LEE: Thank you, John. You can see the position now.
Black’s last move was: 36 … Qb4 and, as you can see, he is now threatening White with a back-rank mate from both his Queen and his Rook at c8.
JOHN: Can you explain a back-rank mate for both our viewers?
LEE: Certainly. You can see White’s King is contained in the corner of the board with his own Pawns holding him in place. The bottom row is completely empty and the only piece that White can use to block the attack is his Queen.
JOHN: Well, it’s White’s move now. How does he stack up?
LEE: White is severely disadvantaged in this position. In fact, it’s difficult to think of a worse position other than outright checkmate. White has played incredibly poorly this game, and it’s obvious in this position. Right now, Black has a certain checkmate in two moves unless White plays perfectly. White might be able to pull out a draw here.
JOHN: What would you recommend White do then?
LEE: It is tempting to bring his own Queen down, but he can’t plant the Queen on the first rank or it’ll just be taken by Black’s Queen, which guards the e1 square. However, White needs to do something. He could move Queen to a1, which would guard against an immediate back-rank mate, but I can’t imagine Black wouldn’t move Queen to c4 to create a battery which would win. White’s only hope is to move one of his Pawns to give himself an escape. But objectively, White is completely losing. This is one of the worst games I’ve ever seen televised.
JOHN: Okay, and White looks like he’s getting ready to move. And…it’s going to be a Queen move after all!
LEE: He’s obviously not listening to me.
JOHN: And…oh my goodness. Queen to b8, with check. What is he thinking?
LEE: Oh, this is terrible! Just terrible. Of all the moves that he could have done, White is simply giving away his Queen now! I thought he couldn’t possibly play any worse than he had, but he proved me wrong.
JOHN: Wow. Well, this is a no brainer. Black is going to take White’s Queen with his King—
LEE: Actually, he can’t do that. White’s Bishop at g3 guards that. I can only surmise that White overlooked the fact that Black can take with his Rook anyway! Or maybe he was thinking of trading his Queen for Black’s Rook—a terrible mistake, since Black’s Queen can still mate! And now, with no Queen to block, if White doesn’t move a Pawn next move, it’s an instant back-rank mate!
JOHN: And here goes Black, taking the Queen.
LEE: I cannot believe White is playing so bad. White is going to capture the Rook with his Bishop, which will guarantee a back-rank mate with Queen to e1! I wonder how this man ever got rated in the first place. This is simply dismal playing. He’s been making the absolute worst possible moves ever in the history of chess.
JOHN: And here he goes. And…wait, he’s not going for the Bishop.
LEE: No, he’s doing a Knight move! That’s even worse! He needs to move a Pawn or else…
JOHN: Oh my.
LEE: What?
JOHN: Checkmate? Is that checkmate?
LEE: It can’t be.
JOHN: But look. Black is in check, but he can’t move his King. And nothing can take the Knight. It’s checkmate!
LEE: White got lucky, that’s for sure. He made some of the stupidest moves ever in the history of chess, but managed to hold on.
JOHN: It’s almost like he planned it from the start that way.
LEE: No, he couldn’t have. My game theory analysis says he made the worst possible moves ever up until this point.
JOHN: Hmmm. If it was a normal person, I’d disagree. But since it was God playing…
LEE: Like I said. He got lucky.
Are Christians always this snarky? Are they this sarcastic and demeaning to family and friends or just people who disagree with them?
ReplyDeleteSarcasm and snideness indicates fear, that you're afraid someone MIGHT be right about something, so you must thus tear them down and humiliate them lest your house of cards come tumbling down.
Do you believe what you say you believe?
If John Loftus is one of the pre-determined reprobates, no amount of cleverness or persuasion on your part is going to change that. Crack your jokes, post your windy tirades, but if God has determined his path, all you're doing is wasting your time (and ours).
So why are you bothering? Why not just ignore him altogether?
Hahah well done!
ReplyDeleteLoftus, along with other Triablogue-haters, are oftentimes as mean-spirited and downright nasty like the the liberal leftist bloggers who are falsely smearing Sarah Palin.
ReplyDeleteSo a little checkmate satire is nothing in comparison to what's heaped upon Paul Manata, et al. Quit crying and stop whining James. You don't see Triabloguers whine when they get grossly misrepresented and caricatured. They just point out the faulty rhetoric and lampoon the pompous joker.
Awesome!
ReplyDeleteAnyone who's ever gone through Lev Alburt's series would have seen the knight mate immediately ... certainly anyone with a rating over 2200 would have.
ReplyDeleteIf that's the best God can do ... he's no better than Lev Alburt.
Evan, of course, misses the point that [ahem] "God" knew all along what it was and it was LEE who didn't see it....
ReplyDeleteAnd since James missed it, this post has nothing to do with Loftus. The satire isn't against him. It's against Lee Randolph. But thanks for trying.
Wow, it looks like you really put a lot of work into this. I'm flattered. You should be proud.
ReplyDeleteChance be with you
Hi Guys,
ReplyDeleteI had a little more time to type up something for you to show my appreciation.
