An anonymous commenter has taken issue with my post about the disaster in Japan.
Hi Anonymous,
Thank you for your thoughts.
For some background, I encourage you to read this.
Now, let's imagine that we're turning this around a bit. Let's say I doubt that evidence exists, that our cognitive faculties are reliably tuned to produce true beliefs, and you say that evidence certainly does exist and that our faculties reliably do indeed.
You claim that there is evidence and that our cognitive faculties are reliably tuned to produce true beliefs. The burden of proof is on you.
Actually, it's more than that. You claim not only that evidence exists and the reliability of our cognitive faculties, but that there is a specific kind of evidence (and only one - the kind that is accessible by human minds), and that it comes with a back story (evolution) and a whole set of evolutionary instructions. So, the burden of proof is on you to not only convince others that a kind of evidence exists, but that your particular kind of evidence exists. It's a tall order. I'm receptive to your evidence, though, with the caveat that the contents of books of a particular sect of scientists cannot be considered to be proof of that sect's claims. That would be rather circular.
Or I could replace "evidence" with "other minds" - I'd be insisting that you provide evidence that other minds exist. And appealing to the conversation you had yesterday with your friend would not be admissible - it'd be circular.
The point is that the question of God's existence is not dealt with in this manner. See also on my sidebar the posts under "SOME GOOD ARGUMENTS FOR THEISM".
So... OK, you showed up here claiming that my view is "morally indefensible". I asked you for an argument to that effect. You responded that you doubt God exists. This is not a direct answer to my question, though.
You also replied with another question:
"Is it possible to make a morally-convincing argument for collective punishment?"
If atheism is true, I contend that there is no way to make an objective moral argument for anything.
I wouldn't use the term "convincing", for what is convincing to one person may not be for another. Proof is not the same as persuasion.
Let me ask you: is it objectively morally wrong for someone to send something like a powerful earthquake and tsunami on another people? How do you know that it is objective, and how do you know the factual nature of this judgment?
You ask also:
"Is it possible to make a morally-convincing argument that the mass slaughter of vast numbers of people is justifiable on grounds of religious or cultural differences or the actions of their ancestors?"
I would like to point out that this is not precisely my view, however. Yes, the event qualifies as a "mass slaughter of vast numbers of people", so that's not where I'm going. Where you set up a strawman was in the phrase "religious or cultural differences or the actions of their ancestors". The issue is not differences or the actions of ancestors. Every man, woman, and child is sinful and bears the guilt of the sin of Adam, all ratify the sin of Adam in their own sinful actions, all are subject to the death penalty. This includes every person that died in the quake and tsunami. This also includes Westerners like myself. This includes the millions of babies that die every year in the womb (re: Sam Harris' correct and yet wrongheaded and amazingly morally blind assertion that God is the greatest living abortionist). God is fully justified in putting anyone to death at any time thru any manner or agency He chooses. Why? B/c everyone has broken God's law, and penalty for such lawbreaking is death, physical and spiritual. The fact that most people live years on Earth, some even very long lives, is a testimony to God's mercy and patience, not to any intrinsic goodness or some kind of merit.
You ask:
"Even if such a thing was sanctioned by an all-powerful being, would that make it just?"
That's a great question. I answered it here. The short answer is that anything God does is just, by definition. To deny this results in absurdity.
How precisely would you call God's moral compass into question? On what grounds? How do you even know what is morally right and wrong?
You finished with:
"I submit to you that your moral compass is broken."
I disagree. Now I'd like you to give me a reason to think you are right and I am wrong. Please be sure to include the necessary evidence to back up your assertion. Please also allow me to give you a little advice before you do, in the interest of advancing our conversation more efficiently - please ensure that your answer does not run afoul of Hume's Guillotine aka the naturalistic fallacy.
Nice talking to you!
88 comments:
The short answer is that anything God does is just, by definition. To deny this results in absurdity.
This is a useless tautology. It boils down to saying that God does whatever God likes, and we can like it or lump it. If I accept this it means that I am unable to make any moral judgments whatsoever when it comes to God. If God were more evil than Satan, I would still have to worship this evil deity because HE makes the rules and has determined that what I consider to be evil or bad is actually good and righteous. This is just blind acceptance; it's the morality of children when obeying orders from parents (an analogy that I am sure that you will embrace). Obedience without question is not something that I am capable of. If you receive a direct revelation from God to the effect that God orders you to murder and cannibalize several children in your neighborhood, would you do it without question simply because any order from God is just and might lead to a greater good that your limited mind cannot comprehend, or would you stop and question that order?
Hi Walter,
Are you the Anonymous commenter to whom I replied here? Just curious.
OK, well, it's not useless - it tells me quite a bit. :-)
But yes, you can like it (and thus repent and ask Him to save you) or lump it (in which case God gives you what you want - eternity separated from Him). But your complaints about the buck stopping with God doesn't somehow remove God's authority to make binding moral pronouncements on you and everyone else. It's His universe. You're borrowing His oxygen.
The evil god is an interesting brainteaser, but it has insuperable epistemological problems. It suffers the same problems as does the also-made-up Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Obedience without question is not something that I am capable of.
Well, no one's asking you not to question. But you need to realise when you have no grounds on which to disagree. When the right answer has been provided.
If you receive a direct revelation from God to the effect that God orders you to murder and cannibalize several children in your neighborhood
I don't mean to keep tossing you off in other directions, so please forgive me, but I've written on that as well.
Are you the Anonymous commenter to whom I replied here? Just curious.
No. I haven't visited for awhile. I always sign comments with my name.
OK, thanks. :-)
You claim that an evil god has "insuperable epistemological problems" but frankly, using your methodology, there is no way to judge whether God is good or evil; all one can do is accept or reject the existence of God, then follow or rebel. Concepts such as "good and evil" become meaningless when God is able to declare anything at all as being good. So what it will ultimately come to is the question of whether or not your particular concept of God really exists.
I have to get out and enjoy some of this great Spring weather, so I will get back to this later today.
Concepts such as "good and evil" become meaningless when God is able to declare anything at all as being good
More or less. That's part of the problem with positing the evil god.
Rho:
God is fully justified in putting anyone to death at any time thru any manner or agency He chooses.
And who is doing the justifying? You? On what basis do you obtain your ideas of what is just? From God. You use God to justify God. Pure nonsense.
God does the justifying. I can either agree and be reasonable or I can disagree w/o grounds.
It's the difference between the truth and one's opinion that is either in line with the truth or out of line with it.
And what about when YOU'RE the defining factor? That's even worse when it comes to circularity. How do you know what's right? Whatever you think. How do you know that what you think is right? You think so.
Rho:
God is fully justified ... because ... God does the justifying.
And you have the gall of accusing someone else of circularity. Priceless.
Concepts such as "good and evil" become meaningless when God is able to declare anything at all as being good.
Rho: More or less. That's part of the problem with positing the evil god.
It's part of the problem with positing a good god, as well. At best, all we can do is posit an amoral deity that we should align ourselves with simply because of its overwhelming power.
Your belief is that God makes ANYTHING that he does or commands good simply by divine fiat. And if my own moral compass screams "foul" then I need to disregard what I consider to be good and accept what God considers good, even if God's actions or commands appear evil to me.
I guess the question is: if parts of the Christian religion seem immoral to me, do I trust my moral reasoning, or do I disregard my compass and just submit to it?
Your position is consistent, but the reason I don't accept your viewpoint is because I don't share many of your presuppositions about reality. For instance, I do not accept that the bible represents a special revelation from the creator, and I don't believe that a bunch of ancient human texts hold any authority over me. AFAICT, your sacred book is the product of human minds, and I see no evidence of a superhuman intelligence behind its composition or canonization.
*YAWN*
Rho,
Do you ever tire of your anti-theist denizens' irrational and question begging self-referential diatribes?
It's sad how they make themselves their own "god", yet are manifestly blind to the fact.
