tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post5003536531553083745..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Why some people hate CalvinismRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-6028210433803738132011-06-08T01:38:05.546-04:002011-06-08T01:38:05.546-04:00FWIW, if anything, I've replied to you here, B...FWIW, if anything, I've replied to you <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/06/sense-sensibility.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>, Byron.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-80488363977467079372011-06-08T00:32:27.245-04:002011-06-08T00:32:27.245-04:00Truth,
This is wrong on several levels. Perhaps w...Truth,<br /><br />This is wrong on several levels. Perhaps we could continue this discussion on the blog? The blog article fails to convince me, for several reasons.Byroniachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14946794635613455210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-313150579867518902011-06-07T14:15:20.161-04:002011-06-07T14:15:20.161-04:00Byron,
Here's another very recent article for...Byron,<br /><br />Here's another very recent article for you to consider as you continue to harp about the evidence (or lack of it) for Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior:<br /><br /><b><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/06/evidence-for-the-death-of-my-sister-vs-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-christ/" rel="nofollow">Evidence for the Death of My Sister vs. Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ</a>.</b>Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-24695904445580059542011-06-07T12:46:36.398-04:002011-06-07T12:46:36.398-04:00All we have to determine truth about the external ...All we have to determine truth about the external world in a naturalistic perspective are the five physical senses and our ability to reason. Our five senses along with our reason cannot operate perfectly, or without limitation, yet this does not invalidate their use in ordinary life, and for the pursuit of science. And this is where group accountability comes in, because on more important matters, we make reference not only to our own ability to gather and analyze data, but also to others collectively, whose agreement in oversight lends our own views some additional authority. It is not a mistake, therefore to ask for some material proof or evidence to consider objectively, especially such as can be reviewed analytically and critiqued by multiple observers.<br /><br />Because God is by the definition I learned omniscient and omnipotent, God is also fully knowledgeable and capable of presenting sufficient and overwhelming evidence to convince all those He targets to do so, at least in the material world. It is not an unreasonable expectation, at least in the context of naturalism, to expect such a divine response if God truly wishes for one to believe. Although God is also by definition supernatural, then the reasonable expectation of believers is that God would prefer supernatural as opposed to natural means to reveal Himself.<br /><br />If God operates in the supernatural realm alone, then I cannot place any limits or bound His operation by any desires I have, especially in seeking revelation of Himself. So unless God chooses to reveal Himself supernaturally or naturally (I suspect you could say the Scriptural revelations are combinations of both) to the believer, then God cannot be known. I also cannot deny the charge of Romans 1 if that is the case, because God has left behind some evidence in nature of His supernatural existence and operation. But the problem with that is, I cannot be shown by the material senses and reason that a supernatural realm even exists in the first place, let alone constitutes a superior reality as a frame of reference. So I feel that any accusation of moral failure for failing to perceive such is ultimately unjustified.Byroniachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14946794635613455210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-2562929714940928082011-06-07T05:18:37.950-04:002011-06-07T05:18:37.950-04:00"But, you see, the problem is: In order to be..."But, you see, the problem is: In order to be a skeptic, one has to be more certain of some things than one is of the matter of which one is skeptical. Otherwise, one wouldn’t even be able to raise the first question regarding the existence of God. Therefore, it was incumbent upon me to prove the certainty of those things which I was assuming were certain, and which were necessary to the formulation of any meaningful questions/doubts that I could have raised. So, for instance, I had to ask myself: Am I certain that my senses (i.)have the capacity to mediate facts about the external world to me, let alone (ii.)mediate that knowledge accurately?<br /><br />Did I have sufficient evidence to support my belief in the mediatorial function of my senses? No. Did I have sufficient evidence to support my belief that my senses accurately mediated facts about the external world to me? No. Then how could I honestly demand that “sufficient evidence” regarding the existence of God be given to me? I couldn’t, but I still demanded it. And that is where the moral accusation comes in: “If God is good,” I reasoned, “He would certainly provide me with what I consider to be ‘sufficient evidence.’ Therefore, God is not good.” Note that my denial of God’s existence really had no relation to whether or not He had provided me with sufficient evidence. I was, as all atheists who seek to deny God’s existence using an argument like this are, simply trying to indict God of immoral behavior.<br /><br />Problem (ii.) is where things really get sticky. This is the problem of who determines what counts as “evidence” for the existence of God. What is to be counted as evidence? Says who? If there is no universal standard that determines what counts as “evidence,” then any standard set forth by the unbeliever will always be (a.)provisional and (b.)subject to change via an indeterminable number of subtle qualifications. Again, this sort of “argument” is very helpful if one wishes to completely duck out of an argument altogether while making it appear that one is still engaged in that argument. Here’s what I mean: If an atheist’s standard for evidence is always provisional (i.e. serving his own purposes) and always subject to change via innumerable qualifications, then the atheist can appear to be seriously seeking evidence for God’s existence, when in reality he’s just refusing to accept any evidence given to him."<br /><br />Excerpted from <a href="http://blog.carm.org/2011/04/atheistic-arguments-attacks-on-the-character-of-god-pt-2/" rel="nofollow">HERE</a>.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-80913550998257036172011-06-07T05:18:09.413-04:002011-06-07T05:18:09.413-04:00Byron: "It's just that based on the evid...<b>Byron</b>: <i>"It's just that based on the evidence I have so far my unbelief followed naturally. Perhaps with further study I would change my mind, but I doubt it."</i><br /><br />Byron, please consider the following arguments regarding your objection about the sufficiency and/or nature of the evidence for the triune God of Christianity:<br /><br />"Major Premise: If an all good, all powerful, and all knowing God exists, then He will provide sufficient evidential grounds for placing one’s faith in Him.<br /><br />Minor Premise: However, sufficient evidential grounds for belief in God do not exist.<br /><br />Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.<br /><br />This argument is a variation of the argument from evil against the existence of God, as it attempts to show that (a)if God is good then He will desire the salvation of all men, and if He desires their salvation and He is all good, then (b)He will provide sufficient evidential grounds for belief in His existence, and if He does (a) and (b) it is because He has (c) omniscient comprehension of what constitutes sufficient evidential grounds for belief in Him.<br /><br />There are two big problems with this argument: (i.)Induction never leads to certainty; therefore, the accumulation of data regarding the existence of God can never establish with 100% certainty that God exists, let alone that the sun will rise tomorrow morning and/or set tomorrow evening;[1] and (ii.)Even if “sufficient evidence” could be appealed to as the basis for one’s belief in God, then the question that lingers is: Who decides what counts as evidence? Problem (i.) is one that I agreed with, even as an atheist, and which I used to justify my general skepticism, as well as my atheism. Claiming to be a skeptic is very helpful, as it leaves you with a veneer of nobility and provides an excuse for one’s immoral behavior (whether in the form of unbelief or complete hedonism), because if all one is doing is waiting for “sufficient evidence” to come in order to make a “rational decision” about whether or not God exists, then how can one be held morally accountable for not believing? After all, isn’t it God’s job to provide sufficient evidential grounds for belief in Him?<br /><br />It is because induction never leads to certainty that one can always claim that sufficient evidence is lacking and feel completely justified in one’s unbelief. This was my justification for not believing and for feeling morally superior to those who tried to get me to believe in God. I considered myself more noble, more moral for not believing in God without “sufficient evidence” (which I never defined, by the way), and I considered my friends to be immoral for trying to get people to believe in God without having “sufficient evidence.” Thus, I was morally justified and morally superior for holding to skepticism and unbelief in God."<br /><br />(cont.)Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-40337571976119309142011-06-04T15:04:50.286-04:002011-06-04T15:04:50.286-04:00I meant if it is possible for Christianity to be c...I meant if it is possible for Christianity to be completely and objectively true then I do not currently understand how (for it or any other religion). Though to be fair, I'm not entirely objective with my atheism either. It's just that based on the evidence I have so far my unbelief followed naturally. Perhaps with further study I would change my mind, but I doubt it.Byroniachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14946794635613455210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86199131419924205762011-06-04T14:50:32.019-04:002011-06-04T14:50:32.019-04:00Patrick Chan,