It seems that your refutation is that I don't have enough information to say that god chose the worst strategy and that while it looks bad now, it really is a strategy designed to look 'distractingly' bad but be a winner.
This is an argument from ignorance, and is inherently weak. The reason is that you cannot show that I am wrong, you can only show that we are agnostic about the outcome and the strategy. You can only show that you can imagine that God will pull something out of his hat, but you don't know what, how or when, etc. Furthermore you are stacking an argument from ignorance on a presumption of God based on unverifiable sources, and little to no objective evidence.
So while I appreciate the work you put into this, you really haven't done anything but nay-saying. You could use this argument to show that I don't really know if the sun is going to rise tomorrow. I concede that I don't know if the sun is going to rise tomorrow, but I can use analytical tools to make a prediction and see if it comes true with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
The point of the article was to show that god chose the worst strategy according to my estimation, a real game theorist would probably do it differently. But the fact remains that the most superior intellect in the universe consistently chooses to confound us by disregarding sound prinicples when we know from analagous experience and inference from precedent that it could have been done better. How can anyone expect that all reasonable people will understand a being that continually confounds us? Some of us don't trust beings that are so uncertain. It just gives us a 'bad feeling'. As such it doesn't follow that a being that wants a relationship would be so fickle. But I know that you beleive that it would, so I can only surmise that you and your concept of God are limited by the imagination of Bronze age authors.
Lee said:
ReplyDelete---
Wow, it looks like you really put a lot of work into this.
---
Looks are deceiving.
Lee said:
---
It seems that your refutation is that I don't have enough information to say that god chose the worst strategy and that while it looks bad now, it really is a strategy designed to look 'distractingly' bad but be a winner.
---
You're part right. Yes, you don't have enough information. You got that part right.
But, no, it's not "distractingly" bad at all.
Your problem is you seek to view the Fall in isolation, apart from the overall plan that God has (which He has revealed in Scripture). In other words, just as I spoofed, you're looking at the Queen sacrifice in isolation apart from the overall goal of the game.
This is your problem with your game theory analysis of Eden. You want to view it just in terms of Adam and the existence of the tree, forgetting the purpose for which God put it there and the reason for which God ordained evil in the world.
Lee said:
---
This is an argument from ignorance, and is inherently weak.
---
The ignorance of the argument is on your side, not mine. Christians aren't ignorant of God's overall plan. You're the one taking Eden in isolation, not us.
Lee said:
---
The reason is that you cannot show that I am wrong, you can only show that we are agnostic about the outcome and the strategy.
---
I have to prove a negative now? I have to prove you wrong? What happened to you proving yourself right?
Oh, how logic doesn't matter in the hands of such a skilled atheologist.
Lee said:
---
You can only show that you can imagine that God will pull something out of his hat, but you don't know what, how or when, etc.
---
Actually, we do know because God has told us. God didn't inspire Genesis 1-3 and then stop. There's a bunch after that, ya know. It might help if you read it.
Lee said:
---
Furthermore you are stacking an argument from ignorance on a presumption of God based on unverifiable sources, and little to no objective evidence.
---
Of course this has been addressed multiple times on this blog. And for the record, YOU are presuming the existence of God when you give your game theory analysis. You do so provisionally, of course (that is, for the sake of argument); but because that's the way that the issue is framed, the existence or non-existence of God doesn't matter here.
I have to say you've got a compelling argument going when you say, "If God exists, He made the worst possible decisions and my proof for that is that God doesn't exist." Brilliant!
Lee said:
---
You could use this argument to show that I don't really know if the sun is going to rise tomorrow.
---
I don't think you're looking at the same argument I'm looking at. My point was specifically tailered to you.
Lee said:
---
The point of the article was to show that god chose the worst strategy according to my estimation, a real game theorist would probably do it differently.
---
Except to make that determination, YOU HAVE TO HAVE ALL THE FACTS. If you only look at a part of the game, your game analysis will be wrong. It's really a simple concept. In this case, your ignorance is relevant, because without understanding the point of the game you cannot make a wise choice. Without understanding the goal, you have no concept of whether this is a good approach to get there or not. Without understanding the objective involved, you can make no judgment calls.
Lee said:
---
But the fact remains that the most superior intellect in the universe consistently chooses to confound us by disregarding sound prinicples when we know from analagous experience and inference from precedent that it could have been done better.
---
Except you cannot know this until you know why God does what He does. If you know the purpose, then you can say that God did a bad job (if He actually did so). Again, you argue from ignorance and are simply speaking out your shorts.
Lee said:
---
How can anyone expect that all reasonable people will understand a being that continually confounds us?
---
How can anyone expect a child to understand his parent when the child doesn't understand the reason for a bed time?
I do know what the point of the game is, it is to enable us to have a relationship with god right?
ReplyDeleteso you think that it was the best possible plan to require a human sacrifice to enable a relationship with us?
If it were, then no reasonable person would doubt the existence of God anymore than they would doubt the existence of Japan.
But really It seems you agree with me that at least on the surface, that it looks like a really bad strategy.