Rebels to the core...as we all once were.
In Christ,
CD
Yeah, CD, I get tired. But then I go to bed. :-)
NAL clearly didn't have anything useful to add. Let's see how Walter did.
all we can do is posit an amoral deity
You could, but you don't live like it. You live as if moral values exist. Just like everyone does.
That won't satisfy anyone, for one thing. Besides, it reduces even talking about it to complete meaninglessness. If you can't live out your own worldview, why should I try to?
Your belief is that God makes ANYTHING that he does or commands good simply by divine fiat.
Mmm, not exactly, since that implies some sort of action God takes after the fact.
Rather, what He does is always in accord with His character, and His character defines good. It's a simultaneous thing. Not two actions, but one action that fits in a specific framework of moral value.
if my own moral compass screams "foul" then I need to disregard what I consider to be good
1000% correct, I couldn't've said it better myself.
You, like everyone else, are a creature with limited knowledge, and your heart is twisted in evil and dead in sin. You are not a reliable source for moral judgments.
Even if you weren't, hypothetically speaking, twisted in sin, you still have no basis on which to make moral pronouncements with any binding power. No way to prescribe and proscribe for anyone else.
the reason I don't accept your viewpoint is because I don't share many of your presuppositions about reality.
Well, yes, that's clear. But you came in here claiming that my moral compass was broken. You still need to make an argument to that effect. How do you know it's broken? Where's the not-broken compass? Yours? Why should anyone think yours isn't broken?
I don't believe that a bunch of ancient human texts hold any authority over me.
If I believe I can fly, will it change what happens when I jump off the ledge of the Grand Canyon?
your sacred book is the product of human minds, and I see no evidence of a superhuman intelligence behind its composition or canonization.
Yes, that's correct - you see no evidence. The evidence is there and is astounding in its scope and power, but you hate God and don't want to accept it. I'd be shocked to hear that you've even looked very much into it.
Peace,
Rhology
your sacred book is the product of human minds, and I see no evidence of a superhuman intelligence behind its composition or canonization.
Rho: Yes, that's correct - you see no evidence. The evidence is there and is astounding in its scope and power, but you hate God and don't want to accept it. I'd be shocked to hear that you've even looked very much into it.
I do not hate God; I simply do not believe that your man-made religion with its human written "holy" books speak for the creator. As to the comment that I have never much looked into the claims of the bible, you could not be more wrong, but that's okay. You see me as unregenerate; I see you as a deluded zealot of a false faith.
Peace, right back at ya.
I do not hate God; I simply do not believe that your man-made religion with its human written "holy" books speak for the creator.
By not believing the One true and living God's unique self-revelation as it is contained in His Word, you make Him out to be a liar, which evinces your hatred of Him.
You might deny that you "hate" Him - perhaps you'd like to pretend that you're simply indifferent - yet it's manifest that you do hate Him by the fact that you live out your life as your own "god", refusing to the bow the knee to the infinite Creator and Judge of the universe.
You despise His Word, and His authority, thus you despise Him.
It's really quite simple and self-evident.
As to the comment that I have never much looked into the claims of the bible, you could not be more wrong, but that's okay.
Sadly your willful blindness serves only to heap more condemnation upon your own head, because you claim to see.
You see me as unregenerate; I see you as a deluded zealot of a false faith.
Yes, that's how the world always sees Christianity. It doesn't have much to offer in the way of worldly wisdom so-called. In fact as a faith system it generally comes across as rather ridiculous, simplistic, and let's face it, just plain goofy.
Peace, right back at ya.
But me and you and Rho all know that you don't know peace.
For starters at least three things are true about you:
1.) You have an accusing conscience inside of you always wagging its finger in your face crying guilty! Guilty!! GUILTY!!!
2.) In your heart of hearts, in your quiet moments alone you know that you have a righteous, holy God above you Whose wrath burns against your sinful rebellion against Him.
3.) And lastly you know that you have an eternal hell yawning beneath you, waiting to receive your soul into unspeakable eternal torments when at death you slip away from this world and into the next.
But it doesn't have to be this way. You can cry out to God for forgiveness in Christ.
Repent.
In Christ,
CD
CD:
By not believing the One true and living God's unique self-revelation as it is contained in His Word, you make Him out to be a liar, which evinces your hatred of Him.
That would be accurate only if one believes God exists and the Bible is the word of God. Since I don't believe God exists, any hatred you think I have, is a figment of your imagination.
NAL said: That would be accurate only if one believes God exists and the Bible is the word of God. Since I don't believe God exists, any hatred you think I have, is a figment of your imagination.
The combined irony and hubris of that statement is truly rich, NAL.
Of course you've been around Rho's blog long enough to know why, hence I don't think it's necessary to re-tread such well worn ground, but perhaps you would deign to agree with me that truth is independent of, and external to the both of us.
In Christ,
CD
"1.) You have an accusing conscience inside of you always wagging its finger in your face crying guilty! Guilty!! GUILTY!!!
2.) In your heart of hearts, in your quiet moments alone you know that you have a righteous, holy God above you Whose wrath burns against your sinful rebellion against Him.
3.) And lastly you know that you have an eternal hell yawning beneath you, waiting to receive your soul into unspeakable eternal torments when at death you slip away from this world and into the next."
But we don't. We simply don't.
But me and you and Rho all know that you don't know peace.
Don't project your own guilt psychosis onto me. I sleep very well at night. Threats of Christian hell are no more scary to me than threats of Muslim hell are to you.
2.) In your heart of hearts, in your quiet moments alone you know that you have a righteous, holy God above you Whose wrath burns against your sinful rebellion against Him.
3.) And lastly you know that you have an eternal hell yawning beneath you, waiting to receive your soul into unspeakable eternal torments when at death you slip away from this world and into the next
Nice little 'Jonathan Edwards' style rant. I give you a 'B-' for a decent effort, but you lack originality.
But it doesn't have to be this way. You can cry out to God for forgiveness in Christ.
That is not consistent with Reformed teaching that Rhology espouses. Christ must first choose me before I can believe. If I don't believe it is because I am not yet regenerated and am in a state of utter inability. You sound like an Arminian, CD? Are you one?
Paul C.,
You're simply in denial.
Perhaps you've managed to sear your conscience to the point that it's virtually numb, and perhaps you're very successful at generally suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, but nevertheless you can't escape the knowledge that the claims of Christ are true, and you can't fully silence your conscience which bears witness to the fact that you are a rebel sinner.
If nothing else the fact that you camp out at a Christian blog serves as evidence of your inner fascination-revulsion with the revealed truth of the One true and living God.
In Christ,
CD
Don't project your own guilt psychosis onto me. I sleep very well at night. Threats of Christian hell are no more scary to me than threats of Muslim hell are to you.
I can't fathom the depths of my own depravity, and apart from the One Who bore my guilt I could not know true peace, nor can you.
Hell isn't a threat, it's a promise from the One true and living God, the infinite Creator and Judge of the universe to those who make themselves His enemies.
That is not consistent with Reformed teaching that Rhology espouses. Christ must first choose me before I can believe. If I don't believe it is because I am not yet regenerated and am in a state of utter inability. You sound like an Arminian, CD? Are you one?
Neither Rho nor Jonathan Edwards would deny that Christ came to seek and save the lost, and that the qualifications for calling upon Him consist in being a sinner in need of grace.
Playing theological word games and blaming God for your own willful rejection of His Christ is perhaps the most insidious form of blasphemy on the menu.
God isn't preventing you from bowing the knee, it's your own self-will and pride.
Clearly you are of your father the devil, as I and Rho and all the redeemed once were, but His grace is sufficient for even you.
Repent and turn to Christ.
In Christ,
CD
CD,
Do you hate Thor?
Walter said:
That is not consistent with Reformed teaching that Rhology espouses.
No, it is consistent. And CD is even more Reformed than I am.