Concerning your link to the "w...Patrick Chan,<br /><br />Concerning your link to the "we are all atheists" I think the reasoning there is faulty, because it seems to assume that the situation with the Christian God (or any other god) is comparable to the examples given, and I do not believe that is the case. In the examples given, one could determine with his or her five senses sufficient reason to NOT reject the final one. But what evidence do we really have to not reject the Christian God, over and above any other deity? And yes, I suppose I will have to research the opposing side on this one, too.<br /><br />Also, for the part about being subjective, Christianity to me seems to be a very subjective religion, as all religions ultimately are, because its foundations rest on the supernatural. The best that believers can do is argue rationally and objectively for certain parts of the religion, and show the religion to be possible, perhaps even probable in the perspective of some, but religions cannot be ultimately proven except subjectively to the believer. I can and should be more objective about several of the particulars of Christianity, that is true, but it is ultimately impossible to be completely objective about it, isn't it? If it is, then I do not understand how currently.<br /><br />Anyways, I just wanted to express that.Byroniachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14946794635613455210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49013218222538932852011-06-04T12:07:42.608-04:002011-06-04T12:07:42.608-04:00Byron:
Thanks for your response to my question. ...Byron:<br /><br />Thanks for your response to my question. I think I better understand your concern now.<br /><br />-TurretinFanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-30020058856793556742011-06-04T10:47:17.938-04:002011-06-04T10:47:17.938-04:00Byron said:
You're already an atheist with re...Byron said:<br /><br /><b>You're already an atheist with respect to every other religion besides your own, and all their threats of punishment and the wrath of deities. I'm simply an atheist with respect to your religion, and I'm not particularly worried about being an apostate.</b><br /><br />BTW, see <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/04/were-both-solipsists.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/09/we-are-all-atheists.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br /><b>Why should this matter, except to understand cultural references? The problem with the Bible in my opinion is that it is a product of its authors and their times of life and culture, and seems to be little more.</b><br /><br />It matters because you keep repeating this and similar assertions ad nauseum without so much as lifting a finger to acquaint yourself with scholarship to the contrary. And, yes, without so much as a single reasoanble argument to the contrary, assertions is all they are.<br /><br /><b>Well, why not? That's not asking too much of an omnipotent, omniscient God. I admit I don't have any reasons for desiring this beyond personal ones, but my desires are not unreasonable even if they are improbable according to Christian perspectives (such as yours). But I don't want to get into Christian versus non-Christian expectations of a Supreme Being based on divine possibilities. I can see how subjective that is, and my own desires accordingly, but I do not think that makes my desires inherently invalid.</b><br /><br />So you expect the Bible to be "unusually perceptive" with science simply because you desire it? Perhaps you'd also like for God to give you several billion dollars, your own tropical island or two, your dream wife, etc.? <br /><br /><b>Those are interesting facts about the Biblical text (though they could be coincidences). Personally, I find the "scientific miracles of the Quran" more impressive. And that whole book, and the religion behind it, are just baloney.</b><br /><br />At the risk of stating the obvious, I was responding to you on your own terms. <br /><br /><b>I admit, I'm being subjective here, not objective, but the possibilities are truly endless as to what God could have done, and the Bible seems very ordinary and a product of its time(s). God could have given a divine seal as it were somewhere that was unmistakeably supernatural in origin. And there are Scriptures which, if true, explain why God doesn't do that. Fine, and again I'm being subjective, but that seems awfully convenient and religiously conditioned to me.</b><br /><br />Yes, sadly, as we discussed in <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/05/sleeping-with-enemy.html" rel="nofollow">a previous thread</a>, the fact that you are often subjective when you should be objective does seem to be a part of the problem with you, Byron.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63412714114873166392011-06-04T10:30:01.536-04:002011-06-04T10:30:01.536-04:00PATRICK CHAN SAID:
