I all wet or more or less on-the-money?”
All wet, but I know my saying that won’t mean anything to you. It is, however, irritating to have someone think that somehow they know better than I do myself about what my beliefs mean. The flip (in both senses of the word) response would be to say to the theist, “Do you cling to the idea of God because you’re afraid of facing the truth about needing to take full personal responsibility for your life rather than making up an explanation that allows you to shunt that responsibility off to some imaginary source.” I think virtually any theist would feel quite insulted about that.
I have have been studying and thinking about these religious and philosophical issues, and their relationship to the conduct my own life, in both academic and personal settings, for 50 years. I think it would be far better for this discussion to accept that I have just as solid a foundation in my life for my beliefs as you feel you do in yours, and not consider ascribing to me hidden motivations about somehow resisting a desire to believe in God.
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.
I’ll respond to one more point HeKS made, and then end this post, possibly to return to all the stuff about the Big Bang if I have time.
I wrote, ‘However, just as we (human beings and cultures in general) have invented religions, we have also invented metaphysical arguments that appear to be “logical” because we take for granted assumptions that seem to us unassailable, but which are in fact not necessarily true.”
and heKS asked,
“Are you suggesting that logic cannot provide us with powerful arguments? Or that logic itself is invalid? Or merely that we can’t know what is really logical vs. what only appears to be “logical”? Or are you saying something else?”
My statement about the circularity of logic was in respect to metaphysical explanations. In respect to the physical world – the universe we can experience, logic is a powerful tool, and by using it in conjunction with evidence we gather, we can, and have, learned incredible amounts about the universe. However, since we have no way to gather evidence about what is outside the universe, we can’t use logic in the same way. In that case, whatever logical metaphysical systems we build may be internally consistent, but they in fact have no verifiable connection to anything outside of themselves and don’t actually add any knowledge.
Do Christians, Jews and Muslims worship the God of Abraham? — To answer that, we need to first understand who is the God of Abraham.
Jesus clearly stated this in John 8:58, for the followers of Christ this answers all questions as to who the God of Abraham is.
Aleta,
I’m challenging your claim that it is not possible to know anything about what lies outside of our universe.
Is there any possible world, inside our universe or outside, where 2+2 does not equal 4?
Is there any possible world, inside our universe or outside, where A = not A?
F/N: Light, shocking, blazing light:
___________
>> Matt 5: The Sermon on the Mount
1 Seeing the crowds, a he went up on the mountain, and when he b sat down, his disciples came to him.
The Beatitudes
2 And c he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:
3 d “Blessed are e the poor in spirit, for f theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 “Blessed are g those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
5 “Blessed are the h meek, for they i shall inherit the earth.
6 “Blessed are those who hunger and j thirst k for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
7 “Blessed are l the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
8 “Blessed are m the pure in heart, for n they shall see God.
9 “Blessed are o the peacemakers, for p they shall be called q sons1 of God.
10 r “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for s theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 t “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely u on my account. 12 v Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for w so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Salt and Light
13 “You are the salt of the earth, x but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet.
14 y “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 z Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so aa that2 they may see your good works and ab give glory to your Father who is in heaven.
Christ Came to Fulfill the Law
17 ac “Do not think that I have come to abolish ad the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but ae to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, af until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 ag Therefore whoever relaxes ah one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least ai in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great aj in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds ak that of the scribes and Pharisees, you al will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Anger
21 am “You have heard that it was said to those of old, an ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable ao to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that ap everyone who is angry with his brother3 will be liable aq to judgment; whoever insults4 his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to ar the hell5 of fire. 23 as So if at you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 au Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. 26 Truly, I say to you, av you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.6
Lust
27 aw “You have heard that it was said, ax ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that ay everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 az If your right eye ba causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into bb hell. 30 bc And if your right hand bd causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into be hell.
Divorce
31 bf “It was also said, bg ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 bh But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and bi whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Oaths
33 “Again bj you have heard that it was said to those of old, bk ‘You shall not swear falsely, but bl shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ 34 But I say to you, bm Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for bn it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is bo the city of the great King. 36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; bp anything more than this comes from evil.7
Retaliation
38 bq “You have heard that it was said, br ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, bs Do not resist the one who is evil. But bt if anyone bu slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And bv if anyone would sue you and take your tunic,8 let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone bw forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 bx Give to the one who begs from you, and by do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.
