Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Starboy · 10-05-2002, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven Carr:
But I did like his analaogy of God's behaviour to somebody in a game of chess.

Presumably God is our opponent and is trying to beat us all.

That is probably the best reason yet for god's creation of man. He needed a chess buddy. Apparently the angels suck at chess.

Starboy

Dr. Retard · 10-05-2002, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Thomas Metcalf:
I usually just use Russell's out of laziness, but are there other kinds of reasons? I hope you learned of other intuitively appealing analogies that demonstrate the problems involved with such skepticism while you were researching for your doctorate. In my experience, an apologist will often feel like a leaky leaf trying to cross the Atlantic if she's relying only upon the assertion of the possibility of some defeater -- but another useful anti-skeptic argument would take you to places to which you will have never been.

I just posted a new topic on this. I am and shall remain vigilant and sanguine.

Always Believe,
Warrior

[ October 05, 2002: Message edited by: Dr. Retard ]

Philosoft · 10-05-2002, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:


Trying to rely on yourself in order to accomplish something you cannot accomplish is not self-reliance, it is foolish pride. Overestimating your own abilities can be very dangerous.

Like our ability to reliably discern which articles of pure belief are true and which are false?

Jack the Bodiless · 10-07-2002, 02:14 AM

Quote:

And a similar case must be made for EVERY technology that God might reveal. There might be a UPD defense for fusion power (better H-bombs), but: curing cancer? Curing MS? Do you require us to believe that EVERY technology God might reveal has a harmful downside that will cause problems which even an omnipotent being cannot sort out?

Your assumption here is that God would likely do everything for us. You don't seem to think very highly of self-reliance. But following the parent-child analogy again, we know that parents don't do everything for their children all of their lives. Surely there is some value in accomplishing things for ourselves. So we have just as much reason to believe God will withhold his purposes as we do to believe that he wouldn't.

What about giving us knowledge of things we've eventually figured out for ourselves?

Case study: penicillin. It's saved millions of people from a horrible death, but it was unknown during WW1, and many other wars where disease killed more people than enemy action (e.g. Crimean war). God could have revealed penicillin, or prevented its discovery, at any time: and in total secrecy, without revealing his intervention.

So we must conclude that God had an unknown purpose for inflicting horrible deaths on millions of people, AND an unknown purpose for allowing the discovery of penicillin to save millions of others from the same fate (while still allowing millions to die from diseases still untreatable).

At some point, we need to apply a little common-sense here. Why is this a reasonable belief? Why should anybody believe this?

luvluv · 10-08-2002, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Like our ability to reliably discern which articles of pure belief are true and which are false?

Yep.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.