3. Are these "perceptive&...PATRICK CHAN SAID:<br /><br /><i>3. Are these "perceptive" enough for you?</i><br /><br />Those are interesting facts about the Biblical text (though they could be coincidences). Personally, I find the "scientific miracles of the Quran" more impressive. And that whole book, and the religion behind it, are just baloney.<br /><br />PATRICK CHAN SAID:<br /><br /><i>4. If the above isn't perceptive enough for you, how "unusually perceptive" do you expect the Bible to be?<br /><br />I wonder, were you expecting God to explain the mathematics and physics behind unifying gravitation as described by the theory of general relativity, etc., with electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces as presumably described by quantum mechanics into quantum gravity or somesuch, while concurrently detailing how we might come to establish experimental proof for the whole shebang?</i><br /><br />Again, sure, why not? Why not stop there? What if Bible codes were actually real? What if God mechanically dictated part of the Bible in a future as-of-yet unknown language? What if God had caused the Bible to be ordered topically as opposed to consisting of different types of literature? What if God chose to reveal emphatically whether or not life exists outside the Earth?<br /><br />I admit, I'm being subjective here, not objective, but the possibilities are truly endless as to what God could have done, and the Bible seems very ordinary and a product of its time(s). God could have given a divine seal as it were somewhere that was unmistakeably supernatural in origin. And there are Scriptures which, if true, explain why God doesn't do that. Fine, and again I'm being subjective, but that seems awfully convenient and religiously conditioned to me.Byroniachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14946794635613455210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-23905556262878790642011-06-04T10:19:17.148-04:002011-06-04T10:19:17.148-04:00PATRICK CHAN SAID:
Well, this isn't the first...PATRICK CHAN SAID:<br /><br /><i>Well, this isn't the first time you've commented on Triablogue and expected others to do the hard spadework for you. As you will recall, we recently had a discussion about some of this stuff too. See here.</i><br /><br />That was never my expectation, though that seems to be the overall assessment of what several here think I expected. All I wanted was simply to have a discussion, nothing more, nothing less. I do appreciate the links to information, however, and the helpful advice.<br /><br />BYRON SAID:<br /><br /><i>My position is one of the few positions I know of where if I am right, no one loses anything fundamentally except false precepts and hopes.</i><br /><br />PATRICK CHAN SAID:<br /><br /><i>Wait, really? Aren't you a former Christian turned agnostic if not atheist, Byron? If so, then you would stand to lose much indeed if the God of the Bible exists (especially in light of what the Bible says about those who once professed Christ but turned away from him to go their own way i.e. apostates)!</i><br /><br />That still doesn't negate what I said, but in fact reinforces it. That's the problem with things like Pascal's Wager, which assumes a very specific God and a very specific penalty for disobedience. I also don't deny the truth of what you just said, if your version of Christianity is true, of course, but it doesn't contradict what I said in the slightest that I can see. What if we're both wrong, and the Mormons are right? Or the Jehovah's Witnesses? Or the Hindus? Or God forbid, Harold Camping? You're already an atheist with respect to every other religion besides your own, and all their threats of punishment and the wrath of deities. I'm simply an atheist with respect to your religion, and I'm not particularly worried about being an apostate.<br /><br />PATRICK CHAN SAID:<br /><br /><i>1. For one thing, you're looking at the Bible primarily through your socioculturally conditioned 21st century Western eyes. You're not trying to look at it on its own terms.</i><br /><br />Why should this matter, except to understand cultural references? The problem with the Bible in my opinion is that it is a product of its authors and their times of life and culture, and seems to be little more.<br /><br />PATRICK CHAN SAID:<br /><br /><i>2. Why do you expect the Bible to be "unusually perceptive" insofar as "scientific material" is concerned?</i><br /><br />Well, why not? That's not asking too much of an omnipotent, omniscient God. I admit I don't have any reasons for desiring this beyond personal ones, but my desires are not unreasonable even if they are improbable according to Christian perspectives (such as yours). But I don't want to get into Christian versus non-Christian expectations of a Supreme Being based on divine possibilities. I can see how subjective that is, and my own desires accordingly, but I do not think that makes my desires inherently invalid.Byroniachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14946794635613455210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-59901509812383297452011-06-04T07:38:38.632-04:002011-06-04T07:38:38.632-04:00Also:
* "And he made from one man every nat...Also: <br /><br />* "And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place..." (Acts 17:26). Many ancient peoples thought the gods originally fashioned more than one human couple when they created the human race. Not that I necessarily subscribe to their theories, but many geneticists believe we all descended from a Y-chromosomal Adam and/or Mitochondrial Eve. <br /><br />* Some could read God bringing forth "kinds" in Gen 1 as standing in contrast to the spontaneous generation of life from non-life that many Medieval peoples (as well as Stanley Miller and his ilk) apparently believed.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-30791963137046263002011-06-04T07:27:33.309-04:002011-06-04T07:27:33.309-04:00OK. In that case, I'm glad you didn't.