Love Your Enemies
43 bz “You have heard that it was said, ca ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, cb Love your enemies and cc pray for those who persecute you, 45 cd so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and ce sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 cf For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers,9 what more are you doing than others? Do not even cg the Gentiles do the same? 48 ch You therefore must be ci perfect, cj as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Matt 6:
Giving to the Needy
1 “Beware of a practicing your righteousness before other people in order b to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.
2 c “Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may d be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have e received their reward. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. f And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
The Lord’s Prayer
5 “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love g to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. h Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 6 But when you pray, i go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. j And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
7 “And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as k the Gentiles do, for l they think that they will be heard m for their many words. 8 Do not be like them, n for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. 9 o Pray then like this:
p “Our Father in heaven,
q hallowed be r your name.1
10 s Your kingdom come,
t your will be done,2
u on earth as it is in heaven.
11 v Give us w this day our daily bread,3
12 and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And x lead us not into temptation,
but y deliver us from z evil.4
14 aa For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, 15 ab but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Fasting
16 “And ac when you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by others. ad Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 17 But when you fast, ae anoint your head and wash your face, 18 that your fasting may not be seen by others but by your Father who is in secret. af And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
Lay Up Treasures in Heaven
19 ag “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where ah moth and rust5 destroy and where thieves ai break in and steal, 20 aj but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
22 ak “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, 23 al but if am your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!
24 an “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and ao money.6
Do Not Be Anxious
25 ap “Therefore I tell you, aq do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26 ar Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. as Are you not of more value than they? 27 And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his at span of life?7 28 And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, 29 yet I tell you, au even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, av O you of little faith? 31 Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For aw the Gentiles seek after all these things, and ax your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. 33 But ay seek first az the kingdom of God and his righteousness, ba and all these things will be added to you.
34 bb “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.
Matt 7:
Judging Others
1 a “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 b For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and c with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but d do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
6 e “Do not give f dogs what is holy, and do not throw your g pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.
Ask, and It Will Be Given
7 h “Ask, i and it will be given to you; j seek, and you will find; k knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or which one of you, if his son asks him for l bread, will give him m a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If you then, n who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will o your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!
The Golden Rule
12 “So p whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is q the Law and the Prophets.
13 r “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy1 that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and s the way is hard that leads to life, and t those who find it are few.
A Tree and Its Fruit
15 u “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are v ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them w by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, x every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 y Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them z by their fruits.
I Never Knew You
21 aa “Not everyone who ab says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will ac enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who ad does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 ae On that day af many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not ag prophesy in your name, and cast out demons ah in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 ai And then will I declare to them, ‘I aj never knew you; ak depart from me, al you workers of lawlessness.’
Build Your House on the Rock
24 am “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like an a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like ao a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”
The Authority of Jesus
28 And when Jesus finished these sayings, ap the crowds were astonished at his teaching, 29 aq for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes. [ESV] >>
_____________
How do we respond to this?
The test . . .
It is time for fresh thinking, for metanoia, for repentance and reformation in the face of the light:
Remember, c 700 BC in Isaiah.
Then, c 55 AD by Paul, stating to the Corinthians the summary testimony of the 500, c 35 – 38 AD.
Testimony by men who willingly, peacefully surrendered their lives rather than deny what hey knew as eyewitnesses, and Who they knew by direct transformational encounter.
It is time for fresh thinking.
KF
PS: If you have been led to seriously or hyperskeptically doubt the Gospels, I suggest here as a start.
PPS: Delays imposed by network troubles. Net just came back, here goes . . . .
PPPS: Anyone have an answer on why an Android Tab can suddenly find itself in Wi Fi lockout to refusing to go on, perpetually trying to go on? (And tossing the apps etc in a hard reset has no effect. Is there a SSID issue at work, and are my Routers doing a backdoor update to MFR that causes lockout? BTW another Android Tab using I think an older And 4 still works.)
WJM: Prezactly, and also revealing the transcendent power of logic. KF
as to Aleta’s claim that it is,,,
“not possible to know anything about what lies outside of our universe”,,,
,, I’m sure the discoverers of the amplituhedron would be very surprised to hear that!
