ManM

To begin, I do not believe in an omnimax God. I believe in a transcendent God, One that can not be limited by our definitions (including the one I just made).

Bible Humper,
I do not agree that God primarily values belief in Himself. God desires that we be one as He is one.

Arguments such as this are wholly unpersuasive. They amount to "If I were God, I would do X instead of Y." The simple response is that were you God, you would understand why X was done instead of Y.

The problem is with the academic definition of God. If God is omnipotent, we could not be free in the first place (An omnipotent God could not escape his own omnipotence). But if we are free, God must be powerless in the face of that freedom, and hence could not be omnipotent. That opens the possibility for evil.

K,
That is not a matter of God's choice, but rather is our reaction to paradise. God will place us all in paradise, where there will be no more physical suffering or death. That does not guarantee that some people will not desire for others to suffer and die. That desire will simply go unfulfilled, and such a strong hate is quite analogous to fire.

One humanity, many persons, each person fully human. One Godhead, three persons, each person fully God. What is the problem here?

I'm saying that Christianity makes more sense than other philosophies/religions. It particularly excels at explaining human nature and prescribing the method to heal it.

Bible Humper

Hello ManM!

You mean I'm going to Heaven despite not believing? Are you sure that this idea is consistent with scripture?

The missionary activities of Xianity suggest that convincing people that Yahweh exists is considered extremely important indeed!

Perhaps your only objection was that faith is most important to the deity, even if it isn't most important, the argument in that thread is still just as strong.

Did the deity want to be believed in or not?

I don't know exactly what you mean by "God desires that we be one as He is one", but even before you explain it I can see that you either have to swallow the bitter free will pill, or attempt to explain why the deity's wish that we "be one" didn't come to pass, considering his omnipotence!

More is to be found in that thread!

Well, this answer is the stock response to why didn't the deity do "X", so I was well aware of it already. It is obvious from this response that you have already closed your mind to the possibility of the deity's non-existence, what you are saying here is "there must be an answer, even if we can't think of it there has to be because I'm assuming Yahweh exists and that it's just a matter of finding out how the evidence leads to this conclusion."

First of all, this argument is equivalent to explaining that alien abductions and cattle mutilations are completely believable activities from technologically advanced extraterrestrial visitors. "If only we were extraterrestrials ourselves, we would understand why they do so."

Second, and more important, is that we already have information about what the deity's intentions were. Jesus is supposed to have performed healings upon people, was this out of a desire to do good or what?

Was it all just a magic show? Is that all?

Flying is a superior means of locomotion which would have allowed him to do the most good possible during his time on Earth, why didn't he do it?

See the thread for more!


That's fine, are you aware that the free will defense implies that the fantastical stories in the bible, Xian claims to have "felt the Holy Spirit" and "communicated with Jesus during prayer", the claim that the bible contains a philosophy of unearthly profundity, all miracle claims, and any claims that prayers were answered to all be a heap of steaming bullshit?

On top of this, it reduces your religion to mere solipsistic conjecture!

See that thread for much more!

K

ManM:

Sorry, but I have to ask. I don't desire suffering and death for others. Does that mean I'll be eternally blissful even though I unrepentently think that God is a ridiculous myth?

That's fine. Humanity is a name for the group of all humans. Would you say that Trinity is the name for the GROUP of all GODS (not counting Satan who has all the powers of a god)? Or do you insist that three gods are mysteriously one god and that all human beings are mysteriously one human being?

How can you say that when you admittedly don't know anything about Norse mythology? Have you really looked seriously at all of the religions to find which one explains human nature the best?

ManM

Bible Humper,
This is the reason I stay away from most of the discussions here. I began my last post by saying I do not believe in an omnimax God. But sure enough, you replied:

Yes, if God were omnipotent, it would be ridiculous to say that something could oppose His will. I do not believe God is omnipotent. I do not have to explain why an omnipotent God cannot impose His will. Leave that mess up to people who follow western scholastic theology.

If you think heaven is a place, then yes. We will all be in the same place for the next life. I cannot say what your reaction to that place will be, so I do not know if you will consider it to be heaven. Now I may not be consistent with the Protestant interpretation of scripture, but I am well within historical Christianity.