I ...<b>OK. In that case, I'm glad you didn't.</b><br /><br />I think Paul would also have to undertake interrogative techniques for enemy intel prior to termination.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-5490928981919119682011-06-04T07:24:45.542-04:002011-06-04T07:24:45.542-04:004. If the above isn't perceptive enough for yo...4. If the above isn't perceptive enough for you, how "unusually perceptive" do you expect the Bible to be?<br /><br />I wonder, were you expecting God to explain the mathematics and physics behind unifying gravitation as described by the theory of general relativity, etc., with electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces as presumably described by quantum mechanics into quantum gravity or somesuch, while concurrently detailing how we might come to establish experimental proof for the whole shebang? <br /><br />Or that DNA is a double helical structure consisting of two anti-parallel (running 5'-3' and opposite) sugar-phosphate backbones held together by ester bonds on the outside and nitrogenous base-pairs held together by hydrogen bonds on the inside? That the base-pairs are in the keto tautomeric form? The base-pairs are adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine, where adenine and guanine are purines whereas cytosine and thymine are pyrimidines? The base-pairs lie flat like plates and are spaced .34nm apart, with 10 base-pairs per turn and each turn 3.4nm long and the diameter is 2nm? That the double-helix unzips with each strand serving as a template for the replication of a complementary strand, where adenine always binds with thymine and vice versa, while cytosine always binds with guanine and vice versa? That the particular base-pair sequence carries the genetic code, that DNA self-replicates, that genetic information is transmitted unidirectionally from DNA > RNA > protein, that DNA bases are read in triplets called codons which translate into specific amino acids and subsequent proteins? That DNA contains approximately 3 billion base-pairs and 20,000-30,000 genes? That DNA consists of exons which encode genes and introns and other regions such as repetitive segments which do not? That DNA is packed with proteins called histones into chromatins when not replicating?Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-70060705513934061672011-06-04T07:23:24.184-04:002011-06-04T07:23:24.184-04:00Byron said:
So, the answer for me is to refer to ...Byron said:<br /><br /><b>So, the answer for me is to refer to theological books and online resources? Okay. That was not my expectation out of this discussion, but I see your point of view.</b><br /><br />Well, this isn't the first time you've commented on Triablogue and expected others to do the hard spadework for you. As you will recall, we recently had a discussion about some of this stuff too. See <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/05/sleeping-with-enemy.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br /><b>My position is one of the few positions I know of where if I am right, no one loses anything fundamentally except false precepts and hopes.</b><br /><br />Wait, really? Aren't you a former Christian turned agnostic if not atheist, Byron? If so, then you would stand to lose much indeed if the God of the Bible exists (especially in light of what the Bible says about those who once professed Christ but turned away from him to go their own way i.e. apostates)!<br /><br /><b>I only wished as a believer that the Bible included much more scientific material which could appear at the least to be unusually perceptive for the time periods of composition.</b><br /><br />1. For one thing, you're looking at the Bible primarily through your socioculturally conditioned 21st century Western eyes. You're not trying to look at it on its own terms. <br /><br />2. Why do you expect the Bible to be "unusually perceptive" insofar as "scientific material" is concerned?<br /><br />3. Are these "perceptive" enough for you?<br /><br />* "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1). This meshes with the big bang theory.<br /><br />* "He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing" (Job 26:7). Many ancient peoples didn't know the earth "hangs...on nothing."<br /><br />* "And he [God] brought him [Abraham] outside and said, 'Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them'" (Gen 15:5) and "As the host of heaven cannot be numbered and the sands of the sea cannot be measured" (Jer 33:22). However, many ancient peoples thought the stars could indeed be numbered.<br /><br />* "The wind blows to the south and goes around to the north; around and around goes the wind, and on its circuits the wind returns" (Ecc 1:6). This meshes with our understanding of atmospheric circulation.