[QUOTE]Originally posted by Irishbrutha:
Rodahi, the laughability I thought was already shown to be apparent. I'll retract the word if it makes respectability easier for you. Sorry. I simply meant that the discussion had accepted the fact that Supreme cannot be applied to more than one being.

You were equating the word supreme with supernatural. It just doesn't fit. If there were only one supernatural being, and a supernatural being is greater than human beings, then yes he would be supreme. But if there are more than one, than the greatest of all of these beings is the supreme. Read the definition earlier.

Would you agree that, according to some Christians, Satan is the head of his angels? What would that make him?

Irish: As to how this relates to the supreme being's Divinity, it does not. YHWH is merely the greatest of all beings. My other points were worked out elsewhere. As to my being logical, I feel I (sarcastic tone) make the grade, as it were. I do not have conclusive evidence that would convince you of my God's existence, but my existential evidence is valid enough for me at the moment.

"Existential evidence" is circular isn't it?

Irish:As to the idea that no one comes to belief in Christ through reason, I submit the example of C.S. Lewis.

If C. S. Lewis had "reasonable" evidence, then most of his arguments would convince most scientists. That is not the case.

Irish: To the idea that christians are illogical, I submit Kant, Descartes, Aquinas, Constantine, Plantiga, Habermas (disagree with the modern apologists or not, they adhere to logical principles), Craig, and Geisler.

I don't know if Christians are illogical or not. Some of their beliefs are absurd.

BTW, Kant was not a Christian. According to A. N. Wilson, "Kant's whole life would be seen as a reaction against the pietism of his upbringing; he hated psalm-singing and hymns; on the only occasions when university duty required him to preside at religious ceremonies or to preach, he made excuses and avoided them; he certainly did not maintain orthodox Christian belief...Kant was, to put it mildly, ambivalent about the transcendent reality of the Deist God...[Kant stated]'God is not a being outside me, but merely a thought in me. God is the morally practical self-legislative Reason. Therefore, only a God in me, about me, and over me.' And again, 'The proposition: There is a God says nothing more than: There is in the human morally self-determining Reason a highest principle which determines itself, and finds itself compelled unremittingly to act in accordance with such a principle...' Such thoughts, often in scraps of unfinished sentences, are found in the private notebooks of Kant as he approached his eightieth year, and his end. The categorical imperative remains, but the Deist God has indeed become an unnecessary hypothesis." God's Funeral, pp. 34-36

rodahi


[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited April 10, 2001).]

"If C. S. Lewis had "reasonable" evidence, then most of his arguments would convince most scientists. That is not the case."

That is an interesting statement. Why would it convince most scientists?

Irish: So you see my friend that to cry "illogical foul" on the christian's part does not necessarily line up with the history of scholarship.

Two things: First, you and I are not "friends," so let's not address each other that way. Second, it is an unfortunate fact that MOST biblical scholarship has been carried out by theologians rather than historians. Critical historians have found much that is illogical in the Christian bible and Christian doctriine. Theologians tend to ignore the illogical and absurd. Their reasons are obvious enough.

Irish: In light of this I re-submit my earlier statement that there would not be such a great cloud of witnesses on both sides of scholarship were the evidence so glaringly obvious.

Not so. Theologians generally have one view and critical historians have another. Would you tend to believe a Mormon apologist or a critical historian with respect to how they see the life of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon?

Irish: However, I do agree with you that many do not believe in Christ based on evidence. I happen to be one of those, and as I've stated in other places, I am here to see if I CAN come to the logical conclusion that I already accept through belief.

I tried to do it when I was a believer. I found it impossible.

Irish: I will also say that in my minimal experience here I find that many accept the positive atheist outlook in response to an emotional distaste for the idea of the Christian God (or any God).

Are you sure it is an "emotional distaste?"

Irish: I know there are many agnostics (the only true conclusion that is consistent with the logic of the situation that I can see as of yet), but there are a LOT of positive atheists.

Gods, angels, demons, devils, fairies, trolls, ghosts, vampires, werewolves, heaven, hell, spirits, etc., can neither be proven, nor disproven. My view is this: Why believe in something that cannot be proven to exit?

Irish: Positive atheism = belief. Your "evidence" may be greater than mine, but it is not knowledge. Thus to make a knowledge claim that God is fictional is as absurd as me making a knowledge claim that He exists......something to think about.

Not so. Yahweh IS a literary character. The ONLY evidence of his existence is contained in ancient MSS. This is not an "absurd" claim. It is a verifiable FACT. Now, the fact that he is a literary character does not necessarily mean he does not exist. Of course, the fact that Superman is a literary character does not necessarily mean he does not exist, either.

Irish: No hard feelings, Rodahi, seriously. Forgive my earlier divisive remarks. -Shaun

I took no offense at anything you said. No apology is necessary, Shaun.

You are a great deal easier to talk to than some on this board. Who knows, a "friendly" discussion might be in the offing.

rodahi

This is an interesting question. Why do you ask?

rodahi

You first.

Please, I insist. After you.

rodahi

I'm going to post a very minimal response to the Lewis comment by Rodahi. It seems you're asserting that for one to have rationale for God this must be presented to you in the form of scientific evidence? Is that correct?
-Shaun

All I need to convince me that gods exist is empirical evidence. This evidence must be such that it can be used to rule out things which do not exist.

rodahi

Ok, it's like this. Lewis rejected Naturalism. He, like many others, also saw the self-refutation of empirical skepticism. If one can't know anything, how did one come to that assertion? If one can only know things through the five senses, how also did they come to THAT assertion? Certainly not through the five senses. And if I can know that I can't know anything, maybe I can know other things. So you see there is a philosophical discussion which pre-empts the scientific discussion of proof for God. Naturalism itself does not account for reason. This was the route that Lewis took. He saw holes in his Naturalistic outlook, specifically that he could not account for reason and knowledge, and eventually after a very long naturalistic spell, came to the conclusion that the supernatural must exist. At first he merely believed in a Platonic Form of Good, or Absolute, then it went specifically to a personal Deity. I cannot argue for his viewpoint here, as I have never fully read it yet (see "Miracles). The work I read, "Surprised by Joy", just documents his philosophical journey, with only vague discussion of the specifics of the philosophies involved. It is not discussed in this book how he concluded the Christian God. -Shaun

Toto

Shaun - you have veered way off topic, from polytheism to proofs of the existence of god. May I suggest you start a new thread on this if you want to pursue it?

I say this because I avoid threads on proofs for the existence of god. There's just so much time, and nothing new or interesting has been said on the topic for years.

Thanks