Lee said:
ReplyDelete---
I do know what the point of the game is, it is to enable us to have a relationship with god right?
---
Nope.
Try Romans 9:22-24 for starters:
---
What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
---
Psalm 23:3 also comes to mind:
---
He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.
---
Ezekiel 20:44 also says:
---
"And you shall know that I am the LORD, when I deal with you for my name’s sake, not according to your evil ways, nor according to your corrupt deeds, O house of Israel, declares the Lord GOD."
---
So our relationship with God is not God's goal. The glorification of His name is His goal. He does that both by demonstrating mercy and justice to whom He wills.
Lee said:
---
so you think that it was the best possible plan to require a human sacrifice to enable a relationship with us?
---
Since that's not the point, your answer is irrelevant.
On the other hand, how can God demonstrate mercy on those who never sin? And despite you refering to Romans 5 in your original article, you still failed to grasp:
---
For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Romans 5:7-8
---
How can God show His love in dying for sinners unless there are sinners to die for?
Lee said:
---
But really It seems you agree with me that at least on the surface, that it looks like a really bad strategy.
---
No, it looks like you missed the goal. Or, to bring it back to the metaphor I referenced earlier, you didn't see the Knight checkmate.
there it is,
ReplyDeleteHow can God show His love in dying for sinners unless there are sinners to die for?
exactly.
he created the problem sin so he could solve it to show his glory.
adam was the fall guy, in his plan
god had himself sacrificed in an empty gesture (since what is a six hour crucifixion to the most awesome force in or out of the universe)
to show his glory,
and who is the object of his glory seeking?
humans, that is the link between us if nothing else, therefore it is the basis of the relationship that I'm surprised you deny.
Lee Randolph: "he created the problem sin so he could solve it to show his glory.
ReplyDeleteadam was the fall guy, in his plan"
Lee, please see this post by Steve Hays about this conjecture of yours: Is God the source of sin?
Pax.
P.S. You still got checkmated even though you didn't see it coming. The gracious thing to do is to tip over your king, and extend your right hand to congratulate the one who bested you.
It's somewhat analogous to surrendering humbly to the Holy Triune God.
but anyway,
ReplyDeleteadam was folklore,
paul hung his hat on that folklore,
stipulating the four gospels are right,
jesus was killed, surprisingly,
and paul spread this rationalization to reconcile it in his own mind. Adam was the victim, you blame the victim, because of causal bias (people use the easiest thing available to make a story coherent, i.e. a person that trips isn't paying attention) and paul uses the sacrifice metaphor to make sense out of Jesus being hung out to dry, not realizing that the human sacrifice metaphor wouldn't stand the test of time.
nice, neat.
and of course i stipulated the god exists and the bible is relevant information about him for the sake of argument, but in the big picture you buy it hook line and sinker, but it is still not a verifiable source.
It still is only TRADITIONALLY believed to be (generally) true, by only ~30% of the worlds population.
oh,
ReplyDeleteyou've announced i've lost?
how cute,
I guess that settles it.
;-)
oh
ReplyDeleteI just thought about it,
if god did all that to show his glory,
at ~30% over 2000 years, he should change his strategy.
Note Lee is no longer attempting to defend his claim that God's choices in Eden were the worst possible choices God could have made. Having lost that debate (soundly, at that), all he has left is to emote and vent his personal idea that God's goal wasn't a "right" one (as if God needed Lee's permission).
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that according to Scripture, God had a plan and He executed that plan fully. Far from making "the worst possible choices" via game theory in Eden, God did that which would ensure His plan came about.
That Lee doesn't like God's plan doesn't mean that God did a poor job in executing that plan. It's a different subject altogether.
But Lee has no other options at this point. His position has been so roundly trounced all he can do is flee to a completely different topic.
Lee said:
ReplyDelete---
if god did all that to show his glory,
at ~30% over 2000 years, he should change his strategy.
---
You presuppose that the manifestation of God's glory occures immediately, and only to those whom He saves.
Have no fear. You'll experience it too. Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of the Father. I'm pretty sure that was in the Bible somewhere....
I'm still defending the claim, its called elaboration, you just don't realize it. I'm busy running rings around you logically.
ReplyDeleteBTW, Lee also assumes that the pouring out of God's wrath on sinners is not part of His demonstrating His glory. So the percentage of those who believe is irrelevant to the topic.
ReplyDeleteLee said:
ReplyDelete---
I'm still defending the claim, its called elaboration, you just don't realize it. I'm busy running rings around you logically.
---
I've yet to see any logic on your part. Perhaps you can elaborate how God's plan in Eden was the worst possible plan, given the fact that God intended Christ to die to save some and likewise intended to pour out His wrath on others.
Simply saying you don't like the plan is irrelevant here. You have to demonstrate that God could have done better and still obtained the results He wanted.
I'll take this up later, gotta get busy. see ya.
ReplyDeleteI've got a minute,
ReplyDeleteI've yet to see any logic on your part
I suppose its because I don't pieces as the bible for my premises or conclusions. My logic is not self referential.
