Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bilboe · 03-31-2002, 12:53 PM

Asha'man:"This is what finally convinced me, not all the contradictions and bad moral examples in the Bible, but the silence. Either God didn’t care about me, couldn’t talk to me, or didn’t exist. Since the Christian definition of God clearly ruled out the first two options, only the third could be true."

Me: Or has chosen not to reveal Himself to you, yet. But taking you at your word, I certainly wouldn't blame you for being an atheist. Meanwhile, I'll start praying that God reveals Himself to you. Once in a while He listens to me.

[ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: Bilboe ]

Bilboe · 03-31-2002, 01:04 PM

Malaclypse (I've been putting "Mal" because I can never remember how to spell your name by the time I start posting):

"If we assume supernaturalism, we must conclude that any pattern or regularity in the world is an artifact of our minds, and not real; to assume otherwise would be to constrain the supernatural deity to behave naturalistically, which is self-contradictory."

Me: Why couldn't the deity have created a physical world that behaves according to certain physical laws and constants?

"Look at it this way. If supernaturalism is true, then any statement about the potential reasons for a document's existence is equally "likely", from the reason of it being the true and accurate representation of someone's accurate observations; to the reason that the document itself does not actually exist, that you saw it is a figment of your imagination."

Me: But then we would have a rather irrational world. Many people think that the birth of modern science was due in part to the widespread belief that the world was created by a rational deity, who would not create a capricious world, nor act in it capriciously.

Asha'man · 03-31-2002, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bilboe:
 Me: Or has chosen not to reveal Himself to you, yet. But taking you at your word, I certainly wouldn't blame you for being an atheist. Meanwhile, I'll start praying that God reveals Himself to you. Once in a while He listens to me.

Do you have any idea how conceited that statement sounds? The omnipotent, all-loving God has decided it is in my best interest to suffer alone for a few decades, despite my pleas otherwise. Somehow the world will be better off if he hides from me for a little longer. However, you really believe that you can get him to change his mind by asking nicely?

Well, since you have so much pull with the big guy, how about throwing in some extras while you are at it? I�ve just spent several months unemployed, so how about asking him to replenish my savings? For that matter, I�m still single, how about asking him to send my soul-mate over where I can see her. After all, you have faith, and you aren�t asking for your own benefit, so God has no reason to refuse you, right?

Oh, but don�t bother praying for peace in the middle east, God hasn�t got a chance of fixing things in the �Holy Land.�

Hans · 03-31-2002, 05:06 PM

Bilboe

Quote:

If I were to witness a man referring to himself as God (implicity or explicity), I would probably conclude that he was lying or crazy. However, if I knew him to be truthful and sane, it would leave me one option.

And that is the very crux of my argument. You may be able to establish he is sane, but to establish he is truthfull would require knowledge of the God and Heaven to which he speaks. Not even his acts would infer the truthfulness of his claims as the inference is his claim as well, i.e., "I can do these things because I am the son of God."

[ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: Hans ]

Malaclypse the Younger · 03-31-2002, 05:21 PM

Bilboe

Quote:

Malaclypse (I've been putting "Mal" because I can never remember how to spell your name by the time I start posting)

Mal is fine. Or Larry (my real name).

Quote:

If we assume supernaturalism, we must conclude that any pattern or regularity in the world is an artifact of our minds, and not real; to assume otherwise would be to constrain the supernatural deity to behave naturalistically, which is self-contradictory.

Why couldn't the deity have created a physical world that behaves according to certain physical laws and constants?

A deity might well have. However we can't conclude that from evidential arguments, because it's indistinguishable from a deity that makes every moment happen with only false and coincidental patterns. The problem is fundamentally epistemological. I'm not drawing conclusions about what is but what we can know.

Quote:

Look at it this way. If supernaturalism is true, then any statement about the potential reasons for a document's existence is equally "likely", from the reason of it being the true and accurate representation of someone's accurate observations; to the reason that the document itself does not actually exist, that you saw it is a figment of your imagination.

Me: But then we would have a rather irrational world.

We would indeed. It is impossible in principle to distinguish between a rational and irrational world under supernaturalism.

Quote:

Many people think that the birth of modern science was due in part to the widespread belief that the world was created by a rational deity, who would not create a capricious world, nor act in it capriciously.

Right. We had to reject a supernatural deity in favor of deism. Under deism, naturalism is assumed with regard to all events within the world, thus no events within the world can act as evidence for the deistic force.

Hans · 03-31-2002, 06:34 PM

I wish to thank everyone who has contributed to this topic; I have learned a great deal.

