So what really happened 2000 years ago?

[Hokulele]

After he's dead and gone, and can no longer correct the people who insist he must be more than he is...

My feelings exactly.

 

[Breckmin]

one at a time

The argument that time cannot be created; a logical impossibility. Time is infinite. Our measuring of it, in arbitrary increments, is artificially imposed, and it's pretty much all we have to use to discuss it. So tell me, if god created time, creation implying the bringing into existence a thing which was not in existence before, then....whence the "before?" If time did not exist in one moment, but in another moment does exist, whence the moments? "Before" is a moment in time, yet it cannot be, because time did not exist until god created it, you see the conundrum? Time cannot be created, thus, at the very least, a god who created everything cannot exist.

Whoever proposed this one was not aware that many theist and creationist
argue the exact same thing. That both time and space are infinite and were
not created. When I say "space" there, I am not referring to space within
our galaxy that contains matter (sub atomic particles)and is expanding, but
I am referring to infinite free space which some believe the "universe" is
expanding into.
So the argument has been that time and space only existed as non-functional
properties, in that there was no "finite" being to experience them. Therefore
your whole argument is meaningless because not all theists are foolish enough
to make the assertion that God created time or infinie free space.
Also, the statement that God <<who created everything cannot exist>> also
fails because God did not create Himself, nor did He create "evil." God created "choice" and evil was a potential bi product of choice.

The assertion by theists is clearly that God created everything that was
created. Here is another example. Some theists do not believe that God
creates anything that is Infinite and Perfect. They believe that anything
that is perfect and infinite is part of God, or as in the case of mathematics,
they believe it is part of God's mind. They believe that mathematics is
something that humankind discovered, that is actually part of the mind of
God and a perfect order that has always existed. So you could try and use
the same weak argument with mathematics. Mathematics is infinite, therefore
God doesn't exist. This is because something infinite can not be created, etc.
This point is evasive to the fact that "time" did not exist in experience until
there was a three dimensional being who could "move" from point to point to
experience such time.
Time was a non-functional property (in that duration was not experience)
until the creation of finite existence which could move.

The whole argument fails because the theists that I know would agree with
you and say that God did not need to create time, but rather the experience
of time came into existence when there was something to experience it or
when there was matter that was not infinite, but could travel (move) from
place to place or point to point.
~Michael

 

[bokonon]

Also, the statement that God <<who created everything cannot exist>> also fails because God did not create Himself, nor did He create "evil." God created "choice" and evil was a potential bi product of choice.

Kinda twisting yourself into logical knots there, aren't you fella?

Everything that begins to exist has a cause...
Evil began to exist...
But God didn't cause it...
He just created the conditions which would make it possible.

Seriously, does that make sense to you?

 

[Breckmin]

dear to your heart

.
One that's dear to my heart: the fact that nothing claimed about the god I was taught to believe in turned out to be so.

Arguments from
personal experience are easily countered by other personal experience.
IOW, EVERYTHING that I was taught "correctly" turned out to be true.

The problem with biblical theology from laymen is that it is sometimes inconsistent with systematic theology which can be employed as a
hermeneutic to clear up those misconceptions, or what <<I was taught
to believe>>.

The contradictory nature of the bible...

Without addressing what that contradiction is it is difficult to deal with the
specifics. You need to remember that when you are working with human
languages there are going to be imperfections. That does not mean that
the original intent of the message (or the logic that the message is attempting to convey in an imperfect language) is in error, but rather the
medium or the human who "made the mistake" and communicated it with
possible imperfection.

how can a perfect god turn out such an imperfect product as the Bible?

Did humans translate? Did humans participate? Does God work through
the church? Is the church perfect? Is the pastor ever perfect?

These lists of rhetorical questions communicate one principle, that God
works through imperfection because we are imperfect. The doesn't mean
that the message God has for us is imperfect, it just means that God
works through human participation which is INDEED imperfect...

Oh, that's right, you did mention that whole free will of man thing. And about that, are you sure it exists, as well?

In systematic theology, the problem with "free will" is that it assumes freedom
when the nature of the human condition is tied (bound) to a sinful nature or
tendency to commit sin (evil, error). So the question is not of "free will" but
rather of "will" or the capability of volition that can make actual choices.
I would love to go into this theologically because this is one of my favorite
topics, but I do not want to continue to step on an atheist/skepticism thread.
It has much more to do with understanding circumstances which determine
choices, rather than an actual "free will."