See, the integrity of the bible is exactly what is in dispute here. I say its folklore and point out how it can only be defended by special pleading and you just spout more of it at me.
Try taking my argument apart, like
"this premise is false because [refute, refute, refute],
or this conclusion is false because [refute, refute, refute]"
I never said I didn't like the plan, you said that. I just said that for an omniscient being, he picked the worst outcome. Fine with me, but now we've got to figure out why. To set up the need for a human sacrifice? he must have come up with that plan before he made the universe, just like he did with everything else. In that case, he needed a fall guy.
Like you said, he wanted to flex some God Muscle to these puny little bags of bones would know how glorious he is. So he became fully human and fully god, so he could show some God Justice, on himself.
pouring out gods wrath on sinners, is to his glory? So might makes right. biblical principle.
If you say so. No judgement here, just an observation that usually, when a more powerful being starts subjecting another to show how much better they are (or should I say glorious), society frowns on that.
but not in gods case. isn't that special? funny how that works.
but who cares what society or lee thinks, its irrelevant because thats not how it plays out in the bible. if it happens in the bible, by definition, its right, because its in the bible.
you guys are F-U-N. with a capital F. I wish I had more time to come around here more often.
;-)
see ya!
Hey Lee, we have to stop meeting like this...
ReplyDeleteYes, they are fun, but at some point they just throw in the towel. Peter- how about finally answering my post? I'm really curious what you have to say.
Lee said:
ReplyDelete---
See, the integrity of the bible is exactly what is in dispute here.
---
Now you're changing the grounds yet again. Your original argument was that God made the worst possible choices in Eden. This argument presupposes the existence of God. Again, as I pointed out, that's provisional and done for the sake of arguement on your part.
However, what you're doing is this:
1) Assume A.
2) If A is true, then B.
3) A is false.
4) Therefore, A is false.
Which is completely improper. What you have to do is:
1) Assume A.
2) If A, then B.
3) Not B.
4) Therefore, not A.
Your conclusion must drive the contradiction; you cannot use the contradiction as a premise, which is what you've done after I showed that "Not B" is false.
Lee said:
---
I say its folklore and point out how it can only be defended by special pleading and you just spout more of it at me.
---
Except that's not what you claimed in your argument. Your argument assumed the Bible to be true in an effort to yield a logical contradiction. When that didn't pan out, you shift the topic and pretend you've won. How hard is it to admit that your game theory idea failed?
Lee said:
---
I never said I didn't like the plan, you said that. I just said that for an omniscient being, he picked the worst outcome.
---
But you can't know that. You have to know what God wants and then you have to know that the method by which God chose to enact that is itself the worst. You haven't even begun to address the issue.
Lee said:
---
Like you said, he wanted to flex some God Muscle to these puny little bags of bones would know how glorious he is.
---
That's not what I said at all.
Again, God's glory is not for man's benefit at all. Man does gain benefit on the process, but that's not the reason for it. That's YOUR misguided view, not mine.
And you still haven't shown how God's plan to magnify Himself via mercy and justice is the worst possible way for Him to do this.
Lee said:
---
pouring out gods wrath on sinners, is to his glory? So might makes right.
---
A judge condemns a guilty man in court. Oh gee, might makes right.
Lee said:
---
No judgement here, just an observation that usually, when a more powerful being starts subjecting another to show how much better they are (or should I say glorious), society frowns on that.
---
A) Society frowns on it because most of the time those who are "superior" aren't.
B) God deserves glory because He is God. That is His due.
Lee said:
---
if it happens in the bible, by definition, its right, because its in the bible.
---
Which isn't my argument at all.
It's obvious that you know you've lost this because you're not even attempting to deal with anything I've said. You just keep throwing wild accusations. I'm satisfied that the non-atheists are intelligent enough to see how pathetic your "argument" is, since it can't even stand up to me.
Finally, Zilch said:
---
Peter- how about finally answering my post? I'm really curious what you have to say.
---
I've got a response for you at home. I'll post it later this evening, Lord willing.
Having not read a lot from the blog recently, I assumed this was a description of McCain's "last minute" choice of Palin as a running mate... LOL.
ReplyDeletesorry I couldn't get back, but as you know we are having trouble with our blog template and I reformatted my last article to see if it made a difference in the way the blog was displayed.
ReplyDeleteI'll be back to play some more later.
Hi Peter,
ReplyDeleteokay, I'll settle down and be more Zilchlike.
I'm going to restart my argumentation daemon and go back to your post from 9/09/2008 8:23 AM, start over, and take it one step at a time, if you're game.
;-)
You want to view it just in terms of Adam and the existence of the tree, forgetting the purpose for which God put it there and the reason for which God ordained evil in the world.
- what is "the purpose for which god put it there"
- and what is "the reason for which God ordained evil in the world"?
Hi Zilch,
ReplyDeleteI didn't mean to be rude, I'm sorry.
a great big HIDEY HO! to you, and its good to see ya!