Satisfying item 3 would require "experiencing" the Christain God which would seem to require God himself.

[ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: Hans ]

Bilboe · 03-31-2002, 08:37 PM

Asha'man:"Well, since you have so much pull with the big guy, how about throwing in some extras while you are at it? I’ve just spent several months unemployed, so how about asking him to replenish my savings? For that matter, I’m still single, how about asking him to send my soul-mate over where I can see her. After all, you have faith, and you aren’t asking for your own benefit, so God has no reason to refuse you, right?"

Me: OK, I'll pray for you about those things as well. I don't try to guess God's reasons for doing things. I would certainly do them much differently, and I've told Him so. Occasionally he's answered Yes to my prayers. I figure it can't hurt to ask.

"Oh, but don’t bother praying for peace in the middle east, God hasn’t got a chance of fixing things in the “Holy Land.” "

Me: I do pray for peace there and everywhere else. This is one of those things I would do differently, if I were God. As you can tell, He certainly hasn't said Yes to this prayer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bilboe · 03-31-2002, 08:47 PM

Hans: "And that is the very crux of my argument. You may be able to establish he is sane, but to establish he is truthfull would require knowledge of the God and Heaven to which he speaks. Not even his acts would infer the truthfulness of his claims as the inference is his claim as well, i.e., "I can do these things because I am the son of God.""

Me: By "truthful" I mean that I've never witnessed him lie about other things, and there is no apparent motive for him lying about this. Is he out for power? Then why refuse it when it is offerred? Is he out for money? Why does he keep giving it away? Is he out for fame? Why does he shun crowds any chance he can get? Why does he ignore flattery?
I'm not sure what you mean about requiring knowledge about God and Heaven. In Jesus' case, the people in his culture knew very well what was meant by the word "God." It was a being who had created the universe, had absolute power and authority, and was perfectly good and holy. For Jesus to intimate that he was this God would have been understood by those around him.

Bilboe · 03-31-2002, 08:59 PM

Bilboe: "Many people think that the birth of modern science was due in part to the widespread belief that the world was created by a rational deity, who would not create a capricious world, nor act in it capriciously."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
"Right. We had to reject a supernatural deity in favor of deism. Under deism, naturalism is assumed with regard to all events within the world, thus no events within the world can act as evidence for the deistic force."

Me: I don't think I'm forced into a deistic position here. A theist can believe that God created a natural world that is also open to intervention by God. As long as that intervention doesn't occur so often that the purpose of creating a natural world is defeated. And I believe theism was the theology of the day when modern science was beginning, not deism.

EDIT: Since you told me your name, I should tell you mine. It's Julian, though I prefer Jules.

[ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: Bilboe ]

Bilboe · 03-31-2002, 09:11 PM

Ipetrich,

I've been trying to read The Jesus Puzzle. I'm not very good at finding things on the internet. I'll ask at ARN and The Gynne Joynte if anybody knows much about it. Meanwhile, from the little I've read (mostly skimming), I think this is a summary of his (I forget the author's name) position:

1. There was no actual human being that was believed to have been Jesus the Messiah (Christ),
until the late 1st or early 2nd century CE.
2. Early Christianity was really a Jewish form of the Pagan mystery religions, which later were identified with a human being (who never really existed).

I need to reread the material more carefully (it's fun reading), but I think that's the gist of it. At this time I only have two comments:

A. Outside of the New Testament, I'm unaware of any Jewish literature from that period that thought the Messiah was a dying and resurrecting being, real or spiritual.
B. In I Corinthians, chaps.1-2, Paul describes the death of Jesus as crucifixion, repeatedly. That's a specific kind of death, practiced by the Roman empire. It would seem strange that he would refer to Jesus dying this way unless he actually thought Jesus was a real human being.

But maybe the author addressed these points and I missed them.

03-31-2002, 12:53 PM	#41
Bilboe Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 54	Asha'man:"This is what finally convinced me, not all the contradictions and bad moral examples in the Bible, but the silence. Either God didn’t care about me, couldn’t talk to me, or didn’t exist. Since the Christian definition of God clearly ruled out the first two options, only the third could be true." Me: Or has chosen not to reveal Himself to you, yet. But taking you at your word, I certainly wouldn't blame you for being an atheist. Meanwhile, I'll start praying that God reveals Himself to you. Once in a while He listens to me. [ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: Bilboe ]</p>

03-31-2002, 06:34 PM	#46
Hans Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 247	I wish to thank everyone who has contributed to this topic; I have learned a great deal. Satisfying item 3 would require "experiencing" the Christain God which would seem to require God himself. [ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: Hans ]</p>

