| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/19/2011 12:50:47 PM · #1251 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I've yet to hear an understandable explination on how free will and predestination can co-exist. I think I asked in this tread a while back and DrAchoo gave it shot, but they can't co-exist by definition. |
I, likewise, have yet to hear an understandable explanation on how free will and naturalism can co-exist. I Think SP had some links, I'll have to go find them again.
I think my answer was a mixture of the two, but I agree. Free will, understood in its strongest and freest maifestation, is not compatible with predestination in its strongest and most selective version.
PS: I haven't paid attention to the last week of posts in case that's what we've been discussing. |
I just threw that one in there in a response to one of Johnny's posts. I find the subject fascinating. |
|
|
|
02/19/2011 01:41:16 PM · #1252 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I just threw that one in there in a response to one of Johnny's posts. I find the subject fascinating. |
Oh yeah. Free will is fascinating period. Nobody can really account for it very well, but to declare it an illusion has its problems as well. |
|
|
|
02/19/2011 08:31:26 PM · #1253 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Here's another question. If God didn't exist, wouldn't humans be driven to invent him?
What I'm getting at, is that god is incredibly useful as a conceit within human society. The concept of god can be used by leaders to influence followers towards goals that they might not choose for themselves (donating cash, accepting lot in life). The same concept can be used to explain mysteries (earthquakes, creation) and provide comfort (afterlife).
Indeed, I presume that Christians would acknowledge that this invention of gods has happened many thousands of times in many thousands of cultures throughout history for these very reasons (up until the birth of Christ and the discovery of the single instance where they would have us believe it was actually true). Would that be agreed? |
I'd be interested in knowing if you accept that every godlike figure other than the Christian god must have been made up by humans?
|
|
|
|
02/20/2011 08:35:02 PM · #1254 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Here's another question. If God didn't exist, wouldn't humans be driven to invent him?
What I'm getting at, is that god is incredibly useful as a conceit within human society. The concept of god can be used by leaders to influence followers towards goals that they might not choose for themselves (donating cash, accepting lot in life). The same concept can be used to explain mysteries (earthquakes, creation) and provide comfort (afterlife). |
There's a problem with this theory, actually, there are a number of problems. While most "gods" were invented for such reasons (i.e. understanding natural phenomenon, comfort for afterlife) the Christian faith (and God) was not abused in such ways until much later on. Let's examine some of your proposed theories.
Was God "invented" "to influence followers towards goals that they might not choose for themselves?"
No. The circumstances surrounding early Christianity do not support this claim. If one was going to invent a god in order to get people to follow them and donate cash, this would be an extremely selfish undertaking. Paul and Peter (and the other disciples) were the opposite of selfish. Whatever they asked others to give, they gave far more. They did not ask others to do things "that they might not choose for themselves" as you say, but in fact they asked others to do things that they themselves had already done. They led by example. Further, all the money that was collected by the early church was not given to Peter and Paul (and the other leaders of the church) but was given to the neediest Christians and members of society (i.e. the poor, the orphans, and the widows). Very early on, there were some "false teachers" and "hypocrites" that used the Christian God as an excuse for preaching for personal gain, but these people were condemned by the apostles in the NT. So, unless Peter and Paul were stupid enough to publicly condemn others for doing the exact thing they themselves were (supposedly) doing, this theory has no merit.
Was God "invented" to explain mysteries such as creation?
No. First of all, the creation narrative recorded in the Bible is unlike any other creation story. If the Bible creation story differs so greatly from the numerous other similar creations stories which are known to be inventions, then the Bible story is probably not an invention. Further, as many of us in this thread have seen, Christianity has created many more mysteries than it has solved. If the supposed inventors of the Christian God were planning to solve mysteries, then they missed their mark by an extremely wide margin.
Finally, was God "invented" to provide comfort?
No. While Christianity (like many other religions) promises an afterlife, it also (unlike many other religions) promises condemnation and eternal suffering for those that choose not to believe. Might I remind you that the first Christians were actually Jewish converts. If Peter and Paul had left Judaism to become Christians and preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, they could not have done so for the purpose of comforting others. The Gospel that Peter and Paul preached to the Jews (their own people and family members!) was one that promised condemnation for the Jews that refused to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and as the Messiah. The Christian God would bring judgment to the Jews, and Paul was grieved (see Romans) over this because he was a Jew proclaiming judgment on his own people!
Message edited by author 2011-02-20 20:45:42. |
|
|
|
02/20/2011 09:23:16 PM · #1255 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
The creation narrative recorded in the Bible is unlike any other creation story. If the Bible creation story differs so greatly from the numerous other similar creations stories which are known to be inventions, then the Bible story is probably not an invention. |
You can't be serious? Are you actually saying this with a straight face? By what logic can you conclude that since story A is different from stories B, C, and D, and B, C, and D are known to be false, story A must be true?