<br /><br />* "All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full; to the place where the streams flow, there they flow again" (Ecc 1:7). This meshes with our understanding of the hydrologic cycle. <br /><br />* "Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away, but you are the same, and your years have no end" (Psa 102:25-27). This meshes with entropy. <br /><br />* "When a person has on the skin of his body a swelling or an eruption or a spot, and it turns into a case of leprous disease on the skin of his body..." (Lev 13:2ff). There's much to say here but I'll just say this meshes with various aspects of modern medicine like germ theory. It also displays considerable clinical insight.<br /><br />* "When any man has a discharge from his body, his discharge is unclean. And this is the law of his uncleanness for a discharge: whether his body runs with his discharge, or his body is blocked up by his discharge, it is his uncleanness. Every bed on which the one with the discharge lies shall be unclean, and everything on which he sits shall be unclean. And anyone who touches his bed shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening..." (Lev 15:2ff). This meshes with modern antiseptic procedures like hand-washing, which by and large didn't occur until Ignaz Semmelweis in the mid-1800s. <br /><br />* "For the life of the flesh is in the blood" (Lev 17:11). This meshes with the oxygen-carrying properties of the hemoglobin protein in erythrocytes.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-62528143127284865472011-06-03T22:07:02.856-04:002011-06-03T22:07:02.856-04:00OK. In that case, I'm glad you didn't.OK. In that case, I'm glad you didn't.Byroniachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14946794635613455210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-91336739033916474112011-06-03T22:04:12.355-04:002011-06-03T22:04:12.355-04:00"Paul, I'm surprised that you didn't ..."Paul, I'm surprised that you didn't comment on this one way or the other."<br /><br />Byron, I could comment on it, but then I'd have to kill you.Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-13087848958663563652011-06-03T19:55:19.469-04:002011-06-03T19:55:19.469-04:00PAUL SAID:
But that's not what you originally...PAUL SAID:<br /><br /><i>But that's not what you originally claim, Byron. You originally said,</i><br /><br />...<br /><br /><i>Notice that [1] and [2] are entirely different claims. [1] allows for the intelligibility and legitimacy of the view, [2] does not. You make zero indication that you're switching horses mid-stream and making entirely different claims. Either (a) you noticed the weakness of the first and tried to duplicitously change it to the logically weaker claim, or (b) you're not even tracking your original claim, unaware that you're making different claims and claiming they're one and the same.</i><br /><br />OK, I did not keep track of changing my views. You correctly point out that I am in error here. The second view (omitting your quote here) is probably impossible for me to defend, and I am not prepared to defend the first view.<br /><br />PAUL SAID:<br /><br /><i>Well, I don't know which "argument" you're talking about, but I can certainly appreciate why you'd want to shelve it until you can better explain, and defend, it/them.</i><br /><br />I would need to clarify claim #2 at the very least, and possibly abandon it, perhaps both of them.<br /><br />STEVE SAID:<br /><br /><i>He's in Special Ops. Part of the team that took out UBL.</i><br /><br />Paul, I'm surprised that you didn't comment on this one way or the other.Byroniachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14946794635613455210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-87853979564808300522011-06-03T19:49:45.501-04:002011-06-03T19:49:45.501-04:00STEVE SAID:
If you want some tips on what to read...STEVE SAID:<br /><br /><i>If you want some tips on what to read, fine. But we’re not going to push you around in a wheelchair when you’re an able-bodied guy who’s quite capable of standing on his own two feet. Don’t demand from others what you refuse to demand from yourself.</i><br /><br />So, the answer for me is to refer to theological books and online resources? Okay. That was not my expectation out of this discussion, but I see your point of view.<br /><br />STEVE SAID:<br /><br /><i>Keep in mind that if we’re right and your wrong, it’s your loss, not ours.</i><br /><br />This almost sounds like a variation of Pascal's wager to me, and I am not sure why you bring it up. I think you mean that I need to be adequately informed before rejecting something that is possibly true. If that is what you mean, I agree with that sentiment. But I do not need all the theological resources referred to me here on this blog to make that judgment. Besides, all sorts of possibilities could exist with a potentially negative outcome for someone who disbelieves in some required set of beliefs. My position is one of the few positions I know of where if I am right, no one loses anything fundamentally except false precepts and hopes. After all, you cannot really lose something that never existed in the first place, even though emotional suffering from loss is certainly possible.