Bohemian Gravity – Rob Sheldon – September 19, 2013
Excerpt: Quanta magazine carried an article about a hypergeometric object that is as much better than Feynman diagrams as Feynman was better than Heisenberg’s S-matrices. But the discoverers are candid about it,
“The amplituhedron, or a similar geometric object, could help by removing two deeply rooted principles of physics: locality and unitarity. “Both are hard-wired in the usual way we think about things,” said Nima Arkani-Hamed, a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., and the lead author of the new work, which he is presenting in talks and in a forthcoming paper. “Both are suspect.””
What are these suspect principles? None other than two of the founding principles of materialism–that there do not exist “spooky-action-at-a-distance” forces, and that material causes are the only ones in the universe.,,,
http://rbsp.info/PROCRUSTES/bohemian-gravity/
Another question for Aleta;
In any universe, is it morally acceptable to torture children for personal pleasure?
Bornagain77
Hi Bornagain77, as usual I have come late to the mega discussions. I am a non trinitarian, because to me it makes no sense and I don’t think the original scriptures teach it. However I have my own theories about the nature of GOD, one that for me is consistent with a maximally loving GOD in one (Gods) self.
So could you please explain to me your reasoning behind your comments around and including the comment below.
“without this distinction we are stuck with the logical contradiction of maximally great love being grounded in ones own self which is the very antithesis of maximally great love”.
By the way I have not seen the videos you had provided yet, do I need to watch them?
194 William J Murray
The names ‘Auschwitz’ and ‘Mengele’ come to mind, don’t they? However, I wonder what do they have to do with your interesting question? BTW, those names are not associated with uncivilized cannibal tribes in the middle of the Amazonian jungle. They are related to a nation that also gave us Handel, Bach, Beethoven. Can we make sense of all that together? I can’t, unless I believe that the prophet Jeremiah was right when he stated that our hearts are sick and can’t be understood, therefore have no natural cure.
Some of us know our Maker provided the cure to all our spiritual maladies. However, many don’t want to even consider the divine remedy, and prefer the temporal instant gratification, with all the fake bells and whistles that this world offers. Pathetic state of affairs. 🙁
as to ls
could you please explain to me your reasoning behind your comments around and including the comment below.
“without this distinction we are stuck with the logical contradiction of maximally great love being grounded in ones own self which is the very antithesis of maximally great love”
Okie Dokie,,,
It’s All About Me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XHkMPA1334
🙂
D, here is Heine’s 1830’s prophecy on the root of that — 100 years before the event:
>> Christianity — and that is its greatest merit — has somewhat mitigated that brutal German love of war, but it could not destroy it. Should that subduing talisman, the cross, be shattered [–> the Swastika, visually, is a twisted, broken cross . . .], the frenzied madness of the ancient warriors, that insane Berserk rage of which Nordic bards have spoken and sung so often, will once more burst into flame. …
The old stone gods will then rise from long ruins and rub the dust of a thousand years from their eyes, and Thor will leap to life with his giant hammer and smash the Gothic cathedrals. …
… Do not smile at my advice — the advice of a dreamer who warns you against Kantians, Fichteans, and philosophers of nature. Do not smile at the visionary who anticipates the same revolution in the realm of the visible as has taken place in the spiritual. Thought precedes action as lightning precedes thunder. German thunder … comes rolling somewhat slowly, but … its crash … will be unlike anything before in the history of the world. …
At that uproar the eagles of the air will drop dead [–> cf. air warfare, symbol of the USA], and lions in farthest Africa [–> the lion is a key symbol of Britain, cf. also the North African campaigns] will draw in their tails and slink away. … A play will be performed in Germany which will make the French Revolution look like an innocent idyll. [Religion and Philosophy in Germany, 1831.] >>
Mere coincidence?
I doubt it.
Ideas have consequences . . .
KF
197 bornagain77
Still laughing after watching that video. 🙂
Thank you.
198 kairosfocus
Agree. Thank you for the interesting information.
KF @ 198
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_board_games
194 William J Murray
According to the Nazi Mengele’s standards or to WJM’s standards?
191 kairosfocus
Excellent! Thank you.
KF
More on our human condition:
Doinisio,,, yes that song gets the point across rather clearly 🙂
Here is another one,,
Carly Simon – You’re So Vain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQZmCJUSC6g
i.e. millions of songs have been written about people loving other people, hardly any are written about loving one’s self more than other people except in parody and scorn!
