I asked Chris Dills (undergroundreformation.wordpress.com) and Chris Taylor (sharpeningiron.wordpress.com) a whole slew of questions about Christians and Dills answered one, and I disagreed with his answer and Chris Taylor answered something like 8 and I disagreed with just about all of his answers.
I noted that he sort of dodged the question “How did god decide what’s moral?” by answering that god gives us our morals, which is irrelevant and untrue. I mentioned this to him and he took another swing at the question.
You can read his answer at http://sharpeningiron.wordpress.com/answered-questions/ under “Question 5 (revisited)”
…
MY RESPONSE:
It seems that the first piece of your response is suggesting that god is not “all-moral” because he’s exempt from all morals and can do whatever he wants. Interesting.
You then go on to list the ten commandments and explain what each one means, saying things like “It’s moral to honor god” and “Its immoral to kill god’s creation,” but again I ask “why”? Why is it wrong to kill something god created? How did god even invent the concept of death?
For that matter, how did he invent light?
The question remains unanswered. You just explained the thoughts behind the ten commandments, not how god decided that these thoughts were right over the other alternatives he could have gone with. Remember that he invented these thoughts and decided which were right and wrong without any previous reference – he just made these up.
How did he decide that one thing he made up was more moral than something else he made up? It couldn’t be logic, since he invented that and applied it to our world, and it couldn’t be conscience since he invented that, too. How did he even invent the concept of morals (keep in mind that you said he doesn’t live by any morals)?
So, again, how did he come up with these morals?
Ok, let me ask you some questions then
What is your “view” of God (if He were to exist)?
What do you think God should be (assuming He existed)?
God Bless,
Chris
Hmm I don’t really know how you want me to answer those questions.
After all, god is a very subjective being.
Well, you seem to not like my answers, so I have to ask, what is YOUR opinion of what God “should be”.
That doesn’t sound like a question for an atheist.
I’m not quite sure how to answer that since I don’t believe in god.
Hmm….
Yet you ask questions about God’s morals…
And then complain that we didn’t answer the question, thus implying that you have a “view” of what God “should be”.
And you make posts about God.
Oh, ok, I think I see where you’re coming from.
I asked you how God invented morality and our morals, and your answer wasn’t satisfactory, so you want me to answer my own question, then, because you think I’m just complaining about things I don’t like about god, so you want me to answer how I think god SHOULD be, since I say his currently depicted state doesn’t make sense, is evil, etc.
You see, the point of my question was that it doesn’t make sense. It’s an unanswerable question and points out a contradiction in god’s social makeup.
It’s not a commentary on god as much as it is meant to show that the very concept of the Christian god (and all gods) is ridiculous. It’s not a question I, or anyone, can answer and that’s the point of asking it.
So asking me how I think he should be is kind of silly, since that’s the kind of thing a fundamentalist would ask a moderate Christian who is complaining about god’s perceived homophobia. It’s not a question that makes sense to ask an atheist who is just trying to show that Christian perceptions of god are stupid.
I’m not some Christian saying “I don’t like how you portray god.” I don’t like any portrayal of god or gods.
Hmm interesting.
How do you know? A contradiction implies that you feel He should behave some other way.
That is actually illogical you realize that? That is the opposite of reason, since you say you are an Atheist and do not believe in God. Logically, you cannot say that any concept of God is ridiculous as you should have absence of a perception of God. “Ridiculous” implies a standard to measure against. So what is the standard you are using?
Illogical and unreasonable coming from an Atheist. I do not mean to be harsh but what is your measuring stick?
I know what your measuring stick is.
It is humanity. You are holding God up to the standards of humanity. You are comparing God to Humans.
Humans shouldn’t kill, therefore God shouldn’t kill.
Humans should do “x”, therefore God should do “x”.
Humans should not do “y”, therefore God should not do “y”.
I wouldn’t want to believe in that god either. That god is entirely too small and ultimately human.
God Bless,
Chris
http://www.maxlucado.com/pdf/gods.greatest.surprise.pdf
Contradictions in god don’t mean “he should be different,” it means that “the very concept of existence contradicts itself, therefore he can’t exist.
An absence of perception? No, rather, an absence of blind faith. I understand the concept reasonably well and have had “religion experiences” and what have you. I don’t know what you’re talking about standards. I am discussing how the concept of god is self-contradicting.
That makes no sense, either. the original question asked how god came up with humanity’s morals. I have no clue where you are getting this bit about standards and measuring sticks.