When he says "repent", it's an echo of the biblical authors', even Jesus' Himself, calls to the lost to repent. God uses means to bring people to Himself, and one of those means is the call to repentance.
David,
I can't speak for CD, but I do hate Thor, yes. Not in the same way that you hate Jesus, though. You hate Jesus b/c you know He exists but won't admit it and won't believe in Him, b/c to do so would expose your deeds as evil.
I hate Thor b/c he was just another in a long line of false deities that ppl have used to distance themselves from the One True God and worship the created rather than the Creator. Thor is an idol, and I'm just not a big fan of idols, whatever form they may take.
God isn't preventing you from bowing the knee, it's your own self-will and pride.
Reformed theology maintains that I--supposedly as an unregenerate--am utterly unable to believe the gospel unless I am given the gift of faith through grace. So if I do not believe, it is because God is not enabling me to believe. If God withholds the gift of faith, then we can assuredly say that God is responsible for my current unregenerate state.
Calvinists often sound like Arminians when they attempt to blame the reprobate for something that is beyong their control. Only 'free will' Christians have a leg to stand on when it comes to shifting blame onto the unbeliever.
Hi Walter,
Well, I don't need you to educate me on Reformed soteriology, I hope you can understand.
Yes, what you said is true. BUT. That does not lead to your accusation against CD. BOTH are true.
You said:
Calvinists often sound like Arminians when they attempt to blame the reprobate for something that is beyong their control.
Or, they sound like Calvinists b/c Calvinism includes the call to repentance as part of the means God uses to bring His people to Himself.
Or, they sound like Calvinists b/c Calvinism includes the call to repentance as part of the means God uses to bring His people to Himself.
I am aware that Calvinists are called on to evangelize. I take issue with this statement by CD:
Playing theological word games and blaming God for your own willful rejection of His Christ is perhaps the most insidious form of blasphemy on the menu.
According to Reformed theology most people on earth have been decreed to be objects of wrath whose eternal purpose is to populate hell for God's greater glory. If it is the will of God that I do not believe, then it is not insidious blasphemy to give God the credit for my unbelief--since I would be doing exactly as he decreed that I would.
You Calvinists need to strive for some consistency.
Walter, let me urge you to stop trying to perform these critiques of Calvinism. You are not demonstrating a sufficient level of understanding to do so correctly.
If God decreed that you blaspheme Him, then you're blaspheming Him. Saying "I'm not blaspheming Him, b/c God decreed that I blaspheme Him" is a bizarre and contradictory statement.
Saying "I'm not blaspheming Him, b/c God decreed that I blaspheme Him" is a bizarre and contradictory statement.
Typical Calvinist inconsistency. You guys believe that God has at least two wills, one of them secret. If a person has been causally determined to do something by God's secret decree, then how can that person not credit God for their actions?
Calvinism leads to a logical paradox between believing in a sovereign god who exhaustively determines all that will come to pass, and human moral responsibility for actions that they have no real control over. Theories of compatibilistic free will do not resolve the paradox.
then how can that person not credit God for their actions?
B/c it's YOUR action. God's not doing it. He's not saying it.
Theories of compatibilistic free will do not resolve the paradox.
Thanks for your unsupported opinion.
"I can't speak for CD, but I do hate Thor, yes."
So, do you think that there was or is a supernatural entity called Thor? Does Thor exists as the worshippers of Thor think that Thor exists?
"You hate Jesus b/c you know He exists but won't admit it and won't believe in Him, b/c to do so would expose your deeds as evil."
I'm sorry, but you really don't undestand me at all. For the record, I think that there was an historical figure who was the basis of the Jesus stories of the NT. I just have a different view of this historical figure than you do.
Possibly Thor is a demon. Probably Thor was the idea of a demon.
No, he does not exist as his worshipers think he does. That's how Satan operates - he lies.
I don't say you hate Jesus b/c I detected it somehow in your typing. I say it b/c God says it, and He knows you better than you know yourself and much better than you're willing to admit.
then how can that person not credit God for their actions?
Rho:B/c it's YOUR action. God's not doing it. He's not saying it.
Yes, I'm the one doing the action as a secondary cause. God would be the primary or ultimate cause, as the one who secretly decreed my actions (like insidious blasphemy) in the first place. You cannot have a puppeteer god that exhaustively controls everything, then try to blame some of his created puppets by pretending that the puppets are free agents, acting on their own. The puppets are merely having their strings pulled to make them do exactly what the puppeteer wants.
Again, thanks for your unsupported opinion.
I presume you have some sort of moral point you're trying to make? What is it? And whatever it may be, please give me a reason to think that your moral opinions have some prescriptive power that SHOULD affect me.
I presume you have some sort of moral point you're trying to make?
The only point that I am trying to make is that your systematic theology is an inconsistent mess.
By making naked assertions to that effect?
OK. I simply deny your assertions. I guess we're at a stalemate until you should bring an argument.
"Possibly Thor is a demon. Probably Thor was the idea of a demon.
No, he does not exist as his worshipers think he does. That's how Satan operates - he lies."
I'm confused. Does Thor exist or not? Is Thor a construct of the human mind or does Thor actually exist in some form beyond the human mind and human invention?
"I say it b/c God says it, and He knows you better than you know yourself and much better than you're willing to admit."
Ah. And you know this because...?
OK. I simply deny your assertions. I guess we're at a stalemate until you should bring an argument.
I've made an argument by analogy. He that hath ears, let him hear.
Actually, I have been arguing with you because God decreed that I would!
You're simply in denial."
No I'm not. Oh the irony.
Perhaps you've managed to sear your conscience to the point that it's virtually numb, and perhaps you're very successful at generally suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, but nevertheless you can't escape the knowledge that the claims of Christ are true, and you can't fully silence your conscience which bears witness to the fact that you are a rebel sinner.
You have literally no way of knowing any of that. From the outside, it sounds as if you're projecting your own feelings onto other people.
"If nothing else the fact that you camp out at a Christian blog serves as evidence of your inner fascination-revulsion with the revealed truth of the One true and living God."
I hardly "camp out". I visit it occasionally, in a vain attempt to understand how people such as yourself think. It's educational.
David,
I don't know for sure whether Thor qua demonic spirit exists. Might just be a meme.
I know it because... the Bible says it.
Paul C,
You have literally no way of knowing any of that
Yes we do. God said so. You don't think that's a reasonable answer, but that's OK. You think infinites can be traversed, so you're not the best judge of rationality.
Yes we do. God said so. You don't think that's a reasonable answer, but that's OK.
I think that's a reasonable assertion, but it isn't anything that you can prove, since - as we've long ago established - you can't prove a) that God said it or b) that you know that God said it.
Isn't it interesting that not all Christians believe what you're asserting? "Interesting" in the sense that it offers handy evidence that your assertion about what God said is probably not entirely accurate.
"Might just be a meme."
Let's say it's a meme. So, Thor doesn't actually exist outside of the human imagination. If we conclude that Thor doesn't really exist, then if you say that you hate Thor, what exactly is it that you hate?
"I know it because... the Bible says it."
Where? I'm sure you have a particular verse in mind here.
Rho:
Yes we do. God said so.
Making a naked assertion.
OK. I simply deny your assertion. I guess we're at a stalemate until you should bring an argument.
David,
If Thor is nothing more than a meme, created by human imagination, I can still hate the meme because of what it represents and what it results in.
It represents rebellion against Jesus and a desire to worship something other than Jesus, and it results in condemnation for those who hold/held to Thor.
That's what I'm trying to say. Sorry I haven't been very clear.
"If Thor is nothing more than a meme, created by human imagination, I can still hate the meme because of what it represents and what it results in."
Yes, this is what I thought.
You can hate the human-created concept of a god named Thor (for numerous reasons). That's fine, I understand. But if you don't think that Thor exists, if Thor is just a meme, then you can't actually hate Thor himself. You can't really hate something that doesn't exist. You can't hate the god named Thor if there is no Thor-God.