Hi Dionisio, re your post, #180, the only impression I had was that they were saying, ‘I’m already saved’. I don’t have to worry about working out my salvation, about sinning and so on, because I’ve already been saved by God’s redemptive sacrifice. It’s just a matter of waiting for heaven to claim me.
They might be posting again by now. Here is the site: ‘christianforums.com’
Dionisio asks:
I didn’t qualify the question by imposing any standards. I was asking Aleta a rather simple question.
To WJM: The topic I am discussing (one of a couple) is that we can’t investigate whatever metaphysical “reality” is behind/beyond/the cause of, etc our universe, and that our metaphysical speculations, while perhaps created so as to be internally consistent, can’t actually know anything about what’s beyond our universe.
Your question is, to use a current phrase, an “irrelevent tangent” that I don’t want to chase.
@Andre #172:
‘Axel
Money is not the root of all evil, the love of money is. I hold that every cent ever made belongs to the creator of our universe, There are many wealthy people in the Bible and they certainly carried God’s blessing. The minute money becomes more important than God the trouble starts.’
Why are you contradicting scripture in your first sentence? You must know that ‘the words of scripture are binding’, as Jesus pointed out to someone. I haven’t managed to Google it, and usually I believe different expressions from ‘binding’ are used in other translations. Remembering the context would have helped!
‘There are many wealthy people in the Bible and they certainly carried God’s blessing.’
You are contradicting Scripture again. Do you deny that, apart from in the Magnificat, where it is so unequivocal, the rich are referred to, throughout most of the Old Testament, and constantly by the Prophets, in apposition to the wicked, man, the violent, the deceitful; while the poor man is spoken of in apposition to the virtuous man, the true Israel. To make sense of the world, a degree of generalization was unavoidable even by Jesus.
In the Gospels, Jesus doesn’t mince his words. Likewise, in the epistles, the rich are referred to by Paul and James as a kind of menace to the Church. And I’m surprised people see fit to correct the Holy Spirit, who could easily have inspired Paul to write that the love of money is the root of all evil.
Of course, there were good rich men, very good rich men, rich men with a noble and generous heart, such as Joseph of Arimathea, in Jesus’ time, and have been ever since, right up to today. God does not have favourites. But that is neither here no there, in this context.
And just as the rich are denounced by Jesus for setting their heart on this world’s goods, (you don’t get rich by accident (unless inheriting), the poor are praised by him as being blessed – where you claim it was the ‘many rich men’ in scripture who were ‘certainly blessed’.
You should familiarize yourself more with the Psalms; the disparagement of the rich is really emphatic: ‘… In his riches, man lacks wisdom. He is like the beasts that are destroyed,’ is one of a number of such disparaging passages.
If you look at the world today, you can see that it is. We pillage the third world countries mercilessly causing innumerable deaths; our banking sectors in the West are literally headed by mega criminals, the poor (increasingly the public) are pillaged and oppressed as never before. Progressive politicians who sought to stand in the way of the machinations of the ‘deep state’ have been routinely murdered. And beneath that 1%, are the people tainted by collusion. It’s just the way the world is and generally always has been. To an extent, most of the 99% don’t have a lot of choice; increasingly at the lower end, no choice.
Here is an interesting article on Justice and Charity and their mutual relationship, Andre:
http://www.aleteia.org/en/soci.....6496401408?
Aleta,
I asked you three questions. All three are about whether or not we can have knowledge about anything assumedly outside of our universe.
Are you saying that you don’t know if 2+2 would equal 4 outside of our universe?
Are you saying that you don’t know if A=A outside of our universe?
Are you saying that you don’t know if torturing children for fun would be immoral outside of our universe?
189 Chalciss
You hit the nail right on its head and very strongly. Your post is a game changer. Better yet, a discussion stopper. By referring to that biblical passage, you have finished the discussion. Nothing else can be added to answer the given question. This says it all:
John 8:58 (ESV)
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
🙂
REV 22:21
209 Axel
1 Timothy 6:10 (ESV)
Don’t know where I ever contadited myself Axel…..
1 Timothy 6:10 is clear, And what you have pointed out is exactly what I was saying…… The love of money is the root of All evil.
Job was a wealthy man, blessed by God, and after Job’s character and obedience was tested he was blessed by God with even more wealth.
But yes when times are good we do often forget that what was given can be taken away.
209 Axel
The apostle affirms that the love of money is the root of all evil, 1 Tim. 6:10.