Even beyond that, how are other creation stories "known" to be false? Where does that come from?
And, finally, the Biblical creation story is NOT "unlike any other creation story", except in the sense that it combines elements from many of them and thus is not wholly like any of them.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2011 11:02:56 PM · #1256 |
| While keeping distance from the first part of that argument, I would agree with Johnny that the Judeo-Christian creation story IS unique in many regards; most of these differences stem from its root monotheism. And while you could have meant "combined" in a much less active sense (you probably did), I would take umbrage with the idea that the Genesis author made up his creation story in an a la carte manner from the other stories about him. |
|
|
|
02/20/2011 11:32:28 PM · #1257 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
While keeping distance from the first part of that argument, I would agree with Johnny that the Judeo-Christian creation story IS unique in many regards; most of these differences stem from its root monotheism. And while you could have meant "combined" in a much less active sense (you probably did), I would take umbrage with the idea that the Genesis author made up his creation story in an a la carte manner from the other stories about him. |
I didn't mean someone was cherry-picking the ancients to draft Genesis, no. Much less active than that. But Gilgamesh, which is much older than Genesis, is fundamentally monotheistic.
R.
Message edited by author 2011-02-20 23:34:05. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 01:33:25 AM · #1258 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You can't be serious? Are you actually saying this with a straight face? By what logic can you conclude that since story A is different from stories B, C, and D, and B, C, and D are known to be false, story A must be true? |
What I was trying to say is that since story A is different from stories B, C, and D AND stories B, C, and D are all very similar, it is probable that story A is authentic and stories B, C, and D are the inventions. That would certainly be more probable than story A being the invention and stories B, C, and D (and E-Z) being authentic.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Even beyond that, how are other creation stories "known" to be false? Where does that come from? |
"Known" was not the correct term. In my mind it's known (otherwise I would be a poor example of a "believer") but for the sake of the argument I should have said that the stories are widely believed to be false. BTW... if you can find a reputable scholar that actually argues in support of the existence of gods such as Zeus, Osiris, Balder, Inari, etc., I would be interested in that so please share.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
And, finally, the Biblical creation story is NOT "unlike any other creation story", except in the sense that it combines elements from many of them and thus is not wholly like any of them.
R. |
Alright then, can you give me an example of a creation story that is not "unlike" the Genesis story? Don't just give me examples of stories that have a few similarities here and there. Give me a story that is "like" Genesis in all/most of its major claims. Minor similarities between creation account A and creation account B don't prove anything. There are minor similarities between LOTR and the Chronicles of Narnia but I've never seen anyone argue that the two works are based on the same story, events, or characters. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 04:37:27 AM · #1259 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
There's a problem with this theory, actually, there are a number of problems. While most "gods" were invented for such reasons (i.e. understanding natural phenomenon, comfort for afterlife) the Christian faith (and God) was not abused in such ways until much later on. |
Hmm - you're going off on a bit of a tangent so let me check something first.
You seem to agree that these are the kinds of reasons why most religions have been invented. So can I check that you would accept that every religion in the world and its history other than Christianity has been invented by humans (for these and other reasons)?
|
|
|
|
02/21/2011 09:54:22 AM · #1260 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Hmm - you're going off on a bit of a tangent so let me check something first.
You seem to agree that these are the kinds of reasons why most religions have been invented. So can I check that you would accept that every religion in the world and its history other than Christianity has been invented by humans (for these and other reasons)? |
No. I would say that Judaism was not invented. I would also say that Islam was only partially invented. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 10:44:40 AM · #1261 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Hmm - you're going off on a bit of a tangent so let me check something first.
You seem to agree that these are the kinds of reasons why most religions have been invented. So can I check that you would accept that every religion in the world and its history other than Christianity has been invented by humans (for these and other reasons)? |
No. I would say that Judaism was not invented. I would also say that Islam was only partially invented. |
I wasn't trying to trick you into anything - apart from crossover elements of judaism and islam, everything else is invented by humans?
|
|
|
|
02/21/2011 11:22:29 AM · #1262 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Alright then, can you give me an example of a creation story that is not "unlike" the Genesis story? Don't just give me examples of stories that have a few similarities here and there. Give me a story that is "like" Genesis in all/most of its major claims. Minor similarities between creation account A and creation account B don't prove anything. There are minor similarities between LOTR and the Chronicles of Narnia but I've never seen anyone argue that the two works are based on the same story, events, or characters. |
Johnny, it's called "syncretism". The Egyptian, the Greek, and the Babylonian mythologies, just to name several from the same area of the world, all have creation myths with too many parallels to the Hebrews' Genesis story to be ignored. It's not reasonable to insist that whoever wrote "Genesis" was unaware of these neighborly religions. There's a common source to Middle Eastern (and other) creation myths, and they all draw on each other to some extent, in roughly chronological order.