Likewise, someone might dislike the human-created meme of a god named Jesus or simply think that it's wrong. But if the same person doesn't think that there is a specific god named Jesus or the historical figure known as Jesus isn't a god, then how can this person hate the Jesus-God?
How can one hate something that one thinks doesn't exist? Of course one can dislike the human-created concept of the god named Thor or the god named Jesus, especially if one thinks that the meme leads to bad things. But this simply is not the same thing as "hating God".
Walter,
Once again you've demonstrated quite a penchant for incoherent irrationality, which thing is among the hallmarks of the unregenerate.
On the one hand at an intellectual level you do appear to recognize your dilemma in light of the witness of Scripture - to wit you are a helpless slave to sin without any resources by which you can change your sad estate, and you are without Christ and without hope in the world - which is surely a step closer to the truth than many, if not most anti-theists.
On the other hand, lest you flee to Christ for cleansing of sin the truth you possess and yet simultaneously spurn will only result in harsher judgement for you on the last day when the deeds of all men are brought out into the light by the Judge of all flesh.
Yet your line of reasoning (such as it is) serves only to undermine your own position, and this is because your objections are based on your own sinfully corrupted autonomous reasoning as opposed to being informed by God's Word.
God's revealed will in the Scriptures is that all should come to repentance (1 Tim. 2:3-4), and that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:23)...in fact the Gospel is a command (1 John 3:23; Acts 17:30; 2 Thess. 1:8).
But you as the clay wish to object to the Potter, even though you have no right to call your Maker to account, asking Him "What doest Thou?" (Rom. 9:20)
God holds all men everywhere responsible for believing and obeying His Word whether they are elect, or reprobate.
In your perverse world you are claiming that it is God's will for you to sin, which is a preposterously and monstrously unbiblical and wicked lie.
In this you manifest your mindboggling blasphemy and blind hatred of the One true and living God.
You and I don't know God's will of decree (i.e. "secret will"), we only know His revealed will, and His revealed will is that you must personally repent of your sin, and turn to Christ as your Lord and Savior.
Cont.
You set yourself against God by arrogantly stiffening your neck and hardening your heart against His revealed will for your life.
God's revealed will in the Scriptures is man's guide, not His secret will, because men have no access to His secret will which is no guide whatsoever to any man, nor is it intended to be.
"The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever" - Deut 29:29
God's commands aren't meant to make you pull yourself up by your bootstraps and take up the Nike slogan and "Just Do It", God's commands are intended to drive you to the end of yourself so that you'll come to the realization that you can't do it.
You lack the resources.
You lack the desire.
You lack the ability.
God's commands are meant to strip sinners bare of trusting in themselves and to cause them to fall on their faces before Christ empty-handed with nothing at all to offer, and instead to receive from His fulness grace upon grace.
But you don't want to come to Christ because you love your sin more than you love Him.
This is your nature. This is the nature of all the sons of Adam. Left to ourselves the entire race would always and everywhere reject God.
And since none are ever found who are naturally willing to submit in humble faith to Him, God out of His infinite oceans of mercy, grace, pity, and love comes to men in the Person of Jesus Christ.
In Christ God personally redeemed a people to Himself, purchased by His own blood, to the eternal praise of His glory.
You begin at the wrong place with your vain imaginings and pitiful excuses for your love of sin - self.
Salvation is all of God, and all of grace. God doesn't owe you grace, He doesn't owe any man grace. All men deserve eternal punishments in hell for their sinful rebellion against His Christ.
And except divine grace alone should bring you out of your natural enmity with God, you will eternally perish, and God would be just to leave you dead in your sins and trespasses.
But He has come in Christ and He offers peace in His Word, and through His shed blood.
Why will you perish? Turn from your wicked ways, and turn your eyes upon Jesus.
In Christ,
CD
You set yourself against God by arrogantly stiffening your neck and hardening your heart against His revealed will for your life.
Once again, it's noticeable how quickly the comments that you and Rhology post shift from rational argument to biblical rhetoric as soon as your faced with stiff argument. Watch how you dismiss that argument by retreating fromm logic to scripture; nobody can win an argument on a scriptural basis in these cases, as is clearly evident from the lack of agreement even amongst Christians.
So here's a clue: when you start quoting scripture and rolling out stock phrases such as "stiffening your neck", you've already lost the argument in the eyes of everybody except the small minority of Christians that agree with you on those specific points. Try keeping the argument in one domain, if you can: you might make more headway?
You can't really hate something that doesn't exist. You can't hate the god named Thor if there is no Thor-God.
I hate what it IS, and also what others think it is.
You're tilting at windmills here.
Besides, you know that Jesus does exist but lie to yourself such that He doesn't. The situation is dissimilar.
Paul C,
as soon as your faced with stiff argument
1) Well, that remains to be seen since no stiff arguments have been presented.
2) Your tendentious dichotomy between rational argument and biblical argument is noted and recognised for what it is - question-begging.
nobody can win an argument on a scriptural basis in these cases, as is clearly evident from the lack of agreement even amongst Christians.
1) Since the questions were about Christianity's internal workings, I'm not sure how else you wanted us to proceed. Maybe quoting from the Bhagavad Gita and the Qur'an?
2) Nobody can win an argument on a scientific basis in these cases, as is clearly evident from the lack of agreement even amongst scientists.
I hate what it IS."
So, Thor really exists outside of the human imagination? Now I'm confused again. Is Thor or meme or a real supernatural entity? Why can't you make up your mind?
"You're tilting at windmills here."
No, it's just that you can't hate something that doesn't actually exist, be it a god named Thor or a god named Jesus. However, I will agree that you can hate ideas that are created by the human mind. For the record, I find many of the ideals of Christianity to be quite appealling and not hateful at all. Of course, there are also some not so appealling bits, too.
"Besides, you know that Jesus does exist but lie to yourself such that He doesn't. The situation is dissimilar."
Well, I'm pretty sure that there was an historical figure that today we call Jesus, but that's about all I know. I really don't understand how I could be "lying to myself". I grew up going to church every Sunday, but over time, the notion of a god named Jesus just seemed less and less likely for a very long list of reasons. Finally, the notion of Jesus-god just stopped working for me. And that's the truth. No lies.
Since you clearly don't know what I really think about these matters, I believe that the claim that I "lie to myself" is totally unsubstantiated. But I guess this claim makes you feel better as you would like to believe that those who disagree with you will be horribly, horribly punished for their disagreement. To each his own.
Thor really exists outside of the human imagination? Now I'm confused again. Is Thor or meme or a real supernatural entity? Why can't you make up your mind?
I think I already said this. I don't know for sure either way, but on my worldview it doesn't matter. Sin is rebellion against God no matter its origin, whether purely imaginary or demonic. It's not that I can't make up my mind, it's that I don't have enough information. I'm giving you the possibilities.
it's just that you can't hate something that doesn't actually exist
1) If Thor doesn't exist, and I hate Thor, then yes, I can't hate sthg that doesn't exist, b/c I'm doing it.
2) I don't think that Thor doesn't exist. "He" just doesn't exist like "his" worshipers think "he" does.
However, I will agree that you can hate ideas that are created by the human mind.
Oh, OK. So we agree. Cool.
And that's the truth. No lies.
If the Bible is true, then this is not the truth; it's a lie. You are lying to yourself such that you've come to believe it's the truth, but it's self-deception.
And I have every reason to believe the Bible is true, especially given the utter failure of the competition.
But I guess this claim makes you feel better as you would like to believe that those who disagree with you will be horribly, horribly punished for their disagreement
Let's say you're right about everything. Work it out to the conclusion. So what if I believe that?
Oops - meant to say
"1) If Thor doesn't exist, and I hate Thor, then yes, I can hate sthg that doesn't exist, b/c I'm doing it."
Gotta love old CD. Without fail, the discussion always degenerates to...
"Well, you're going to Hell and will be tortured for all eternity, so there".