Lee,
ReplyDeleteFirst, I already answered your questions. Secondly, you're the one making the argument that God made the worst possible choices. You have to substantiate that claim.
In other words, YOU have to answer those questions. YOU have to determine why God created Eden, why He made the tree, and why He ordained evil--because if you do not know even this little bit, you cannot say He made the worst possible choices in carrying out His plan.
After that, then you're STILL left with demonstrating how God could have had the same end with a better plan.
Peter wrote: The glorification of His name is His goal.
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly does this mean?
Are you saying that God's goal is for his name to be synonymous with greatness or that he wants people to think he is great?
well peter,
ReplyDeletethats a mighty evasive answer for someone carrying out the great commission.
I didn't get the details of
- what is "the purpose for which god put it there"
- and what is "the reason for which God ordained evil in the world"?
the first time around.
on the topic of me defending my claim,
I am doing a hypothesis check on the bible. I am trying to determine if it is more like folklore or more like reality. This payoff matrix assessment was to determine if gods plan passes a reality check. It doesn't. Why? well, lets see how you answer that question above this paragraph and we can continue.
I just want to step through this to minimize wiggle room for both of us. You should enjoy taking my arguments apart to demonstrate gods glory.
If you don't want to play just say so and I'll go back to my hypothesis check and my next article and leave you alone.
this is a comment intended to enable email. sorry for the clutter but I keep forgetting to check that little box.
ReplyDeleteLee said:
ReplyDelete---
thats a mighty evasive answer for someone carrying out the great commission.
---
How is it evasive to point out I already answered your question? I did. When you claimed that the purpose for which God created everything was to have a relationship with us, I corrected you and provided you my answer at that point, quoting a few passages of Scripture.
Just read the above. Why should I have to repeat it because you didn't pay attention the first time?
Lee said:
---
This payoff matrix assessment was to determine if gods plan passes a reality check. It doesn't. Why? well, lets see how you answer that question above this paragraph and we can continue.
---
I note yet again that if you have to wait for my answer THEN YOUR ORIGINAL CLAIM FAILED. You did not take into consideration the end for which God established all the events that occured in Eden. So your claim that God made the worst choices is pure hubris on your part.
Lee said:
---
I just want to step through this to minimize wiggle room for both of us. You should enjoy taking my arguments apart to demonstrate gods glory.
---
Simply letting you present your arguments as poorly as you do suffices, ya know.
all right then,
ReplyDeleteI'll go back and try to extract what I think may be your answer and then check it with you.
Scott said:
ReplyDelete---
What exactly does this mean?
Are you saying that God's goal is for his name to be synonymous with greatness or that he wants people to think he is great?
---
If you read through the Bible, you'll get a good indication of what it means to glorify God's name. Of course, it helps if you have a Semetic understanding of the value of names too; but even absent that, simply reading the context of various passages will show you. To help you with that, consider doing a keyword search for "name" and "sake" in a Bible commentary (you can use Bible Gateway to do that, for instance.
This will give you several verses that are relevant to the discussion.
Some things to note: often God's glorification of His name is found by His demonstrating His divine attributes. Most commonly in Scripture, this is when God demonstrates His mercy or His justice. Thus, the glorification of His name is sometimes synonymous with simply God revealing Himself as God to man.
Scott,
ReplyDeleteSee this article also.
Hi Peter,
ReplyDeleteI've reconstructed the argument and omitted my irrelevant ramblings, hopefully you'll think its fair or correct it where its not and we can continue. I really am looking for criticism of this argument and, though at times I'm pretty flippant, I really do value your criticism.
oooops, left out the reconstruction
ReplyDeletehere it is....
/////
So our relationship with God is not God's goal. The glorification of His name is His goal. He does that both by demonstrating mercy and justice to whom He wills.
How can God show His love in dying for sinners unless there are sinners to die for?
exactly.
he created the problem sin so he could solve it to show his glory.
and who is the object of his glory seeking?
humans, that is the link between us if nothing else, therefore it is the basis of the relationship that I'm surprised you deny.
if god did all that to show his glory,
at ~30% over 2000 years, he should change his strategy.
You presuppose that the manifestation of God's glory occures immediately, and only to those whom He saves.
Have no fear. You'll experience it too. Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of the Father. I'm pretty sure that was in the Bible somewhere....
BTW, Lee also assumes that the pouring out of God's wrath on sinners is not part of His demonstrating His glory. So the percentage of those who believe is irrelevant to the topic.
Like you said, he wanted to flex some God Muscle to these puny little bags of bones would know how glorious he is. So he became fully human and fully god, so he could show some God Justice, on himself.
Again, God's glory is not for man's benefit at all. Man does gain benefit on the process, but that's not the reason for it. That's YOUR misguided view, not mine.
And you still haven't shown how God's plan to magnify Himself via mercy and justice is the worst possible way for Him to do this.
pouring out gods wrath on sinners, is to his glory? So might makes right. biblical principle.
A judge condemns a guilty man in court. Oh gee, might makes right.
No judgement here, just an observation that usually, when a more powerful being starts subjecting another to show how much better they are (or should I say glorious), society frowns on that. but not in gods case. isn't that special? funny how that works.