And about that, why can't an all-powerful and perfect god devise a way to keep his words intact, unchanged, untampered with?[/QOUTE] Human participation and "will." How can God judge people
based on their actions and circumstances if they are puppets?

Remember, he's a GOD, so he ought to be able to do things we think must be impossible, if he's perfect and all-powerful.

Illogical things such as "create a rock bigger than He can lift"
or commit theistic suicide do not mean He is not "all-powerful." The English
term omnipotent is understood by theists to apply only to things that are
logical to be ALL-Powerful by. This would include the creation of matter
and omnipresence and abilities that are within the logical realm of a
progressive ORDER which does not contradict itself. You can not ask
for illogical contradiction as a part of being all powerful.

But he couldn't come up with a way to keep people mucking up his book, being constrained by his own rules regarding free will (which we are still questioning, remember), and so god is bound by god and is not all-powerful.

It is logical for God to be bound by His own logic. You can not ask Him to
be illogical in order to be all-powerful. Likewise, He alone would set those
RULES by which He would allow human participation to make the bible
imperfect in its medium. It doesn't change the perfect "logos" (reason/word)
which is contained within the imperfect medium. By what standard would
you appeal to in order to charge that God has done something wrong??

~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

I said the Kalam argument was not sine qua non - I don't use it, I just rebuttal the

Kinda twisting yourself into logical knots there, aren't you fella?

Everything that begins to exist has a cause...
Evil began to exist...
But God didn't cause it...
He just created the conditions which would make it possible.

Seriously, does that make sense to you?

No knots, just leaving out the cause. It was the being of "choice"
who actually "caused" the first "actual" existence of evil (or disobedience,
illogic, sin, etc).

Everything that begins to exist has a cause...
Evil existed "conceptually" within the mind of God in that God knew it was
a problem for us (but it did not exist in practice until Lucifer)
God created beings who could choose it out of ignorance (and ultimately
cause its existence) God did not create it, but God created the beings
of choice which "allowed" for its existence
<<He just created the conditions which would make it possible>>
By this many argue that He is the author of evil. But just as there is a
difference between "allowing" something to take place and actually creating
it, so also there is a difference between trying to control the actions of a
being of "free will." (the original human had free will, but it was without
knowledge).
Just try to control the actions of a teenager no matter how you raise them.
I may create the conditions of choice by causing my wife's pregnancy and
bringing forth a baby who grows into a teenager, but I am not the author
of the actions of all my teenager's wrong doing when I am specifically
teaching him or her to behave to the contrary.
Clearly I am not omnipotent so there is a difference, but the principle of
controling (or not controling) a finite being who makes choices still applies.
~Michael

 

[shadron]

A quick note: inductive reasoning (moving from particular cases (facts) to general cases (theory) is what science is all about. Of course it is possible (not necessarily true) that inductive reasoning can encompass error. That is why science depends on more than simple reasoning, but includes observation and experimentation, forms of deductive reasoning..

Induction is not necessarily untrue in all cases, as you seem to indicate. More later about your zoology.

 

[bokonon]

Evil existed "conceptually" within the mind of God in that God knew it was a problem for us (but it did not exist in practice until Lucifer) God created beings who could choose it out of ignorance (and ultimately cause its existence) God did not create it, but God created the beings of choice which "allowed" for its existence

Certainly, this is the standard cop-out, but it doesn't really let an omniscient, omnipotent god off the hook.

The beings of choice are constrained in the choices they can make. I can't choose to reach out and rearrange the stars to make pretty patterns. I can't jump to the moon. These constraints are the result of design choices made by the responsible designer. I contend that designer was evolution; you contend it was Yahweh.

If you're right, your omniscient designer made a conscious decision to include "capacity to commit evil acts" in his design, while excluding "capacity to jump to the moon."

By this many argue that He is the author of evil. But just as there is a difference between "allowing" something to take place and actually creating it, so also there is a difference between trying to control the actions of a being of "free will." (the original human had free will, but it was without knowledge).

At the very least, that's gross negligence. GM was aware the Chevette could burst into flames in a rear-end collision, and built the cars anyway. Human courts found them responsible for the resulting deaths, even though no one argued that they were controlling the drivers involved in the accidents.

Of course, no one would accuse God of mere incompetence. I think I see a streak of malevolence, don't you?