<br /><br /><i>I’ve been over that ground many times before, so I don’t need to repeat myself for your benefit.</i><br /><br />I'm not sure how you determine "need" here as opposed to "want", but out of curiosity I just might look up what you have written on the subject. I'm thankful as a non-believer I personally no longer have to defend the Bible from an apparent perspective of geocentrism, as judged by both believers and non-believers. I only wished as a believer that the Bible included much more scientific material which could appear at the least to be unusually perceptive for the time periods of composition.Byroniachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14946794635613455210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-35916663832024054682011-06-03T14:01:01.343-04:002011-06-03T14:01:01.343-04:00Byron,
there's nothing wrong with the idea of...Byron,<br /><br /><i>there's nothing wrong with the idea of a personal God taking intimate interest in what he has created. I just see no evidence for it.</i><br /><br />But that's not what you originally claim, Byron. You originally said,<br /><br /><i>"When I consider how immeasurably vast just this galaxy is in a universe of possibly unlimited numbers of galaxies, it seems awfully petty to think that a God sufficient to create such a universe would be personally concerned with every minute detail that goes on here on one little speck of dirt in a vast ocean of material. It just seems absurd to me."</i>.<br /><br />The first claim is: <br /><br />[1] It is perfectly legitimate that, if there were a God, he would take intimate interest in his creation. However, I just so no evidence <i>that God exists</i>.<br /><br />Your second claim is:<br /><br />[2] I find the very <i>idea</i> that a God who created everything being intimately involved with his creation to be "petty." The very <i>idea</i> is "absurd."<br /><br />Notice that [1] and [2] are <i>entirely</i> different claims. [1] allows for the intelligibility and legitimacy of the view, [2] does not. You make <i>zero</i> indication that you're switching horses mid-stream and making <i>entirely</i> different claims. Either (a) you noticed the weakness of the first and tried to duplicitously change it to the logically weaker claim, or (b) you're not even tracking your original claim, unaware that you're making different claims and claiming they're one and the same. <br /><br /><i>Anyways, I withdraw from commenting on my argument for now.</i><br /><br />Well, I don't know which "argument" you're talking about, but I can certainly appreciate why you'd want to shelve it until you can better explain, and defend, it/them.Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-31334402430154687572011-06-03T12:36:40.146-04:002011-06-03T12:36:40.146-04:00BYRON SAID:
“And why should I have to read a bunc...BYRON SAID:<br /><br />“And why should I have to read a bunch of theistic proofs in order to ascertain the reality of God's existence if in fact He does exist?”<br /><br />No one said you had to. But you have this odd notion that we should do for you what you’re unwilling to do for yourself. <br /><br />You’re like a guy in a lounge chair with his TV remote and his 500 cable stations who expects the world to come to him at the push of a button. As if you shouldn’t have to make any effort, while we do it all for you.<br /><br />That’s not what we’re here for, Byron. You’re a grown man. <br /><br />Take the relationship between a coach and a jock. It can’t mean more to the coach than it does to the jock. The jock needs to be self-motivated. He has to show up for practice, diet, pump iron, and get enough sleep if he’s going to succeed at footfall (or whatever). <br /><br />If you want some tips on what to read, fine. But we’re not going to push you around in a wheelchair when you’re an able-bodied guy who’s quite capable of standing on his own two feet. Don’t demand from others what you refuse to demand from yourself. <br /><br />Keep in mind that if we’re right and your wrong, it’s your loss, not ours. <br /><br />“I was naturally born an agnostic as far as I can remember. Why cannot God simply tell me He exists and be done with it?” <br /><br />That begs the question of whether God’s existence is inevident. And that was my point of my analogy about photographic evidence. <br /><br />“I'm sure you've heard this before, but Genesis implies a geocentric universe, simply by presenting an earth-bound view without further clarification. The theistic explanations I read always seem to explain that as a matter of perspective, but it seems very difficult to make a case from the Scriptures for the universe we observe today, such as a heliocentric Solar System. In fact, Genesis even mentions a solid firmament, and a division between waters below and waters above, so a three-tiered universe (and thus a geocentric one) would be what is taught.”<br /><br />I’ve been over that ground many times before, so I don’t need to repeat myself for your benefit.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-80480676870734833712011-06-03T11:50:37.463-04:002011-06-03T11:50:37.463-04:00STEVE SAID:
