FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-02-2002, 04:30 PM   #61
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Indianapolis area
Posts: 3,468
Post

Bilboe,

Suppose he said obviously idiotic things?

Like, "I am God?" Sorry to be rude but, if any other individual stated "I am God" you would likely consider that utterence to be "obviously idiotic." Only in the case of your religion's figurehead do you engage in special pleading that we look at his character and judge his claim to godhood based on that, rather than on verifiable outside evidence.
Pomp is offline  
Old 04-02-2002, 06:49 PM   #62
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 247
Post

Bilboe

Quote:
If Jesus claimed he was God -- in other words, claimed that he had created the universe, was omnipotent, omniscient, and absolutely good --are you saying we have no way of determining the truth of that?
Exactly. We couldn't say it was false either!

Quote:
Suppose his character were that of a charlatan and we discovered it? Suppose he said obviously idiotic things? Suppose he acts like a paranoid schizophrenic? There certainly seem to be ways to falsify his claim. Are there ways to verify it? Suppose we determine that his moral insight and behavior is of the profoundest variety, found in only a few people throughout history? People like that don't claim to be God. If they did, I think it should pose a problem for us. I think we would be forced to conclude one of three things about such a person: he's a liar, a lunatice, or he's telling the truth. I don't see how you've come to grips with this issue, yet.
For the sake of argument assume Jesus is an omnipotent god. Not the Christian God as defined by the Bible but "a god" that we know nothing about. Given his omnipotent nature under this assumption by what possible means would we have to deduce intent and motive. Perhaps, unknown to us, all of his acts and teachings are to fulfill an alterier motive. I mean, what is it really for an omnipotent being to walk on water and rise from the dead but pure simplicity. What is it for an omnipotent being to portray what to us is perfection in character but pure simplicity as well. Under this scenario you would have exactly the same results; the Christian Bible exactly as it is written.

Or assume it was a devious little fairy who's magical powers were limited to only appearing as a man and the acts Jesus made. The result would be the same; the Christian Bible as it is written.

Now you or I certainly can not demonstrate that the scenarios I present above are true anymore than you or I could demonstrate that Jesus' claims about God as he made them are true. You see, I have addressed the tri-lemma argument. I just looked a little further than the argument wants you or I to look.

That is why I said of the tri-lemma argument: "ruling out limited alternatives." Once the door is opened to the supernatural, possibilities are limited only by our imagination because we have not a reality to compare them to.

{Slight problem with pushing the post reply button before I finished my post!}

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: Hans ]</p>
Hans is offline  
Old 04-02-2002, 07:31 PM   #63
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 247
Post

Bilboe

Let me provide you with a converse pseudo-tri-lemma argument.

a) Jesus' claims are accurate.
b) Jesus' claims are inaccurate.
c) The Christian Bible is not as authentic as many would like to believe.

What are we to do given none of the above can be determined with any certianty. Should we adopt what is most likely? Or should we perhaps take the position that we have been provided with nothing we can confirm and therefore nothing we can believe? Or is it something else that we should do?

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: Hans ]</p>
Hans is offline  
Old 04-03-2002, 06:31 PM   #64
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 54
Post

Bilboe: "Suppose he said obviously idiotic things?

Pomp:
"Like, "I am God?" Sorry to be rude but, if any other individual stated "I am God" you would likely consider that utterence to be "obviously idiotic." Only in the case of your religion's figurehead do you engage in special pleading that we look at his character and judge his claim to godhood based on that, rather than on verifiable outside evidence."

Me: Pomp, if you want to think that Jesus was an idiot, that's okay with me. At least you aren't trying to circumvent the trilemma.

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: Bilboe ]</p>
Bilboe is offline  
Old 04-03-2002, 06:48 PM   #65
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 54
Post

Hans: "For the sake of argument assume Jesus is an omnipotent god. Not the Christian God as defined by the Bible but "a god" that we know nothing about. Given his omnipotent nature under this assumption by what possible means would we have to deduce intent and motive."

Me: If we assume that Jesus is God, then we could deduce his intent and motives by what he tells us about them.

Hans:"Perhaps, unknown to us, all of his acts and teachings are to fulfill an alterier motive. I mean, what is it really for an omnipotent being to walk on water and rise from the dead but pure simplicity. What is it for an omnipotent being to portray what to us is perfection in character but pure simplicity as well. Under this scenario you would have exactly the same results; the Christian Bible exactly as it is written."