Sorry I haven’t replied to your questions yet, I’m finishing up classes and graduate with my Bachelors in a couple weeks, so my life is in overdrive. I thought that you agreed with my views on the “are Christians more moral” question? I’ll get you a response to all your questions really soon.
Contradictions in god don’t mean “he should be different,” it means that “the very concept of existence contradicts itself, therefore he can’t exist.
What?????
Chillin: Got a post up in response to this question. I’ll try to put them out daily as long as you promise to let me catch up before you ask another question.
P.S. Please don’t think Max Lucado is a respected theologian…
It means that something whose own attributes contradict themselves cannot exist.
For example, something cannot exist that is all-knowing and not all-knowing at the same time.
It’s impossible.
Logically:
1.) Existence contradicts itself
2.) God exists
Therefore God is a contradiction and cannot exist
1.) Existence contradicts itself
2.) Adam exists
Therefore Adam is a contradiction and cannot exist
You sure you want to stand by that argument Adam?
Lets try this. Fill in your logical arguments to come to your conclusions:
Logically:
1.
2.
Therefore concept of the Christian god is ridiculous
Logically:
1.
2.
Therefore Christian perceptions of God are stupid
Logically:
1.
2.
Therefore the concept of god is self-contradictory
I’m interested to see what your arguments are that come to these conclusions?
God Bless,
Chris
I don’t think Kaydee was assigning “Theologian” status to Lucado. Just trying to give Chill an more “human” approach to Christ. Sometimes we get lost in the theology and we lose the human aspect.
Chris
“For example, something cannot exist that is all-knowing and not all-knowing at the same time.”
According to whom or what authority???? Who said God is not all knowing???
I agree with Chris T. use the path of logic (like proofs in algebra / geometry) to back up you assertions…..
Thanks Chris, you are correct. Max Lucado is a pastor and a writer with unique insights past the Theology into the nature of God and Jesus.
Lucado has a tendancy to fictionalize and sensationalize aspects of the Bible and God Himself. I’m just not sure that he is a good source to reference in this particular discussion.
Chill
I guess you don’t believe in superfluids either????
check out solid helium-4 – it is a super solid that behaves like a super fluid when it is so cold that the laws of quantum mechanics govern its behavior. Using your “logic” this could not exist yet science has evidence that it does…..
It’s obvious. Something cannot be true and false at the same time. I was just providing an example with the all knowing and not all knowing. I was going to do “be a man and not be a man” but I figured a little spin could make you respond “Nuh-uh they could be hermaphroditic!”
Either I was misread or I miswrote.
I mean that the concept of god’s existence is self-contradictory. Not the concept of anything existing. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
…
Logically:
1. The Christian god is made from the whole cloth, based on myths, not something even Christians can agree on, has no – or almost no – proof in its favor, contradicts the evidence, and the myth it is lifted from is pretty silly and full of bad ideas.
2. Things that generally have no or very little evidence for them, are based on something silly, is probably made up, and contradicts the evidence, etc. are generally ridiculous and stupid, like UFOs.
3. Therefore concept of the Christian god is ridiculous/stupid
But that’s really an opinion, not so much an argument.
…
Logically:
1. God is allegedly able to do anything, know anything, be all good, etc.
2. God cannot (this can be substituted for a multitude of other things) learn anything new since he is all knowing. So he cannot be both all-knowing and capable of doing all. This also means that his creation is capable of something he is not.
3. Therefore the concept of god is self-contradictory
So restated…
1.) God Knows Everything and can do anything
2.) God cannot learn anything new
Therefore the concept of god is self-contradictory
Is that about right?
Interesting argument.
Until you realize that you are (again!) applying a human characteristic to God, in this case – learning. Learning does not apply to God, so therefore your argument is invalid.
God Bless,
Chris
Look at it this way.
There are attributes of God. Learning is not one of them.
Logically
1.) Perfect knowledge is an attribute of God
2.) Perfect knowledge requires complete absence of ‘learning’
Therefore God has a complete absence of learning
I think that is logically correct, but I’m not 100% positive, but it should be pretty darn close.
God Bless,
Chris
To begin with, it’s pretty arrogant to think you know exactly what god’s like, especially after you got upset, saying I was measuring him by the wrong standards and you haven’t shown that yours are any better.
Ok – knows everything, can do everything. Those are the attributes almost all Christians thrust upon their god. These are not “perfect knowledge” or “perfect power” (whatever those are), but ALL knowledge. ALL power.