Kinds stops the discussion in its tracks, but I understand the appeal of believing that those who disagree with you will suffer some extraordinarily horrible fate.
It does remind us all that Christianity is primarily and foremost a religion of fear, fear and more fear. The Christian god is clearly one to be feared, but I surely cannot understand how one can claim that such a god should be either worshipped or loved.
"If the Bible is true, then this is not the truth; it's a lie."
Huh? No, it's not a lie. I could wrong in my conclusions, but I really conclude what I conclude. I think your confusing the question of the accuracy or correctness of the conclusion with the question of lying.
"You are lying to yourself such that you've come to believe it's the truth, but it's self-deception."
Huh? I don't get this at all. Well, you obviously have a very different take on the phrase "lying to yourself" than I do.
I look over the available information, and I come to a conclusion based on the information. Could be I'm right and it could be that I'm wrong, but my conclusion is what it is. It's not "self-deception". Hard to see how that can be "lying to myself".
But again, it obviously makes you happy to draw the conclusions about my mind that you have drawn. Didn't know you could read my mind. It's a bit arrogant to claim that you can, but it seems to work for you, so enjoy.
"And I have every reason to believe the Bible is true, especially given the utter failure of the competition."
Doesn't the Bible say that the planet was covered by a global flood about 4500 years ago? Now who's in denial?
"Oops - meant to say."
Actually, I think you got it right the first time when you said...
"If Thor doesn't exist, and I hate Thor, then yes, I can't hate sthg that doesn't exist, b/c I'm doing it."
Freudian slip?
"Yes, I can hate sthg that doesn't exist, b/c I'm doing it."
If so, then you have a truly remarkable mind.
The Christian god is clearly one to be feared, but I surely cannot understand how one can claim that such a god should be either worshipped or loved.
Well, b/c He saved us by dying, Himself, the ugly death I deserve to die. That's worth a tiny bit of gratitude, I should think.
I could wrong in my conclusions, but I really conclude what I conclude
Well, good for you.
What it comes down to is: will I believe the guy who accepts absurdity in the face of superior argumentation so that he won't have to believe in Jesus, or do I believe Jesus when He talks about you?
Didn't know you could read my mind. It's a bit arrogant to claim that you can, but it seems to work for you, so enjoy.
Where did I claim I could read your mind? Help me out.
"That's worth a tiny bit of gratitude, I should think."
Gratitude is not the same thing as love. If I lived in a country with an all-powerful dictator, and the dictator passed up a chance to torture and kill me, I'd be happy that I wasn't tortured and kill. Still wouldn't love or worship the dictator.
"Will I believe the guy who accepts absurdity in the face of superior argumentation..."
Well, I guess "absurdity" is in the eye of the beholder (see YEC).
"Where did I claim I could read your mind?"
You said that I was lying to myself. This is something that would occur in the mind.
You're not correctly representing the state of man with your "dictator" thing. Man is trying to kill God and replace Him and breaks His law every chance he gets.
God redeems that man from his selfish slavery and self-destruction through His own gruesome death on a cross. Why can't you correctly represent my position? Is there some mental block? Some emotional baggage?
How would you know whether you were lying to yourself?
"Why can't you correctly represent my position?"
Actually, I think that you're the one who failed to get the point.
My point was that when an all-powerfull entity tortures and kills others, but then decides to give me a pass, this does not engender feelings of love and worship on my part towards said all-powerful entity. All I feel is fear and a desire to get as far away as possible from said entity. My original point was about love and worship, not "gratitude".
"How would you know whether you were lying to yourself?"
Lie.
1. A false statement *deliberately* presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something *meant* to deceive or give a wrong impression.
In other words, lying involves a conscious, deliberate and knowing act of deceit, misrepresentation, etc. You have to *know* that you're lying in order to lie. It's not just a matter of making a mistake or getting something wrong. If you don't know that your "lying", then by definition, you're not lying.
Ah, well, since you've made it so clear that I don't understand my own position's doctrine, I guess there's little left to say there.
WALTER said:
This is a useless tautology. It boils down to saying that God does whatever God likes, and we can like it or lump it.
This is not a "useless tautology," but rather an affirmation that God is the standard of goodness and righteousness. To behold God's nature, character, and actions is to behold an exemplification of goodness and righteousness. Your objection in this regard is little more than an expression of personal disapproval with an external standard. But this can be done with other theoretical ethical foundations as well:
"Ideal observer theory boils down to saying that what is moral is whatever an 'ideal observer' likes, and we can like it or lump it."
"Utilitarianism boils down to saying that what is moral is what produces the greatest good for the greatest number, and we can like it or lump it."
"Deontology boils down to saying that what is moral is what we have an objective duty to do, and we can like it or lump it."
If I accept this it means that I am unable to make any moral judgments whatsoever when it comes to God.
Not at all. What it means is that you are unable to make any legitimate moral judgments about God with respect to some other supposed standard of morality. If one holds the general principle that "All God does is just," then if one believes that "God did X," one still has to draw and accept the conclusion that "It was just for God to do X" - that is, one has to make that moral judgment.
If God were more evil than Satan...
If God is the exemplification of goodness and righteousness, then such a statement is self-refuting. Such a statement only has meaning if an external standard of goodness and righteousness is applied to God.
...I would still have to worship this evil deity because HE makes the rules and has determined that what I consider to be evil or bad is actually good and righteous.
The meaninglessness of an "evil God" aside, it is my position (and Rho's as well, I believe) that God determines what is moral or immoral. If that is the case, then our subjective moral judgments have no significance compared to what God has determined objective morality to be. To complain that God's determination of the moral value of some act X is wrong is akin to a child throwing a temper tantrum and insisting that the universal gravitational constant should be something other than what it is. Such actions are futile and meaningless.
This is just blind acceptance
It is acceptance, but it is not blind acceptance. To accept information about some thing from the designer or creator of that thing is informed acceptance. To accept information from some other source, on the contrary, is blind acceptance. To give a slightly humorous analogy, suppose there is an author who is beginning to write a much-anticipated novel. Suppose that the author gives some information about what will happen to the characters in his novel. One would have no way of confirming or disconfirming that information, at that point in time. To accept the author's word on his upcoming work is acceptance, since there is no independent means of confirmation at that time, yet it is informed acceptance, since that information comes from the mind of the author himself. On the other hand, getting information about what will happen from another source would also be acceptance, but it would be uninformed (or dare I say "blind"?) acceptance. There might be an "ideal author theorist" who posits that an ideal author would make such-and-such happen in the upcoming work. In contrast, a "utilitarian author theorist" might claim that the author will make this-or-that happen in the work, because it would produce the greatest good for the greatest number. Such claims might have the appearance of wisdom to some, but they would have no value in determining what the author himself will actually write. In the same way, God is the author of morality. It is wise, informed acceptance to take Him at His word about what is moral and immoral. On the other hand, to try to get at this information from some other source is foolish, ignorant, and (dare I say it?) blind.
it's the morality of children when obeying orders from parents (an analogy that I am sure that you will embrace).
Not at all - the two are in different categories. It is moral for children to obey parents only because God has commanded such. The morality of obeying God is foundational, first-order. The morality of obeying parents is derivative (from a command from God), and second-order. In addition, and as a result, when a parent commands something that is a violation of one of God's commands, the child is not obligated to obey the parent. So, contrary to your assertion, the morality of obeying God is most certainly not the morality of children "obeying orders" from their parents.
Obedience without question is not something that I am capable of.
This is a statement about your own personal capacities, and as such, it says nothing about objective moral values. In addition, this statement is not overly meaningful without more information, such as what is being demanded, who is doing the demainding, and the circumstances of the demand. If someone had a gun to your head, I wouldn't be surprised if you would be more inclined to obey "without question."
If you receive a direct revelation from God to the effect that God orders you to murder and cannibalize several children in your neighborhood, would you do it without question simply because any order from God is just and might lead to a greater good that your limited mind cannot comprehend, or would you stop and question that order?