 

[Breckmin]

Beginning to see your misconceptions which misguided you

And what's the point of giving his word if we can just alter it at will, free will?

Does the so called "book" claim that there are consequences for such actions
of will? IF there are, then perhaps there are consequences for other things.

How do you or I have any way of knowing that the whole thing hasn't been chucked out long ago and replaced by a completely different text?

The science of textual criticism documents this with thousands of comparable
manuscripts which all confirm the accuracy of the new testament. I am
sorry that you do not appear to be aware of the manuscript evidence which
builds an accumulative case argument.

By several hands? So that it does not form a seamless whole one might expect of perfect, all-powerful god...I mean, it might all be made up, and you admit that god is powerless to prevent it.

Possibility away from actuality has always been mankind's worst argument
to lead humankind into confusion. It does not change the way in which
history was recorded, nor does it change the fact that the new theories
of the 19th through 21st Centuries inherit the burden of proof to challenge
historical orthodoxy. Even if you have this above issue with the bible, it
is still not a valid reason for rejecting evidence that demonstrates a creator.
All it exposes is that you have approached examining the empirical universe
with a "bias" (against the Christian God) and you have not explained a viable
precursor for life itself(to somehow form from random from inorganic molecules) nor "information" which exists in the nucleus of the living cell.

That's but a sampling. Also include the Dragon in My Garage argument, Russel's Teapot argument, and a smattering of others I've yet to mention.

I'll deal with them in my next post "if" I can find them on the internet.

Are you beginning to see?

I am saddened to see that you have been a victim of intellectual disinformation and invalid assumptions and argumentation.

Being certain about God's non existence is the problem, but humility is the cure that can help lead you out of the deception.

~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

No moral standard by which to judge God

Of course, no one would accuse God of mere incompetence. I think I see a streak of malevolence, don't you?

By what standard would you appeal to to judge God, if God is the Owner of
the Universe? What moral law will you appeal to to justify your misconception
about Him?

We still have not even discussed the impetus for creation, instead we are
stuck at the difference between allowing and controling.

~Michael

 

[rightbrain]

This is probably the most contentious of the ideas in the OP. If you read the synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) it is always someone else who refers to Jesus as the Son of God. Jesus usually refers to himself as the Son of Man. Once you get into Acts and the Epistles, it seems to be assumed that Jesus is the Son of God, even though he never specifically claimed that.

Exactly. He never referred to himself as a deity, which I've always found interesting.

In a sort of backhanded way, wouldn't this lean a bit toward evidence of Jesus' existence? If the gospel writers simply made him up, why wouldn't they have him declaring his godliness, rather than leaving it open to interpretation?

I've always favored the idea that Jesus was a real, particularly charismatic preacher whom the early Jewish heretics latched on to as a good "Messiah" for their new religion. But we'll never really know.

 

[Breckmin]

The cost of not having puppets The cost of being created in His Image

If you're right, your omniscient designer made a conscious decision to include "capacity to commit evil acts" in his design, QUOTE]

How do you know it was a conscious decision rather than an inevitable
existence which could not be avoided in order to have beings of volition
who were capable of Love?

Is the capacity to commit evil acts a problem for "us" or a problem for God?
If God loves us, then it is a problem for both....And He is dealing with that
problem of evil for all of eternity.

~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

Induction does not equal error. Error exists because of induction and circular reaso

Induction is not necessarily untrue in all cases, as you seem to indicate.

No where would I say this. When someone approaches scripture they are
using induction as well (they could claim it is the study of divine revelation
however). Induction can be used and be accurate. But if all you have is
induction, with NO deduction (observation which is 100%), then your
whole system is suspect especially if your definition for science is circular.
assumption=conclusion without valid reasoning.

How about observations regarding complex information. Based on our uniform
and repeated experience "where does complex information" come from?
Let's make a simple deduction.

I responded to some of your posts (made two long posts but lost them somehow). I would be more than happy to answer those points either
via email or in another thread. I need to stop posting in this thread.
~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

Yeshua claimed to be the "I AM" God of Abraham in the N.T.

Exactly. He never referred to himself as a deity, which I've always found interesting.

Yet the pharisees took up stones to kill Him for blasphemy because "you being
a man, make yourself out to be God".

Not to mention He accepted worship from Thomas as God and didn't correct
him...