Omni means all, and he cannot have the power to do all things and know all things at the same time.
Now, it can be argued that god cannot do things which do not seem logical. But logic is a human faculty/of the natural, physical world, and, as you have said, you cannot measure god by human standards and, as many before you have said, you wouldn’t be able to fully comprehend god’s powers if he existed. Also, god is miraculous and performs miracles, which are the complete liftings and violations of natural laws, and logic is surely among things an all-powerful being could violate. He could make a square circle for example.
This is a bullshit response because you can just say anything that doesn’t make sense is a human characteristic.
Why could God not have the power to do all things and know all things at once? The two are not mutually exclusive…
And the squared-circle thing is a touch ridiculous, in that a circle is only a circle because it is ontologically a circle. Nothing makes it a circle other than it’s name. I can make a squared circle because that name is technically relative to my understanding. I could make a circle a sandwich just by giving it a new name. That sounded topsy turvy, but you should get the picture.
Chris (Dills):
I already provided an example of why being able to do and know everything are mutually exclusive.
As for the square circle, it’s an example I got from a childhood priest of mine and I’m not here to defend it because I agree that it is very, very stupid.
First I didn’t get upset at all
My standards aren’t any better? My admittedly limited understanding of God comes from the scriptures that He gives us. In those scriptures, He clearly tells us that “For truly My words are not false; One who is perfect in knowledge is with you” (Job 36:4)
So using that as the basis of my understanding of God, He is perfect in Knowledge. One who is COMPLETE in KNOWLEDGE. He KNOWS ALL THERE IS TO KNOW. Do you agree with this?
Therefore LEARNING cannot APPLY to GOD, it AGAIN(!) is a HUMAN (or CREATED) trait that you have tried to apply to GOD. (Emphasis for emphasis only, not yelling, not upset, just trying to be absolutely clear).
Ok, I’ve already shown how PERFECT (ALL) KNOWLEDGE rules out learning.
Look, I’m being hard on you for a reason, ok?
You claim and have claimed to be a critical thinker and I believe you are intelligent.
However, I am trying to get you to recognize your own assumptions that you apply to the world around and how they limit your understanding of the nature of God.
I apologize (to some degree) if I’m causing you anxiety and/or stress. But to rule out “x” because of your own “asssumptions in Y” is the very thing you accuse Christians of doing.
You misunderstand the power/authority of God.
Stay with me here please.
1.) God has perfect (all) knowledge (including future)
2.) God has a perfect will (ability to do/create/destroy)
Therefore God wills to not create a square circle because it violates His perfect knowledge therefore his will is still perfect
Did you follow that?
God WILLS to NOT do something that would violate ANY of His attributes, therefore PRESERVING His perfect WILL (power)
God IS knowable (to a certain level).
He tells us that whoever seeks Him will find Him. What does that mean? If I seek Him intellectually, I will find Him. If I seek Him emotionally, I will find Him. If I seek Him spiritually, I will find Him.
God Bless,
Chris
Also if we’re going to make assumptions, accusations, implications, suggestions or form any thoughts about the Judeo-Christian God, wouldn’t it make sense to use the source material for that Judeo-Christian God to try to disprove Him or decry Him?
God Bless,
Chris
Chill
I find it interesting that any attempt to site Biblical reference is immediately discounted, yet for over 5000 years the Bible (though not in the form as we know it now as the Bible) those 66 volumes that have come to be known as the Bible is the authoritative source for God knowledge. The information contained within those pages has withstood many assaults for generations, yet the message and IT has survived.
How is it that any other philosophical reference can be made and is supposed to be accepted – yet the Bible is supposed to be discounted as myth and foolishness?
How is that attempts are made to define and prove by physical methods that which doesn’t exist in a physical realm?
BTW – I looked up the helium-4 reference. As for your claim that 2 seemingly disparate things cannot be true (something can’t be true and false) …..helium-4 is a super solid that at the same time is a superfluid – by your “reasoning” that substance cannot exist because its matter exists in contradictory states.
hmmmm…….
What I was trying to express what just that you objected to it, I wasn’t trying to say “Gosh, why are you so mean to me?!”
You should know how fallible those scriptures are. Besides, I’m just trying to show that the things dogma and scripture attribute to god – in this case, being all knowing and all powerful – are mutually exclusive attributes.