"To our knowledge, the universe ...STEVE SAID:<br /><br /><i>"To our knowledge, the universe is full of uninhabited/uninhabitable rocks in space. So what's counterintuitive about God taking a personal interest in a planet with intelligent lifeforms which he himself made? Likewise, attention to details is a mark of good craftsmanship."</i><br /><br />BYRON SAID:<br /><br /><i>"True enough. What evidence shows us that God pays attention to details? What evidence shows us a god of some sort even exists?"</i><br /><br />PAUL SAID:<br /><br /><i>This is part of what makes it difficult to discuss in this way with you. You moved goal posts. Your initial argument was something about "bigness" implying "the creator of the bigness wouldn't care about some of the things within the bigness."</i><br /><br />That was sloppiness on my part. I meant only that the part "Likewise, attention to details is a mark of good craftsmanship" was true enough and did not say so explicitly. And there's nothing wrong with the idea of a personal God taking intimate interest in what he has created. I just see no evidence for it. And, BTW, Steve saying that as far as we know the universe is filled with lifeless/uninhabited rocks does not really change much. We really do not know much about the Universe, so it is no surprise the very little bit we have seen so far has been lifeless/uninhabited. Very likely, we will never be able to tell by pure scientific observation in my lifetime whether life exists elsewhere in the Universe or not, and I do not think that is even unreasonable, considering the vastness of scale and the finiteness of our instruments and perception.<br /><br />Anyways, I withdraw from commenting on my argument for now.Byroniachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14946794635613455210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-92000577184970818512011-06-03T11:43:21.553-04:002011-06-03T11:43:21.553-04:00STEVE SAID:
You seem to think we exist to spoonfe...STEVE SAID:<br /><br /><i>You seem to think we exist to spoonfeed you information you can find out for yourself. What reading have you done on theistic proofs?</i><br /><br />And why should I have to read a bunch of theistic proofs in order to ascertain the reality of God's existence if in fact He does exist? I was naturally born an agnostic as far as I can remember. Why cannot God simply tell me He exists and be done with it?<br /><br />STEVE SAID:<br /><br /><i>Genesis is geocentric? Where does Genesis say the sun, moon, stars, and planets revolve around the earth?</i><br /><br />I'm sure you've heard this before, but Genesis implies a geocentric universe, simply by presenting an earth-bound view without further clarification. The theistic explanations I read always seem to explain that as a matter of perspective, but it seems very difficult to make a case from the Scriptures for the universe we observe today, such as a heliocentric Solar System. In fact, Genesis even mentions a solid firmament, and a division between waters below and waters above, so a three-tiered universe (and thus a geocentric one) would be what is taught.<br /><br />STEVE SAID:<br /><br /><i>I shouldn't have to walk you through your own argument. Make a minimal effort to be consistent. That's not asking too much.</i><br /><br />Well, I admit my argument is more subjective than what you desire it to be. There is no way I can make you or anyone else see it. And of course, I cannot expect you to take my word for it; you'll just have to see it for yourself if possible.Byroniachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14946794635613455210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76792696296196948412011-06-03T11:32:04.927-04:002011-06-03T11:32:04.927-04:00To vary the illustration, you can have two observe...To vary the illustration, you can have two observers who see a photograph of the same person or place, but one observer knows what he’s looking at while the other does not. One observer has sufficient background knowledge to recognize the person or place depicted in the photograph while the other lacks that necessary frame of reference.<br /><br />I see Marlene Dietrich while all you see is a strange woman. <br /><br />So you have objective photographic evidence that a person or place exists (or used to exist). But whether or not that counts as evidence depends on the subjective state of the observer. They see the same evidence, but they don’t perceive the same evidence.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.com