A) Society frowns on it because most of the time those who are "superior" aren't.
B) God deserves glory because He is God. That is His due.
but who cares what society or lee thinks, its irrelevant because thats not how it plays out in the bible. if it happens in the bible, by definition, its right, because its in the bible.
Which isn't my argument at all.
It's obvious that you know you've lost this because you're not even attempting to deal with anything I've said. You just keep throwing wild accusations. I'm satisfied that the non-atheists are intelligent enough to see how pathetic your "argument" is, since it can't even stand up to me.
oh yea, there's this too...
ReplyDelete////
I do know what the point of the game is, it is to enable us to have a relationship with god right?
I didn't get the details of
- what is "the purpose for which god put it there"
- and what is "the reason for which God ordained evil in the world"?
Nope.
Try Romans 9:22-24 for starters:
---
What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
---
Psalm 23:3 also comes to mind:
---
He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.
---
Ezekiel 20:44 also says:
---
"And you shall know that I am the LORD, when I deal with you for my name’s sake, not according to your evil ways, nor according to your corrupt deeds, O house of Israel, declares the Lord GOD."
---
So our relationship with God is not God's goal. The glorification of His name is His goal. He does that both by demonstrating mercy and justice to whom He wills.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteBased on the search results, it appears that God is concerned with how he is perceived by his creation. This would include, but not be limited to, human beings. But you also mention that the glorification of God's name is synonymous with God revealing himself to man as God though his attributes and actions. We can think of this as passing on information or facts about God.
I'm making a distinction here because these can be separated this into individual goals.
God could merely pass on information about his attributes and nature without concern about how we perceive him (potentially even at expense of his perception) or he could be concerned about how we perceive him without revealing his true attributes and nature (manipulate us.)
However, this doesn't seem to be the case with God as depicted in the Bible. Merely passing on this information seems insufficient. Instead, he appears to intentionally create situations in which are designed to influence Man's perception of God as being great.
But, setting this goal for God causes several contradictions to arise.
For example, If people think a song is "great", it's because those who have listened to it enjoyed it or music critics think it's "great". But, God supposedly isn't subject to this subjective kind of greatness. In fact, theists claim that, without God, there can be no greatness as he is the very definition of it. Being omniscient, God's knowledge of his greatness would be absolute. He could not be insecure, nor would he gain information he didn't already know hearing it from us.
So, if human perception of God does not actually increase (or have the potential to decrease) God's greatness and our telling God he's great is redundant, we can logically exclude these as valid goals for God. We're left with God having a want or need for us to think he's great, or merely the exchange of information of God's greatness.
However, there are problems with these goals as well.
If mere factual knowledge of God's greatness was his goal, he could have simply created us with this information built-in. No persuasion or illustration would be necessary. You'd have to claim this simple solution would have somehow conflicted with the very same goal or that "God ordain[ing] evil in the world" so he could save us from it was somehow the best way to present this factual information. However, as God supposably omnipotently created human beings from nothing, our level of comprehension would be completely under God's control. Any dependency on using an indirect method to illustrate God's greatness would have a direct correlation to the way he designed and created us. You're merely creating an problem for God to solve so he has a reason to exist.
In claiming that God wants his name to be glorified, you'd imply that God was missing something that he can only acquire though the external creation of human beings who subjectively perceive him as being great. Nor would God have anyone else to impress. Again, this appears to be a contradiction with God's properties of being perfect, having an unchanging nature and a timeless existence.
God deserves glory because He is God. That is His due.
This is an assertion and a tautology. You've merely defined God to fit your own conclusion.
But even if God deserves to be glorified, it would not be a goal, as God could not gain or loose glory based on actions he might or might not take or human perception. That's like saying being owed money that you did nothing to earn is a goal. It would be a fact and you can't achieve a facts. Nor would God not deserve more or less glory if he hadn't created anything at all. Instead, you've effectively said God's goal is merely for us to subjectively perceive him as being worthy of glory.
So, to summarize, it appears your argument is that God created human beings so he could convince them of something he already knew, he did nothing to earn and which our perception (or even our lack of existence) cannot change.
I'm satisfied that the non-atheists are intelligent enough to see how pathetic your "argument" is, since it can't even stand up to me.
As Lee indicated, It seems you haven't actually thought about the logical implications of such a goal. You're simply repeating the ad-hoc problem you've read in the Bible.
Lee,
ReplyDeleteYou're still trying to shift away from your original point on game theory. For all your hand waving, you cannot ressurect your claims that God made the worst possible decisions in Eden according to your game theory. Just take a simple example.
You said:
---
exactly.
he created the problem sin so he could solve it to show his glory.
---
Okay, so if we go with that, then the goal was for the sin to occur so that God could solve the problem, right? How does Eden not do this?
What you're doing, Lee, is shifting the goalposts. You begin with an argument, and after I dismantle it, you want to present a completely different argument to pretend that your first argument still works. But your argument has shifted. It has gone from "God made the stupidest decisions to enact His plan" to "God's decisions were immoral."