So, you are conceding my point that there are things god cannot do, like the action of learning? And also that his creation can do something he cannot, like learning? And therefore he cannot do everything?
If he knows everything and has perfect knowledge, then there are things he cannot do, like improve on his knowledge by learning. It’s an action, not a trait, as you have been saying.
If he knows everything, there are things he cannot do.
Accounting for all of his attributes, he cannot (for example) learn, sin, lie, worship something, lose, correct himself, change his mind, walk, run, be surprised, etc.
Again, see my post “Why God Is Logically Impossible.”
My assumptions being…?
Is it that he will not or that he cannot?
It is obviously the latter because he doesn’t really have a choice in the matter.
So now you’re saying he’s not all knowing (”to a certain level”)?
The quote is God is knowable…- meaning WE can Know him…..
Oooh! Thanks for pointing that out! I thought it said knowledgable. As Chris knows, I have a sort of bad habit of not reading things thoroughly enough to catch things like that. lol I’ll go change my comment.
Curious:
On the superfluid and superliquid, we are getting a bit out of my field of expertise.
However, I see that it is still true that something cannot be true and false at the same time. Something cannot be a supersolid and not a supersolid at the same time.
True or false. Not true AND false.
Your “disproof”" of my point is invalid.
A few things here
Really? Fallible in regard to:
History?
Science?
Personal Relationships?
Family Relationships?
Relationship with God?
Personage of God?
Scriptures “can” serve many purposes, but what is its ultimate purpose?
-To be historically accurate, we have to assume the authors were trying to be historically accurate? Can we do that?
I do not know if we can answer that because I am not a historian nor an archaeologist.
-To be scientifically accurate, we have to assume the authors were trying to be scientifically accurate? Can we do that?
I do not know if we can answer that as I am not a scientist.
-To be accurate in regard to our family relationships, we have to assume the authors were trying to be accurate. Can we do that?
I think so. We are all members of a family. We can test the fallibility of the Bible in these relationships, does it fail?
-To be accurate in regard to our personal relationships, we have to assume the authors were trying to be accurate. Can we do that?
Again, I would say so as we all have personal relationships with friends and co-workers. We can test the fallibility of the Bible in these relationships. Does it fail?
-To be accurate in regard to the our relationship with God, we have to assume the authors were trying to be accurate. Can we do that?
I believe so. We all have a positive or negative relationship with the God of scripture. (Whether you acknowledge Him or not). We can test the fallibility of the Bible in the relationship with God. Does it fail?
God Bless,
Chris
The ultimate purpose of the Bible is in relation to personal, family and ultimately our relationship to God.
Even if it was 100% historically inaccurate, it wouldn’t make it any less valid with regard to relationships.
Clearly God tells us in Luke 24:27:
“Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures. ”
So, Christ explained to the disciples on the road to Emmaus how Scriptures related to Him (God!). Clearly God is not overly concerned with dates and times and birthdays and what not.
A prime example: There is a law in Leviticus about muzzling an ox while he is threshing. Is God concerned about an ox???
God Bless,
Chris
actually something can be a super solid and not a super solid at the same time – that is the point being made by helium-4. It is a super solid and not a super solid AT the same time. So this does in fact disprove your point.
p.s – just because you don’t understand the principal or content sited doesn’t make it invalid…..
I’ll respond tomorrow. I’m taking the night off to eat too much and pass out from exhaustion.
PS Curious, would you mind elaborating on why it is that it simultaneously can and cannot be a supersolid?
Helium-4 (42He or 4 He) is a non-radioactive and light isotope of helium. It is by far the most abundant of the two naturally occurring isotopes of helium, making up about 99.99986% of the helium on earth. Its nucleus is a boson and an alpha particle, having two protons and two neutrons. Alpha decay is a common decay mode for many radioactive isotopes. In fact, alpha decay of heavy elements is the source of most naturally occurring helium-4 on earth. Helium-4 is also a byproduct of nuclear fusion in stars.
When helium-4 is cooled to below 2.17 kelvins (–271 °C), it becomes a superfluid, with properties that are very unlike those of an ordinary liquid. For example, if helium-4 is kept in an open vessel, a thin film will climb up the sides of the vessel and overflow. Another name for this property of Helium is Rollin film. This strange behaviour is a result of the Clausius-Clapeyron relation and cannot be explained by the current model of classical mechanics nor by nuclear or electrical models; it is only understood as a quantum mechanical phenomenon.