Of course it is important to Protestants who believe salvation depends on God's whim. But notice that the initial message of Christianity was not that God existed, yet rather dealt with God's nature and Jesus's victory over death. Because God had conquered death, people no longer had a reason to be a slave to the fear of death. Still, since we all are going to live together for eternity, we must learn how to get along. And that is the reason for spreading the message. The better people learn to get along with each other, the happier they will be in the next life.

You are partially right here. I place God at the beginning of thought and interpret the world in that light. Isn't that what a theist should do? However, that does not make it impossible for me to look at things from another point of view. I can just as easily place nature at the beginning of thought and interpret my observations from a naturalistic perspective. Choosing a position does not defeat the ability to consider other possibilities.

It has to do with consistency, not believability. I would not expect a person who believed in an advanced extraterrestrial race to explain every detail of their technology. If I understood their goal, but not their methodology, my first assumption would be that the little green guys knew something I did not. Apparently, your first assumption would be that they were morons.

Your flying Jesus argument is very simple. Given goal A, you personally would use method B. God did not use your method, and hence God is either a moron or the whole thing is a farce. I am simply pointing out the third option: Method B might not have accomplished goal A as you suggest. Throw in the theistic assumption that God knew what He was doing, and the conclusion is that your method would not have worked as well as his method.

It seems to me your argument in that thread is as follows: Any solid evidence for the existence of God violates free will because it compels us to believe. Therefore a Christian cannot believe in both free will and solid evidence for God.

Free will predicts that we will have the ability to interpret our perceptions. The content of those perceptions influences our decisions, but does not conflict with our power of interpretation. Solid evidence, be it miracles, prophecy, or whatever, does not require you to believe they were miracles, prophecy, etc...

K,
We have been down this road before. I do not know how you will react to a world with no ignorance, no pain, and no death. You might be ashamed of your deeds in this life. You might be pissed off that others aren't burning in hell. You might forgive everyone and live happily ever after. You might be bored out of your wits. I do not know how you will react to the next life.

I will accept that only on the qualification that the nature of the persons of the trinity is the same. One Godhead in three persons with a unity of will, not three persons with three separate natures, or three persons who resolve things by drawing straws, or any other such nonsense.

I have looked at quite a few different worldviews. Norse mythology happens to be one I have not studied. Of the ones I know, Christianity does the best job of explaining human nature. If you will notice, I did not tell Dave that Norse mythology was wrong. I asked for him to teach me about it so that I could make a reasonable decision. But I suspect the motive of this thread was not to compare Zoroastrianism or Norse mythology with Christianity. I think Dave was looking for a methodology of choosing between worldviews.

Bible Humper

OK, but then what did you mean by....

Is the deity limited or not?

I was well aware of this exercise in semantics, but chose to ignore it because an entity which transcends all limits, including all limits imposed by definition, is indeed omnipotent. Even if the word "omnipotent" is technically imprecise, it is more concise than "has the power to do anything logically possible."

That's fine, but you still didn't reveal what "becoming one" is all about.

The point which this was in response to is still your problem anyway, because it doesn't require omnipotence for the deity to reveal himself to the world. Consider the sentence to read "nearly omnipotent" instead of "omnipotent".

What are the limits of the deity's power, in your opinion? Are the limits of his power merely the parameters of the logically possible(no square triangles) or is he even more limited than this?

Either way the fact that he isn't omnipotent means that many Xian arguments are about to have the rug pulled out from under them!

Just as the deity cannot create a stone so heavy even he can lift it, he also cannot create parameters so inviolate that even he can't exceed them!

First of all, if there is asserted to be certain fundamentals that are even more integral than Yahweh, all pretense of the first cause, and "uncaused causer" arguments being in Yahweh's favor evaporate immediately.

The laws of physics and Yahweh both exist and function within these parameters, so the Xian is just as stumped as the naturalist, even after presupposing Yahweh, to ultimately explain the "why is there something rather than nothing" question once he reaches the "why?" of this "space of possibilities", which even fetters Yahweh.