1. One's own personal response to a thing is a different matter than the objective moral nature of that thing. If God were to command this of a person, then it would be morally obligtatory for that person to do as commanded. However, this is a completely different issue from that of how the person so commanded would respond, or how the person so commanded would be epistemically justified in concluding that such a command was actually given by God Himself. The personal struggles of sinners to come to grips with God's commands have no bearing on the objective moral value of those commands.
2. What it is logically possible for a deity to command is a different matter entirely from what it is counterfactually possible for God to command. We can conceive of a deity commanding a person to murder and cannibalize children. It is a different matter entirely to say that one can conceive of God, properly understood, to command such a thing. While God has the ability to issue a command with any propositional content, it is a different matter entirely as to whether God actually ever would issue a command with that propositional content. In order for your hypothetical scenario to be anything like a real moral dilemma, one would have to demonstrate that there is a hypothetical scenario, consistent with God's nature and character, in which God would command such a thing.
You claim that an evil god has "insuperable epistemological problems" but frankly, using your methodology, there is no way to judge whether God is good or evil
It is true that there is no external standard by which to judge the goodness of God. What remains to be demonstrated is how this is a problem for the Christian worldview.
Concepts such as "good and evil" become meaningless when God is able to declare anything at all as being good.
It is important not to equivocate between axiological and deontic notions of goodness. God's commands are the foundation of morality, and thus the ground of deontic goodness. However, I would argue that God, in His being, exemplifies axiological goodness. Since God is immutable, the standard of axiological goodness is fixed, eternal, universal, and unchangeable. Thus, axiological goodness is not subject to the decree or declaration of any being. While deontic goodness is not particularly meaningful when applied to God (unless one wants to argue that God commands something of Himself), this is not the case with axiological goodness, since all of God's attributes and actions exemplify goodness in this sense. The judgment that God is axiologically good is a trivial judgment, but it is not a meaningless judgment. Meaninglessness and triviality are two completely different issues.
"Ah, well, since you've made it so clear that I don't understand my own position's doctrine, I guess there's little left to say there."
Huh? Um, I don't think that this is a matter of whether or not you understand your own position's doctrine. I'm just making an observation about what is worthy of love and worship. If you think that entities that operate by fear and terror are worthy of love, so be it.
Walter:This is just blind acceptance
Matt:It is acceptance, but it is not blind acceptance. To accept information about some thing from the designer or creator of that thing is informed acceptance. To accept information from some other source, on the contrary, is blind acceptance
Exactly. And all your information about God comes from "other sources." A collection of human authored texts is not a direct revelation from the creator. You are elevating the writings of your fellow man to something that they are not.
all your information about God comes from "other sources."
This is what you claim, but it is a claim without justification or demonstration, and thus neither I, nor Rho, nor CD, nor any other Christian here has any reason to accept it. If, as you contend, the Bible is merely the product of ancient people, with no divine inspiration, then this should not be too difficult to demonstrate.
This is what you claim, but it is a claim without justification or demonstration, and thus neither I, nor Rho, nor CD, nor any other Christian here has any reason to accept it. If, as you contend, the Bible is merely the product of ancient people, with no divine inspiration, then this should not be too difficult to demonstrate.
What you are doing is attempting to shift the burden of proof onto me to somehow prove that your fantastical claim is false. I can no more prove that a deity didn't write the 66 books of the bible, than you can prove that a deity actually did. You see, we know that humans have written millions of books throughout recorded history, and I have no reason not to assume that the 66 books you revere as sacred are any different than all the rest. So basically, I consider your claims that these books are the words of a deity to be without justification or demonstration as well. In fact, most arguments for divine inspiration simply beg the question.
Cont.
Further, an omniscient deity capable of creating a universe and designing life should have no problem revealing itself directly to me, if it so chooses to do so. To loosely quote Thomas Paine: A revelation from God is only a true revelation to the first person that receives the message directly from God. When that person relays that message to another, the second person has only received an anecdotal account of a revelation. I am under no obligation to believe the anecdotal tales of ancient, superstitious men.
Further, an omniscient deity capable of creating a universe and designing life should have no problem revealing itself directly to me, if it so chooses to do so. To loosely quote Thomas Paine: A revelation from God is only a true revelation to the first person that receives the message directly from God. When that person relays that message to another, the second person has only received an anecdotal account of a revelation. I am under no obligation to believe the anecdotal tales of ancient, superstitious men.
Your boundless enthusiasm for rank absurdity is truly breathtaking, Walter.
It's an act of sheer mercy that God doesn't reveal Himself directly to you, because His unveiled glory would kill you instantly, and expedite you to hell even faster than your current pace.
God has graciously chosen to reveal Himself through His Word, veiled in the flesh in Christ Jesus, and inscripturated under the divine supervision of His Spirit.
God sovereignly and infallibly superintended the inscripturation of His Word, which is the product of His mind (2 Pet. 1:21).
The fact is that both you and Thomas Paine are flat wrong, and you don't and can't live in a manner consistent with same artificial standard as you set forth for belief in God's self-revelation.
Ironically since neither you nor I personally heard Thomas Paine utter the quote you cited, we're under no obligation to believe the anecdotal account that attributes it to him.
But your childish complaint that God hasn't chosen to reveal Himself in the manner that you would personally prefer is duly noted.
In Christ,
CD
What you are doing is attempting to shift the burden of proof onto me to somehow prove that your fantastical claim is false.
Not at all. I was simply pointing out where the burden of proof has been all along. After all, you were the one who made the claim that "all your information about God comes from 'other sources.'" And to paraphrase Dan Barker, "the burden of proof lies upon the one making the claim."
I can no more prove that a deity didn't write the 66 books of the bible, than you can prove that a deity actually did.
1. I never said anything about "proof." A proof would be nice, but anything is better than nothing. To fail to at least try to justify one's position (i.e. give an argument for why it should be accepted) simply because one cannot "prove" one's position is irrational.
2. The issue relevant to my earlier comments is not whether "a deity" did or did not inspire Scripture, but whether or not God (the God of the Bible) inspired it. Other unbelievers have claimed that the God of the Bible could not have written the Bible, I simply want to know how you would (attempt to) justify the claim you have made.
3. I have not said anything above "proving" whether or not God inspired Scripture. As with (1), "proof" is not the issue at hand here.
You see, we know that humans have written millions of books throughout recorded history, and I have no reason not to assume that the 66 books you revere as sacred are any different than all the rest.
1. Concerning the divine inspiration of Scripture, the issue is not whether or not the 66 books of Scripture have human authorship. The issue is whether or not such authorship was inspired by God.
2. There are relevant factors pertaining to Scriptural inspiration that you have either failed to mention, or intentionally ignored, such as the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, fulfilled prophecy, archaeological confirmation, etc.
3. One must distinguish between prior and posterior probabilities. If one wishes to evaluate Scripture on evidential grounds, as you seem to be doing, such an evaluation should be made in terms of posterior probabilities. In terms of prior probabilities, if one assumes the principle of indifference, then the probability of the inspiration of Scripture is the same as the probability of the inspiration of every other non-inspired book. However, this ignores any relevant evidential factors, such as those mentioned in point (2). If these and other relevant factors were to be taken into account, the posterior probability of the inspiration of Scripture would be significantly greater than the posterior probability of any competing hypothesis. Thus, even under an evidential analysis, the claim of Scriptural inspiration would be justified.
Further, an omniscient deity capable of creating a universe and designing life should have no problem revealing itself directly to me, if it so chooses to do so.
I agree that God has no problem in this regard. The question is this: why should He reveal Himself further to you, given that you have already rejected the abundantly clear revelation that He has already given you in creation and in His Word?
To loosely quote Thomas Paine: A revelation from God is only a true revelation to the first person that receives the message directly from God. When that person relays that message to another, the second person has only received an anecdotal account of a revelation.
