tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post4863816110682022197..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: "The dragon in my garage"Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86989146193391466552009-04-01T23:11:00.000-04:002009-04-01T23:11:00.000-04:00I'm reminded of Bertrand Russell and his caricatur...I'm reminded of Bertrand Russell and his caricature of Christians as believing in an invisible teapot orbiting the sun...or something like it. Atheists really have no imagination apparently, Sagan, Flew, and Russell have similar non-arguments.Seanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08697051930790491821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41791525294785311612009-03-30T09:34:00.000-04:002009-03-30T09:34:00.000-04:00Thanks Steve. I-III - Guess I wasn't clear enoug...Thanks Steve. <BR/><BR/>I-III - Guess I wasn't clear enough in indicating that I knew these weren't the views of more sophisticated theology. I was talking in terms of what you run into on the street, at work, when talking to self identifying Christians, which are not usually philosophically or theologically sophisticated.<BR/><BR/>IV - Interesting, I'll look into those links.<BR/><BR/>V - I'm just talking about the common sentiment. I don't feel like putting together a timeline would be worth my time, since I think I've made the point I was trying to.Krafthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01030502315966499233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38817516118710971102009-03-28T15:46:00.000-04:002009-03-28T15:46:00.000-04:00KRAFT SAID:“Kind of a caricature I know. It's ...KRAFT SAID:<BR/><BR/>“Kind of a caricature I know. It's a pretty common claim of ‘God retreating’ from being active in the world to just being the cause of the big bang or origin of life or some quantum fluctuation. Similarly from coming down into the garden, being present guiding the Israelites in the desert and other biblical things to now being outside of time/space. See it on forums and in conversation*. Kind of 'as science explores things, god gets more elusive', and that is like the dragon and it's properties changing as tests are proposed.”<BR/><BR/>i) The Bible already has a doctrine of ordinary providence or second causes. Israelites knew that fruit ordinarily comes from fruit-trees, rain from clouds, babies from sex, &c. They never took the position that God is the direct cause of everything, or even most things, that happen.<BR/><BR/>ii) It’s not as if theologians like Boethius, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Calvin, &c. thought that if you could send a man into orbit, he would be able to see God from outer space, but 20C theologians suddenly concocted the notion that God subsists outside of time and space when astronauts were unable to see God from the window of the Apollo spacecraft.<BR/><BR/>iii) Moreover, Medieval theologians who taught that God subsists outside of time and space also believed in Medieval miracles. Belief in a timeless, spaceless God didn’t supplant belief in a God who answered prayer or performed miracles. These beliefs were held concomitantly.<BR/><BR/>iv) Miracles are reported throughout church history and into the modern era. There’s no gradual displacement of belief in God’s miraculous presence. <BR/><BR/>Christians have always believed in ordinary providence as well as miraculous. These are concomitant beliefs. And many Christians believe that miracles happen today. Let’s take a few examples from modern history:<BR/><BR/>http://www.graveworm.com/occult/texts/thaumat.html<BR/><BR/>http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2006/12/miracles-and-missionaries.html<BR/><BR/>http://www.trueu.org/Academics/LectureHall/A000000425.cfm<BR/><BR/>v) Specify the ways in which the criteria for determining God’s existence have changed over the centuries.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65192091083266921802009-03-28T12:53:00.000-04:002009-03-28T12:53:00.000-04:00Kind of a caricature I know. It's a pretty common...Kind of a caricature I know. It's a pretty common claim of "God retreating" from being active in the world to just being the cause of the big bang or origin of life or some quantum fluctuation. Similarly from coming down into the garden, being present guiding the Israelites in the desert and other biblical things to now being outside of time/space. See it on forums and in conversation*. Kind of 'as science explores things, god gets more elusive', and that is like the dragon and it's properties changing as tests are proposed.<BR/><BR/>* I know these usually poorly represent Christian theologyKrafthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01030502315966499233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-12439933799732149782009-03-28T12:10:00.000-04:002009-03-28T12:10:00.000-04:00Kraft,How is that analogous to Christian believers...Kraft,<BR/><BR/>How is that analogous to Christian believers?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49032461804312918702009-03-28T12:00:00.000-04:002009-03-28T12:00:00.000-04:00I think part of the parable that you're skipping i...I think part of the parable that you're skipping is that the dragon believer keeps shifting their claim. When the skeptic proposes tests based off the claim of a dragon, the believer changes the claim to rule out that test. Think it's supposed to be an analogy to the atheist saying (paraphrased) 'god was in the clouds, then we went there and didn't see him, then he was in space, then we went out there and didn't see him, so now he's outside space/time...' in terms of shifting claims about what/where/etc. about god.Krafthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01030502315966499233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79426461093876508372009-03-28T10:00:00.000-04:002009-03-28T10:00:00.000-04:00Bahnsen skewers this argument in "Always Ready". A...Bahnsen skewers this argument in "Always Ready". Also, as far as Flew's "invisible garden" argument is concerned, he also shows that the reasoning is reversible, i.e., when confronted with the gardener's footprints, the unbeliever might say that it's a clever hoax, planted when no one was around; when confronted with the gardener's tools, they might say that these could be anyone's tools, etc. - such that no evidence would count for evidence in favor of a gardener existing.Matheteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13527032591499860552noreply@blogger.com