In laymens terms – helium-4 under certain conditions is / and isn’t existant in 2 differnet states of matter while it is a super solid – (it doesn’t lose the properties of the super solid – though it is in a state of matter of a superfluid)
the most important thing to note is that this state of matter cannot be explained by anything currently accepted in the scientific community. But it does exist…(you can look up scientific journal articles re: helium-4 for more info)
Since this a phenomenon of the physical world – the idea that there is God (notice I didn’t say a god as I believe there is only one true God) And I am not some deluded, believer in myth. I am a ph.d in Chemistry. Just because we can’t ( in our limited, fallible frame of reference and understanding) explain something – doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
There are many, many unexplained physical phenomenon that cannot be explained (in a way that our finite human minds can understand) – attempting to do so with God is even more tricky – we have to be able to expand our minds to the metaphysical (beyond physics) – even then we are far from capable of understanding. Though He has made it possible to attempt to (because He wants us to know him). that is why he sent Jesus (God in the flesh) so that we could know him.
He knows us – and loves us anyway!!!
Jesus (which you really could if you tried find accepted historical data to support his existance if you would seek other forums than the ahteists – but I digress) -came so that we, as humans would know that God is not this unknowable, unreachable, arbitray “being”.
Jesus made it possible that we know that God knows us, that He understands us, that He wants us to come to Him.
You mention often times about the God Myth…the problem with adding the one true God in with those gods is that mythilogical gods had nothing but contempt for humans out to torment us for ther twisted pleasure. Jesus proves that THE God has a different idea.
Jesus, as the God-Man, felt everything we feel, was tempted by everything we are tempted by, scraped his knees, smashed his thumb with a carpenters hammer.
People say, if God exists why doesn’t He just shout to us, show Himself to us. He did that in the Old Testament and we still didn’t listen – we still rejected Him.
So He sent Jesus – to show us He wasn’t like the other gods, the mythical gods – the ones that weren’t real (you do realize the ancients had a bunch of named gods and also worshipped the god we don’t know his name – so as not to offend any god they may have overlooked)
THE God isn’t like those gods – those are the gods that are mythical, that are feared (not awed or revered)
I am so saddened that you had some horrible experience with an “organized” religion. Religion has no bearing on God – He in non-denominationl.
I also find it very curious that the majority of professed atheist – are actually former Catholics.
Keep reading Chris T & Chris D – you will find the true nature of God (He isn’t what you think)
We, as humans, fall into a limiting trap when we exclude from acceptance that which we cannot comprehend (refer to the Dark Ages)
and just do we are clear about how I am using metaphysical
used with a sing. verb) A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.
Also – because I know you don’t always read everything in a post – another noteworthy part of the helium-4 post is
for some reason the reat of my comment didn’t post….it is only understood as a quantum mechanical phenomenon.
oops
There are many things that defy “logic”
Here is one that experts say shouldn’t happen – but it did….
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24441427>1=43001
Again – I stress attempting to apply PHYSICAL logic to a METAPHYSICAL “being” (I use being in quotes because He isn’t a being – being is just OUR best approximation of a description of Him )
And again I say….
We, as humans, fall into a limiting trap when we exclude from acceptance that which we cannot comprehend (refer to the Dark Ages) – we, in our physical state, cannot begin to fully comprehend that which defies a physical state – thus GOD – we are bound in time and physics – He isn’t….
`Again – I stress to you – I am a scientist. There are many things that we have no explanation for…
Don’t limit your reference to people who cannot expand their mind to the unfathomable.
My 30 years of scientific endeavour has only justified the idea that there is a Creator – there is one Who has no beginning and no end. there are too many things that cannot be naturally explained –
Do more “googling”
You exhibit too many signs of one who is deciding a conclusion based upon limited research!!
you might want to further examine the very nature of the word “atheism” it ACTUALLY means against God – or without God…..
Just more food for thought….
don’t be so deluded by the limited thinkers that can’t comprehend that which they cannot fathom beacuse their thinking is limited to those things that are bound by time & space & physics in a way we are limited to thinking… (try thinking metaphysically) There is NO possible way of “proving” the existance of a non-physical “being” in terms of physical science…..
Curious:
OK, I read your entire post and it doesn’t appear to contain any information that I didn’t gather from referring to my trusty encyclopedia.
I feel a little silly arguing physics with an alleged possessor of a Chemistry phd, but oh, well… lol What you seem to be saying that it is both true and false that Helium-4 is a supersolid because it has properties of a superliquid.