Fundamentally, the only real difference difference between them, other than details, is that the Hebrews brought in/emphasized the "single creator" and institutionalized it.
Incidentally, regarding the Christian trinity, cf the Babylonian tripartite agents of creation: Apsu, Tiammut, Mummu — Father, Mother, Son...
R. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 11:22:44 AM · #1263 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Was God "invented" "to influence followers towards goals that they might not choose for themselves?"
No. ... They did not ask others to do things "that they might not choose for themselves" as you say, but in fact they asked others to do things that they themselves had already done. |
Let's also quash this misunderstanding quickly too. I meant that religious leaders wish "to influence followers towards goals that they [the followers] might not choose for themselves?" - which you'd probably accept is correct: People probably wouldn't naturally, say, avoid coveting and avoid shellfish, but for religious direction.
Message edited by author 2011-02-21 11:23:43.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2011 11:30:09 AM · #1264 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Hmm - you're going off on a bit of a tangent so let me check something first.
You seem to agree that these are the kinds of reasons why most religions have been invented. So can I check that you would accept that every religion in the world and its history other than Christianity has been invented by humans (for these and other reasons)? |
No. I would say that Judaism was not invented. I would also say that Islam was only partially invented. |
I wasn't trying to trick you into anything - apart from crossover elements of judaism and islam, everything else is invented by humans? |
Matthew, you are going to have a bit of a problem here as johnnyphoto is a believer in a literal, OT creation. Thus, I am assuming that he ascribes to the (completely false and ludicrous) belief that old-testament "judaism" would be the first religion. In prior conversations in other threads he has proven to be completely closed off to the well-established facts of the historical progress of religious creation, consolidation and competition that lead from the early, prehistorical totemic/animistic practices, to more established polytheistic faiths to the establishment of monotheistic faiths sometime in about 1700 to 800 BCE (and with Judiasm being only one, and apparently one of the later established).
Message edited by author 2011-02-21 11:31:38.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2011 11:30:48 AM · #1265 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Johnny, it's called "syncretism". The Egyptian, the Greek, and the Babylonian mythologies, just to name several from the same area of the world, all have creation myths with too many parallels to the Hebrews' Genesis story to be ignored. |
Expect the reply to be that the Genesis story is the "real" one from which the others were "copied". |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 12:01:57 PM · #1266 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Matthew, you are going to have a bit of a problem here as johnnyphoto is a believer in a literal, OT creation. Thus, I am assuming that he ascribes to the (completely false and ludicrous) belief that old-testament "judaism" would be the first religion. In prior conversations in other threads he has proven to be completely closed off to the well-established facts of the historical progress of religious creation, consolidation and competition that lead from the early, prehistorical totemic/animistic practices, to more established polytheistic faiths to the establishment of monotheistic faiths sometime in about 1700 to 800 BCE (and with Judiasm being only one, and apparently one of the later established). |
That's fine.
My point appears to have been accepted: humans have invented thousands of religions, and there appear to be rational reasons for this. I don't think that this is particularly controversial.
My resulting challenge is to identify the reason why Judeo-Christianity should be believed when (as we all agree) humans show such propensity for inventing gods and religions and then persuading huge proportions of the population to believe in them?