Me: Yeah...what's your point?

Hans: "Or assume it was a devious little fairy who's magical powers were limited to only appearing as a man and the acts Jesus made. The result would be the same; the Christian Bible as it is written."

Me: Yes, I guess we could expand the tri-lemma to include devious little fairies. If you prefer that alternative, fine. I'll take the God alternative.

Hans: "Now you or I certainly can not demonstrate that the scenarios I present above are true anymore than you or I could demonstrate that Jesus' claims about God as he made them are true. You see, I have addressed the tri-lemma argument. I just looked a little further than the argument wants you or I to look."

Me: No, I cannot demonstrate that the scenarios are true. But my point is that you would be forced into choosing one of those scenarios, and could not think of Jesus as a mere human being.

Hans: "That is why I said of the tri-lemma argument: "ruling out limited alternatives." Once the door is opened to the supernatural, possibilities are limited only by our imagination because we have not a reality to compare them to."

Me: True. So let's rewrite the tri-lemma: either lunatic, liar, or supernatural being of some kind. Now choose.

Hans' counter tri-lemma:
"a) Jesus' claims are accurate.
b) Jesus' claims are inaccurate.
c) The Christian Bible is not as authentic as many would like to believe.

What are we to do given none of the above can be determined with any certianty. Should we adopt what is most likely? Or should we perhaps take the position that we have been provided with nothing we can confirm and therefore nothing we can believe? Or is it something else that we should do?"

Me: It sounds like you want to choose the fourth alternative, expanding our tri-lemma to a quad-lemma: either liar, lunatic, supernatural being, or Jesus never claimed to be God. I consider that to be an acceptable alternative. But then you can now see why the question of historical reliability of the New Testament documents becomes relevant.
Bilboe is offline  
Old 04-04-2002, 08:11 AM   #66
New Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Inside spacious building on a few lush acres of land...
Posts: 1
Post

**Here is another possible option,however oversimplistic is may sound--which is the "Yea,Nay argument".
Which is simply the common notion that that the Bible is a "what you see is what you get" type of deal.
It is indeed all there in front of you,with no hidden revelations,or at least none needed for one to initially believe it.
You either are "yea" or "nay" as far as how much of it,if any you feel is valid.
And since most have already decided on this, there is really no need to rack your brain in trying to figure out all the "whys" and "hows" to it.

This passage in 2nd-Peter-1:16-18,provides a good glimpse into the believers psyche and is one of the original sources of "evidence" used by the first century Christians---
"For we have not followed cunningly devised fables,when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,but were eyewitnesses of His majesty."
"And this voice which came from heaven we heard,when we were with Him in the holy mount."

Here,the Apostle Peter is recalling that event where Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus on what is called the "Mount of transfiguration".
And where Peter also audibly heard the voice of God...or so he says.
Now you either choose to call Peter a liar,or believe him.
There doesn't need to be some long process of elimination and/or deliberation into one's own personal views of "evidences" and "arguments" and how to properly define this or that.
You read it,and then you choose what to believe,or so it was/is with me,and most believers.
I suppose though some need to more precisely clarify why they so adamantly reject all scripture??
I do however commend those who shun the "in your face" approach to debunking the Bible.

But it is actually better to remain an unbeliever with at least a hope of converting,than to convert and then later fall away as this states--
"For if they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of Jesus Christ,they are again entangled therein,and overcome,the latter end is worse than the beginning.
"For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness,than after they have known it,to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them."
[2nd Peter-2:20-21]

So in fact,there are actually some unbelievers who are better off than others,based on their past.
And God is even harder on those believers who continue to sin,than those who don't yet know the truth.
"For the time is come that judgement must begin at the House of God;and if it first begin at us,what shall be the end of them that obey not the gospel of God.
"And if the righteous scarcely be saved,where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?"
[1st Peter-4:17-18]

*Just some more things to consider*
FriendofGod is offline  
Old 04-04-2002, 09:07 AM   #67
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 247
Post

Bilboe

Quote:
True. So let's rewrite the tri-lemma: either lunatic, liar, or supernatural being of some kind. Now choose.
Exactly! Not the son of God. Just supernatural. Which, of course, leaves item 3 unshown! Neither the trilemma argument nor items 1 & 2 will imply anything regarding his claims about what he was. And if he was supernatural any attempt to deduce the validity of his claims, either through his character or actions, is futile because the nature of the supernatural, if it exists, is completely outside of our experience.