This conflates revelation, in the sense of the act of revelation, with revelation, in the sense of the revealed message. Only the inspired authors experienced the act of revelation, but in writing down the revealed message (the act of which is part of the act of revelation itself in many cases), its propositional content is available to anyone who reads the message. The doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration states that the original autographs of Scripture contain the exact words that God wished to use in communicating His revelation, and thus the written document (the original autograph) is the revealed message itself. Thus, your contention that what is recorded in Scripture is an anecdote does not follow from, and is contradicted by, the theology of Scripture. Once again, you are making assertions that no Christian has any reason to accept.
BTW, I think the spam filter just ate the comment I posted previous to my last comment. If Rho can't get it back, I'll repost it.
Only the inspired authors experienced the act of revelation, but in writing down the revealed message (the act of which is part of the act of revelation itself in many cases), its propositional content is available to anyone who reads the message
Like I said, arguments for divine inspiration simply beg the question. There is no reason for me to accept that the mostly anonymous and often pseudonymous writers of these old texts were under any form of divine inspiration. And quoting proof-texts from the bible as if the bible can self-authenticate its own authority is circular and silly.
I find it hard to believe that old texts of *mostly* unknown authorship and provenance is the best way God can find to communicate with us. As far as Christians having no reason to believe as I do, that is fine by me. Christians have as much right as atheists, Hindus, Muslims, and Jews to believe what they choose to believe.
Like I said, arguments for divine inspiration simply beg the question. There is no reason for me to accept that the mostly anonymous and often pseudonymous writers of these old texts were under any form of divine inspiration. And quoting proof-texts from the bible as if the bible can self-authenticate its own authority is circular and silly.
Actually what's circular and silly is your self-referential demand to appeal to an authority above the ultimate authority of God Himself.
God's own self-revelation attests that it is His own self-revelation, and there is no test or higher authority that can be brought to bear on His ultimate authority.
Ultimate authorities are sorta funny like that.
I find it hard to believe that old texts of *mostly* unknown authorship and provenance is the best way God can find to communicate with us. As far as Christians having no reason to believe as I do, that is fine by me. Christians have as much right as atheists, Hindus, Muslims, and Jews to believe what they choose to believe.
Of course you think this because you act as your own ultimate authority, which is actually silly and circular.
But there are truly none so blind as those who refuse to see.
In Christ,
CD
"God's own self-revelation attests that it is His own self-revelation, and there is no test or higher authority that can be brought to bear on His ultimate authority."
So, first you claim to have a revelation from God. Then you claim that there is absolutely no way to test the claim that you have a revelation from God. The revelation attests that it's a revelation, and that's all that's needed. Only the alleged supernatural source of the revelation has the "ultimate authority" to test the revelation.
It's circles within circles. And it's brilliant. It's bloody, unbeatably brilliant. I luuuuuve theology. It's sooo easy.
Like I said, arguments for divine inspiration simply beg the question...And quoting proof-texts from the bible as if the bible can self-authenticate its own authority is circular and silly.
If you are referring to my previous post, then you need to read it more carefully, for what you quoted does not beg the question. And for that matter, I have not as yet quoted any proof-texts from the Bible. So how about dealing with the arguments that I have presented?
There is no reason for me to accept that the mostly anonymous and often pseudonymous writers of these old texts were under any form of divine inspiration.
Aside from those that I mentioned previously, not the least of which is the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, which you have willfully chosen to ignore and suppress.
I find it hard to believe that old texts of *mostly* unknown authorship and provenance is the best way God can find to communicate with us.
1. What is the metric by which possible methods of divine revelation are to be measured?
2. On what basis is this metric to be applied to God? Simply because you think that X is the best way for God to reveal truth to man does not mean that X is actually the best way for God to reveal truth to man.
3. If God wants to reveal Himself in a way where some will not understand or believe Him, what is that to you? In fact, God has intentionally revealed Himself in certain ways at certain times such that some would not believe His message (cf. Mk. 4:11-12). In other words, on what basis is God obligated to reveal Himself in a manner that is "best" in some regard? Simply because you think that God should have revealed Himself in certain way does not mean that God actually should have revealed Himself in that way.
As far as Christians having no reason to believe as I do, that is fine by me.
The point is that you have not given the Christian any good reason to accept the claims that you have made about Christianity.
Aside from those that I mentioned previously, not the least of which is the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, which you have willfully chosen to ignore and suppress.
LOL. I wondered when that accusation would show up. First, I do not believe that there is an invisible, intangible spirit floating around convicting people on the propositional "truths" of the Christian mythology. Second, you guys are all supposed to be Calvinists, which means it's your belief that no one is capable of believing the stories contained in your sacred books unless that person has been chosen by God to receive aid by your intangible spirit (total depravity, remember). So why persist in trying to argue me into intellectual assent with your religion? The simplest answer from your POV is that I am unregenerated and incapable of believing the tall tales of Christianity.
The point is that you have not given the Christian any good reason to accept the claims that you have made about Christianity.
You generally cannot reason someone out of a position that they did not reason themselves into. And years of experience has taught me not to waste too much time with people caught in the grip of a religious ideology. With that, I bid y'all farewell. It's time to move on to discussions with people who are not convinced of their own personal infallibility on subjects that warrant cautious agnosticism.
So why persist in trying to argue me into intellectual assent with your religion? The simplest answer from your POV is that I am unregenerated and incapable of believing the tall tales of Christianity.
Your problem with the One true and living God, and thus Christianity isn't intellectual, Walter, it's moral/ethical.
As has been pointed out several times you hate God because you are a rebel sinner, as are all the sons of Adam by nature.
I have also pointed out that unless divine grace rescues you, that will certainly die in your sins.
Additionally I pointed you to God's revealed will for your life, which is to repent of sins and flee to Christ for forgiveness, but you refuse because you love your sin.
The facts are plain for all to see.
In Christ,
CD
David,
So, first you claim to know stuff by evidence you claim (but can't prove) exists. Then you claim that there is absolutely no way to test the claim that you have access to and can properly understand evidence. The evidence attests that it's evidence, and that's all that's needed. Only the brain you allege (but can't prove) you have has the "ultimate authority" to test the evidence.
It's circles within circles. And it's brilliant. It's bloody, unbeatably brilliant. I luuuuuve ignorant philosophy. It's sooo easy.
"So, first you claim to know stuff by evidence you claim (but can't prove) exists. Then you claim that there is absolutely no way to test the claim that you have access to and can properly understand evidence. The evidence attests that it's evidence, and that's all that's needed. Only the brain you allege (but can't prove) you have has the "ultimate authority" to test the evidence."
Well, first, I'm not sure that I've made any claims that I have any revelations or "ulimate authority", so I'm not sure that your response makes any sense. Simply aping my comment...while cute...produces a result that is not really relevant or well thought out. Of course, you had to add the word "ignorant", a word that I did not use with respect to theology. But I guess it made you feel better to do this.
In any event, I actually think that it's very important to be able to test one's claims whenever possible, and I think that one must always consider the possibility of error. I'm certainly not going to say "there is absolutely no way to test my claim"".
More significantly, to argue that I make the same mistake that you make or that my argument is also circular only confirms that that your argument is in error and is circular. It certainly fails to deny or counter my conclusion that your arguments are untestable and circular. Saying that I've done something, too, confirms that you have done what you're accusing me of doing. Saying that I'm wrong, too, confirms that you're also wrong. Why you would find this helpful to your cause is something that I don't understand.
By suggesting that everyone's argument is untestable and/or circular, I think that you are essentially arguing that we all make the same error. That's fine, but it seems to lead to the conclusion that, really, no one can know anything about anything. I would not have expected you to promote such a position.
I'm not sure that I've made any claims that I have any revelations or "ulimate authority", so I'm not sure that your response makes any sense.
So how do you know anything? That answer will help reveal your ultimate authority, if you don't know what yours is.