Another important point is that these parameters are naturalistic rather than supernaturalistic because of the fact that Yahweh "did not create the space of possibilities".

If the actual parameters of the logically possible didn't need the deity, nothing within those parameters required him either. As far as the physicists know, of course, is there something they haven't considered?


If there are fundamental naturalistic laws which Yahweh did not author, what possible use is he as an answer to "first cause" and "why is there something rather than nothing" arguments?

The Xian still needs to account for the framework within which this "space of possibilities" fundamentally limits Yahweh's scope in the same way that the naturalist does for explaining why there are laws of physics in the first place, and indeed the Xian must do so in the same naturalistic manner as the naturalist!

Why are there parameters within which Yahweh and the laws of physics both conform and exist rather than no "space of possibilities" at all?

It appears that Yahweh not only suffers from being a mere "God in the gaps" deity, but He must swallow the indignity of being an entirely superfluous one! If there is already a natural "space of possibilities", there is no need at all for supernatural intervention unless it is to actually break the parameters mentioned which brings us full-circle back to the original dilemma!

We have already established that the deity wasn't needed in order for there to be the parameters of the logically possible within which all natural laws conform. Unless someone can demonstrate a reason why I shouldn't conclude that there is some particular aspect of the parameters within which all natural laws conform which makes it a foregone conclusion that there will indeed be laws of some sort within those parameters, I'll wait for the verdict from the physicists.


Poor Yahweh, he's infected with solipsism! I hear it's a common condition among deities, and it is, alas, incurable.

Well, I don't want to derail the thread exploring the intricacies of your rather unorthodox theology so I'll leave this mostly alone.

I do have to mention, though, that according to your theology there is nothing to gain from being Christian. In fact, according to Pascal's wager it is foolish to be an Xian, you might as well perform the rituals, and observe the taboos, of a deity who demands exclusive treatment so you double your chances!

Unless, of course, you are merely making a distinction between a Heaven concept which describes a place, and one which does not. A rather trivial distinction in any case, especially in the context of my statement.

So you are satisfied to see people reject Xianity for new age beliefs as long as they learn "how to get along with each other?"

In any case, if you meant to imply that Xianity is needed to "teach people how to get along", I don't see how you can object to my statement!

Convincing people that Yahweh exists is considered extremely important indeed!

No. How can you know if your deity is real or not if you place it at the beginning of thought? You've unnecessarily smudged the lens through which you observe the world by doing this!

Is it any surprise that you can see nothing that proves you wrong if you've closed your eyes?

Wrong. The deity is at the beginning of thought, and you need to think about an argument that challenges that!

No matter what arguments are presented, even an argument that proved your deity concept false, the deity is at the beginning of thought and so you will imagine that there is something you didn't think of, or a misunderstanding of some sort.

Conspiracy theorists commit this error as well, if I put the existence of the Illuminati "at the beginning of thought", I'm going to somehow figure out how current world events are manipulated by them, no matter what.

Besides them, look at your brother theists of every religion except your own! Do you see how their own practice of "putting Vishnu at the beginning of thought" has blinded them to perceiving the truth of Xianity over Hinduism?

Whether your religion is the "one true faith" or not is irrelevant, this is not only bad thinking it is dangerous thinking! There is no difference between arguments for and against Yahweh or Vishnu if they are at the "beginning of thought", it will always be possible to rationalise.

That would be a poor way to become "one of the good guys", but it is true that you could do so just as easily.

Why not make a decision based on the most logical conclusion based on the evidence, even while offering a nod towards solipsism's vague possiblility?

I find it interesting that you used the word "choosing".

Coming to a conclusion doesn't defeat the ability to consider other possibilities, but placing a presupposition "at the beginning of thought" most certainly does!

Well, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds!

Even a solipsistic concept needs some sort of coherence! If this amount of consistency is all that is required, believability following naturally, I'd like to know if you believe in alien abductions/cattle mutilations! If not, why not?

This is not analogous because the deity is (nearly)omnipotent!