What sins will not men be drawn to by the love of money? Particularly this was at the bottom of the apostasy of many from the faith of Christ; while they coveted money, they erred from the faith, they quitted their Christianity, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
Observe,
[1.] What is the root of all evil; the love of money: people may have money, and yet not love it; but, if they love it inordinately, it will push them on to all evil.
[2.] Covetous persons will quit the faith, if that be the way to get money: Which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith. Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, 2 Tim. 4:10. For the world was dearer to him than Christianity.
Observe, Those that err from the faith pierce themselves with many sorrows; those that depart from God do but treasure up sorrows for themselves.
[Matthew Henry’s Commentary]
214 Andre
2 Timothy 3:2 (ESV)
Bornagain77,
As funny as that video is, I was hoping for a serious answer.
Logically
BA can speak for himself but I would like to answer, If It was just God and he is known as the God of love, who would he have loved before the creation of angels or men? Himself?
Jesus is God’s First love, for him and through him all things were made.
207 William J Murray
In your post #194 you asked this interesting question:
In post #202 I asked:
Because your question is related to moral acceptance, hence it implies certain scale or standard, doesn’t it? How else can one determine if something is acceptable or not?
Apparently to the Nazi doctor it was acceptable to use children in the concentration camp for their experiments, but you and I abhor it.
How come the same event is seen so different?
Please, correct me if I got this wrong. Thank you.
ls that was a serious answer and thank you Andre
Thank you, Dionisio, and my apologies on that score, Andre. I’ve made that mistake in the past, and got away with it. Now I can avoid that mistake in future. However, I’m not being churlish when I say that my general point still holds.
Francis Bacon commented that prosperity was the blessing of the Old Testament and adversity the blessing of the New, but, while one can see the point, even as a generalization, it’s ‘sailing close to the wind’.
The patriarchs were blessed with wealth, the Judges would surely have been well provided for, but the prophets seem unanimous in denouncing the rich of their respective times, and expressing indignation at the oppression of the poor. So things seemed to be getting worse with the passage of time. Sound familiar?
Christ seemed quite vehemently censorious of the farmer who built bigger barns to house his bumper harvest; surely, no more than plain common-sense, according to normal canons of human affairs, never mind our depraved business culture.
Two key quotes:
Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. (Matthew 6:19–21)
I don’t think there can be much doubt that the life-style of asceticism of Jesus and John the Baptist could reasonably be classified as being located at the extreme end of the spectrum. Monastery, convents and perhaps hermitages today, would be luxurious in comparison. Detachment and concern for justice are what matters more than anything, THEN followed by charity where the need still exists.
However, none of any of this alters the truths abut the burden of Scripture that I was indicating. Riches are less propitious to a pious life than poverty. Even perhaps extreme poverty, which seems to us an absolutely unmitigated disaster, but God has eyes for the oppressed. The heart of the (good) destitute, homeless people, after all, can hardly be thought to have been focused on material treasure.
Incidentally, note how easily Jezabel was able to suborn the worthies of Naboth’s town to set Naboth up to be killed. How could they have refused without losing their own life? One of the penalties of enjoying the patronage of the powerful and unprincipled. Isn’t the history of the world largely a chronicle of the ministrations of psychopaths – in modern times, perhaps, with more of a leavening of sociopaths.
217 logically_speaking
That was a serious answer. The video is funny because it touches a very serious issue. Actually, extremely serious issue.
Do you understand what it is about?
Do you never tire of asking this, William?
As far as we know, there may be no other universe than the one we live in. In my universe it is unacceptable to toture anyone, child or adult, whether pleasure is involved or not. Is it acceptable for you as an interrogator to torture a terrorist who you suspect knows where a large bomb with a delay fuse is hidden? I’m sure you would not derive pleasure from the process, but would you do it?
221 Axel
I see your point too. 🙂
Thanks.
Thank you, Alan, for your response to William.
And exactly how does Mr. Fox help you Aleta? i.e. how does moral law derive from mechanical causality instead from agent causality? Does a machine care if it kills you?
221 Axel
214 Andre
Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries
Matthew Henry’s Commentary:
221 Axel
214 Andre
Maybe I’m preaching to the choir? 🙂
But remember the lurkers. 🙂
I would expect Aleta or anyone else to use whatever they use to determine the morality of such a thing to answer the question.