This is a logical fallacy.
Something can be multiple things simultaneously, for example, it is true to say that the American flag is blue, and it is also true to say that it is red because it has both colors on it.
Now, it is not true to say “It is ONLY blue” or “It is ONLY red,” but it can be true both that “It is blue” and “It is red,” as it contains both colors.
It would be a logical fallacy akin to the one your are demonstrating to say “It is blue and it is red, therefore it is not blue” because it does contain some blue.
Besides, a supersolid is, by definition, a solid or crystal that has superfluid properties, so it is not a contradiction to say it is a supersolid and also has properties of a superfluid, since it MUST have properties of a superfluid for it to be a supersolid to begin with.
History – I am no archaeologist, as you are not, but there are archaelogists whose work in these matters have shown pretty conclusively that history does not match with the bible’s claims.
Science – Obviously, obviously, OBVIOUSLY the Bible is scientifically inaccurate. Obviously. There are a few examples at http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm
Plus all of the miracle bullshit.
And that’s all I meant by fallible, was science and history. But you want to add to this…
Personal Relationships – You seem to be here discussing if its claims are good for anything, not if they are valid.
Family relationship – Ditto.
Relationship with God/Personage of God – This is circular reasoning and is not valid in any way.
Again – you are wrong on all accounts – if you had totaly read everything you would know that you are in fact – STILL wrong – (I do realize you have a propensity to Not read an entire post – nor an entire paper on helium-4) Otherwise you could not have copied the first paragragh of a published paper (actualy -Wiki – but again I digress)….
since you only bothered to “read” what the definition is of a supersolid / superfluid – I can only assume you didn’t bother to read the entirity of a published SCIENTIFIC paper on helium-4 – otherwise you couldn’t have made such a lame “argument”
Had you bothered to read ANY article (in scientific publications) & I realize that “seems” to be important to you…youwould still understand how your pitiful refence to blue & red have NO bearing on the scientific established reasoning you protend to follow….
Had you read an entire paper on helium-4 you would “understand” (yes I realize you are merely a high school student and totally out of your element here since you seem to be so gullibly persuaded by neither logic or scienticfic proof of your assumptions – but again I digress)
Maybe if I say it in capital letters you will make an effort to at least read supporting documentationn instead of going off “half cocked” with just a definition as to what is a supersolid / super fluid.
helium-4 exists in both (a supersolid and NOT a super solid state) AT THE SAME TIME _ THUS BLOWING HUGE holes in your “assumption” that something “CAN”T BE TRUE & FALSE at the same time”
You really should read closer….
Still you lose!!!!
As to your post re: Chris T assertions… again you are seriously misinformed – if you bothered to read any Historical or Acheaological papers you would find that your assumptions. assertions are indeaad false –
you are relying on limited frame of reference…ther are many historicalyy / archeaoligically accepted AUTHORITIES to presuppose your contentions
Here’s a thought….try googling your subject or at the very least don’t just link to references on additonal athiest websites….
If you really want a true idealogical discusion – DON”T be so limitede in your refernce sources….
Oh & BTW – don’t accuse someone of circular reasoning when you in fact have nothing else to add. Your “arguments” ( in the realm of science) have no bearing on anything EXCEPT circular reasoning . They have no substatiation – except for a few ‘quotes” from a few “here today gone tomorrow “pundits”….philosopher – not scientists – the very nature of a philospher is opinion – ideas nothing that can be scientifially quantified.. which by the way discounts any thought you may have as to the existance of God – you have only provided philosphical examplers – not scientifc…this agian goes back to the idea you CANNOT prove the existance of a metaphysical “being” using physical means….
don’t be so deluded………….
Curious:
I don’t myself care for my blue and red thing. I deliberated leaving that piece out entirely. But whatever, let it not be said that I’m backpedaling. Regardless, the last paragraph in my response to you is the key.
Please show the fault in it.
On your second response comment (why do you post so damn many? lol) it’s full of assumptions and baseless reasoning but I’m getting pretty sick of us hurling that accusation at each other so I’m not going to delve deeper into the issue out of sheer contempt for this redundancy.
As for your third comment, I’d like for you to elaborate on your point, you seem to just be rambling.
I will address the circular reasoning accusation, though.
As usual, I’d like for you to point out my circular reasoning, as I don’t see it. I’m not objective though, so me not understanding my own circular reasoning is pretty understandable.