~Michael

 

[bokonon]

If you're right, your omniscient designer made a conscious decision to include "capacity to commit evil acts" in his design,

How do you know it was a conscious decision rather than an inevitable existence which could not be avoided in order to have beings of volition who were capable of Love?

How could it be anything else? You've bestowed the "omniscience" attribute, which means the complete set of consequences for any hypothetical action God might undertake are not only knowable but known.

It seems to me you're also contradicting the "omnipotent" attribute you previously bestowed when you suggest that some consequence was "inevitable" or "unavoidable." If God is incapable of creating loving beings which have no capacity for evil, that implies that there is some higher law which he is unable to violate. Certainly there is no logical contradiction, as there might be with "a rock so big he can't lift it." If he can't do it, his omnipotence must be bounded, which means it really isn't omnipotence at all.

But laying that aside, and getting back to omniscience, even assuming that there is some law higher than God which dictates that he can't create loving beings unless they're also capable of evil -- if he KNOWS his action will inevitably result in the introduction of evil in a universe which is free from evil, and takes the action anyway -- that's some kind of malevolence.

Maybe he's so lonely and desperate for love that he decides it's worth having a little evil just to have a little love, but isn't that a selfish act? Better to forgo the act of creation altogether and keep evil hypothetical than to set in motion the sequence of events which will make its appearance inevitable.

 

[neltana]

If you're right, your omniscient designer made a conscious decision to include "capacity to commit evil acts" in his design, while excluding "capacity to jump to the moon."

At the very least, that's gross negligence. GM was aware the Chevette could burst into flames in a rear-end collision, and built the cars anyway. Human courts found them responsible for the resulting deaths, even though no one argued that they were controlling the drivers involved in the accidents.

Of course, no one would accuse God of mere incompetence. I think I see a streak of malevolence, don't you?

I believe you are actually talking about the Ford Pinto, right? Nader's "Unsafe at any Speed" car? The car had a design defect that caused it to be unsafe in certain kinds of rear-end collisions.

However, the car, due to some of the same design decisions that made it so unsafe in rear-end collisions, was actually SAFER OVERALL than other cars in its class (even when just looking at fire-related deaths).

What if the capacity for evil is the same as the Pinto's gas tank positioning. It enables some very bad things, but ultimately prevents something worse.

To a human jury, not aware of the trade off, the design decision is attributed to malevolence. That doesn't mean it actually was.

The above doesn't, of course, show that an omniscient creator actually exists. It is merely meant to suggest that an omniscient creator who allowed a capacity for evil might have a reason that we don't currently understand.

 

[bokonon]

I believe you are actually talking about the Ford Pinto, right? Nader's "Unsafe at any Speed" car?

You're correct, I was trying to recall (no pun intended) the Pinto, and my own haste in trying to use Google to supplement my memory is what resulted in Chevette. The first results I got with my Google search were for Crown Victoria, and I actually overlooked one Pinto entry before seeing a string of Chevettes and going with that. Apparently, lots of cars get hot if you tap the trunk just right.

I think Nader's car was the Corvair.

 

[neltana]

My fault for going from memory! It was the Corvair that Nader was dealing with.

Could a just god have cursed us with so many crappy compact cars?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

The first statement fails, so the rest of it fails also.

Everything that "begins to exist" has a cause. God by very definition is the
uncaused cause of all things. Asserting His "impossibility" by claiming He
had to have a cause is not only puerile in its philosophical construction, it
fails to address causation for our existence. (IOW, taken to its logical
ends, nothing could exist because "every"thing" needs a cause).

It is philosophically flawed at its first assertion. Now let's look at the
ridiculous reasoning. <<If there's another, bigger god that created the creator of the universe,>> How can you have a bigger God than an
Infinite Creator? There is nothing bigger than infinity.

BTW, the Kalam Argument for causation (which is not considered sine
qua non in Christian philosophy) clearly states that it is only what "begins"
to exist that has a cause, NOT everything has a cause. SO the argument
you are asserting is clearly incongruous.

<<If there is no creator for the creator, then a creator cannot exist, by the very logic used to form the argument in the first place: everything has a cause.>>

Since you misquoted the original argument, it is not surprising that you came
to a false conclusion. It is sort of like the atheist who wrongfully argues that
if "intelligence" requires a source (like we see in RNA/DNA), then God requires
a source. But clearly, God is not just "intelligence" or "information." God is
not a result, He is the uncaused cause. IOW, God is not the result of design
or the result of a Creation, just has He is not limited to "information" or
"intelligence" (Love, Power, etc).