Those are two different topics.
For the record, I would be more than willing to discuss this second issue with you; but not in the context of your game theory analysis. Your game theory concept has been neutralized. The sooner you admit this, the sooner we can address the next issue about whether it was right of God to want to do what God did, etc.
okay peter,
ReplyDeletehonestly I'm lost.
I would desperately like to get the real meat here.
you said this
You begin with an argument, and after I dismantle it, you want to present a completely different argument to pretend that your first argument still works. But your argument has shifted.
Can you type in the argument that you think you have dismantled please so I can figure out what is going on here?
I'll make a guess
"a payoff matrix shows that god chose the worst possible outcome for adam in the garden of eden"
is that it? If not, please type it in for me and I'll extract your rebuttal from the other comments.
peter,
ReplyDeleteare you asking me to justify the low score I gave "adam in the garden with the tree" ?
Peter,
ReplyDeleteFirst, as I'm sure you're aware, not all Christians share your views about the primary goal of God. The verse John 3:16 comes to mind. It appears that Lee's post was focused on these particular interpretations of the bible. Complaining that Lee "changed the goal posts" is clearly unwarranted.
Second, even if your assume glorifying God's name was his primary goal, it's obvious that Adam is Biblically presented as a causal entity who's intentional and willful acts of disobedience are deemed worth punishment. The result of which is a key part of the very foundation of the Bible.
Genesis 3:17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it, Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life."
We can still view God's actions in light of accomplishing this goal.
For example, based your interpretation of God's plan, the Genesis narrative was presented in a way that could mischaracterize Adam's role. You'd have to claim that God purposely presenting this narrative is the best way to further this goal. Specifically, in manipulating Adam, he's run the risk of humans focusing on the problem he artificially created, instead of what you claim is his real goal. Again, this risk is real as there are several dominations that appear to have done just this. How does this fragmentation glorify God? Or perhaps God is willing to let humans think his love for them is his true motivation, just as long as God looks good in the end?
Third, it appears that your attempt to defend God's apparent lack of rational decision making is to present a vague, contradictory primary goal for God and attempt to justify any possible action with it. However, as I've indicated, God cannot become greater regardless of how we subjectively view him and factual knowledge of his greatness could be simply imparted to us as part of creation. Saying God's goal is do be "due" something is not a goal -It's a fact that cannot be "accomplished."
Even if it's factually true that God is great, you've given no motivation why a perfect being would actually desire to be subjectively perceived as great.
As finite beings, we're not all knowing. We desire praise precisely because we have doubt and require feedback. But God is supposedly not subject to these limitations and would have absolute knowledge of his greatness. You're simply asserting that God would want said recognition - at the expense of human suffering and eternal damnation - in a attempt to make some kind of sense out of his actions.
Clearly, there are "mere humans" who have chosen to be humble despite being worthy of awards and other recognition for their greatness. It's as if you think being humble isn't a virtue we would have acquired by being made in God's image but a punishment we acquired during the fall.
What I find interesting is that Peter doesn't give any reason why God want's to be perceived as great. He just asserts that an omniscient being would find it so useful in of itself that he would make it the very foundation of all his actions. This is in contrast to God having some reason in which humans subjectively viewing him as great would play an important part in some larger goal.
ReplyDeleteFor example, God might want us to perceive him as being great so we would be more likely to follow his rules and be saved. However, this is circular. If God hadn't invented a problem for him to save us from (to show us how great he is), we wouldn't need to be saved in the first place. Revealing his greatness us would not be required.
Instead, he merely repeats Biblical theology without actually considering the implications of such a goal in light of God's supposed properties and what we've learned about human nature.
Human behavior is often driven by lack of knowledge. An example of this is trust and faith. If there is no gap in our knowledge in which we can posit a possible, but ultimately unknown outcome, action or reality, then trust would be impossible. Since God is supposedly omniscient, he could not trust anyone or have faith in anything.
This is just one of many logical problems with assuming God would based his actions on a human motivations, such as being perceived as great.
Of course, Peter cannot actually clarify what he means by glorifying God's name because doing so would subject it to logical scrutiny. This is exactly what Peter is trying to avoid by retreating to this position.
He might as well say God's goal is to do whatever he wants, which could include creating a universe that appears to have been created by natural processes without some kind of divine plan. It appears that even this would count as a rational act by God in Peter's view.
Hi Scott,
ReplyDeletethanks for the help.
I think peter is operating under a handicap that I see in a lot of christians.
they can't get their around what it means to be omnipotent, and omniscient.
Hi scott,
ReplyDeleteI want to focus on something you said about circular reasoning that has far reaching ramifications.
You've probably heard about information quality or data quality.
These are sound principles for gaining knowledge that has applications.
The bible hardly meets any of them. With that said, it cannot be verified as a source of quality information about the abrahamic god. We have to use the higher quality information we have accumulated from other sources to gain knowledge about the world.