Chris Taylor’s last few bits ARE circular reasoning, however, as I will elaborate on now.
“Circular reasoning – a use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which “this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this”
It is obviously circular reasoning because he uses the conclusion that not only does god exist, but that he has a personage and we can have an intimate relationship with him. He uses his own personal, subjective, indemonstratable conclusions to try and validate the bible. The premise cannot be true unless you rely on the conclusion’s truth.
Even if you can show that I have been relying heavily on circular reasoning, it doesn’t diminish the fact that Chris has been using circular reasoning.
Chill,
Hmm…I’m not sure that is circular reasoning.
Broken down my argument is this for those 2:
#1
My suppositions are:
1.) The Bible is not fallible where the author intended to illustrate a relationship with God
2.) We can read the Bible
Therefore we can use the Bible to have a relationship with God
HOWEVER, it is hard to “PROVE”. But not circular reasoning.
#2
My suppositions are:
1.) The Bible is not fallible where the author intends to illustrate the personage of God
2.) We can read the Bible
Therefore we can use the Bible to know God
HOWEVER, it is hard to “PROVE”. But not circular reasoning.
Do you agree?
Chris
No, I stand by my statement that it is circular reasoning because it makes the asusmptions that
1. God exists
2. We can have a relationship with him
and
3. The Bible is infallible, and thus describes how best to have a relationship with him.
Since you were trying to prove the third and to a lesser extent one and two, it’s circular reasoning.
Ok, if we’re going to use that logic then lets try it on you.
1.) God doesn’t exist
2.) We cannot have a relationship with him
3.) The bible is fallible
So your reasoning is circular.
That’s not a very good way to debate is it?
Technically we could always throw in the #1 for each of us to make the other’s argument “invalid” in our own eyes.
Is that what you want to do?
Is that going to satisfy your intellectual desire to discuss this in an intellectual way?
Chris
P.S. – By titling your post “Further Examining God’s Morals” you conceded that a view of God would be valid.
So should the post of this be:
“Further examining God’s Morals as long as it suits me”?
I’m just curious what we’re discussing here.
Everytime your logic shows a hole, are you going to change the rules?
I’m beginning to wonder if you really wanted to think critically or if you just wanted to rant.
So which is it?
I didn’t say “God doesn’t exist, so we can’t have a relationship with him, so the bible’s fallible.”
The only claim I made as far as a relationship with god was that your assertion was invalid because it is circular reasoning. I actually stated that “fallable” was just referring to historically and scientifically. So, I never asserted that it was fallible because god doesn’t exist and we thus can’t know him.
All I did was point out that you were using circular reasoning.
PS I have ranted a lot in the past, but I don’t see that I’ve been doing it on this post. If you want to see ranting, check out Curious’ metaphysics babble.
My point is this, if you’re going to question my basic assumption that “God Exists” and say it is circular reasoning because of it, then I will have to do the same to you, only it will be “God doesn’t exist” as your first supposition.
I think we both know that our worldview is a basic assumption and necessary for the debate thus ruling out circular reasoning.
If you disagree, then I am not sure how to proceed.
I don’t think that “god exists” and “god doesn’t exist” are just assumptions in any context, as both of us at least think that we have good reasons for believing both. Assumptions don’t have much reasoning behind them.
Circular reasoning isn’t excusable here, because it is still invalid logic, in any context.
God’s existence or nonexistence are conclusions we can reach through critical thinking, deductive reasoning, scientific experimentation, etc. and you were trying to use your conclusion to justify the evidence instead of using the evidence to justify your conclusion.
I think my world view is justified because I have reasons for holding that view. It’s not an assumption.
I also didn’t use “god doesn’t exist” as a first supposition in any of my comments on this post.
And your reasoning for “god doesn’t exist” is MORE valid than my reasoning for “God does exist” ?
You said:
Now you say:
I think you are backpedaling.
In essence what you are saying is this:
“Any discussion points that start with an assumption that God exists are going to be considered invalid (because of circular reasoning)”
If you review your arguments, that IS what you are saying.
That sounds more like hypocrisy than backpedaling.
This is true, just as any discussion points that start with the conclusion that god does not exist is invalid, too.
Circular reasoning doesn’t fly in any context. I’m not using double standards here, Chris. I didn’t start any of my points by saying “god doesn’t exist, therefore…”
Again, god existing or not existing are not assumptions unless you are making your decision based on faith. We both at least think that we have good reasons for our positions on god’s existence.