03-31-2002, 08:59 PM	#49
Bilboe Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 54	Bilboe: "Many people think that the birth of modern science was due in part to the widespread belief that the world was created by a rational deity, who would not create a capricious world, nor act in it capriciously." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Larry: "Right. We had to reject a supernatural deity in favor of deism. Under deism, naturalism is assumed with regard to all events within the world, thus no events within the world can act as evidence for the deistic force." Me: I don't think I'm forced into a deistic position here. A theist can believe that God created a natural world that is also open to intervention by God. As long as that intervention doesn't occur so often that the purpose of creating a natural world is defeated. And I believe theism was the theology of the day when modern science was beginning, not deism. EDIT: Since you told me your name, I should tell you mine. It's Julian, though I prefer Jules. [ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: Bilboe ]</p>

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

03-31-2002, 01:04 PM	#42
Bilboe Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 54	Malaclypse (I've been putting "Mal" because I can never remember how to spell your name by the time I start posting): "If we assume supernaturalism, we must conclude that any pattern or regularity in the world is an artifact of our minds, and not real; to assume otherwise would be to constrain the supernatural deity to behave naturalistically, which is self-contradictory." Me: Why couldn't the deity have created a physical world that behaves according to certain physical laws and constants? "Look at it this way. If supernaturalism is true, then any statement about the potential reasons for a document's existence is equally "likely", from the reason of it being the true and accurate representation of someone's accurate observations; to the reason that the document itself does not actually exist, that you saw it is a figment of your imagination." Me: But then we would have a rather irrational world. Many people think that the birth of modern science was due in part to the widespread belief that the world was created by a rational deity, who would not create a capricious world, nor act in it capriciously.

03-31-2002, 08:37 PM	#47
Bilboe Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 54	Asha'man:"Well, since you have so much pull with the big guy, how about throwing in some extras while you are at it? I’ve just spent several months unemployed, so how about asking him to replenish my savings? For that matter, I’m still single, how about asking him to send my soul-mate over where I can see her. After all, you have faith, and you aren’t asking for your own benefit, so God has no reason to refuse you, right?" Me: OK, I'll pray for you about those things as well. I don't try to guess God's reasons for doing things. I would certainly do them much differently, and I've told Him so. Occasionally he's answered Yes to my prayers. I figure it can't hurt to ask. "Oh, but don’t bother praying for peace in the middle east, God hasn’t got a chance of fixing things in the “Holy Land.” " Me: I do pray for peace there and everywhere else. This is one of those things I would do differently, if I were God. As you can tell, He certainly hasn't said Yes to this prayer. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

03-31-2002, 08:47 PM	#48
Bilboe Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 54	Hans: "And that is the very crux of my argument. You may be able to establish he is sane, but to establish he is truthfull would require knowledge of the God and Heaven to which he speaks. Not even his acts would infer the truthfulness of his claims as the inference is his claim as well, i.e., "I can do these things because I am the son of God."" Me: By "truthful" I mean that I've never witnessed him lie about other things, and there is no apparent motive for him lying about this. Is he out for power? Then why refuse it when it is offerred? Is he out for money? Why does he keep giving it away? Is he out for fame? Why does he shun crowds any chance he can get? Why does he ignore flattery? I'm not sure what you mean about requiring knowledge about God and Heaven. In Jesus' case, the people in his culture knew very well what was meant by the word "God." It was a being who had created the universe, had absolute power and authority, and was perfectly good and holy. For Jesus to intimate that he was this God would have been understood by those around him.

03-31-2002, 09:11 PM	#50
Bilboe Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 54	Ipetrich, I've been trying to read The Jesus Puzzle. I'm not very good at finding things on the internet. I'll ask at ARN and The Gynne Joynte if anybody knows much about it. Meanwhile, from the little I've read (mostly skimming), I think this is a summary of his (I forget the author's name) position: 1. There was no actual human being that was believed to have been Jesus the Messiah (Christ), until the late 1st or early 2nd century CE. 2. Early Christianity was really a Jewish form of the Pagan mystery religions, which later were identified with a human being (who never really existed). I need to reread the material more carefully (it's fun reading), but I think that's the gist of it. At this time I only have two comments: A. Outside of the New Testament, I'm unaware of any Jewish literature from that period that thought the Messiah was a dying and resurrecting being, real or spiritual. B. In I Corinthians, chaps.1-2, Paul describes the death of Jesus as crucifixion, repeatedly. That's a specific kind of death, practiced by the Roman empire. It would seem strange that he would refer to Jesus dying this way unless he actually thought Jesus was a real human being. But maybe the author addressed these points and I missed them.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.