It is actually much easier to describe the deity's options because it includes everything within the limits defined for him. We have no idea how these alleged aliens broke the light barrier, for instance, so it is understandable that it is silly to ask the UFOlogist how they did it!

With the deity, unlike the aliens, we can either say "he can do anything and everything" or "anything except the logically impossible" or "anything within the parameters of the natural world".

Even so, you would still expect his alien claims to be consistent with whatever technology he told you they possessed! The Jesus myths fail on this point miserably.

If a UFOlogist told you that there was a benevolent UFO firing it's healing beam at everyone it could reach because it loves us all so much, wouldn't you wonder why it didn't use it's amazing speed to reach everyone besides these few believers?

The deity can't use that excuse because we have a document which records his alleged incarnation, including his goals! Were his healings done out of a desire to ease suffering or not?

Was it all a magic show? Is that all?

Strangely, if I take it for granted that you find this convincing, it means that you are inconsistent if you aren't a UFOlogist as well as a Christian!

When I noticed that they were explaining away all arguments by saying "The UFOs work in mysterious ways" and that their activities are only incomprehensible because "we aren't aliens ourselves", I'll think that they have put the UFOs at "the beginning of thought".

I don't at all think that it is necessary to be gullible or a moron to be a theist, though both certainly help!

Seriously though, it seems to me that theism is based on emotion instead of reason, so intelligence isn't directly a factor. I believe that the reason the lion's share of the most intelligent people in the world are atheists, is simply because, after having aspects of any possible religious beliefs shaken up repeatedly as they learned more and more, eventually they had to admit to themselves that their religion wasn't true.

Nope, preferences are irrelevant. The deity has a goal in front of him which was recorded in his holy book, he also has the means to reach his goal, but yet he doesn't. This is illogical.

Why is this "my method"? It isn't a matter of preference, such as what color the insides of the churches should be, but is instead an obvious way to meet his goal using an ability well within his power.

There were other options for my argument, of course, but they give the apologist too many dark holes to scurry into even if I managed to corner him on some particular point because they either go way beyond the scope of the biblical miracle legends, or their desireability by the deity portrayed in the bible wasn't clear enough.

If I would have demanded to know why the deity didn't heal the entire world remotely rather than the few he administered to, as an example, I forsaw all sorts of excuses and too many possible variables to ever decisively answer it.

That's why I decided on a simple example of something well within the limits of the avatar's demonstrated power, which would have met the alleged goal he had as recorded in his holy book.

He already suspended the law of gravity to show off his ability to walk on water, he could have done it for the sake of locomotion in order to relieve the suffering outside of walking distance of him as well.

The only basis for this statement is that you think that "there must be some sort of answer" because the deity is "at the beginning of all thought".

If you didn't place belief in the deity "at the beginning of all thought", this would be clear.

Clean the lens you use to look at the world!

There is no escape for the deity! He had a desire, and the means to fulfill that desire, but strangely didn't bother.

This entire issue merely touches upon a host of problems with the account of the incarnation! It is no surprise that the legend doesn't resemble a realistic portrayal of a deity's avatar on Earth, since it consists of an ad hoc collection of old wive's tales about the religion's guru, but I noticed that nobody was subjecting it to it's deserved scrutiny!



Yes.

And guess who is responsible for those perceptions!
The deity!

If I can't see the truth because there is dirt in my eyes, who put it there?

You seem to have only moved the problem back a single step without diminishing the problem in any way! Whose fault is it but the deity's if the evidence is such that "some can perceive it, some can't"?

There is no "interpretation" other than "Yahweh exists" if we can perceive his existence! This is the bottom line.

Is the deity playing dice with our immortal souls or what?

We are meant to perceive that his miracles are real, despite observing the fact that there are thousands of religions with millions of magic miracle stories in the world?

Tell us what we have overlooked, because your religion's claims are not more convincing than the others!

I notice that all religious believers take for granted that they follow the one true faith, fervor is no yardstick!

Perhaps you could identify the techniques used by these religions to brainwash their followers to such a degree that they have just as much faith as the followers of the One Truer Than True Faith.