These types of arguments clearly "miss" that if God's Infinite Personal Existence is outside the dimensions of time and space then He is not limited
to finite experience. He clearly had no beginning because He is not bound
by time. This is what is missed by the opposing argument. It is not "everything has a cause" it is "anything that begins to exist (finite) has
a cause." The rebuttal missed the first premise.
~Michael

Special pleading.

 

[Breckmin]

Easily debunked dragon and teapot

Also include the Dragon in My Garage argument, Russel's Teapot argument, and a smattering of others I've yet to mention.

Yes. I should have known. More foolishness from Sagan and Dawkins.

If I take you to my empty garage and tell you there is an invisible dragon,
you know this is foolishness because of your uniform and repeated experience
with "folly" or things being made up of matter that are clearly not invisible
like biological creatures. First of all, you can not compare God to something "finite."
Second, you can not compare God to something known to be made up of "matter."
If you claim that the dragon is not made up of matter then guess what, it's
not a dragon. You have a reality from which to discern such foolishness.

Third, you are not claiming that the invisible dragon is capable of such
creation of matter in the expanding universe so the example is incongruous.

This is what you call argumentum ad absurdum because you have comparisons
to such finite existences that are made up of matter so the whole argument
falls apart. No where is the claim made by any reasonable person that the
information in RNA and DNA was put there by an invisible dragon who is not capable of such creation. The same problem occurs for the atheist when they constantly put an old man in the clouds and think that this is
somehow equivalent to God. The dragon is not an infinite existence which
could be capable of such creation of our universe. You have been given
common sense to be able to differentiate between fantasy and reality.
In this case, the Fundamental Reality is evident based on scientific observations such as information entropy and biological complexity.

Based on your uniform and repeated experience, the invisible dragon is
not a candidate for reality. If you claim the same for the Creator, then
you need to explain evidence and not appeal to "we don't know yet."

What Sagan is actually doing is he is ignoring (what is the state of
ignoring?) evidence such as biogenesis and biological information, and going
to a fictitious place where there IS no evidence and attempting to equate
the two as equally unprovable. BTW, there are no consequences for not
believing in the folly of the invisible fire breathing dragon. No understanding
or claim that you will some day be judged by it. There is just too much
missing here to even begin to easily and fully demonstrate that it is
incongruous to a Creator who created all matter.

Now let's move to (Russell's)Dawkin's china teapot in orbit around the sun
somewhere back before 1952. Besides having scientific objections to the
orbit, the first question is "so what?" Let's assume there was such a thing,
we would want to know 'how did it get there?" If you were to claim it
molded itself by random process of interacting with rocks (and you claim far
worse) we would still object to the fact that we know it is designed based
on our uniform and repeated experience. Let's say an astronaut did send a
china teapot into orbit, it is known to be something that is molded and
designed. It is made of matter. It is not responsible for the information
in RNA and DNA nor is it responsible for the nano factory of the living cell.
There is no accountability to it and it does not possess creative power.
If you argue "the point is about falsifiability" well then falsify information!
Prove that information that communicates messages or complex codes
can actually result by chance and you will have falsified the so called new
law of information. Demonstrate in a lab that life can emerge from natural
processes from non life and you will have falsified the law of biogenesis.

I do not believe that the theist is too worried about either one of these.

Nor is the Creator!

Question everything. It just might lead you away from such folly as these two...
~Michael

The FSM is also finite, also made up of matter and also an incongruous red herring made up of pasta that we eat (for lunch?)

 

[cj.23]

This is a remarkably witty, insightful and meaningful post about what happened 2000 years ago (honest answer: rather a lot, but if you mean in Judea & Galilee with regards to Jesus the son of the builder, well he was about 14, and probably doing usual crafts apprenticeship type stuff while studying the Scriptures when he got the chance? in other news Vespasian's mum is pregnant with the future Emperor, the Allemani are being uppity and revolting, and Varus is planning to march in to the Teutoburg Forest to teach them a lesson. It will end badly... ) Ok so it's not insightful or meaningful at all, but as ImaginalDisc has placed me on ignore I can not help but post just so he wonders what awful things i am saying! Petty, but amusing... moral: if you want to put someone on ignore (and i don't -- just do it -- don't tell them...)


cj x