Atheists and materialists often refuse to simply answer simple questions because if they answer one way, it leads to an intolerable conclusion, and if they answer another way, their foolishness is exposed.
Am I asking the Nazi doctor the question? It’s a relatively simple question. Is there any imaginable world, universe or situation where you would find it morally acceptable to torture children for fun?
Eyewitnesses often describe events differently, down to wildly varying descriptions of people involved. People subjectively experience and interpret everything. Does a blind man have the same experience of an event as a deaf man? If a blind man doesn’t see a wall, does it not exist? If the morally bankrupt cannot recognize evil, does evil simply not exist?
223 Alan Fox
This “In my universe…” reminds me of a nice tour guide lady my wife and I had in Dalian (China) a few years ago. As we visited different parts of the city, she was constantly explaining many interesting things associated with what we were looking at. In Shanghai, Beijing, Tianjin, the local tour guides referred to the cities by their names. However, the local tour guide in Dalian always said “in my city…” instead of Dalian.
I forgot the nice lady’s name, but still remember her stories always started with the phrase “in my city…” 🙂
229 William J Murray
Agree. 🙂
‘ dionisio #227
Very scholarly and interesting, Dionisio, though I’m familiar with some of it, of course. And yes, you’re certainly preaching to the choir on this topic.
Good point about the greater danger to the overly ambitious ‘arriviste’.
One nice thing that has emerged is that the public schools (private in US) have turned out to be one of the last bastions of the Christian faith. I believe they generally have their own chapels. Although their Christian ethos may have gone downhill in the last few decades, like so much else.
@ Andre #214
No, I didn’t mean to even imply that you contradicted yourself. I was acknowledging that I was wrong and you were right. ‘LOVE of money’ is specifically stated, not just ‘money’, as I had thought and claimed.
Axel
What do you mean by “public schools (private in US)”?
Public schools where?
Thank you.
Axel and Andre
I want to ask you something outside this forum. Can you write me an email? Here’s my address: dshared@ymail.com
Thank you.
Let me know when you copy the address, so I can ask the moderator to delete this post.
Aleta @ 188,
And you have. Please notice that I didn’t accuse you but rather asked whether my proposed reconciliation might be correct. You explained why it wasn’t. That’s fine.
As to your perceptions about God, I’d encourage you to try an experiment. A logical one. Your strong agnosticism shouldn’t prevent you from making a temporary assumption to see where it leads.
What if really and truly God existed—a distinct possibility in your belief system, perhaps unknowable, but a possibility. Right?
1. Would the existence of God that prevent religious beliefs and systems from being constructed? How about lots and lots of religions and religious institutions? And would there be any reason why people couldn’t do terrible things in God’s name?
2. Would there be anything that would prevent God from being sentient? After all, we’re his creation and we are sentient.
3. Would anything prohibit God from interacting with what He originated? Notice that I’m not speculating whether He would do so or not. Just whether God could be prevented.
4. Would the Laws of Nature prohibit God from doing anything of His choosing?
5. If God chose to interact some way with a person, is it possible that other people would disbelieve that person and could come up with reasons why this was impossible?
Finally, before you reanimate your disbelief, examine your arguments from the previous assumption. And if really and truly God actually wanted to interact with you, would you be willing or unwilling?
My bet is on unwilling, but I could be all wet again.
-Q
236 Querius
…like for example crucify God’s own Son?
@Aleta #188
I don’t think I can agree with Querius that the contradiction has been cleared up. Here’s what you said:
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.
Dionisio,
Indeed! And as you know, Christians can expect the same fate, as is happening to us now in many countries. As Jesus said
Such as beheading us and blowing up our churches. And Jesus also said
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:
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.
-Q
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.
-Q
@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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
239 Querius
Amen!
Rev 22:21
242 Andre
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 22:21
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.
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.
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,,,
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?
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,
Both Quirius and HeKS saw a contradiction between my being an atheist and an agnostic, so in #188 I wrote,
HeKS isn’t sastified that I have resolved the contradiction, and writes in #238
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:
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.
Dionisio I agree with everything you said in your last post. Thankyou for your prayers.
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.
Dionisio @ 249 said
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!
-Q
@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,
HeKS
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.
“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.
from OP:
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.
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.
@BA77 #258
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,
HeKS
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.
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, 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.c.....arge.jpg?7
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 😉
HeKS
The pin is the perfect angelic dance floor. Where else would angels dance?