Tell us all about it so I can admit defeat and move on! What are the brainwashing techniques utilized by all of the religions of the world except yours?

Surely it is something identifiable by it's presence in the religious instruction of all relgions in the world, and it's contrasting absence from your own religion. Something both insidious and powerful capable of inspiring such incredible delusions in the minds of the believers of all faiths except yours. We can confidently say "not yours" because we can be sure that YOUR sect isn't one of the myriad religions based on fantasy because YOU couldn't ever be bamboozled by a religion that isn't true!

No way, not you! If YOU feel Jesus, then by god Jesus most definately exists. If HE feels Vishnu, then by god the poor lad's brainwashed!

Could it be possible that there is no difference between the "brainwashing" going on in the religions around the world, and the "education" going on in yours?


That's enough for now, please answer specific points in the other threads. Thanks for your time, ManM!

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Bible Humper ]</p>

ManM

In respect to your wishes, I will try to keep this concise and will not address many of your points.

It seems to me that the majority of your arguments hinge on your conviction that God could not create a rock he couldn't lift. We could not really be free in the face of God. I do not place that limit on God. We are the rock.

This stems from your conception of a God limited by omnipotence. I do not believe God is constrained in that way. The God that can be spoken is not the eternal God.

You also criticize me for placing God at the beginning of thought. You claim that it clouds my glasses so to say, but you don't seem to realize that you simply wear a different pair of shades.

Bible Humper

Hello ManM!

Those aren't my wishes! I'd like you to address those points, but in the other threads where most of this exchange belongs!

No, not at all. I take it for granted that Xians know about this problem and imagine the deity to be limited to being capable of anything that is logically possible, at best.

No square circles from the deity!

The paradox of omnipotence is a recurring theme, but so is the free will argument!

A problem I've observed with the atheist's arguments with apologists is that the apologists are allowed to get away with excuses for certain problems which have disasterous implications for their belief in other respects, but which isn't going to be brought up during that particular exchange.

A good example is the way the free will defense is used to shield them against questions regarding the deity's (non)behavior, without considering what this means for their claims in the other discussion that the bible is credible evidence!

Another example is the paradox of omnipotence being used without acknowledging that this concedes that there is a naturalistic "space of possibilities" within which the deity is bound, just as much as the laws of physics, and what this means for their pet variant of the cosmological argument.

So the fantastical stories in the bible, Xian claims to have "felt the Holy Spirit" and "communicated with Jesus during prayer", the claim that the bible contains a philosophy of unearthly profundity, all miracle claims, and any claims that prayers were answered are all not believable enough to be confidently called "the face of God"?

Either the evidence is sound or it is not, I doubt that you want to argue that the evidence was purposely designed to be convincing enough for some, but not the majority, because this is akin to saying that Yahweh loves only the gullible! There are extremely embarrassing implications to that one!

So is the evidence sound, or unsound?


These ideas about the deity "not being omnipotent", but yet "without any limits", seem to be illucid concepts meant to allow you to have your cake and eat it too!

Then he has created a rock which even he can't lift, and isn't "without limits" after all! With God, not all things are possible!

This is what I mean by having your cake and eating it too, omnipotence is "without constraints", and you are trying to say here that "Yahweh is not constrained by a lack of constraints"!

Illucidity is a symptom of solipsism, we're losing the deity! Doctor!

This seems to be nothing more than a feat of mental gymnastics allowing the theist who has "put God at the beginning of thought" to have his cake and eat it too(again!).

An entity without limits can still be conceptualized, this idea seems to be a cousin of "Yahweh is not constrained, even by omnipotence".

It almost seems to be an attempt to make the concept of God illucid by definition so that he is beyond scrutiny!

No escape for the deity!


We all wear glasses, and it requires the utmost diligence to keep them clean enough to see the world clearly!

It isn't the glasses I criticise, it's the big smudge you purposely put on them by placing "God at the beginning of thought".

You can't think about the existence of God objectively when you have put him at the beginning of all thought, any more than you can put a big black smudge on your glasses and then see anything beyond them as not being at least partly black!

See ya in the other threads!

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Bible Humper ]</p>