Message edited by author 2011-02-21 12:02:42.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2011 02:41:41 PM · #1267 |
Aw... I go out of town for a couple of days and miss the return of humor. After months of the tedious "deny, deflect and fallacy-masquerading-as-logic" approach, it's refreshing to get back to the utterly absurd. It's the slapstick pratfall of the forum world.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Anything left wanting is by definition imperfect. |
How so? |
Perfection requires that there be no unfulfilled purpose, no desire for completeness, no need or want of anything. Anything left wanting is not completely satisfied— imperfect.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Let's say you created a six sided die with a four on every side (every outcome is known). Is there even one iota of logic in rolling that die that you personally made to come up fours while wishing for a three? You can't use the argument of potential here because then the outcome is unknown and omniscience goes poof. |
Omniscience is a matter of knowing, not a matter of forcing. If you create a six sided die with a four on every side then you do not just merely know what to outcome would be, but you have in fact forced the outcome. |
First, the outcome IS forced (God is supposed to be omnipotent, too). Second, it doesn't matter if you have an ordinary die and "allow" random chance to occur if you still know the outcome every time. If you know the first roll will be a two, the second will be a five and the third will be another two, etc., then essentially all choices have already been made, all rolls have already been cast, and it will never make any sense to get upset or require punishment if the result you knew was coming wasn't what you wished for. There is no practical distinction between pre-knowledge and pre-determination in this case. Moreover, there's that darn omnipotence thing. Any choice or action that is out of your direct control necessarily means you aren't really omnipotent.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I'll just make a ridiculous claim and leave you wondering. |
Good job so far.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Why does perfection exclude even the possibility that the perfect thing could become imperfect at some later time? If free will is a requirement of perfection, then the possibility to become imperfect is also a requirement of perfection. |
So your argument is that God could become imperfect? If at any point God is the only thing that exists, then everything is perfect. There can be no flaws or external influences that would lead to imperfection. Oh, and free will CAN'T be a requirement of perfection: in such a state there would be no decisions to make.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I am curious as to how competing divisions of Christianity "slapped" descriptions on God "down the road" of history. |
No you're not. You're trying your hardest to bury your head in the sand. Every significant claim of the Bible- from monotheism itself to the commandments, stories of divine creation, immaculate conception, mortal incarnations of gods, resurrection, whatever- was either copied or adapted from some other mythology. Even within the gospels, the stories become more elaborate and fanciful with later authors as one embellishes upon the work of the others. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 04:04:57 PM · #1268 |
Since a number of people here appear to think that they know my beliefs, or how I would respond to certain statements, it seems pointless to even waste my time with this discussion. I'm not going to swim upstream against a torrent of presuppositions. I was enjoying the discussion but, while I can handle some rude remarks, I would rather forfeit the discussion than continue to participate in it with those who would choose to be disrespectful and blatantly vain.
Even if you've convinced yourself that you "know" what another person would think or say about a certain subject, please consider being respectful and keep your arrogant assumptions to yourself for the sake of the argument. It is better to end an argument by having the better argument or the most skill in debating than to end it by arrogance and vanity.
Message edited by author 2011-02-21 16:05:27. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 04:13:00 PM · #1269 |
| If you think you have the better argument or the most skill in debating, you -- oh never mind. You're right though. Some people aren't even part of the conversation, and debate with them is anything but. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 04:23:34 PM · #1270 |
Originally posted by Louis:
If you think you have the better argument or the most skill in debating, you -- oh never mind. |
I do not claim to have great skill in debating. Part of the reason why I enjoy the rant forum is that it gives me the chance to practice debating and, hopefully, get better at it. Some people here are excellent debaters and it is a shame that they would choose to display their arrogance and vanity rather than their skill in debating. I'm here because I want to here you're best arguments, not your opinions of me or your assumptions about what I will say/think. It's rather off-putting when someone has proved to be an excellent debater, yet they choose (repeatedly) to make an arrogant statement rather than a careful, thoughtful, and objective one. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 04:31:11 PM · #1271 |
Consider that in promoting an absolute position, not only are you not debating, you are showing arrogance by assuming your position to be the only possible correct one. I have never seen you actually participate in an honest discussion here. I would give leave to you to suggest that everyone here does this, but the fact is, the atheists have merely consistently refuted absurdities, and have offered none of their own.
Message edited by author 2011-02-21 16:37:46. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 04:45:00 PM · #1272 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Consider that in promoting an absolute position, not only are you not debating, you are showing arrogance by assuming your position to be the only possible correct one. |
Give me an example of an "absolute position" that I have promoted and explain why it is an absolute position. I understand what you're saying but I don't understand how/when I have been guilty of this. I would appreciate it if you could show me an example so that I can avoid doing the same thing in the future.
Originally posted by Louis:
but the fact is, the atheists have merely consistently refuted absurdities, and have offered none of their own. |
This is exactly the kind of arrogance that I'm talking about.
OR... would this qualify as vanity? "ALL of your statements have been absurd but NONE of mine have been."
Message edited by author 2011-02-21 16:46:17. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 05:36:27 PM · #1273 |
All of your positions qualify as absolute -- God is perfect and perfection is defined by god, Christianity is the only real religion out of two and a half, the earth is 6000 years old. They are absolute positions that allow no dissent, even via the most reasoned argument. In short, a person with such a position can never be swayed from it. Conversation with such a person is tiresome.
As for the second point, I invite you to show examples of absurdities offered by atheists, and I invite you to show an example of a sound argument you've offered that sands up to the harshest scrutiny.
It's a simple fact -- perhaps uncomfortable for you -- that if you're going to argue for religion, you aren't going to be relying on too many reasoned, dialectic arguments, but will have to resort to a repetition of your articles of faith. Those become mere absurdities in the face of the even cursory examination. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 06:04:53 PM · #1274 |
Originally posted by Louis:
...you are showing arrogance by assuming your position to be the only possible correct one.... |
Heehee. Pot...kettle; kettle...pot. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 06:07:29 PM · #1275 |
| Sorry, can you point out where I've categorically asserted something? |
|
