Theli

Arrhhh!!!

I got irretated from reading that crap.
He claims that things that can be seen can't be trusted as the truth, because it requires that we believe what we see is true.
This is pretty dumb as he himself mention himself as an "instructor of philosophy". Then I must assume that he heard of (or read) the philosophy he teach.
The problem is how can he believe what he read/heard if his own senses can't be trusted?

This is a contradiction aswell. He says that they couldn't "see" Jesus' divine nature. But they could "see/hear" his flawless character, they could "hear" his prophecies and they "saw" his ressurection.
Now, if he means that our senses can't be trusted, then his vision couldn't be trusted when he read the bible, aswell as the people who wrote it couldn't trust their own "vision".
However he twists this, it comes down to the simple fact that belief in Jesus' ressurection requires more faith than accepting your senses as being truthful.
What he seems to wan't to say about this is that "one belief is just as plausable as the other". If this was true humankind would be a truly gullible race, and truth would be subject under opinion and wishful thinking.
Knowledge wouldn't even exist.

sidewinder

What's with this trend among Christians to suddenly attempt to bring to everyone's attention the "things" which cannot be proven or "things" which we have yet to fully understand? They somehow think these factors make the existence of their God (as far as being hidden and not at all obvious)more plausible. Is there any doubt that that Christians will resort to even the most ludicrous arguments to try to prove their case? How sad.

DarkBronzePlant

Two words: "straw" and "man".

David Bowden

Three things simultaneously came to mind on reading this:

-Brain drain - the scandal of the Christian mind is that there's not much of one anymore.

-Cornered animal - when there's no way out, go berzerk.

-Grasping at straws - in folklore, the last act a dying person engages in.

There is not a Christian apologetic able to absorb the knowledge we already have, and continue to gather, concerning human nature, the history of religion, and the universe itself. More and more people are digesting this fact. Not detecting is certainly good grounds for not believing. But detecting falsehood and incongruity in Christianity's notion of God also gives us valid grounds for disbelief.

-Wanderer

Jayhawker Soule

Inane.

luvluv

David Gould, God's had an incredible effect on the world. You haven't noticed?

I also would like to draw your attention to an analogy made by everybody's favorite apologist: CS Lewis (Pauses for the collective moan...)

Saying that if God created the universe, then he must be observable in the universe, is like saying that if Shakespeare created the world of his plays, then the characters of the play ought to be able to detect him somewhere in it. If God created the universe and was able to animate it, much like I am able to to create a film or a play and animate it, it is an unreasonble assumption that any of the characters I created would be able to find ME, physically, in my play or film.

Well, lets say there is a being with such power that he can create free-will, sentient creatures and an environment for them to exist in, in much the same way I can create a play or a film. Would I be able to detect him within that which He created?

God does not need to be physically present or physically detectable in our known universe to exist, in fact the possibility that he would is pretty much excluded by the assumption that He created it: how could he create something that he already exists in?


Pompous:

Nontheless, there is no observable chemical or electrical connection between the physical matter in your brain and the stream of thoughts in your head. You cannot tell me how electrical currents in your brain form the thought "What a beautiful day". In fact, there is nothing in the universe which can detect the most immediate and real thing to human experience: our own thoughts. You cannot prove to me that any of your thoughts exist. Yet you know your thoughts exist. Therefore the fact that something cannot be proven, or leaves no physically detectable evidence, does not exclude the possibility that it exists. This fact is evident in our most imediate experience.

Daydreamer:

"This is self contradictory, knowing implies certainty, while "cannot prove to exist" implies doubt."

Can you prove to me right now that the thoughts in your head exist?

And yet, do you know them to exist?

"Really? So correlations between brain waves, bio-chem levels, and thought done by scientists are just coincidence?"

I understand, but scientists have no idea by what translation the electricity or chemicals in our head translate into thoughts. The brain would seem to entail something that is greater than the sum of it's parts. As I said above, there is no currently observable way to know how electrical currents running through our grey matter translate themselves into the thought "What a lovely day".

turt:

From the article you linked:

"Electrodes implanted in its brain detect a signal forcasting its intention to move its arm, and the cursor on the screen is moved."

I know there are some things about the human brain we understand, but this article is more about the nervous system than the brain. (There is a similar module out that supposedly allows one to play video games by the same principle.) But the fact that we know the brain sends out electrical signals to move our arm is not even on the same plane as our concious thoughts. That is what Hugh was arguing to be undetectable. I don't even think electrical impulses telling one to move their arm are even in the same field of science as detecting and recording our abstract, reflective, concious thoughts, of which we have no objective evidence.

[ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

copernicus

[QUOTE]Originally posted by luvluv:

Saying that if God created the universe, then he must be observable in the universe, is like saying that if Shakespeare created the world of his plays, then the characters of the play ought to be able to detect him somewhere in it...

No it isn't. It is like saying that if Shakespeare created the world of his plays, we ought to have reasonably verifiable proof that he existed. And we do. Not so for God, despite Ross's unsupported and gratuitous claim that Jesus' historical existence is verifiable.


God does not need to be physically present or physically detectable in our known universe to exist, in fact the possibility that he would is pretty much excluded by the assumption that He created it: how could he create something that he already exists in?

Good point. I agree with you that it doesn't make sense to claim that God created himself out of nothing. It also doesn't make sense to claim that God exists when there is no verifiable way to detect his existence. If that is true, then any imaginary being can be said to exist.


Nontheless, there is no observable chemical or electrical connection between the physical matter in your brain and the stream of thoughts in your head.

Of course there is an observable chemical and electrical connection between the brain and your stream of thoughts. Shock treatment certainly can affect your "stream of thoughts", and it can be administered electrically or chemically. Drugs of all kinds can be used to affect thoughts. I confess, though, that reading your thoughts on this subject do make me feel the need for an antidepressant (or maybe just an aspirin). <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />


You cannot tell me how electrical currents in your brain form the thought "What a beautiful day".

Argument from Personal Incredulity: I can't conceive of any natural explanation for this phenomenon, so it must have a supernatural explanation.


In fact, there is nothing in the universe which can detect the most immediate and real thing to human experience: our own thoughts. You cannot prove to me that any of your thoughts exist...

Is that what you really think? All of us can observe our own thoughts. We can infer the existence of other thinking beings by observing similarities between their behavior and the thoughts that drive our own behavior. To say that the mind is unobservable is utterly absurd. I don't have to prove to you that your own mind exists, and it is pretty obviously affected by the physical state of the body.


Yet you know your thoughts exist. Therefore the fact that something cannot be proven, or leaves no physically detectable evidence, does not exclude the possibility that it exists. This fact is evident in our most imediate experience.

Try to understand what you are saying. You are saying that we can directly observe our own thoughts. Then you are saying that our thoughts cannot be observed. That's patent nonsense.

Theli

If you wan't to specify wich god he must leave some sort of trace.
The strange thing about your argument is that the more you argue for god being undetectable the more questionable your own belief becomes.
If god is undetectable, how do you know he even existed?

It makes your theory unnecessary elaborate (god created the world, and went a long way to make himself invisible by cleaning up his own traces).

An omnipotent god wich is undetectable is also unverifiable. To say that (for example) the christian god exists and then claim that he's undetectable is a contradiction in itself.

Theli

copernicus...
No ofcourse god cannot create himself. But that question still remains. If god created the universe, then what created god?
Did god just appear out of nowhere?

copernicus

You are preaching to the choir, Theli. If one can accept the concept of an uncreated god, then one can accept the concept of an uncreated universe. The Original Cause argument is completely vacuous.