Of course, you had to add the word "ignorant", a word that I did not use with respect to theology.
I added it b/c it was relevant. Ignorant = you don't know. I said it for a reason.
I actually think that it's very important to be able to test one's claims whenever possible
How will you test whether evidence exists, and whether your brain can properly interpret evidence?
I'm certainly not going to say "there is absolutely no way to test my claim"".
If you're honest, you'll get to a point where you do, out of necessity, make a claim that's impossible to test.
That's the point - God is the ultimate precondition for intelligibility. You can't test everything, because eventually you run out of ways to test stuff. You need an ultimate standard.
Saying that I've done something, too, confirms that you have done what you're accusing me of doing
We don't deny our approach is circular. We deny it's VICIOUSLY circular, and contend that your approach IS viciously circular.
Out of necessity, everyone's approach reduces to circularity, so it depends on the merits of the circularity, of the authority.
I think that you are essentially arguing that we all make the same error
Close, but not quite. Whether it's an error depends on what one appeals to as ultimate authority. If tGotB, then you're good. If yourself, well, you need to make an argument that you're reliable.
“So how do you know anything?”
Good question. But making up an untestable and circular reasoning answer…”God told me”…is not a useful answer.
“How will you test whether evidence exists, and whether your brain can properly interpret evidence?”
Again, qood question. Again, making up an untestable and circular reasoning answer…”God told me evidence exists”…is not a useful answer.
“You need an ultimate standard.”
…Which you’ve created in your mind.
“We don't deny our approach is circular. We deny it's VICIOUSLY circular, and contend that your approach IS viciously circular.”
Oh, I see. VICIOUSLY circular. Circular is ok, but VICIOUSLY circular, well, that would be wrong. Sorry, but now you’re just making up differences that don’t actually exist.
"Whether it's an error depends on what one appeals to as ultimate authority."
And your claims about “ultimate authorities” are based on untestable and circular reasoning. So, we’re stuck. No one can know anything about anyting.
In the end, I’m leery and wary of untestable and circular answers, including my own. I’m quite aware of the limits of the human mind.
You, on the other hand, reject anything that you feel you can claim is untestable and circular, unless it’s YOUR untestable and circular argument. In that case, we suddenly have infallible and absolute Truth and Ultimate Authority. So it goes.
Perhaps Walter is right. It's time to move on to discussions with people who are not convinced of their own personal infallibility on subjects that warrant cautious agnosticism.
But making up an untestable and circular reasoning answer…”God told me”…is not a useful answer.
I didn't make it up. That's the thing.
Besides, precisely how do you know that it's not a useful answer? Be specific. Make an argument, and make sure you tell how you know it.
Oh wait, you just said you don't know how you know anything. I guess I'm unclear on why your opinion should be taken seriously.
Oh, I see. VICIOUSLY circular. Circular is ok, but VICIOUSLY circular, well, that would be wrong. Sorry, but now you’re just making up differences that don’t actually exist.
Mockery to cover up your philosophical ignorance. Guess we're done here.
I’m leery and wary of untestable and circular answers, including my own.
You sounded pretty sure just now about your "is not a useful answer" assertions. Why the inconsistency, the hemming and hawing, alluvasudden?
You, on the other hand, reject anything that you feel you can claim is untestable and circular, unless it’s YOUR untestable and circular argument.
Sorry, that's just incorrect.
It's time to move on to discussions with people who are not convinced of their own personal infallibility on subjects that warrant cautious agnosticism.
Check the mirror and read the first few sentences of your comment.
"Sorry, that's just incorrect."
So, you ARE rejecting your untestable and circular argument?
Cool.
2) Your tendentious dichotomy between rational argument and biblical argument is noted and recognised for what it is - question-begging.
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realise that I wasn't allowed to be tendentious. Imagine how difficult it would be if everybody in a debate promoted their own point of view!
Oh, wait. That's the entire point of a debate. Anyway, if you can't spot the colossal change in tenor in cases such as Coram Deo's, there's little point in pursuing it.
2) Nobody can win an argument on a scientific basis in these cases, as is clearly evident from the lack of agreement even amongst scientists.
Did a little light bulb just go on over your head, or are you still in the dark?
I should clarify one thing...
You said, "I didn't make it up".
You're right. I apologize. I should clarify. Some other human made it up, and you believe what the other human made up.
I did have one question.
You said, "Mockery to cover up your philosophical ignorance". I assume that this means that you think that there is a difference between cicular and viciously circular. What is that difference?
Specifically in this case, it refers to the difference in the referent of the begged question.
In your case, you have no way to self-justify. No reason to trust yourself. You are not a standard by definition.
The God of the Bible is self-justifying, by definition, and the alternatives are absurd. He is the precondition for intelligibility. You are not. He is ultimate. You are not.
If God does not exist, existence is absurd. If you do not exist, it makes no impact on existence.
WALTER SAID:
First, I do not believe that there is an invisible, intangible spirit floating around convicting people on the propositional "truths" of the Christian mythology.
Once again, you unbelief has no bearing on objective truth. Whether or not you believe you can fly will not change the fact that you will fall like a rock if you jump off of a cliff.
Second, you guys are all supposed to be Calvinists, which means it's your belief that no one is capable of believing the stories contained in your sacred books unless that person has been chosen by God to receive aid by your intangible spirit (total depravity, remember).
You have an overly-simplistic view of Calvinism.
So why persist in trying to argue me into intellectual assent with your religion?
When did I ever say I was trying to persuade you? You're not making more baseless assumptions, are you? Persuading you would be a nice bonus, but my primary purpose in posting here has been to counter the aspersions you have cast upon my Lord and His Word.
The simplest answer from your POV is that I am unregenerated and incapable of believing the tall tales of Christianity.
You are unregenerate, and incapable of accepting the truth. However, this fact has nothing to do with:
1. The value inherent in countering the aspersions that you have cast upon my Lord, and
2. The fact that Holy Spirit may regenerate anyone at anytime He chooses, possibly using interactions like these as means to affect His ends.
You generally cannot reason someone out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.
You are conflating persuasion with the rational justification of one's position. I nowhere asked you to persuade Christians to believe as you do. I merely asked you to justify your position, giving Christians a rational reason to believe as you do. It is irrational to refuse to justify one's position, simply because doing so would not persuade someone else.
It's time to move on to discussions with people who are not convinced of their own personal infallibility on subjects that warrant cautious agnosticism.
1. When did I ever say anything about being infallible? You're not making more baseless assumptions, are you?
2. I would be very interested to learn why you think that this is a subject that "warrants cautious agnosticism." But, based on past experience, I won't be holding my breath for a justification of this claim.
With respect to circularity…
Ah, yes, I thought that answer would be something like the one you gave, but I didn’t want to jump to conclusions.
A viciously circular argument is an untestable or circular argument in which we see that it’s circular, and so we shrug, and we say so it goes. Not much we can do about it.
A not-viciously circular argument is one in which we see that our argument is untestable and circular, and so to solve the problem, we appeal to a second argument, concept, claim, referent, point of reference, etc.
Unfortunately, as you have already acknowledged, the second claim and/or and the additional referents and definitions also involve, include or require untestable, circular arguments. Again, your claims about “ultimate authorities” are based on untestable and circular reasoning. To solve the problem of cicularity, you've simply assumed that you have can openers. As I said, not very useful.
In summary...
Viciously circular – One circle.
Not viciously circular – Two circles. Or more.
Got it.
Rho:
The God of the Bible is self-justifying, by definition, ...
And God is good, by definition.
Definitional morality.
*YAWN*
Rho,
Do you ever tire of your anti-theist denizens' irrational and question begging self-referential diatribes?
It's sad how they make themselves their own "god", yet are manifestly blind to the fact.
Rebels to the core...as we all once were.
In Christ,
CD
Will the circle, be unbroken, by and by Lord, by and by?
Post a Comment