Thus my list of possibilities: (simplified)

a) Jesus' claims are accurate.
b) Jesus' claims are inaccurate.
c) Jesus' claims never existed.

Even if we assume the Christian Bible contains authentic and accurate testimonials we are still left to guess between A and B.
Hans is offline  
Old 04-04-2002, 06:40 PM   #68
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 54
Post

Hans,

Thinking it over, I'd like to qualify my response from yesterday. I think we can identify a person's character, whether they're natural or supernatural. Even if we admitted Jesus were supernatural, the question remains, was he a good supernatural being, who should be believed, or an evil supernatural being, who shouldn't be believed. And for me, based on what I can deduce about his character from the records, I would say it is far more likely that Jesus was a good supernatural being than a bad one. You may think we wouldn't be able to come to such a conclusion, but I disagree. Whoever Jesus was, he was someone who turned down the offer of power, either from the devil or from people. He championed the causes of the outcast and downtrodden, warning those in power and the rich that there would be a day of reckoning. He didn't consider himself too important to take time for children. He noticed humble things that others ignored, like the poor woman putting her last penny into the offering box at the temple. Assuming the miracle stories are true, he healed the sick, cast out evil demons, raised the dead, and fed the hungry. He treated women with equal dignity and respect. He treated tax collectors and prostitutes as people, not sinners to be shunned. He never returned evil for evil, but forgave his murderers even as he was dying a horrible death.

If you think this tells us nothing about his character, I have to disagree.
Bilboe is offline  
Old 04-04-2002, 11:13 PM   #69
HRG
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 2,406
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Bilboe:
<strong>HRG and Larry,

Maybe we can come to an agreement. Let's assume we have very good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus (I realize that's a BIG assumption for you, but just for the sake of argument). Now the question is, could one reasonably take this as evidence of a supernatural event? I would say Yes, but we can never fully rule out the possibility of natural causes. Would you say that was a reasonable statement? Or would you say that even if we had very good evidence, we must assume that there is some naturalistic explanation, and bringing in the supernatural is illegitimate?


[ April 01, 2002: Message edited by: Bilboe ]</strong>
Sorry for answering so late; I hadn't seen your post. I still think both you and Tercel have misunderstood the aim of my argument.

The point of my argument is not so much that we cannot exclude naturalistic explanations for an observation X, although this is in any case a very difficult task. But even if someone succeeds at this task, he still cannot claim that X is evidence for a particular supernatural explanation (Example: actual water-to-wine miracle vs. photon miracle which creates only the visual appearance of water-to-wine),

For naturalistic explanations, we can quite often say that explanation E1 is better/more reasonable/more probable etc. than E2, because we have knowledge and experience about naturalistic phenomena and mechanisms. But we completely lack a corresponding basis for the supernatural realm.

Regards,
HRG.
HRG is offline  
Old 04-05-2002, 11:56 AM   #70
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 247
Post

Bilboe

Quote:
Thinking it over, I'd like to qualify my response from yesterday. I think we can identify a person's character, whether they're natural or supernatural.
How so?

Quote:
Even if we admitted Jesus were supernatural, the question remains, was he a good supernatural being, who should be believed, or an evil supernatural being, who shouldn't be believed. And for me, based on what I can deduce about his character from the records, I would say it is far more likely that Jesus was a good supernatural being than a bad one. You may think we wouldn't be able to come to such a conclusion, but I disagree.
What brings you to disagree?

Quote:
Whoever Jesus was, he was someone who turned down the offer of power, either from the devil or from people. He championed the causes of the outcast and downtrodden, warning those in power and the rich that there would be a day of reckoning. He didn't consider himself too important to take time for children. He noticed humble things that others ignored, like the poor woman putting her last penny into the offering box at the temple. Assuming the miracle stories are true, he healed the sick, cast out evil demons, raised the dead, and fed the hungry. He treated women with equal dignity and respect. He treated tax collectors and prostitutes as people, not sinners to be shunned. He never returned evil for evil, but forgave his murderers even as he was dying a horrible death.
And as I have argued, whether the above would imply the true nature of a supernatural being is impossible to deduce.

Quote:
If you think this tells us nothing about his character, I have to disagree.
Again I have to ask what brings you to disagree?
Hans is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:26 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.