So I suspect they'll come back with a circular argument such as "you have no right to judge god", but we can break out of that loop because we have every right to say that based on higher quality sources of information, there's no reason to trust most anything in the bible since it violates principle of information quality. the most obvious violations are that the authors are unknown, we don't know what version we have, and they
- make cliams that contradict established natural laws
- make claims that contradict established principles
- Does not fit with what you observe, or already know
- Does not have support else where. in other words does not have reliable corroboration
- it Is not internally consistent.
I pulled these from a list of criteria that I'm using to pull together and article on how we are justified in questioning god.
peter,
ReplyDeletehow I justify my low marks for god in the game are based on higher quality information about realistic principles. Meaning that according to how the story is written, god set a trap for adam and eve. He determined that the best way to 'show his glory' or to reconcile adams transgression was through a blood sacrifice. Both of these violate a ton of reasonable principles. Why should they violate reasonable principles if the bible accurately reflected the world. It doesn't because in the bronze age, they were relatively ignorant. We have 2000 years of higher quality information.
This is my justification for how I derived my weighted ranking that I used in the normal-form matrix.
ReplyDeleteI posted this in the comments of my article, I'll incorporate it into the text later.
I'll be writing articles for DC about the topics of information quality and misunderstanding omnipotence and omniscience later. This comment introduces the ideas.
I think some christians operate under a handicap of not being able to understand what it would mean to be omnipotent and omniscient.
they can't get their around what it means to be omnipotent, and omniscient.
- Gods omniscience clearly means that he knew what was going to happen and he had a plan.
- Gods plan clearly violates principles of efficiency because he doesn't seem to use his omniscience and omnipotence
- How is it possible that these violations of princples exist? Well lets look at the source of the data and use principles of information qualtiy to rate it.
They can't seem to get their head around is what quality information is, and if they do, they use special pleading to argue that it doesn't apply to the bible.
The Criteria for information quality or data quality are sound principles for gaining knowledge that has applications.
The bible hardly meets any of them. With that said, it cannot be verified as a source of quality information about the abrahamic god. We have to use the higher quality information we have accumulated from other sources to gain knowledge about the world.
So I suspect they'll come back with a circular argument such as "you have no right to judge god", but we can break out of that loop because we have every right to say that based on higher quality sources of information, there's no reason to trust most anything in the bible since it violates principle of information quality. the most obvious violations are that the authors are unknown, we don't know what version we have, and they
- make cliams that contradict established natural laws
- make claims that contradict established principles
- Does not fit with what you observe, or already know
- Does not have support else where. in other words does not have reliable corroboration
- it Is not internally consistent.
The reason the bible is incoherent is that the authors and compilers did not use any principles of information quality, therefore christianity turned out to be the interpretive mess that it is.
how this relates to my rantings about Paul.
ReplyDeletePaul believed that adam existed when he linked Jesus death to him. Without an adam, Jesus death cannot possibly be a reconciliation, except in a soft and mushy 'man is sinful' way, and they you have to show how 'man is sinful' is not gods fault since he made us.
a being like god should understand what it is he makes better than anyone.
now heres a parting shot cause I'm out of here.
ReplyDeletethe only one I see seeking glory around here is peter.
don't get so wrapped in winning and losing. You can't win discussing the bible, not even with other christians. I know from experience. For example, you don't seem to be the kind of christian Dr. McGrath is and I'm guessing you wouldn't agree with too much of what he says.
Are you going to "win" with someone like him?
Peter,
ReplyDeleteJust wanted to give you kudos. In the second chess analogy I've read from you so far, I just have two things to say.
Check and mate.
Lee wrote: I think peter is operating under a handicap that I see in a lot of christians. they can't get their around what it means to be omnipotent, and omniscient.
ReplyDeleteRight. They have a highly simplistic view that God's attributes are human like, except they are infinitely "better." The actual implications of omnipotence and omniscience are irrelevant.
The mockumentary Spinal Tap comes to mind. When Rob Reiner's character questions how a "special" amp who's knobs have a maximum setting of 11 is actually "better" than other amps (who only to go 10) the band member has no real explanation. Instead, he merely repeats the phrase "These go to eleven".
The same can be said for theism. When we point out the implications of the very properties they attribute to God, they essentially repeat, "God goes to infinity", as if it somehow explains everything.
Lee wrote: Both of these violate a ton of reasonable principles. Why should they violate reasonable principles if the bible accurately reflected the world. It doesn't because in the bronze age, they were relatively ignorant. We have 2000 years of higher quality information.
If we view God as a merely a plot device specifically designed to illustrate points, then we wouldn't expect God to act reasonable. Instead, he'd go around manufacturing situations and providing a context in which the characters actions could be interpreted.
This is exactly what we see.
God must create everything from nothing so he can provide a context in every situation. However, this requires God to create evil, so characters have an antagonist to battle. Better yet, God must be infinitely powerful so he can ultimately defeat evil. And, of course, God punishes people using famine, storms and other natural disasters. It's a classic example of mythology.
The problem is most people either don't notice or don't care about plot errors. They simply want a good story. The Bible appears to have been specifically designed to deliver just that.